Lush wrote:
"As for Arwen being a sexual object, well, what's wrong with that? I don't believe the statement, but what's the problem with it anyway? Some things, a man has to earn. I think."
I could not resist the temptation after all...
You should take into account the possible cultural differences here. In Finland 7 out of 18 cabinet ministers are women. My party has presidet, president of the parliamentary group and president of central comitee all female. President of the nation and president of the parliament are women. 74 out of 200 members of parliament are women. Finland gave vote to women in 1905 being second country in world to do that and first to grant universal suffrage (to women too.) In 1917 in our civil war the red womens guards openly and justifiedly accused male guardsmembers & male guards units of cowardice. Our language does not have the he/she defination in pronouns. 70 years ago my family had a neighbour who beat her wife, my grandmother went there and beat him up, she was woman widely respected in the village community.
Now from this cultural context I should accept the woman on pedestal attitude "some things a man has to earn" EH? [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]
In addition to being ancient, the woman on pedestal attitude is rather irreconsilable with attitudes that allow women to have power of personality.
[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
Sorry. Around here it goes like this. Some things both sexes must earn, or do without. I am hardly ABLE to see theese matters any other way.
I may have just fallen for intentional provokation, but so what...
Janne Harju
|