Maybe it's commentry on the irresponsibility of post-feminism
detailing the failure of feminist campaigns since the 19th century to fully bring about a renewal in the perception of women in society and thus the flowering of post-feminism as premature as can be seen by the level of acceptance of a music video which consists entirely of the portrayal of women as sexual obje-OH, BOOBIES!
(Disclaimer, I haven't been in Britain for about a month, my English has sunken to a worryingly low level... my Hebrew, however, has improved substantially).
(, Wed 24 Sep 2008, 15:10, Reply)
Hebrew, eh?
Am I right to think that whereas Hebrew and Arabic writing goes right-to-left, the numbers are read left-to-right? Isn't that a bit of a headfuck - and inconvenient to boot?
Or is it the case that the names of numbers would be built along lines of "five and twenty and three hundred", thus allowing "325" to make perfect sense when read right-to-left?
Does that make any sense?
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 24 Sep 2008, 15:18,
Reply)
A little bit of both
In the modern system they just use maths like everyone else. The Arabs have weird numbers that they edited from the original hindu numbers (which are close to what we use) [if I'm correct]; the Hebrews just use the most common numbering form.
I don't know about Arabic, but in Hebrew numbers come in masculine and feminine, e.g.
para echad
par achat
shnayim parot
shtayim parim
One Cow
One Bull
Two Cows
Two Bulls
As you may also see in the case of Echad/Achat (one) the 1 comes after the noun, but in the case of all the other numbers it comes before (I hope I got the genders the right way round). It sort of makes sense, but really it's just a quirk of the language.
In Ancient Hebrew numbering they used the alphabet and assigned a value to each of the letters 1-10, 20-90, 100-400. Yes, it would make sense to have 100-900, but in the original Hebrew alphabet (Paleo-Hebrew) there weren't that many letters... there are in the new* Hebrew alphabet due to final letters (a bit like capital letters, but at the end of the word), and using the final letters for 500-900 saw some popularity in the Middle Ages, but has no use any more 'cos if you want to be all Hebrew you just go up to 400 and if you want to be all logical you just use the modern base 10 system. Though your 325 example is exactly right (until you get about 400 or into the thousands in which case it gets just slightly different). 12 is written Yohd-Beit יב this is 10+2 (right to left).
It's not too much of a mind-fuck, as it seems you don't actually read each character in the direction of the language, but rather see an image and digest each image after another in the direction of the language. Smehowat lkie tihs tnihg whit the jmulbed lterts. If you've ever read binary sandwiched in text I suppose you'd understand, as binary is often taught right to left (etc. 2^3 2^2 2^1 2^0).
*I say new, but... well, it's over 2000 years old.
New topic: I mentioned the different Hebrew alphabets, just 'cos I can I shall now tell you that there have been 4 main Hebrew alphabets (as far as most people are concerned):
Paleo-Hebrew
Aramaic Block Script
Rashi Script - Mediaeval, designed to differentiate Rashi's (a person) commentary in a printed book from everyone else's.
Cursive Script - influenced somewhat by Rashi script.
It seems that Cursive is starting to be used in print as well, on signs and packaging, etc. and that block-script may go the same way as paleo-hebrew and just die out or become only for official use such as in religion or how the Berlin signposts are all in the Gothic script.
As for other Hebrew alphabets, there's Samaritan - a spin-off of the Israelite/Jews/Hebrews/Whatever they're called this century who are just about to die out, but who have an awesome dialect of Hebrew and their own alphabet much like the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet.
I can't really tell you much, and the internets could tell you more, but this is just some info to see if interests you.
(, Wed 24 Sep 2008, 16:10, Reply)
aghhhh !
words ...
so many of 'em
(
awallafashagba Da da da da da Dah dah, Wed 24 Sep 2008, 16:23,
Reply)
doubtful - it's tits for the sake of tits
I'm not at the Solanas/Firestone end of the scale but I do get angry when women are objectified and the argument to support it is 'oh it's ok, we're being ironic - isn't sexism awful really'.
Don't even get me started on Nuts/Zoo/FHM.
(
the_log_knows ..to pay cheeses, to the leopards in your head, Wed 24 Sep 2008, 15:51,
Reply)
Don't worry
I know exactly what you mea-HOLY SHIT, BOOBIES!
But yeah, it's bloody annoying, no? Oh well, we can just get together and go burn their embassy or some such.
(, Wed 24 Sep 2008, 16:12, Reply)
In my opinion, and with no offense intended,
It is that kind of feminist clap-trap that has been the cause of the most damage to the feminist movement in modern times.
The simple fact is, men like to look at lovely ladies - not because we think its cool, or because we read about it in one of the crappy publications you mentioned, but because its natural to us - whether you like it or not.
Basically, trying to ostracise men for being men doesn't work and only serves, to some degree, to alienate us from the otherwise undoubtedly worthy causes of feminism.
(
mr.dogshit The world's premier anthropomorphic canine faeces, Wed 24 Sep 2008, 18:37,
Reply)