In the meantime, there is the one or the other mace, which is liked to swing and even come off and meet, like the blind chicken the grain. The fate of this is, however, that every discussion is immediately stopped, as soon as it is taken into the hand, without thinking about whether it is appropriate or not. One of them is the sexism-mace. It may seem to them that those who swing them, somewhere, have somehow caught up with this concept, and then use it on every suitable, perhaps also inappropriate, occasion.
According to Duden (1990), sexism is an „attitude, basic attitude, which consists in discriminating a man solely on the basis of his gender; Particularly discriminatory behavior against women. „
Sexism as an attitude or basic attitude is something that guides my actions and thinking. This makes me penalize people, and only because of their gender. In the meantime, this is not only related to women, but also to all other sexual „minorities“, which seems a bit grotesque, as there are more women than other sexes in the world. Examples of this discriminatory basic attitude can be found if you open your eyes a bit. I spontaneously think of the girls, who are posing pretty and neat, in a tight outfit next to motorcyclists with umbrella. Here people are used as surface-mounted, as pure bodies. It is therefore perfectly understandable to call this sexist.
But is any representation of the naked or sparse clothed body automatically sexist? And above all, where is the self-determination of woman. As the Duden writes, it is about an attitude, a basic attitude. The fatal thing is, I cannot directly see them, but can only recognize them indirectly. Women and motorcycles represent such an attitude where the female body is used as an ornament. It is different with the naked facts in art. But even files are already blocked on appropriate social platforms, because a female nipple is to be seen. In this way, I assume to Klimt, Schiele, and to any other painter, but also to photographers, performing artists that they are sexists.
But when is the representation of the naked female body sexist and when not? Can I draw a general policy. A woman who is riding on a bonnet shows a different attitude than one expressed in an action directed against animal suffering. In such an action, which was apostrophized as a nude action, activists and activists were lying on a white sheet, clothed with skin-colored underwear. However, an activist did not have a bra, so she covered her breasts, or rather her nipples, with her hands.
Now she fell asleep at the action and a hand slipped, so that a nipple became visible. Immediately the policeman was there and asked her to cover them again. Quite apart from the fact that I do not want to understand why it is legitimate to show naked male nipples in the public, but female does not. (Does not this contradict the principle of equality?) Thus, the sexism-mace is completely out of place. Naked is not equal naked. Maybe it would be opportune to think a bit before you unpack maces.
The representation of the naked human body is not in itself sexist, but becomes in the context and on the measure of self-determinateness. A message that is dear to your heart, with the help of your body, self-determined and independent, does not undermine the dignity, but it underscores it.