Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

A shirt that is called a 'wife beater'?  Seriously?  That is so wrong.



( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
Aug. 26th, 2012 03:50 am (UTC)
I have only heard of it used once in a Teachwriteslash fic, and I had no idea what it was, tried to look it up on the net and only got a vague description, It sort of made it sound like a loose grandpa shirt (which I think the american's call a henly) but without sleeves. This is a picture of what we would call a singlet - And I agree with you , it is a totally inappropriate thing to call an item of apparel - there is no way it would be called that here, there would be an uproar, and rightly so.
Aug. 26th, 2012 04:31 am (UTC)
It's an undershirt, like my father wore. I had never heard it called that. It's disgusting, especially now with the Republicans trying to redefine rape, etc. I may have to write a 'for shame' email to that company.

Edit: I sent this:

"What a disgusting, sexist, and just plain wrong name for a shirt. You should be ashamed. Unless, of course, you beat your wife and think it's an okay thing. But even then...."

Not my best work, but better than nothing, I'm hoping.

Edited at 2012-08-26 04:34 am (UTC)
Aug. 26th, 2012 06:11 am (UTC)
I'm glad I live where I do, our Prime Minister stated that she will uphold the rights of women, that abortion is a right for women and will continue to be funded by the federal government - If only she could get the marriage bit right - she doesn't support same sex marriage - she is unmarried and living with her partner - her comment was - that she isn't married and you can have a commitment to someone without marriage - my reply and I only got a generic email back was - yes, that is true you can have a commitment to someone without getting married but using herself as an example, she forgets that she does have the option to marry if she wants, same sex unions don't - our de-facto laws recognise same sex marriages and you can register a partnership but it is not a ceremony and it does not have the same legal ramifications as marriage - you can register a same sex union without one party even living in this country - That man who is a senator - I couldn't not believe what he said, I had to read it a few time, it was unbelievalble.
Aug. 26th, 2012 10:46 pm (UTC)
That's the problem, I think, more than just the idea of being married rather than partnered. Civil partnerships do no confer the same rights as marriage does. Excluding a portion of one's citizens from the same rights every one else has is wrong. In the United States, it seems to have been an ongoing battle for equal rights, only the particular group being discriminated against changes now and then. Right now, the Republican party not only wants to keep same-sex couples from having the same rights as the rest of us, they are trying to take away the rights women have fought for and only very gradually won. They want to roll back the clock to when women were chattel, and only rich white men who presented as straight had any rights at all. This is not the America I was raised to believe it was, and it makes me sad and ashamed.
Aug. 27th, 2012 02:37 am (UTC)
Women's rights are always being pushed around, we finally got universal paid maternity leave last year, lots of placed and business had had some sort of maternity leave, from the basic, we'll keep your job for you, to full pay, or part pay for a set period of time, usually 6 to 18 weeks, now I think you get a year at the unemployment rate. I was flabbergasted with what the Sydney Synod of The Anglican Church (church of england in Australia, I thing it is the Espisoplic Church in the states) has changed the marriage vow, for the woman to say she will submit to her husband!!!! It is only the Sydney Synod (at the moment) they are one of the few Synods that don't allow the ordination of women, but still - submit (shakes head in worry) More women here go to university, finish secondary school, but the average wage for a female is still lower than a male. Yet in some states all tiers of the Government has a female head of state, local, state, federal Vice regal and royal. - it is a real dichotomy of were women and women's rights are.
Aug. 27th, 2012 04:06 pm (UTC)
I guess we only thought that the 21st century was the beginning of the future. It seems instead that it is a return to the dark ages. Are we as women that frightening to men that they need to oppress us at every turn? Seems we are evolving, but they are not.
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )