It's not a Girl's World afterall

So, been a while since I posted, for which I do apologize. circumstances being what they are, I wasn't able to go after my previous record from the last month. That said, I figured I'd drop a little something today.

Let me start by mentioning a story I found earlier this month, the article of which I have sadly misplaced, so no link this time. What happened is that over in England, a school filled its Head Positions (Which as anyone who had read Harry Potter knows, go to the top Male and Female students of each year to act as representatives and help keep their class mates inline). The problem arises in how they filled these Head Positions; Namely, with all girls. The article stated that out of the ten (10) students selected to have a chance as Head Boy, Head Girl, and the two assistant positions, only Two (2) were boys. Okay, well, in this age of political correctness one would think that those two boys would automatically get the Head Boy and Assistant Head Boy position.

You'd be wrong.

Rather, this school filled all four positions with girls. Now, I do not wish in the slightest to demean these girls. I'm sure they are all fine students and are caught up in an ugly business not of their making. That said, none of them have protested this blatant round of sexism. But, they are young and most likely just happy to have something that will look good on their transcripts. The real problem comes from those in charge of the school. The principle basically came out and said that the "Boys weren't good enough." Now, I'm sorry, but everything I know about this says that the position is traditionally filled by the top students of the gender assigned to that position, not simply to the top students.

I'd hate to know how those boys felt, hearing that even if they were the "best" they weren't good enough. That's gonna do wonders for them in life.

That said, further news had cause to make one realize that while the above story is the triumph of feminism rising above male dominance, things are not as they seem. Apparently, being a girl isn't enough to get you ahead. You have to be the right kind of girl.

A little gem of an article tells the story of Brooke Heike, a college basket ball player who got benched and lost her scholarship. The reason for this benching, however, has nothing to do with the typical reasons athletes are kicked off the field though. Rather, it seems Brooke was a bit too heterosexual, with a taste for feminine clothing and make up that her coach just did not approve of. Apparently, for not going lesbian, or "Following advice that would improve her life on the court and off", is enough to get you kicked around.

Which reminds me of another story (sorry, lost the article again) in which a young woman was kicked out of her Master's program because she refused to give up her Christian views on Homosexuality. The only way she would have been allowed to continue would have been to attend a bunch of events and sensitivity classes about Homosexuality. No doubt, in the hopes of reprogramming her views. (No doubt bonus points if she actually found out she was lesbian and her Christianity had repressed it. This is important because I believe the issue arose from the young woman believing Homosexuality was a choice).

Meanwhile, back in Britain thousands of girls are facing the prospect of being taken and experiencing the joys of becoming a woman! Oh, wait, sorry. The joys of Female Genital Mutilation, which makes them a woman! That's right, ladies, you too can become a valued member of society and experience freedom and equality! We're just gonna slice, dice, rip, and hack a vital part of your anatomy away. Then stick you in a burka, hide you away, and blame you for every crime a man commits against you because Allah made it that way.

So where are those who could champion the cause of Woman's Liberation? Where are the feminists, who decry male totalitarian action that subjugates women? Oh they are very, very busy with something even more important! Hail to the Heroes, er Heroines...um, sorry, Heroic Persons?

Not so much...

Seems that the apron is coming back. Yep, that age old garment that has kept food off of clothing in the kitchen (and become something of a sexy symbol in certain circles) has reappeared in the female consciousness. Why is a mystery (because the obvious answer isn't). Some say it's because women are turning back to something comfortable in this uncertain time, just like they did in the 1950's. Some say they wear the apron "Ironically", but don't ask me how that works. Others say it's a return of Male Oppression and Sexism. Because a woman feeling sexy and homemakery is the height of sexism, even if it's what she wants. So thus does a battle rage in the circles of Feminism about the appropriateness of women staying home, wearing aprons, and other some things. Rejoice! They fight for you, womankind!

I'm not sure there's much more I can say about that right now. I could continue to rant, or explore the internal viewpoints of the feminist movements, but honestly I don't know what more I need to say. A movement promising to liberate women fights endlessly against aprons and homemaking, but does precious little to stop the horrendous sexism from Islam or stop the barbaric practices it has against its women. I thought the feminist movement was about empowering women so they could chose the lives they want, not insisting they live a certain kind of life, while ignoring those in this modern era who suffer in far worse situations that Women in the West have ever faced in their entire history.

On Decency

I had a conversation with my friend, who happens to be something close to a lesbian but doesn’t like the label, and somehow mentioned that I had found a questionnaire that asked about why a person was heterosexual (based upon a generalized questionnaire of the same nature, only used on homosexuals to determined why they were homosexual) and that I found it to be something of an attack. Needless to say, she became offended and angry with me. It only got worse when I suggested that the questionnaire, which by all accounts from where I got it was an attack and not as she suggested a joke meant to turn such questions back on the people who gave them, was a bad idea because it would likely provoke a negative reaction. That didn’t help the situation, either.

First off I wish to explain something of myself. I have been told that I am very smart, and there is some evidence to support this. However, much like Thor, I am not a very subtle or guile filled person. I tend to hammer away at a problem, regardless of emotions or feelings of either myself or others, trusting in my weird brand of logic and my instances to reach an answer. I ask that my readers keep this in mind.

When I said actions such as the questionnaire could provoke an attack, somehow she heard it as meaning provoking an attack means you deserve the attack. This, however, was not my intentions in my words. Certain actions provoke certain reactions. Push a stone and it rolls down a hill. Wear a weapon in public, and people will fear for their safety. While I tried to explain this, I’m not sure the answer came through.

This entire conversation taking part after she had said I’d improved because I didn’t find homosexuality morally wrong. Now I’ll cop to being slightly offended at that statement, as it implied to me that I would be a lesser person if I viewed homosexuality as wrong. I don’t agree that this is the case, for many reasons, but I’m not going to address that here.

Going back to the later part of the conversation, the impression I got was that it was okay to pester heterosexuals about their sexuality because they had done it to homosexuals. Also, that I couldn’t understand how it felt because I wasn’t part of her minority. I personally find this rather interesting, as it holds all kinds of moral problems, which I’ll get to later.

Our conversation ended when she basically stated it was wrong to pick on homosexuals and that hetero people basically should just go with it. My opinion in the whole thing is why do we have to be defined by our sexuality, everyone should just shut up about it. In all honesty, there isn’t a right or wrong answer to the situation of how to deal with the question of hetero and homo relations.

Right before we parted I asked her a question I have been dealing with since my parent’s divorce started: What gives me the right to impose my will upon another human being?

Her answer was simple: Decency.

Ironically enough, or not, that is the exact root to the question I’ve been dealing with. Namely the answer is that I should impose my will upon another, regardless of their wishes, because it is the decent thing to do in order to make them behave decently.

It makes me want to both laugh and not at the same time, because that isn’t an answer. It should be simple to realize why, but I want to explain. Decency is not an acceptable reason for why I, or anyone, should exert their power and opinions over another. Simply because Decency is such a fluid concept that it has no universality.

Should I act as is decent to my ancestors, the Norse? By a few accounts from trusted sources in the academic community, homosexuality was viewed as unmanly by my ancestors, though perhaps morally wrong. Loki even gave Odin crap about appearing homosexual when performing a certain type of magic. I’ll admit this is my general attitude, but given examples such as Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, I’m not sure being unmanly can count as an much of an insult.

What about the ancient Greeks and ancient Japanese, should I obey their decency? Well, homosexuality was a socially excepted thing, in some cases even promoted, but so were actions what is now defined as pedophilia. Is that what is decent?

What about the Jews, Christians, and Muslims? They all have different standards of decency, but all agree that homosexuals should be dealt with harshly, often decreeing death. Is this what is decent? Should we hold to the path of the religions, namely Christianity and Islam that have murdered, forcibly converted, and generally destroyed all who were different from them?

The Communist idea, where everything is spread around equally, and those who have pay for those who don’t. A by each according to his means, for each according to his needs, type of thing? That’s not a system I want to live in.

I could continue on in this manner. There are so many codes of decency that differ on so many topics that we can’t even define a single concept of what might be decent, as there is always at least one group who differs. Nor should we go with the majority opinion on what is decent, because then we would be enacting the very problem I want to avoid.

Mine is a question that cannot be answered with decency. Nor is the question of the relationship between any two or more groups. We’re all too different, what we view as decent is too different. The most peaceful solution is to simply let the issue fall away and let everyone do as they will as long as it doesn’t interfere with another. This is a very Wiccan attitude, and is probably strange coming from someone who could be considered Asatru, but there it is. Because the only other option for resolution would be to follow a path that leads to supremacy simply because one has the power, regardless of all else, and as a Pagan/Heathen, I’d rather not fall into that path when my kin don’t have enough power to hold off our destruction from others who would see us gone.