Posted: 13 November 2012 at 10:25pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by akash08
Well it is not correct to comment without reading 48 pages but still can not resist.
To me gender equality means - equal right for men and women. equal right to social security, job, pay, voting, marriage, right to divorce, right to work - whatever. Gender equity in these areas must be achieved and anyone questioning this must be condemned.
However, I have seen (and see everyday) enough number of feminists who drag the definition of gender equity too far to prove men = women. They are not - they are created biologically different and they will always be different. There is no superior or inferior here - just that men and women will always remain biologically different and hence emotional behaviour would be different and hence the expectation of the society will be different. After all it is hormones that control our reactions and they are not same in men and women.
Going by that if society thinks a woman is generally more shy than a man and spells out that - protesting against that is a feminist outburst to me. However, if a woman is disadvantaged just because she is not feeling shy, that must be condemned again because her right of equality should never be compromised.
In this particular instance, I do not think Sidhu ever meant to look down to Sapna. He just mentioned Sapna's behaviour does not match with the typical behaviour of majority of women and there is nothing wrong in expressing that. If he would have said Sapna is a disgrace to human kind because she is not shy, she should be thrown out of house because she is not shy or her face should be blackened because she is not shy etc. etc. - definitely condemn him all out!!
let me clarify even before I proceed to comment on your post that i am not either a siddhu or sapna-ist, in fact I dislike both of them for separate reasons, but i just couldn't resist on commenting especially because of the highlighted part of your statement.
reducing a man/woman to their sexuality is called biological determinism. the idea that a man is supposed to 'act like a man' because-- well he has a phallus, and a woman 'like a woman' because she lacks that is not only regressive and extremely patriarch but it also very sexist, that is reducing a human being to her/his biological sex. if i do accept your hypothesis for argument's sake (that a woman or a man for that matter should behave the way society expects her /his to)
then how do you define
what should be the ideal characteristic of a transgendered person? or a hermaphrodite? what should they behave like? a man or a woman? and what about gays/lesbians? according to the 'norms' set by the society a man shouldn't love a man...hence, do I deduce being gay is unnatural then?
just my two cents as a woman trying to make it in a patriarch world :)