|Are men cashing in on the female body? Mbulawa Moyo 1/13/2005 8:00:56 AM (GMT +2) It was with some fascination, not altogether untinged with a little consternation bordering on trepidation, that I read and, slowly, began to digest the passage below. It is an excerpt from ?The Watchtower?, a periodical published semi-monthly by Jehovah?s Witnesses.|
I quote: ?It is important that worshippers of God appreciate his view of leadership. The basic principle of headship is set out in 1 Corinthians 11:3 where it is written: ?The head of every men is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God.? |
?A man had priority in human creation. He is given priority of position over the woman. The woman was made from a rib taken from the men. she was created for the sake of the man, not the man for her sake. Therefore, the woman, in God?s arrangement, was always to be in subjection to her husband and not to usurp his authority.? (End of quote).
Well, apart from the fact that the part of the above quote dwelling on the rib nonsense makes for scientific balderdash, some of the points advanced in this so-called ?Balanced views of headship? smack of men?s ever present self-seeking patronisation of women. Over the millennia men have sought to make women permanently subservient to them making them a convenience for their comfort and rather than partners.
Men have seen nothing wrong in having several women as wives or sexual partners concurrently but have never allowed women the same rights, contemptuously referring to woman who have several sexual partners as ?whores? or prostitutes? even though they may not be demanding payment for sex with those several men in their lives.
In fact, if the truth be told men have always treated women as objects of their sexual gratification at the very best, or, at worst as servants to minister to them at the man?s beck and call.
Even worse, perhaps, is the fact that until recently men had never believed a woman could attain full adulthood. This is a view which is vividly illustrated in Nguni society (Zulu, Xhosa, Ndebele) where the women folk are referred to as ?abesintwana?. ?Umtwana? means ?a child?.
Thus, ?abesintwana? is an expression classifying women as perpetual minors or ?children? from the cradle to the grave. This is a sexist view which was manifestly both unfair and unjust quite apart from being clearly oppressive which is why over the years, women, beginning with the suffragette movement in England in the 19th century, have been fighting relentlessly for equality of the sexes.
That is equality before the law; equal educational opportunities, equal job opportunities, equal pay and so forth.
But equality is not the same thing as being ?the same?. Men and women are intrinsically different in many ways but especially physically and emotionally.
God made men physically much stronger than women which is why he made them head of the family. Not only can they command authority in the home because of their physical strength superiority but they can also protect everyone else in the home.
But God is not stupid. In his great wisdom, he levelled off the two sexes intelligently making up a beauty for what he did not give women in physical strength or with bodies so lovely they can render the strongest of men effectively a lot weaker than the weakest of women. The biblical story of Samson and Delilah clearly demonstrates this.
Using beauty of their bodies ? the lovely curves and contours or valleys and promontories they can get men to do practically anything they want. Women can have any man eat out of their hand, literally, and even get whatever money they want using only their beauty even when they have no brains at all to talk about which is precisely why women can live comfortably, all their lives, on what they earn from selling sex (their beautiful bodies) to men and never the other way round.
And yet, foolishly, in this regard, women seem unable to count their blessings.
When purely out of their own volition the more beautiful among them decide to make ? through posing half naked for photographs to advertise whatever commodities, some of their not-so-well-shaped but brainy sisters start to cry foul.
?Men are exploiting us,? they fume.
Not only is this one of the most bizarre and misguided protests anyone could even come up with. It is also to slap God in the face for having done humankind?s female species such a great favour. It is like the proverbial ?looking a gift horse in the mouth?.
Instead of being grateful to God for having favoured them so much that, in effect, they have the stronger of the two sexes by virtue of nothing else but the male-weakening beauty of their sexily voluptuous bodies, women rail against him for having so favoured them. We are being exploited by men, they complain. Exploited? Good gracious! When it is you who, in fact, is exploiting God?s free gift to your own financial advantage! Women can?t see a good thing for their incurable self-pity.
As a matter of fact I was surprised that a little while ago even members of my own journalistic fraternity could have seen it fit to waste precious time debating allegations their certain advertisements were ?sexist?.
At the Southern African Gender and Media Summit in Johannesburg recently, delegates were asked what constitutes ?sexist advertising?. Some of their views were startling to say the least. Here is a representative sample.
?It?s that picture, for instance, that shows a woman in the nude, her breasts and thighs exposed women are mainly used for such ads,? said SABC female journalist, Puleng Mokho-ane. Said another female delegate, Athaliah Molokomme: ?Pictures of women scantily dressed. I have seen an ad for cat food using the lower body of a woman. I thought it was an ad for stockings. I did not see the connection.
?The use of a woman?s curves to sell a car or anything at all is sexist. When the message being sent out is not about what the woman does or knows but about the shape of her body, it is sexist.?
Nonsense. The beauty of the female body is not only an asset of immeasurable value but also the source of immense power which has enabled women to dominate men throughout history.
To view its use in advertisement as exploitation is, to put it somewhat hyperbolically, to fail to see the wood for the trees.
It is women who are using the beauty of their bodies to economically exploit society, not the other way round.
After all, no woman has even been forced to pose for such pictures.
Are Men Cashing In On The Female Body?
This is one of those articles that disappears after you hit the submit button. Just click on the thread. I don't know why some newspaper articles do that, when others don't. Sorry about that!
A man had priority in human creation. He is given priority of position over the woman.
Scroll to the far right of the article >-----------------------------------> I guess it got put over there, instead of in the center.
The author opens with a quote from the WT which he mocks to show his enlightenened and reasonable position, then repeats essentially the same viewpoint later on: God made men to be the head of the household.
He then goes on to express the view that women have an even playing field because although men are stronger - women are sexually attractive. Women should be grateful that they can get stuff if they are willing to have sex for it. That isn't being exploited - No! that is women exploiting men. If they are good-looking, they probably won't be brainy. Only ugly women object to women being objectified.
What utter trash.
Your right StinkyPantz. My wife didn't really appreciate that comment either. The Watchtower has always held the female as the (under-dog), sort of speaking. Yet in most Kingdom Halls where there are (pioneer sisters), the elders always run tho them to handle certain matters in the congregation, when it is really the elders job to begin with.
It is a well known fact, that (women) do most of the work in the Watchtower Organization.
Thanks Stinky Pants!
Thanks for your comments!
Not nice! Burn that particular Watchtower, and the rest come to think of it.
I always explain to my husband like this, 'Women are the Mark 2 model of human kind and hence the improved version. The mark 1, certainly has its place but so does the new, shinier, more attractive Mark 2. It's just an unfortunate fact for me, that I'm better at washing up!'
ROFL @ Gill - that works for me
You took the words right out my mouth, Fe2O3Girl.
God made men physically much stronger than women which is why he made them head of the family.
Talk about your scientific balderdash and a 100% about face. I think he's mocking the Watchtower because their article was more well-written than his. There are plenty of ignorant statements made in Watchtower (don't get me started...), but when was the last time the Watchtower writers, masters of underestimating the intelligence of their readership and captains of pointing out the obvious, saw fit to point out:
But God is not stupid.Profound, man! And then the statement about smart women not being attractive, and men not being beautiful. I'm a hell of alot better looking than most women I know!!!