Is this protest only by photogenic women or the editorial have focused only on pictures of hot women?

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>I believe that I'll need to visit the Ukraine someday soon...<br /> Or Paris...<br /> I certainly wouldn't mind covering such a story. ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.graffitiwithpunctuation.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/tljncfom.jpeg">Some days I just hate this place.</a></p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I would like to hear more from Leslie on linguistic nuances...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Charles,<a href="

this video</a> would be a good example, whether or not you believe his economic theory.</p>

<p>As in the video, I have a close friend that just bought a house in China. Now she paid the down payment of 240,000 RMB by borrowing 200,000 from three *extended* family members. Now, this is all in China, they average make 2-4k RMB per month. None live in the US. Do you know anyone borrowing 200,000 from relatives here, to buy a house? This is crazy in my book! Now, what does this have to do with language? Well, two of the relatives are from maybe second or third cousins, I think, because there's no English equivalent titles or word for that extended distant relative. The word, family, usually means nuclear family in the west. As in the video, there are specific titles to each extended member, by sex, blood, or by marriage, or the father or mother side...</p>

<p>Third, I think westerner (English here) have more precise definition in their vocabularies and grammar structures than many languages --the opposite of (extended) family member structure above--. That allows westerner to be more analytical and categorizes different sets and subsets. That, in itself, allow westerners to analyze more. Does this make sense? The more words you know, the more ideas you could think about, or adding different words combinations to create new meaning. It's difficult to articulate...like saying opening a stop to let in light, rather than to pushing the ISO. We, as photographers, understand this but say that to your non photo friends. they'd be clueless, get it? I don't know...it'd be easier trying to explain, in person. But this is waaay OT anyway.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Sarah said: "The document (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) is thick with idealistic hypocrisy! There are many rights in this Declaration that I do not have and probably never will."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sarah, it can be seen as idealistic hypocrisy (where it falls short), or as goals to strive toward. </p>

<p>Most laws in Western societies are based on similar charters of human rights and freedoms as outlined in the UN document. The structure of these legal systems also allow sufficient flexibility for change to occur so that laws can evolve as societal evolution takes place.</p>

<p>This built-in mechanism accommodates change and facilitates higher order goals, unlike societies bound by rigid laws and ruled by beliefs and customs where modernization can not be accommodated even in the face of conflict with its own citizens.</p>

<p>The self-policing nature of laws and regulations in modern societies also guarantees things such as Uganda's banning of mini-skirts can not and will not occur.<br /> [<a href="https://www.google.ca/search?q=mini+skirt&aq=0&oq=minisirt&aqs=chrome.1.57j0l3.5539j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=mini+skirt+uganda&oq=mini+skirt+uganda&gs_l=serp.3...5018.6902.0.7145.7.7.0.0.0.0.154.665.6j1.7.0...0.0...1c.1.8.psy-ab.fDbsP9HRWnk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44770516,d.dmg&fp=f570f9550e02829a&biw=1440&bih=813">Link</a>]</p>

[charleswood]

<p>That makes sense Leslie. The Ted Talks video was amazing. I had no idea about so many family words in Mandarin.</p>

<p>Borrowing from relatives for a house: my presumptive fiancé is third generation JA and remembers the first generation getting houses that way, from money borrowed from extended family members. Seems odd, but very interesting about your close friend.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>Okay, I don't want to revive the contention that the original post created, but here's the latest and greatest from the Femen movement:</p>

<p><a href="http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/08/17653145-topless-protesters-give-russias-putin-an-eyeful?lite">http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/08/17653145-topless-protesters-give-russias-putin-an-eyeful?lite</a>=</p>

<p>A couple of interesting things caught my attention: One, the completely different style of covering this story from the Atlantic approach; and two, the looks on the faces of Putin and Chancellor Merkel...</p>

[AJHingel]

<p><em>""The document (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) is thick with idealistic hypocrisy! There are many rights in this Declaration that I do not have and probably never will.""</em><br>

The UN does not address you Sarah and your particular situation, it addresses your government and its engagements of taking action, so no hypocrisy involved here.</p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<p>Michael, good point. However, we (most nations of the world) have been painfully slow to realize the goals set forth in that document! It should not take decades for us (the US) to enact laws to give our people the same rights that we (drafters of the Declaration) say we as people deserve.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Seems odd, but very interesting about your close friend.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Charles, it may seems odd for WEIRD us, but it's pretty common there -another worldview difference.- Can you imagine borrowing 200k, or lending 200k to a relative, I doubt it? </p>

 

[charleswood]

<p>I can't imagine that, being WEIRD. I can see though as a cultural practice where getting such loan means giving a loan like that later in one's own life. Hence the responsibility to save over one's life so as to be able to fulfill that social obligation, like they helped me, so I help later. Interesting.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Different cultures' different lending practices and differences in many other beliefs and practices are interesting and challenging and many of us embrace cultural diversity, but these are red herrings in this thread, which is about the sometimes barbaric treatment of women throughout the world, which should not be acceptable or expected in any culture and should be fought and ended in every culture, no matter the historical precedence or so-called understanding of those practices.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"It should not take decades to enact laws to give people the rights we (the US, one of the </em><em>drafters) say we deserve."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think the process of the enactment, amendment and abolition of laws is a political process through debates and votes often necessarily conflicted by opposing challenges until a consensus is reached. </p>

<p>Contentious issues such as abortion, rights to decide ones end of life, guns, can be complex with both sides presenting thoughtful legal, moral, and ethical arguments resulting in an apparently stifled process, but these issues do eventually come to resolutions; legalization of marijuana comes to mind. It just takes time. </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Fred, I can see where you are coming from, I have read my share of Klein, Zinn, Chomsky etc...But you have to realize that there are vast amount of people that don't consider sexual inequality (what is sexual equality, exactly?) "barbaric" and especially some religious, folks on the middle/right. I'm not arguing the crazy stuff like Malala Yousafzai inccident or the likes. That is barbaric, but that's isolated. Honor killing is barbaric but I'm not speaking of those, or whatever else Michael Chang mentioned...I have had numerous discussions with an Muslims women, while in college (in US), on trying to comprehend their value system and why they follow and do, what they do...</p>

<p>For example, they don't view stripping, pornography as having a right to expose oneself, a right at all? They don't view having a right to wear mini-skits, a right at all. They are glad to be covered...It is not difficult to understand(for me). In many parts of the world, there isn't any "rights" intrinsically entitled. That is another WEIRD worldview: we have "the right" to do, to be precept etc...</p>

<p>So, worldviews (and value system) is incredibly vital/intergrated in considering it all, because we all have different definitions and different ideals in the (all different) world. There are many inequalities right here in the US and in Christianity among other things...It's essential to view things with different glasses, too many are high with the WEIRD glasses...</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Leslie, I don't accept that someone thinking they're not being abused is evidence of non-abuse. Let's take the right to vote or the right to equal pay. Many women may never even have thought to question such unfair practices in centuries before those rights finally became available. That they never questioned not having those rights, precisely because of the cultural biases they and everyone else were so used to and ingrained with, doesn't mean not having these rights wasn't a great injustice.</p>

<p>Cultural considerations work both ways. They may make outsiders blind to other cultures, as this notion of WEIRD adequately conveys. But such cultural affects can also make insiders blind to their own biases and wrongful actions. And culture (and especially religion) can provide some horrific excuses for the mistreatment of fellow human beings and the subjugation of whole classes of people, whether they know it at the time or not.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Leslie, everything will appear normal in your environment if those were the conditions under which you were born and raised. Malala Yousafzai dared to challenge what is considered normal in her society with expected consequences. <br>

<br>

Likewise, I'm sure vast numbers of DPRK citizens might honestly believe their society is preferred over the West (or South), but that doesn't mean they're not oppressed and should therefore remain so. I'd even extend the same comparison to pets vs. their feral counterparts. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"For example, they don't view stripping, pornography as having a right to expose oneself, a right at all? They don't view having a right to wear mini-skits, a right at all. They are glad to be covered...It is not difficult to understand(for me). In many parts of the world, there isn't any "rights" intrinsically entitled. That is another WEIRD worldview: we have "the right" to do, to be precept etc..."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think we're debating rights as much as we're discussing the freedom where rights are derived. Being told you're not allowed removes ones freedom to choose. <br>

</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Leslie, an addition to my previous post. For me, the hard part is not knowing that these phenomena exist. The hard part is what actions either within a culture or outside a culture can be taken to effect change and if they should be taken to begin with. We don't want to go poking our noses into everyone's business and dictating morality to others at the drop of a hat. At the same time, we don't want to stand idly by and watch gross violations of human rights, no matter how another culture may justify such treatment. We can't always honor the moral determinations of others when they so violate our own core basic human instincts and determinations, especially when so much has been spelled out across many cultures on the basic expected treatment of our fellow humans.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>We could go on and on being *analytical* and debate, Fred and Michael, that would be WEIRD.<br /> I'll leave here with a few thoughts:</p>

<ul>

<li>Elite N. Koreans (or Chinese, Iranians, etc...) do have freedom and things, lot of things...We are not that naive, are we?</li>

<li>There's 994 channels, but nothing to watch...freedom is great, isn't it? And I have the *freedom* to work 1/3 of my life away, just to have stuff and things I don't really need, great:)))</li>

<li>Maybe, just maybe all societies are a little brainwashed, not only DPRK. Have we looked into the mirror? Are we (or most of WEIRD us) not slaves to consumerism (or sugar, sodium, smart phones etc...)? Hmm...a little 1984 vs. Brave New World, no?</li>

<li>Why do we measure the world (countries) by GNP, or the US by SNP numbers? Might this be a bias standard?</li>

</ul>

<blockquote>

<p>Malala Yousafzai dared to challenge what is considered normal in her society with expected consequences.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First of all, when did I say I Malala was wrong, Michael? And have you follow the recent news of rape scandals in the US military? Specifically, the countless female officers raped by male counter parts in all branches and all levels of the US armed forces? How do you explain that from the defacto freedom fighters of the world?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Leslie, everything will appear normal in your environment if those were the conditions under which you were born and raised.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>By the very same token, freedom, rights, individuality etc...being highly valued in the west-- Might that not be "normal" everywhere (see my earlier comment on that)? Could we ourselves (WEIRD folks) be blinded by that too? Or are we blinded by TMZ, Jersey Shore, or Keeping up with the Kardashians:))) Perhaps...we are above that, and are immune to all that? This better than thou mentality is exactly why we are hated in other parts of the world. Why attack Libya, and safeguard the Saudi? We seriously have to look into the mirror more deeply imo. I'm out...</p>

<p> </p>

[charleswood]

<p>"I came to understand that, like the land upon which cultural and biological reproduction is dependent, women’s reproductive bodies often serve as a potent terrain upon which struggles to define and maintain social order are fought." - from a paper by Nina Leshan Dreyfus</p>

<p>Which is, using a feminist lens, what I think we are all looking at IN PART when we look at the <em>coverage</em> of the protest: a battle between social orders fought upon the "territory" of women. The coverage itself contains a slant towards the west, is a western perspective and the press is a combatant in these culture wars. Somewhere, independent of all these social order concerns stands the reality of an individual women who has a right to just define herself independent of all this cultural BS.</p>

 

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Last bit from me...</p>

<p>I never did say the op protest was wrong, the Malala case, or women shouldn't fight for themselves. Only that we should see things with different goggles --whether we agree or not-- and pick our own battles as they are difficult to balance, especially with our cultural/era/habitual differences and biases, which I think most don't consider ***at all***. Something as elemental as *ideal romantic love* or *basic core human rights* are not at all universal, as much as we WEIRD folks think ought to be...</p>

<p> </p>

[charleswood]

<p>Again from Nina's paper:</p>

<p>"The indigenous midwives tended to use the word “feminist” as a derogatory label. When I asked Emeliana what feminist means to her she illuminated the problem. “The feminists don’t understand the communities, and they try to impose their beliefs on others. They think that they are better than we are, but they don’t know who we are.” Jesusa said that Mercedes Olivera and members of her organization, <em>Centro de Investigacion é Acción de Mujeres, </em>(CIAM), were requested to not enter Zapatista communities and to leave the projects they had initiated in several communities. According to Jesusa, as well as a rumor I heard from others asked not to be named, CIAM members working in one community had convinced women to make decisions <em>individually</em>, instead of following the traditional communal consensus decision making process. The community council decided that women could do this, however, if they wanted to by pass family and community, and make decisions and act as individuals, they would also have leave the family and community to live as individuals. Jesusa said:</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>One woman died when she left to live alone outside of the community. Nobody is just a person who lives alone. We live together. This is why we must consider each other when we decide to do things for ourselves. I only know this because I have been with Kaxlans. The are so <em>indepiendente</em>, <em>ambisioso é aprovechoso</em>. (Independent, egotistical, ambitious, competitive, and they take advantage of others) I would not have thought about this but when the feminists talk about independence and freedom, I know that they don’t know who I am.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is one reason that community consultation is essential, where people live together and each person is essential to the collectivity, decisions and actions of one person might impact everyone’s life. But this does not necessarily mean that one person’s ideas might not be important. Reflecting the value placed upon community rather than individuality, in many community councils every person is listened to and decisions are made by consensus."</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Leslie, one, of course, wonders if the same applies to non-WEIRD folks. Should they also see things with different goggles when it comes to assessing the morals, values, and behavior of Americans and Europeans? Often, what is proclaimed good for the goose is completely forgotten when the gander comes along. Have you participated in any non-WEIRD forums where you told non-WEIRD people they should see things through the eyes of the topless women protesters or asked for understanding of other Western cultural practices they find objectionable?</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Have you participated in any non-WEIRD forums where you told non-WEIRD people they should see things through the eyes of the topless women protesters or asked for understanding of other Western cultural practices they find objectionable?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you serious? Fred, you have no clue on how to be f**kin' humble, do you? You've just all credibility with me...My advice to you is to move to Laos for a year...maybe you'll learn. Read this at least: http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/Weird_People_BBS_final02.pdf</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>nm.</p>

<p>I'll quote you instead, Leslie.</p>

<p><em>"I'm out."</em></p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Great article Leslei, thanks!<br>

It deserves to be read by many.</p>