IPK and Feminism Query#2 Page 36 - Page 13

Originally posted by: 18shabbo

Im not an Atheist ..i cant be even if i want to try it.
A religion brings rules and regulation.
To live, to explore ,you need to know the rules ,first learn them , only then you can break them.

Religion is not a way to life but a way of life.
"I religiously follow that writer" or "cricket is a religion to XYZ.", it becomes a lifestyle.
Its your choice what you make a religion.

If i deny and say "no im not a muslim , im just a human" then you ask what kind of human?
I say someone who is happy and wants other happy.

You ask me why keep others happy?
I say coz we belong to mankind and we have this duty to each other.

You ask who defined this duty?
I say the society which we create.Its how we are supposed to live.

You ask but who defines this supposed living?Is there an account of it?
I say yes The Quran says this ,all religious books say this.

Even if i start and go around saying i dont believe Allah exists or im not afraid of any spiritual power or i dont have any greed for after life , i cant deny the fact that i say salaam to my mother when i go out and when i come back.It makes me secure.

Maybe sometimes its a way of giving all your responsibilities to someone who is considered beyond powerful and merciful.
Wouldnt you want that someone to share your burden?

Its a religious view. No its a human view.
Im weak , im impatient , and i need reassurance.
Maybe divinity gives that.

God has all answers.
But religion says you need to find them.
So all religion come to one thing.
Find.Explore.Realize. and Live in it.

No offense to anyone who believes that Atheism is also a religion.
Its true and is justified.
No denying that.
We considered that they have no boundaries , no rules , they are the epitome of freedom.

Who really are Atheist know that theres day to work and night to sleep.
That constitute boundaries.

They are good humans and have values and disciplines.
Those are their lives rules.

They are cool in their freedom and they still ask people around them "are you all right? do you need help?"
Those are their regulation of living.

And what you worship is not God but a belief.
If an Atheist has belief she/he has a God.
So yes its a religion enough.

Did i made any sense?
i have a back ache n my tailbone has no backbone i'll keep my femme fatale in check n be back later.

First of all let me say it's a wonderful discussion your post has started and it was interesting to read all the remarkable responses.

Just like feminism has been reduced to images of high headed, unrespecting women, the other side of the coin is the stereo typing of women preferring traditional attire. The typical SP bahu's who wear traditional attire and take utter crap from their in-laws somewhere are encouraging a thinking that everyone who prefers traditional attire is regressive in thinking or someone who is blindly following traditions. Whereas if we look around a lot of traditionally dressed women are free thinkers and are following traditions because it agrees with their mind. To highlight the point I cannot help but bring in the burqa ban in france. I am not criticizing the intent of the policy but what I disagree with is that it takes away right of women who may want to dress that way. I find that a mockery of feminism using feminism bcos incidentally feminism is about getting women to have a free right to live their lives the way they deem fit.

The characters of Sim and Pam I feel are an evidence of women stuck with the above prejudices. They want to break away from their beliefs bcos somewhere they fear being look down upon. The prejudice that traditional attire or belief in god automatically makes you regressive or un-modern makes them deny a part of their identity. In their efforts to be a modern women they themselves are imposing restrictions on themselves unable to accept themselves for who they are which in itself defies the premise of feminism.

The threat that feminism pose is the very same that "caste system" " slavery" posed. All these have been age old techniques of control. The human race since ever has been insecure where the liberation of one almost always perceived as a threat to the existence of another. In particular women's liberation feels like a threat due to the roles traditionally most cultures have assigned males and females. As baseless as it is it's the fear that women getting freedom in thinking, action will un balance the family system which is the root cause of opposition against feminism. Also, I think somewhere wrong interpretation in the early 80's and 90's where feminism was projected as disrespect towards the male gender has created an incorrect image of the concept.

Originally posted by: memyselfandrshi

Just like feminism has been reduced to images of high headed, unrespecting women, the other side of the coin is the stereo typing of women preferring traditional attire. The typical SP bahu's who wear traditional attire and take utter crap from their in-laws somewhere are encouraging a thinking that everyone who prefers traditional attire is regressive in thinking or someone who is blindly following traditions. Whereas if we look around a lot of traditionally dressed women are free thinkers and are following traditions because it agrees with their mind. To highlight the point I cannot help but bring in the burqa ban in france. I am not criticizing the intent of the policy but what I disagree with is that it takes away right of women who may want to dress that way. I find that a mockery of feminism using feminism bcos incidentally feminism is about getting women to have a free right to live their lives the way they deem fit.

Thank you for that. Exactly! Feminism is reduced to such pointless debate of what we wear. Feminism doesn't have a uniform! We can wear what ever we like it doesn't define who we are, our genitalia will still be feminine even if we wear masculine clothes.

It also highlights the age old stereotype that women cannot think beyond what they wear and accessories, like some magpie who easily gets distracted with shiny things and therefore doesn't not have the mental capacity to handle what men must to run the world.

It is just another way of holding the true essence of feminism back.

Originally posted by: serialjunkie

And I'd also like to add for those who keep mentioning that it is a show and a money making project and shouldn't be taken so seriously or expected much of, I understand and respect that but I think if we make a small effort on this forum to educate the masses like the production team doesn't have the time to it will balance things out a little. Because by excusing what their doing by saying it's just a business we're allowing these stereotypes to fester ad that is a very heavy price that we're paying. This is a small effort on my part to counteract that because I deplore ignorance and abhor spreading it like it's the truth.

I will address this part.

I do not for a minute think that SP or PH do not understand the concept of a modern woman. They do and they willfully ignore it for commercial aspirations. Consumer vigilantism will help in changing the attitudes of capitalists as long as you can associate profit making with it.

I think entertainment businesses will not take on the mantle of social change unless forced to do so. There are two triggers or forces of change

1. Mass awareness, sustained pressure, and push back

2. government regulations

We know from the rise of Arab Spring that change can happen using Twitter, Facebook or other social media. SP will change when it senses the change in consumer tastes.