Random thoughts

In 1754, Dorothea Erxleben, from Quedlinburg (Prussia) got her doctorate degree from the University in Halle (Prussia, too).
Why is that worthy of a journal entry? It's the 250th anniversary of that event. But the most important thing: Dorothea Erxleben was the first woman to get a doctorate degree in the German world. Also, it was practically illegal for her to graduate, and for her professors to let her. Only in 1908 did Prussia pass a law that allowed women to go to university at all!
But apparently, the University in Halle did not agree with the ideas of the Prussian state. Good for Dorothea. But still she must have been a rather stubborn person to go through this. I'm sure it was hard for her. Not only to get into university in the first place, but also to study there. Being the first woman ever to be there.
How may the men have reacted to her? I'm sure some made fun of her, telling her she would never be able to learn enough. Some might have pitied her. Something like "Poor thing, can't find a husband..."
Whatever the students thought, the professors must have supported her. Otherwise she would not have been able to study.
I wonder what would have happened if she hadn't. Prussia took about 150 years to create a law that allowed what she had done. If Dorothea had never existed, maybe women would have gotten the right to study only after WWII or so, through the influence of other countries. Prussian law made up the most part of the law of the German state founded in 1871, so that idea is not taht unlikely as it may seem.
Yes, I'm glad that this strong-willed woman existed. I am glad that the University in Halle was so modern as to allow her into their sacred walls.
But most of all, I'm glad that women today can study whatever they want.

I try to learn new words in English every day. MOst of the time, I forget them again. Even in school I only remembered the words I needed. That's why my teachers hardly ever asked me to do vocabulary tests at the blackboard - they knew I wouldn't be able to. That might sound strange, but I alsways was on good terms with my teachers, we got along much better then I did with my classmates.
Anyway, yesterday, I came across a word that got me thinking. As the subject told you already, the word is "to objectify" (All my English teachers will love me for putting the 'to' there, I never did in school...)
Interestingly, my dictionary doesn't have the word. Maybe it is a rather new word, or maybe the writers of the dictionary didn't think it was important. I found the word in a comic strip. (Hey, as long as I learn something from it, who cares what it is?)
In the comic the question was whether a man would objectify a beautiful woman, but what I was thinking about yesterday was the exact opposite. Partly that was due to listening to 'It's raining men'. (Weather Girls - you remember, a long long time ago?) Mom and I really like the song, but my Dad was not amused. There are tons of songs in the charts about sexy women and male fantasies, and everybody accepts that. But as soon as a woman does the same thing, she's considered a slut. (Pardon the language)
I'm not a very emancipated woman. I don't really care whether the road signs that mark bike routes show a man's or a woman's bike. You might not believe it, but German feminists actually discussed about something like that! I absolutely hate the notion of putting a female ending to every word describin a position or a group of people. That's not possible in English, unfortunately, it is in German. That means to be political correct, you'd have to address male and female people explicitly. As in 'Dear male and female citizens, I am happy to introduce the male and female members of our parliament...'
Just an example, but you can easily see how stupid this is.
The meanest hting feminists could ever do to women in Germany was the so called 'women proportion'. It basically means that if you have a certain number of employees in your company, there has to be at least one woman in the team. No matter what business you're in. The last sentence in job ads used to be 'Women and handicapped people with the same qualification will be preferred.' I AM NOT HANDICAPPED! I'm a woman. And I don't want to ask myself if I got the job only because of my sex! Even though they now say the same thing in two sentences so there is no grammatical connection between women and handicapped anymore, I still consider the whole proportion thing an insult. As if we wouldn't be good enough to get a job on our own!
But back to the objectifying part:
Why is it acceptable for men to objectify women, but they run mad when women do the same? Maybe it is because women have been trained for centuries to appeal to a man by the way they look. Men are rather easy to influence if you have long legs in short skirts and wear a tight top. Men, on the other hand, are not used to look very attractive to women. Especially when they are in a relationship, they tend not to care about how they look. Now, seeing a group of women giving marks to the men that pass them must be pretty threatening to the average guy.
I have made the experience that men who are clean, well dressed and know how to behave are either married or gay. Gay is more likely, though. Such a pity, really.
To get to the point, the only thing I like in emancipation today (I'm not talking about feminists like the Pankhurst women, fighting for women's votes and the right to be educated.) is that we can act just like the guys, judging them from their appearance. Don't worry, boys, you'll get used to it. We did, too.
Unfortunately, our genetic dispositions are different. Women cannot be content with a man who just looks good. Men are different. As my brother once said: 'I don't need to talk with her...' So while objectifying men can be a nice sport, it will not do for life. Instead of spending hours in the sports studio, I'd advice any man who reads this to also read a book from time to time. A beautiful body is one thing, but women are demanding - it's not enough.