Letter from a reader in the paper

[woodface]

The headdress is discriminatory towards men. It implies that the mere sight of a pluck of hair, a knee, or any bare skin of a woman will drive the man crazy. It's saying that men are controlled by their hormones instead of their reason and are incapable of controlling their sexdrive. Isn't that discriminating? Isn't that implying that men hasn't evolved over the centuries and is still driven by an animal instinct that determines their behaviour completely?

So all men should rise up to this injustice and prove that they are more than just a bunch of hormones!

Comments

[janegaudi.livejournal.com]

*GRIN*

[besyd.livejournal.com]

[looks over to left ... then right ... cranes neck around ... sweeps all fields of view] Man. I think you got their ... attention. ;^)

[woodface]

Hope so =oP

[alliesings.livejournal.com]

Fascinating way of looking at it. I've always been in favor of modesty, but you may have something there. Hmm.

[woodface]

There's a difference between modesty and having to hide every part of your body because it would make the men turn wilde. It does say more about the men than it does about the woman though.

[alliesings.livejournal.com]

It does say more about the men than it does about the woman though.

I agree there. Men in most parts of the world have to deal with the reality of a little (or a lot of) female skin without being one raging hormone.

[woodface]

Sadly enough, that's the same argument that goes behind rape. Short skirts etc supposedly invoke the man. It's the whole "men are trains without breaks" theory that is outright disgusting and insulting.

[psquelly.livejournal.com]

I've always thought that. It's the same thing they used to say about women voting - that women shouldn't be polluted by politics.

[woodface]

*frowns* I think it's a bit different though.

[davebt.livejournal.com]

Interesting point. :)

[woodface]

*g*