so what happens when the radical feminist agenda and the islamic fundamentalist agenda overlap?
nevermind, we can see already what happens.
seriously though, isn't it strange and revealing that so much of this problem revolves around a bad understanding of a woman's role in society? or more exactly, this problem, and a whole other range of other problems around the world, especially the islamic world, center upon the religious fundamentalist's inability to address a woman's role in society without hobbling her. how can such a proud, passionate and beautiful religion like islam be married to such a blockheaded view of womankind? or more accurately, why do the fundamentalists have such a stranglehold on islamic society. because certainly, christian fundamentalists have just as blockheaded a view of womanhood, but at least they are held in check in the west by more enlightened forces. unfortunately, for us all, but mostly unfortunately for the women living in the islamic world, there is no such strong enlightened social understanding of womankind in the islamic world. a shame. a terrible shame that will hurt us all.
no society can reach its full potential without an equal reckoning of man and woman as equal participants in the bedrock of society. however, a feminist agenda seeks to redefine the definition of womankind without any real reckoning of female sexuality and how it plays out in real life. by saying this about feminisim, this is not an attempt by me to subversively and slyly approve of common male sexual brutishness and unwanted advances as acceptable. no. meanness is still meanness. cruelty is still cruelty. but the radical feminist agenda is a foundation not built on synchronicity between the sexes, but the elevation of womankind above malekind to the same awful, but opposite, effect that the typical boorish male selfishness attempts when it reduces womankind to sexual objects and no more.
the fundamentalist agenda equally seeks to remove womankind from her sexual identity. in the case of islamic fundamentalism, however, it says she should not be educated, she should never travel alone, and she should never be seen outside in public except in swaddling cloths. this is just as ridiculous, but in the opposite direction.
the ideal of course, is equality between man and women. how much evil around the world springs up when society strays from this path. but i posit something many of you might take objection to: that the swimsuit competition is a good thing for equality between the sexes.
the middle road, always the best road, recognizes the realities of female sexuality. women have sex. they parade around in bathing suits and give men erections. this is the nature of the male and female beast. shake your fist at mother nature all you want, because there you have it. this is the way sex works.
in a way, you can say that the swimsuit pageant is not an anachronism, but in a way, a modern advancement for some societies. some western societies have left the swimsuit competition behind as too campy. but because these societies have made that advance does not mean all societies have. the advance?! some of you in the west say, what kind of advance is the swimsuit competition for a woman!?
the advance is that a woman can be glorified, objectified, honored for her physical beauty, and it can be left at that. it doesn't define a woman completely. it is merely a portion of female existence as old as time itself, but not the defining end-all complete description of female existence. that is, you can compete in a swimsuit, and then get in a business suit the next day, none worse for wear. only in an open society that reflects this do women freely don a bathing suit without coercion. look at the beaches of western societies. these are not societies that are uncomfortable with female sexuality. only in immature societies that are unfomfortable with female sexuality are women wrapped up and hidden from view. female sexuality is not to be feared. sounds dumbfoundingly obvious. but think of all of the daily suffering that goes on around in the world, in male and female minds, because they fail to this truth.
so the swimsuit is not a denigration of women, it is a symbol of the harmlessness, fearlessness, celebration of female sexuality. only with coercion in a world that says she is no more would a woman defy the bathing suit competition. so in a world where women gladly do these competitions and are celebrated for it, you can call that an advance over a society that does not value a woman beyond how she simply fills out a bathing suit. a society where a woman is a sexual object and no more is not a society where women comfortably don bathing suits, knowing they will be no more.
can an argument be made that a woman is glorified for her body, that she always was and always will be. but you see, the typical male gaze does NOT nullify the non-physical positive contributions a woman can make to society. a feminist agenda would remove the male gaze. but you ban no more remove the male gaze from a man than you cut the breast off a woman. it is in our biology to covet a woman's body. old as time itself.
BUT, but... a woman's sexuality merely exists in a different plane of existence, a sexual existence, separate from the work-related and intellectually-oriented contributions she can make. confusing the objectification of woman's bodies with their denigration is not an automatic conclusion. see?
it is, in a way, an honoration. men are sexual objects too, for crying out loud. no need to dwell on the subject of female sexual objectification, get over it. for those men who are too brutish to move beyond a woman's sexuality, and don't get me wrong, they do exist, lot's of them... well, let their actions be their own fate. women have, will, and always will have to weed such men out of their lives. no feminist agenda will divorce women from this unfortunate task, the removal of unwelcome, unworthy men in their lives. so women will be choosy, are the feminists telling us they promise us a world where a woman can turn off her mind because they will reshape male minds to be perfectly "respectful" all the time? i think not.
feminists should not disavow the vast majority of males who can enjoy a woman's body and respect her cerebral contributions at the same time- contemporaneously, and without conflict or confusion or even any remarkable mental dissonance. and religious fundamentalists should just fucking grow up, excuse my language. respect your mothers, islamic fundamentalist dogs. a woman is your equal, and your societies are doomed to never fulfull their full potential as long as you lock your women in a mental prison of forced redefinition of womanhood simply because you are such a little boy you are afraid of female sexuality. stupid and shameful fundamentalists.
The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.