Mutual respect, total equality, great goals. However, turning back the hands of time may not be so right!
Where is the line in the sand for this equality movement?
All genders, all sexes are equal as human beings. It is unfortunate that historically this has not always been the case and even today, gender-based equality still does not exist. The flirtatious remarks are still made; the sexploitive retorts still too common. Like drinking and driving, problems which will not be easily eradicated from our society.
A line in the sand; yesterday vs. tomorrow
However, there has to be a line in the sand, not a line of equality vs inequality but a line between yesterday and tomorrow.
Yesterday, the flirtatious remarks were more prevalent, more common and more openly stated. The sexually related actions, the same. They were wrong then, they’re wrong now. But the tomorrow where they no longer exist, where they aren’t even in the subconscious mind of the old time thinkers is a long way off without justification.
Tomorrow the justice and logic of the #metoo movement will be acceptable totally and everywhere, by everyone. But it will only happen when parents, teachers, and our political leaders accept the writing on the same page wholly. The next generation needs to be taught the meaning of and respect for total equality. They should never be exposed to the gender dominance of one sex over another.
The past is our historical treasure
However, you cannot turn back the hands of time. The modestly of Victorian society will never return to our society. The moral standards of the past likely will never come to the fore of any future society. Trying to turn back the hands of time is impossible. As well, trying to do so is trying to destroy what existed. It may not have been right, morally, socially or ethically but it existed. And it has a place in the history books, in the museums and in the archaeological sites of the past.
Value the past for its lessons
The past teaches us where we were, often in a bad place. Often the past was wrong but it existed. Hitler existed; the KKK existed; apartheid existed. They were as wrong then as they are today but they existed and like the dinosaurs, they are pages from the past which can be teaching tools of tomorrow.
Xmas music is taking it too far?
“Baby, it’s cold outside” a song debuting in the late 1940s, hitting the big time in the 1950s, is now banned by some radio stations as being sexually harassing. It may be and no one is encouraging that the song is taken to heart. But it was an indication of a bygone era’s mentality. How would we have known we have moved forward if we never heard the song? The woman for whom the song was being sung understood the song had sexual undertones but she said NO by laughing it off, smiling about it and going about her business. She also may have said YES and we are not the ones to judge her morality unless we are applying our personal morality to everyone. She may be moral with a NO, or immoral with a YES but who are we to judge? Who says our personal moral standards are the right ones or the ones by which society should abide if it is to be seen as being moral.
Throw out the song will become an avalanche
Throwing out the song from station playlists may be opening the door to a deluge of new rejections. “Nice dress you’re wearing,” out. “Nice hairdo,” out. “Great looking outfit,” out. The list easily grows. The sincere appreciation, the compliment without a hidden sexual agenda will be banned or at the very least, banned from public use. The next step is to ban all personal comments completely as we have no right to publicly admire someone else. First, the outfits, next, the appearance, then the physical features and soon we are back to segregation and polarization of society. At the very least, those who make such remarks, use such compliments were being labelled as boars, outliers, unacceptable and treated accordingly.
NO means NO and must be heard and abided
When a person says NO, then they must be heard and abided. A person has a right to their persona not being assaulted, even if the assault is not seen as such by both parties. If one person states their intolerance for such remarks, the remarks should not be repeated, ever. But to eliminate such remarks as a whole, because someone found them unacceptable may be throwing out the baby with the proverbial bath water.
NO means NO, so stop and don’t repeat it. But if no NO is forthcoming, then the message may not be quite as clear. Perhaps the remark is acceptable. Perhaps the recipient did not find the remark as abhorrent as others may. But a universal blanket ban may be going to far. Such remarks should not be tossed around lightly. However, some people enjoy the teasing and poking of such remarks as sexual play, not criminal or social offences.
“Baby, it’s cold outside” may also mean I would like to side in front of your fire and be warmed by the heat. It does not necessarily mean “I’d like to stay overnight and get warm in bed with you.” Think about it.