ikenbot:

Study: Proof That We Sexually Objectify Women

We look at women the same way we look at houses and sandwiches: as composites of attractive parts.

Problem: Few would argue that the objectification of women is a real thing — and a real problem — but as yet there’s been no cognitive explanation for it in a literal sense. Do we really look at women differently than we do men, and are they actually objectified in the eye — and brain — of the beholder?

Methodology: Images of average, fully clothed individuals were quickly flashed before the eyes of participants. After each one, the participants would then be shown two side-by-side images that zoomed in on one, “sexual” aspect of the individual (for example, a woman’s midriff) and asked to identify the version that hadn’t been modified. The experiment was also reversed, so that participants first looked at a specific part and then had to identify it in the context of an entire body. The test was designed to clue researchers in on whether the participants were using global or local cognitive processing while looking at the images — in other words, whether they perceived the individuals as a whole or as an assemblage of their various parts.

Results: Regardless of gender, participants consistently recognized women’s sexual body parts more easily when presented in isolation. Men’s sexual body parts, on the other hand, were more memorable as part of their entire bodies.

Conclusion: The cognitive process behind our perception of objects is the same that we use when looking at women, and both genders are guilty of taking in the parts instead of the whole. When we look at men, we use global processing to see them more fully as people.

The full study,”Seeing women as objects: The sexual body part recognition bias,” is published in the European Journal of Social Psychology.

*women of colour and trans* especially

The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world

mehreenkasana:

About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.

Correlate that with the fact that the United States of America has the highest rate of homicides throughout the world.

Aug
11
2012

Wearing modern western educated glasses we term Vedas as religious text books of Hindu religion. Neither are Vedas religious text books and nor is Hinduism a religion as defined in line with the western world, but that can be a separate topic of discussion…

Another interesting aspect of the misinterpretation of this Varan system has been the racist angle given to it. The three gunas are symbolically associated with colors. Satva is linked with white, Rajas with red and Tamas with black. Since a Brahmin is associated with Satvic nature and Satva being associated with white, 19th century European scholars linked the Varan to skin color. As a result of combinations of all the wrong interpretations of Sanskrit verses, was born the mythical white supreme Aryan race which supposedly destroyed the indigenous dark skinned people and imposed a Brahminic culture on them.

—

Varna Vyavastha Vs. Caste system

To add to the above:

In the scriptures, when the system of dividing society into four groups was explained, the word used is “Varna.” Varna means “class” not “caste.” Caste is actually “Jati” and it is an incorrect translation of the word “varna.” When the Portuguese colonized parts of India, they mistakenly translated “varna vyavasthaa” as “caste system” and the mistake has stayed since then.

Swami Chidanand Saraswatiji

Where does the caste system come up in the Hindu canon?

It is necessary to demolish the myth that caste system is an intrinsic part of Hinduism. This myth is believed by orthodox elements within Hinduism and also is propagated by elements outside Hinduism with the mischievous intent of proselytizing. Even Vedic and classical Hinduism – not only does not support the caste system, but has taken lots of pains to oppose it both in principle and practice, making it obvious that caste system is not an intrinsic part of Hindu canon, philosophy and even practice.

It is only in the dharmashastras (dharmasutras and smritis) that we find support to the caste system, and not in other canon. However, dharmashastras never had the same status as other canon known as shruti (Vedas and Upanishads) and it is laid down that whenever there is a conflict between the shruti and smriti literature, it is the former that prevails. It is Manusmriti, which is particularly supportive of caste system but where it conflicts with Vedas and Upanishads, the latter would prevail. Though Bhagvadgita (Gita) is not regarded as a part of shruti, Gita is highly regarded as sacred and is very much a part of classical Hinduism. As we shall just see even the Gita is against caste system based on birth, and not supportive to it. Thus, to the extent that dharmashastras conflict with shruti and the Gita, the latter prevails. Apasthambha dharmasutra may have supported untouchability, but it seems to be read more by those who like to attack Hinduism with it than by its followers! It is hardly regarded as canon, even if any Hindu has heard of it. Vedanta philosophy declares that there is divinity in every lecture. Rig Veda emphasizes equality of all human beings. It goes to the extent of saying, which sounds quite modern: ‘No one is superior, none inferior. All are brothers marching forward to prosperity’

M V Nadkarni

(via sitaronse)

Jul
21
2012