Sanitories
06-05-2009, 14:16
Hi,
I have submitted the followind proposal to be validate by the 53 WA delegates who undoubtfully will support it, after correcting it with Word and using intensivly my dictionnary. But now I've posted it, I have a doubt: is my english really as good as I think:$? yeah, I know I should have worried about this before posting but well, now it's done.
this is the resolution I've proposed:
<<
1. ACCEPTING as a fact that no scientific studies has yet been able to pinpoint any difference in abilities between women and men being directly caused by any morphological difference.
2. DEFENDING that all inequalities existing in fact -for the while- between women and men are due to social causes, i.e. it’s the place that society urges each gender to accept that explains all and every difference of attitude and social consideration between women and men.
3. OBSERVING that the most prominent in gender isn't its physical manifestation but its mental manifestation, and so recognizing the right of changing officially their gender to people who feel their physical gender isn't their mental gender, i.e. transsexuals.
4. MAINTAINING that the main aim of domination of men upon women is to make men accept the domination of some men upon the other men.
5. NOTICING that because its her who became pregnant, men are usually prompted to consider being pregnant is mostly a women affair (in nations who don’t invest in men education on the subject), and so are far less pushed to consider the birth linked aspect of sexuality.
6. ESTABLISHING that condemning women sexuality and not men sexuality pushes women to be very often less open to sexuality than men, what make a lot of men sexually frustrated. The consequences the sexual frustration of some men having on society is in some cases paedophilia, rapes…
7. CONCERNED with the fact that commons matrimonial habits makes human resources managers less inclined to hire women between the age of 25 and 35 because they might be absent for a long time if they have a child at this period. And this seriously disadvantages women in their carrier and in the evolution of their wages.
8. DEPLORING it’s when he wants to be rude than every one is the most inclined to be sexist (and racist, and homophobic), what means we must fought sexism (and racism, and homophobia) also on the ground of the insults we use. E. g. « b*tch », « wh*re», « c*nt »… are to be banned of our vocabulary when they are not used in a non strictly descriptive way.
9. STATING that we can’t emancipate mankind without emancipating the so-called ‘‘fair sex’’.
10. ASSERTING that depreciating women won’t make men more happy, quite the opposite in fact, so men's real interest isn’t to depreciate women in general.
The World Assembly solemnly condemns all differences maiden between genders in social statues, carrier promotion, wages, social consideration, status in the household, insults usually used, length of maternity leave, (etcetera). And every nation who won’t actively act in this sense will be mercilessly considered by the rest of the world as a shrewish reactionary nation.
>>
I know critics will raise such as 1)"hey! this is an ideological ban, you're not allowed to propose this" or 2)"hey! This is not a proposition, it's a rethorical essay, you're not allowed to propose this!" or 3)"hey! you put little * but there are insults in your proposal!"
But:
1) I don't think we can really say sexism is an ideology. I mean not in the sense of the word "ideology" we use when we say "capitalism is an ideology" or "communism is an ideology". It's true my proposal defends a feminist ideology, but just as the actual proposal on carbon tax follows more or less a environment-friendly ideology.
2) I don't think solemnly condamning sexism could be consider as only rethoric. It's not more rethorical than saying "every men and women are free and equals in rights and in dignity". And in order to condemn sexism, it's necessary to pinpoint cases that are sexism but where it's not obvious. So I don't think the part where I denounce some expressions of every day life sexism could be consider as an essay, but like a detail of cases where, once this law will be passed, members of the World Assembly will be obliged if they respect the law to act. (Am I clear enough? I'm not sure every one will understand what I mean...)
3) I'm not insulting any one, neither am I in a moralistic position saying "don't insult people". I'm saying "I'm proposing a reform of the vocabulary (they have been laws on those sort of things in some countries : Germany, France...) stating that those world will disappear from our vocabulary of insults in order to only stay in our vocabulary for what they really are". It's description saying a prostitute is a wh*re, it's insults to say to a girl she's a wh*re because you don't like her way of living her sexuality. In many countries they are laws who forbid racism independently from the laws who forbid insulting people.
I have submitted the followind proposal to be validate by the 53 WA delegates who undoubtfully will support it, after correcting it with Word and using intensivly my dictionnary. But now I've posted it, I have a doubt: is my english really as good as I think:$? yeah, I know I should have worried about this before posting but well, now it's done.
this is the resolution I've proposed:
<<
1. ACCEPTING as a fact that no scientific studies has yet been able to pinpoint any difference in abilities between women and men being directly caused by any morphological difference.
2. DEFENDING that all inequalities existing in fact -for the while- between women and men are due to social causes, i.e. it’s the place that society urges each gender to accept that explains all and every difference of attitude and social consideration between women and men.
3. OBSERVING that the most prominent in gender isn't its physical manifestation but its mental manifestation, and so recognizing the right of changing officially their gender to people who feel their physical gender isn't their mental gender, i.e. transsexuals.
4. MAINTAINING that the main aim of domination of men upon women is to make men accept the domination of some men upon the other men.
5. NOTICING that because its her who became pregnant, men are usually prompted to consider being pregnant is mostly a women affair (in nations who don’t invest in men education on the subject), and so are far less pushed to consider the birth linked aspect of sexuality.
6. ESTABLISHING that condemning women sexuality and not men sexuality pushes women to be very often less open to sexuality than men, what make a lot of men sexually frustrated. The consequences the sexual frustration of some men having on society is in some cases paedophilia, rapes…
7. CONCERNED with the fact that commons matrimonial habits makes human resources managers less inclined to hire women between the age of 25 and 35 because they might be absent for a long time if they have a child at this period. And this seriously disadvantages women in their carrier and in the evolution of their wages.
8. DEPLORING it’s when he wants to be rude than every one is the most inclined to be sexist (and racist, and homophobic), what means we must fought sexism (and racism, and homophobia) also on the ground of the insults we use. E. g. « b*tch », « wh*re», « c*nt »… are to be banned of our vocabulary when they are not used in a non strictly descriptive way.
9. STATING that we can’t emancipate mankind without emancipating the so-called ‘‘fair sex’’.
10. ASSERTING that depreciating women won’t make men more happy, quite the opposite in fact, so men's real interest isn’t to depreciate women in general.
The World Assembly solemnly condemns all differences maiden between genders in social statues, carrier promotion, wages, social consideration, status in the household, insults usually used, length of maternity leave, (etcetera). And every nation who won’t actively act in this sense will be mercilessly considered by the rest of the world as a shrewish reactionary nation.
>>
I know critics will raise such as 1)"hey! this is an ideological ban, you're not allowed to propose this" or 2)"hey! This is not a proposition, it's a rethorical essay, you're not allowed to propose this!" or 3)"hey! you put little * but there are insults in your proposal!"
But:
1) I don't think we can really say sexism is an ideology. I mean not in the sense of the word "ideology" we use when we say "capitalism is an ideology" or "communism is an ideology". It's true my proposal defends a feminist ideology, but just as the actual proposal on carbon tax follows more or less a environment-friendly ideology.
2) I don't think solemnly condamning sexism could be consider as only rethoric. It's not more rethorical than saying "every men and women are free and equals in rights and in dignity". And in order to condemn sexism, it's necessary to pinpoint cases that are sexism but where it's not obvious. So I don't think the part where I denounce some expressions of every day life sexism could be consider as an essay, but like a detail of cases where, once this law will be passed, members of the World Assembly will be obliged if they respect the law to act. (Am I clear enough? I'm not sure every one will understand what I mean...)
3) I'm not insulting any one, neither am I in a moralistic position saying "don't insult people". I'm saying "I'm proposing a reform of the vocabulary (they have been laws on those sort of things in some countries : Germany, France...) stating that those world will disappear from our vocabulary of insults in order to only stay in our vocabulary for what they really are". It's description saying a prostitute is a wh*re, it's insults to say to a girl she's a wh*re because you don't like her way of living her sexuality. In many countries they are laws who forbid racism independently from the laws who forbid insulting people.