When people go so far as to come up with words like the N-word [have to get this past the corporate server] to describe people who are dark skinned. That suggests complete moral bankruptcy on the part of the person ascribing to such terminology. Likewise, the use of the word "Infidel" demonstrates a total disregard for other human beings.
But neither of these words was coined deliberately for that purpose. The N-word is simply a dialect pronunciation of "negro," which itself is simply an Americanized pronunciation of Spanish
negro, a completely unremarkable adjective meaning "black"; in Spanish an adjective with an article is a stand-in for a person, so
el negro means "the black person." "Infidel" originally meant literally "a person without (our) faith," a handy standardized shorthand replacing the awkward "non-Christian," "non-Muslim," "non-Jewish," etc. depending on the perspective of the speaker/writer. Both of these words acquired their derogatory connotations later.
Derogatoriness is rather ephemeral and it's not always easy to know which words offend in any era. Today many descendants of the pre-colonial inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere (and you can certainly see why we all want a shorter way to say that!) prefer to be called "Native Americans" because, after all, Indians are from India. But many others take the opposite position since, as I've been told patiently, I am a "native American" because I was born in Chicago. In Canada the new term is "First Nations," but it hasn't caught on down here yet.
From what I can see, even the "liberation" of women in the west is a form of exploitation.
It was a first step, and like many first steps in breaking from the strictures of the past, especially in America, it turned into a huge pendulum swing. Without any good academic underpinnings, the feminist movement started with two vectors: 1) Blind reversal of all past feminine standards; 2) Adoption of stereotypical masculine behavior--and all of this with very little regard for real differences in biology.
You know I completely agree with that. I see the image of women in western society, the endemic bulimia, anorexia, body image issues, botox, tanning beds, bikini culture and I can see how liberation is just another word for self delusion.
Abusing the freedom to show off their bodies after being gloved, veiled and corseted is just a textbook example of the pendulum swing. Using that freedom to exploit their own sexuality to gain fame, fortune or simply attention is a textbook example of ignoring real biological differences.
Maybe we should do an experiment. Put a burka clad woman in a bikini and a bikini wearing woman in a burqa and see who feels less oppressed after the enforced change.
I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm certain there is no society on earth where women are legally required to wear bikinis in public.
The whole point of haute couture is that the street isn't full of copies - either by choice or compulsion.
Only the wealthy can afford it. Once the knock-offs hit the market it's no longer
haute and the wealthy move on to the next iteration.
And here I was thinking that the whole point of it was freedom of expression.
You obviously don't understand the concept of "fashion." There is no freedom in it; it's all about conformity. Look up the definition of the word "fashion" and you'll find such constraints as "prevailing custom" and "conventional usage." People who don't follow fashion are the "non-conformists" and they're the ones practicing freedom of expression.