?

Hi! I'm looking to find a phrase by Rumi, the Persian poet, in its original Farsi. I speak some Farsi, but haven't practiced in years, and am reluctant to try the translation myself. I'm looking for the phrase "Unfold your own myth." Thanks!

Even in todays world, where women have proven they are just as capable of taking part in nearly any occupation men do, and where women can be just as independent and capable as any man, there still seems to persist this idea that weakness or subservience equates to feminine charm. Just one example may be found in the new movie, Transformers 3 (Michael Bay is not the best example of today's media, I know, but the most recent I can think of). There are only two women in the movie (who have active parts), one the defenseless, incapable, and weak girlfriend--who is stunningly beautiful/sexy, and the stronger government official--who is ugly, dressed like a man, cold, uncompromising, and loveless. The weaker woman is seen as "feminine" (and constantly needs to be saved, utterly incapable of doing anything other than scream), where as the stronger woman is "masculine."

So in today's world where people TEND to be judged and valued for their individual capabilities, why is "weak and defenseless" still seen as feminine charm? If a woman IS capable of defending herself, does she lose her femininity? Is it possible for a woman to be capable, strong, but also "feminine"?

A new law being passed in Florida stipulates that welfare recipients have to pass a drug test in order to receive assistance. There have been many individuals up in arms about this new law, saying its unconstitutional and/or unfair. (Personally, I think it makes perfect sense, at it is 1) tax-payer money that is potentially being used to purchase drugs and 2) in the best interest of the child to ensure they are in a drug free environment).

There has long been a debate about whether government assistance is a right or a privilege. What do you think, and why? Do you think there is anything wrong with making welfare recipients pass a drug test?

**Likewise, Florida government employees will also have to pass a drug test, showing that this is not targeted at just the poor but all individuals who will be receiving government pay.

Often on GWS I've seen the statement that women have equal rights but "no responsibility." I've always wondered how this is so. Since the law is gender neutral in terms of responsibility (such as gender does not absolve you of paying mortgages, credit cards, having insurance, etc), I find it hard to believe that women "have no responsibility."

And if some women lack personal responsibility, can the anecdotal behavior of a few individuals really generalize back to the entire population of women (regardless of age, race, religion, nationality)?

Again and again on this forum you'll see questions or responses that revolve around the idea that because men are (on average) stronger than women, men and women can never be equal (equal rights). This concept seems to have a huge, gapping hole in it--it works off the premise that only those who are strong are deserving of certain rights. But as men are not all physically equal either, does this mean that only men who are physically strong deserve rights?

I mean, how does this concept work when we apply it globally. There is no denying that a Scottish man is (on average) larger and physically stronger than a Japanese man (for example). So does that mean Scottish men are more deserving of rights? Or that a Japanese man and a Scottish man will never be equal? Or that a computer "geek" is not equal to or deserving of equal rights to a body builder?

If not, then why does this idea that "men are stronger than women so they can never be equal" persist?

The Ultra-Orthodox Hasidic newspaper Der Tzitung, published in Brooklyn, recently photoshopped Hilary Clinton, as well at the only other woman who could be seen in the room--Audrey Tomason, the national director of counterterrorism--out of the picture of the White House Situation Room. Their reasoning is that "In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status... Because of laws of modesty, we are not allowed to publish pictures of women."

For one, how is photoshopping women out of political photos NOT relegating them to a lower status? In other words, how far can the idea of "modesty" protect sexist behaviors/mentalities? Can this sort of behavior be justified, especially given the location of such a paper (New York City, USA)?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110509/...

Pretty soon there will be a birth control shot out there for men! It even seems to have less side-effects that the female birth control pill (which is a great plus, as some women can't even take the pill due to said side-effects). Gentlemen, would you take this pill when its available? Ladies, how do you feel about this?

Personally, I think its a wonderful way to give men more control and options of birth control. But do you think this will increase the possibility of STDs, as some men might wear condoms less if they're less worried about pregnancy?

http://www.womensforum.com/index.php?option=com_co...

I'm a avid Crossfitter, and I run on my off days for extra cardio. However, lately some of my old military injuries are acting up, including a pain in my left knee and stress fractures in my left foot. I'd like to keep up the cardio but I'm afraid of an injury that will put me out of the gym. We do crew style rowing, and I know it works well for burning calories, but am I really going to get as good of a workout as running? Or should I just suck it up and keep running instead of rowing.

I'm looking for an Akita Inu to the original Japanese standard, not the American Akita, which is so popular in the US. For the most part, it seems Japanese Akita Inu breeders are international, and its a bit hard to get a puppy from Germany, for example.

Does anyone know of any breeders or have had experience with such breeders in the US? Thank you :)

Every now and again I see this idea that in modern society women are no longer "acting like women" or men "acting like men." It got me thinking--in TODAY'S society, what do you think is "acting like a man/woman"? Do you think we even still have such a concept and do you agree or disagree with it?

And if, as a society, we no longer act as "men" and "women," does that make our roles androgynous--do you feel this is a good thing or bad?

Over and over again some posters equate women who want equality or to have a career and identity outside the home as "bitter" or involved in a "gender war," (suggesting she is aggressive or combative). Likewise, there seems to be a negative stigma on trying to prove one is equal (though why there is a negative stigma on wanting to compete and better oneself is beyond me), Why do (some) people believe that if a woman wants financial/personal independence, gender equality, and to be seen as an individual, she must also be bitter, miserable, or in some way unhappy?

Do you think this is a shaming tactic or do you think those who make such claims ACTUALLY believe that women outside the home and/or in the professional field must ALL be bitter/unhappy/longing for olden times?

"Tens of thousands of the nation's war widows find it perplexing and downright disrespectful to their late military husbands: In order to fully collect on insurance their husbands bought for them when alive, they must marry another man.

And to qualify, the widows must remarry when they are 57 or older. Those who remarry earlier miss out, as do widows who never remarry."

Does this seem incredibly messed up to anyone else? When in the military, we were forced to have insurance (for good reason) and forced to keep at at least $100,000 while on deployment (which meant we had to pay the premium each month). Our family is suppose to receive that insurance money should we die during service time. So now, in order for widows to receive that insurance money after their husbands' death, they have to REMARRY? Does this seem incredibly archaic to anyone? Almost like something of a dowery?

"I've never even wanted to date, much less remarry," said Nichole Haycock, a mother of three teenagers in Lawton, Okla., whose 38-year-old military husband died in 2002. "I already married the love of my life. Why would you bring that as a factor?"

Why, in all that is unholy, is the government requiring women to marry to receive insurance money that their husbands already paid for. And in this day in age, where women have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, does this provision also stand for widowers?

Does anyone else think this is crazy, or is it just me? Tell me what you think

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110209/ap_on_re_us/us...

"Tens of thousands of the nation's war widows find it perplexing and downright disrespectful to their late military husbands: In order to fully collect on insurance their husbands bought for them when alive, they must marry another man.

And to qualify, the widows must remarry when they are 57 or older. Those who remarry earlier miss out, as do widows who never remarry."

Does this seem incredibly messed up to anyone else? When in the military, we were forced to have insurance (for good reason) and forced to keep at at least $100,000 while on deployment (which meant we had to pay the premium each month). Our family is suppose to receive that insurance money should we die during service time. So now, in order for widows to receive that insurance money after their husbands' death, they have to REMARRY? Does this seem incredibly archaic to anyone? Almost like something of a dowery?

"I've never even wanted to date, much less remarry," said Nichole Haycock, a mother of three teenagers in Lawton, Okla., whose 38-year-old military husband died in 2002. "I already married the love of my life. Why would you bring that as a factor?"

Why, in all that is unholy, is the government requiring women to marry to receive insurance money that their husbands already paid for. And in this day in age, where women have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, does this provision also stand for widowers?

Does anyone else think this is crazy, or is it just me? Tell me what you think

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110209/ap_on_re_us/us...

Inspired by this question : http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtYWa...

The poster suggests that women who have had sex are "used, worthless left overs," yet is a self-professed "pimp" (i.e. highly sexually active with multiple partners). This hasn't been the first time I've seen this kind of statement, however. Such men as this poster state that they want a woman with high morals in regards to sex, either a virgin or practically a virgin and yet don't hold themselves to the same standard.

So why do SOME men (as this) believe he is entitled to a woman of high morals when he is not such a man himself? Do you think male and female sexuality is so drastically different that men can have many multiple partners and still be considered "decent" or "moral" yet women can only have a few?

Do you think one's sexuality and/or sexual past should be tied to one's worth at all (i.e. a person who has a lot of sex is "less" or "worthless" where as one who refrains or abstains is "moral" or "virtuous"?)

My Alaskan Malamute just turned 14 months, and ever since she was 8 weeks old, every day without fail she was brought to the dog park for socialization. She is use to being around other dogs. Her role in the "pecking order" of the house is very firm, and she does not challenge me for alpha role very often (if at all. To the point that she even waits behind me as I go up and down the stairs). All in all, as a dog in the house and around people, she's VERY well behaved for her breed and age.

However, just recently, after bringing her to the dog park for about a year now, she suddenly attacks other dogs. She might be there for an hour without an outburst, or have one in the first five minutes. She's fine if we meet dogs on walks, or even with some dogs coming in the house. It's like she plays, plays, plays, ATTACK.

I don't understand why a dog who so loved the park and got along with ALL dogs has turned into such a b*tch (literally and fugitively). Is there anything that can be done or is it "just the breed"? I hate to not take her to the park anymore, because both my dogs love it, but I also can't have her attacking dogs either.

Any suggestions or advice?

Some claim that porn degrades women and I was wondering--if a woman doesn't feel degraded by doing porn (or stripping, exotic dancing, prostitution [where legal]), is she still being degraded by the craft? Do we get to chose what is degrading to us, or is something in and of itself degrading no matter how the individual feels?

Example: If a woman loves doing porn and takes joy in the craft (as some porn stars claim to do), is it still degrading? Why or why not? And if so, is there no concept of personal choice, or is degradation wholly objective?

**side note--why is porn degrading to women, yet not so to the men who also act in it? Why all the concern with women in porn, yet never mention men?***

I was a bit shocked and appalled by another question where posters stated they wouldn't go on a second date with a man if he expected her to pay her share of the date. I was even more shocked that some confessed to not bringing money on a date (how do you not have money when you go out of the house?). That aside, I suppose if a woman in traditional, then this might be expected. But of those who expect a man to pay, how traditional are you?

Ladies: If you expect a man to pay for dates (i.e. being traditional minded), do you also expect that the man should be the one to ask for dates? And that later on you will do the majority (if not all) of the cooking, cleaning, and child rearing? Do you feel the man is the head of the household and has the last say?

***I don't mean this as a jab, I'm just wondering if those who responded to the last question were traditional themselves, or if some women are picking and choosing what traditions suit them best.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AucAq...

If one wishes to take part in a piece of a tradition, much it be ALL of the tradition or not take part in it at all?

For example, some posters have responded that if a woman wants to be married, then she must take part in all the traditions of marriage--such as take the man's name--or not get married at all. But is it the nature of traditions to bend and change over time?

For example, if a man agrees to the tradition of marriage, isn't he defying that tradition by, say, asking for a prenup? Or if he wishes for a second income in the household, isn't that breaking tradition? Or if he wishes to be more active in the child rearing, isn't that going against tradition? If he's not of any religion, isn't that against the tradition? So if he wants any of these things, should he "not get married"?

Is it wrong to pick and chose a part of a tradition, or is it all or nothing?

As I'm getting married soon, I've wavered back and forth between taking my husband-to-be's last name. Personally, I've always liked my last name and feel its a part of my identity and history. I feel like I might be losing a part of myself by losing my last name. But I do want to be a part of his name as well. Yet at the same time, hyphenating seems long and cumbersome. My fiance could care less and, being the wonderful man that he is, says its up to me.

I'm not so much asking for advice (I'll figure it out eventually, I think), but more for other's opinions or thoughts on the matter. Would you take your husband's last name? Why or why not? Do you think it really matters one way or the other?

Ok, I'll jump on the topless bandwagon going on here on GWS--partly because I actually feel rather passionately about the subject.

What is wrong with a woman having the legal choice to go topless in environments where men are allowed to go topless (i.e. beach, pool, yard, etc.)? While in the US most women probably wouldn't, shouldn't we be offered the legal choice for those who might? Breasts, while sexualized, are NOT sexual organs. They are not genitalia. They are not dirty. So why is there this need to force women to cover up on a beach?

And for those women who MAY want to go topless, why is there such demonizing going on? I.e. The idea that a woman who wants to go topless at a pool/beach does it only for attention or because she wants to be looked at.

Is a woman's actions with her own body ONLY for men or can she act for her own reasons outside of male attention?