MA and I really try to focus on teaching the kids good gender messages, and providing positive role models. Lately, there have been some complications in mixed messages they are getting from other people, as well as some advertising concepts I am not thrilled with. On our recent trip to Byblos, we passed at least five instances of this billboard. I couldn’t get a good picture of it for various reasons, but this will give you the general idea.
While the red marks don’t show up in the picture, the idea is that these women are whipping Xs and 0s onto his back to play tic-tac-toe.
Ummmm, not the message I was looking for. Technically, this might be marginally better than if the roles were reversed, but I think the world could get along just fine with an alternative method of advertising jeans.
I may well regret chiming in on this subject, but I have decided to give it a try. Over at http://unreasonablefaith.com they have had a recent cross-post of a news story regarding some barbaric jurisprudence out of Bangladesh. The posted headline is:
I have taken issue with this headline, and the cross-posted summary of the original article in the comments. Probably best to read those first. In addition, I have sent the following message to the site admin. Amusingly, their feedback form contains the optional description tag: “You’re going to hell and I’m going to tell you why”. I couldn’t resist using it. I wonder what will come of my observations. In any case, I’d be curious to hear what you all think of my comments on the original post and the messge below:
Of course, I don’t believe in hell, so that option is problematic =) Seriously though, I just chose that option because it was the closest thing I could find to something like: ‘You might want to reconsider what you posted’.
I am writing in regards to your recent entry ‘Rape victim receives 101 lashes for becoming pregnant’. I have posted two comments which I hope illustrate that the issue may well be more complicated than the referenced summary makes out. In particular, I note that in the original article (http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=123248) There is no mention whatsoever of the rapist being ‘pardoned’. Only that he belonged to another village, which to my understanding (limited though it may be) means he is out of their jurisdiction and couldn’t be prosecuted even if they were convinced he was guilty, the evidence for which seems dodgy anyway. I would urge you to read the original article critically, examine which claims are reasonably supported by fact and likely to be true, then compare it with the summary you linked. Do you think it represents a fair recounting of the likely truth?
In my opinion, a more accurate way of going about this would be: “Barbaric Punishment Meted out on a Minor” or some such thing.
Personally, I would go so far as to conclude that the evidence provided in the original article does not make even a token effort to examine why the village elders decided the way they did. As mentioned in my comments on the matter, I don’t think there is any justification for the punishment, but my ‘one-sided reporting and biased conclusion’ indicator is going off like mad on this article. The punishment was barbaric, yes, but let’s not fall victim to cognitive distortions and further cloud the already difficult cultural, legal and moral gaps by perpetuating bias. Let’s denounce injustice and barbaric behavior by showing an example of honest evaluation and critical thinking.
If, after reviewing this message and my comments, you believe me to be wrong, I would appreciate it if you could spare some time to explain to me where you think my mistake is. I tend to learn best from those who disagree with me.
Loading ...