Reading Dava's Blog the other day, I was reminded of one incident that left a sour taste in my mouth. I was on a bus headed for circle and the radio programme airing at that time was on ladies who cheated on their husbands, got pregnant, and passed the kids off to their husbands as their own (their husbands, that is).
There was one very vocal guy on the bus who exclaimed that it would never happen to him, that women could not be trusted, and that was why he would never marry but will continue to use as many women as he could. To quote him, 'As you no go fit put meter for your woman top, she fit share plus any bro. So why pay for it?Why be the monkey when you can be the baboon and chop some free?' He went on and on for about fifteen minutes.
Of course, I must mention that considering this man's looks and mannerisms, it was no loss to women that he didn't want to get married. However, his opinions which he was proudly forcing down our throats just rubbed my feminist self too badly for me not to comment.
I turned to the guy sitting next to me and said 'This guy is making noise. How will what he is saying solve anybody's problems? Besides, if no man was to touch another woman other than his wife, this problem would be non-existent.' Seriously, guys, think about it... (Of course, reasoning along similar lines, I will also say that if women allowed only their husbands to touch them, cheating husbands would be non-existent cos there would be no one for them to cheat with. If he was going around using women (other people's wives, now or in future), why was he making noise about someone using his own?
And here, [Editor's note: Did my suggestion sound ridiculous? It would in this day and age, right? Like Miss Kris said, 'that is such an amazing way to think about it. too bad it's unrealistic... that's like asking for a world of completely monogamous people. doubt people will ever come around to that. but it's a really good hypothesis anyway'. And because we are not willing to make that sacrifice, we shouldn't blame anyone for the mess we're in. We are all contributing - consciously or unconsciously. Just work on YOUR relationship]
And here, [Editor's note: Did my suggestion sound ridiculous? It would in this day and age, right? Like Miss Kris said, 'that is such an amazing way to think about it. too bad it's unrealistic... that's like asking for a world of completely monogamous people. doubt people will ever come around to that. but it's a really good hypothesis anyway'. And because we are not willing to make that sacrifice, we shouldn't blame anyone for the mess we're in. We are all contributing - consciously or unconsciously. Just work on YOUR relationship]
Mr. vocal overheard this and said 'How can I dae a girl and not touch her? What the would show that she is mine?' He then proceeded to propound a very stupid theory. "Women are proud and very aware of their sexuality these days and use their sexuality against men. With the campaign for girl-child education, they have also become loud and argumentative. We all know women are smarter than us so the only way you can subdue a today's woman is to sleep with her. Then, she becomes mellow and knows her place.
Seriously? Sex is how you subdue a woman and retain your manhood? Then that manhood must not have been very big to begin with. You cannot imagine how pissed I was. .. He actually said 'When you catch her, you give it to her well well and she will know who is boss.' Lesbianism began to look very good to me, especially when about 70% of the men in the bus proceeded to agree with him.
When you take a woman's sexuality and womanhood and bastardize it, making it her weakness and your weapon against her, a way of staking your claim on her... Will she want to be a WOMAN? Be with a man?No wonder more and more ladies are becoming lesbians. No wonder more women are wising up and using their sexualities to get what they want from life. It's sad, really! But hey, if they are going to be used anyway, it might as well be on their terms, don't you think?
www.photochart.com |
Of course, I shouldn't really pay that much attention to this guy. He also said educated women should not marry educated men because those will cheat on them. They should marry fitters, masons and the like to decrease the income gap... We asked him what he would say and do if his university graduate daughter wanted to marry a truck-pusher and he fumbled. Everyone in the car pounced on him... even the masons and fitters who had initially nodded when he started the theory joined in.
When someone asked if he had ever been hurt by a woman, he said never! How possible? He also said he had 4 sisters and that his parents were still together. Where then did he get this 'socialization' from? Is there hope at all with men walking about thinking like this???
very interesting. thanks for sharing. it really got me thinking...
ReplyDelete...if no man was to touch another woman other than his wife, this problem would be non-existent ... if women allowed only their husbands to touch them, cheating husbands would be non-existent cos there would be no one for them to cheat with.
that is such an amazing way to think about it. too bad it's unrealistic... that's like asking for a world of completely monogamous people. doubt people will ever come around to that. but it's a really good hypothesis anyway.
Oye, i can boldly say, that it is only God that is saving the likes of this guy from me. had it been me on that bus i'm sure that guy woulda begged to be let off. mmtcchhheeeeeeeew!
ReplyDeleteMiss Kris: yup, yup! and because we are not willing to make that sacrifice, we shouldn't blame anyone for the mess we're in. We are all contributing - consciously or unconsciously.
ReplyDeleteRobby: abi u dieh! lol. U can imagine how I felt! Caveman kwraa is better!
Hmmmm,
ReplyDeleteInteresting encounter (the result also being this good write up).
I must say I understand your sentiment on the issue and can imagine how you felt in the situation with the guy.
That said, the only part I do not agree with you is the part you said "Lesbianism began to look very good to me, especially when about 70% of the men in the bus proceeded to agree with him".
Just because some guy argues (using very faulty premises I might add) with you on a sensitive subject such as this one doesn't mean you should want to avoid men altogether. Or was it the 'massive' 70% of the other men on the bus who agreed with him?
Come on! I don't think I need to even explain my disagreement. But if you want me to, I will. :-)
Thanks Eyuseh... I will keep that in mind. And don't worry, I have not given up on the males yet... :)
ReplyDelete