adding insult to injury

With a rising wave of sexaul assault, it may not have beena good idea to carpet Naples and Rome’s walls with the following ad :

thankfully, several municipalities declared their intention to pass a ban against the photos. 

The sad thing being, there ad were meant to promote clothes: can you actually see that as the main message in it?

if i was to ask you

to imagine to match “a soldier” with “any beautiful woman” , would you think

(a) that i am engineering a mass rape of never-seen-before proportions

(b) that i am engineering a evil, and doomed, repopulation plan

(c) that i mean to protect women from sexual harassments

SOLUTION: (a). And no, Mr. Berlusconi, it is not (c).

abortion: a moral dilemma or any woman’s right?

Taking a stance on abortion is far from being easy. But even without taking one, it is possible to reason against the generalization of it as an universal women’s right.

Abortion is grave under more than one respect. It is physically demanding for the mother and it is psychologically invasive for the father, granted that he knows about it. But what is worse, is that the modern medical techniques wash away most of the short term seriousness of the procedure, by making it operationally safe. Potentially, one could use abortion as a default contraceptive procedure. But, is it fair?

Making a coarse distinction, women that need an abortion may be grouped in three classes. Teens, victims of rapes, and other women. As far as the victims of rapes are concerned, there is no doubt that abortion is acceptable. However, most of the victims make use of less (but not un-) controversial contraceptives, as the day after pill.

Teens are a very critical category. Sure, a pregnancy will change their lifes, and almost surely for the worse. But the “almost” in this context makes the difference. Is it better to live the rest of one’s life with the regret and guild of an abortion, or is it more adviceable to try to raise a kid, who anyhow is your kid?  Difficult to say. Also, how would the kid be affected? Maybe for the worse, if after being born he or she will have to grow up in a family that does not care for him or her. Maybe for the best, if the family eventually learns to love the baby. Maybe somehow in between, if the kid is given for adoption. An abortion for a teen is a potential 360dg. disaster: it can destroy her present life, her future life, and the life of a relatively innocent kid. Is this a right? Or, better, is this a right that we want our nurses to campaign for?  

Aside from teens and victims of sexual abuses, there is a broad group of other women that demand abortions. Why this would happen is unclear to me. Most of them even are in a relationship, but even if thery were not, being a single mother is not a shame any more. Or, it is a shame that is bearable. Is it because the career comes first? I can’t belive that the XX century has swiped out from the female nature the instinct of becoming a mother. I presume that career-oriented women will make a point that success is a matter of right timing: if you are not there working hard when your bosses want you to, you will be a loser for the rest of your life. But, isn’t motherhood much more time-constrained than any job opportunity? Are we actually going to deliever the XXI century to a generation stemming from gray-haired ovulations? But this is far from the point, which is: do we want  abortion to be a right  on work-related grounds? If so, we may actually start discussing some rules: ”quick abortion for chief-executives”, and “sorry madam, you’ve to stand in line for a couple of months, you’re only a  part time worker”.  Sad.

The fact that physicians can practice abortions, does not mean that one should take full advantage of it. It does not make abortion a right. Similarly, it does not make the strict pro-life attitude a duty. It is more of a moral dilemma.  

/grateful for some late night discussions on the topic//

question to you:

If women soccer and hockey are so bad to watch, why do they keep playing it?

what a difference a y makes..

xx: are you still afraid?

xy: why should i be not?

xx: because i love you

xy: can’t that be scary?

Mr. President Obama

 something that we can (yes we can!) learn from these elections is the following maxim (in the words of Sara)

it still remains easier for a black than for a woman

not that i have something against President Obama or, let alone, something in favour of Mrs. Hillary. yet ironically, this is what the facts out there say.

WOMAN IS not THE NEW MAN

in Sweden, men are taking over!

destroyed and humiliated by years, decades, almost centuryes of female abuse, the swedish males themselves filed the first complaint for sexual discrimination. hipp hipp hoorray!

we already argued that emancipation has been the most myopic strategic disaster in women’s history, but maybe time are changing.

Hold on, Mr. Man!

10 reasons not to join a BBQ

1- at a certain point, it will rain

2- bugs and ants will creep up on your legs, food and bags

3- your fancy and cute dress is going to be stained with prob=1

4- you will be dragged in one of those all-together games that you have manage to elude for the past 20 years (football, hide-and-seek, etc)

5- there will be cameras and day after pics on facebook

6- you will be eating on the grass, thus making an insulting stance against the radically modern and confortable convention of the “chair and table”

7- it will be hot first, then cold (it is going to rain, do you remember?), and you will be sweaty and smelly

8- true, you can smoke, but then you will have to walk 200m. to find to bin to throw the cig away

9- there is nothing more cheap than drinking alcohol in a park. what have you become, a scum?

10- the food is going to be of a terrible quality, terribly cooked by a dirty-handed inexpereinced guy.

ouch! have i landed in the wrong country?

SWEDISH WOMEN TO OVERTAKE “STUPID” MEN

Published: 20 Dec 06 13:55 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/5862/

Swedish men are less intelligent, lonelier and fatter than their female counterparts, a new study claims. Boys have fallen way behind in school, and there are more women than men studying some traditionally male university subjects.

“In twenty years men’s dominance will be broken and women will have more power in society. There will be more female CEO’s and the wage gap will favour women,” researcher Ingemar Gens told magazine Att:ention. Experts have also observed that smart women are struggling to find common ground with members of the opposite sex.  “There will soon be a large collective of uneducated, low-paid men who don’t have any friends, and are unmarried and alone – as well as uninteresting for women looking for a relationship.” “This is already happening, but the problem is beginning to accelerate. This is a huge danger for men,” said Gens. Tomas Blideman from the Fryshuset youth foundation in Stockholm works with teenage boys and tries to get them to look beyond the typical behaviours of their peers. “A lot of being a boy is about putting up a front. And it follows you all through your life. First it’s school, then the workplace and so on.” “Being a boy means always holding your own. This creates an insecurity and incredible expectations. Studying is not one of them,” said Blideman. While reaching consensus about a sort of ongoing male crisis, not all those Attt:ention spoke to were certain that this would eventually lead to women assuming greater control. “The power of the patriarchy is so great that education and similar factors are not so important. “Other things play a bigger role, such as short-cuts and networks for example,” said Malena Rydell, managing editor of feminist magazine Bang.

 

Paul O’Mahony (paul.omahony@thelocal.se/08 656 6513)

on dancing

now, lets not underestimate the versatility of dancing.

when one mentions dancing, we naturally think about discos and pubs, and the question that follows is usually ” dancing what?” commercials, rock n’ roll, techno, and so on. but i guess that a more appropriate issue is “dancing with whom?”

single dancing is very peculiar of our century, or better, of these last decades. at the beginning we had the swings, the charleston, then the rock and roll: all to be danced with a partner. not anymore. now people dance by default alone, at most they rub, clumsily and drunkily, hips with hips (suprise, surprise!).

i wonder why. there is nothing funnier than to dance with a partner. sober, i mean. no matter the style, it is just nice to do it, follow the rythm, enjoy the feeling and the complicity. of course, it may get very sexy and intimate: even better. i doubt any woman would mind to be approached with a “may i dance with you?” . by far much better than the usual “may i buy you a drink?”.

and for the style, it does not really matter. the common-knowledge rule that in the end women prefer men than make them laugh is a good benchmark. plus, it is so not going to be a dance what will ruin your chase. 

in the end, a dance together is nothing but an emotion. and in any case, a terribly embarassing dance is always going to be a good story to tell your friends on a Friday night.