Transcending time, its accompanied progress in socio-economic circumstances across spaces, and the engagement in paradigm shifts by societies, the human condition remains a constant.
Surely, women have undertaken new roles far away from the kitchen - at the top floor of magnificent skyscrapers or in cabinet offices; being where the world's riches and power lie.
Still, no Hillary Clinton or Angela Merkel or Indra Nooyi can stand a chance in overcoming the forces of nature.
The sad truth remains: For as long as women have existed, they have fallen victim to the relentless menstrual cycle, and the excruciating pain of childbirth.
These issues are exclusive to the female kind, while men can at most only sincerely emphatize with the plight of women.
Ranks, riches and power and related variables aside, is there much reason to believe that being a woman is better than being a man?
As trivial as this issue seems, it is a real, pressing issue.
Quantitatively, it's worse than world hunger, poverty and HIV/AIDS: approximately half the world population are agonized by the monthly discharges alone, every month of their lives.
Given a choice of either side of nature in terms of sex, being a man is undeniably the more convenient (and rational choice).
We will never have the luxury of setting the terms of nature to abide by, so when this is made a variable, then we should pay attention to it more than anything else.
Talk about inequalities and injustices in income, literacy and treatment by society, but there still is some degree of control to counter these forces for a female if she so desires. But Lady Fortune waits for no women in delivering the cramps.
No comments:
Post a Comment