During an history lecture at University a feminist lecturer started a feminist propaganda.

The only thing I thought at that time was: Oh my God, more complaining about rights of women. A colleague of mine instead stepped-in saying something and finishing her discourse with one of the typical saying about men: All men are the same. A common saying usually used to implicate that men see women only in a sexual way and thus as objects. I turned up towards one colleague and I said: With what kind of people does she go around?. A few of our colleagues around us and I even didnt know them laughed. Today one of the exponent of male sex (you) declared: A man will always be a man, meaning that a man would always appreciate the image of a naked woman. I guess, because of sexual reason, otherwise I dare you to hang one of those posters into your nephews room. Because an image is not just an image. Thus I guess I should apologize with that colleague and blame people who laugh at this kind of joke next time.

It came up to my mind the video I linked you, as well as an interesting essay dated 1792: A Vindication of the Rights of Woman written by Mary Wollstonecraft. I remembered some stuff she said about women at that time, about the fact that they had a less education compared to men, and about the fact that society wanted to keep them weak and that their only aim they should have was to be beautiful to get married:
Women are told from their infancy, and taught by the example of their mothers, that a little knowledge of human weakness, justly termed cunning, softness of temper, outward obedience, and a scrupulous attention to a puerile kind of propriety, will obtain for them the protection of man; and should they be beautiful, every thing else is needless, for, at least, twenty years of their lives.

In the essay she talks a lot about the role of education, the importance that it had to create the society itself. Today most of the people agree upon the fact that communications media are important components of our society, since they actually influence peoples conscience, as well as education. Thus I guess I could try to make a comparison between what was written 2 century ago and how we describe ourselves today. M. Wollstoncraft wrote:
the instruction which women have received has only tended, with the constitution of civil society, to render them insignificant objects of desire; mere propagators of fools! if it can be proved, that in aiming to accomplish them, without cultivating their understandings, they are taken out of their sphere of duties, and made ridiculous and useless when the short lived bloom of beauty is over(1) , I presume that RATIONAL men will excuse me for endeavouring to persuade them to become more masculine and respectable.

Since then things changed. Woman receive the same education as men. But what does the society want from them? Let me quote Lorella Zanardos words:
Strangely enough, most calendar girls are no different from the diligent, scholarly, ambitious and determined girls mentioned in school statistics. Most of them were good pupils adored by their teachers. Sara Tommasi, paperetta (=little chick) schedina (cheerleader themed showgirl role) and Celebrity Island reality show participant declared that after 4 yeard of studying at the Bocconi University - actually the best University of Economics in Italy - I became manager in a large company. Today I am the product, a product I sell in the show business market.

And more:

As we mentioned previously, emancipated women nowadays have to present themselves in public always as desiderable objects , even in a stricktly professional contest, even when the women on the screen are adults who might actually have something to say.

As for the last words quoted from M. Wollstonecraft about the fact that women should have been more masculine I guess, even going to that direction, something went wrong:
Cristina, the latest star of Big Brother is a daughter of feminism, a feminism she reinterprets in her own once, everything had fought for. Today, using methods a feminist would never have used, women has become something else. A woman of many contradictions. She represents all the symbols of femininity and yet has adapted them to the market. But her personality is not submissive, because if you want to be successful nowadays, you have to male attributes, balls.

What about the image we have of women today? Here you are Mary Wollstonecrafts complainings:
they are still reckoned a frivolous sex, and ridiculed or pitied by the writers who endeavour by satire or instruction to improve them. It is acknowledged that they spend many of the first years of their lives in acquiring a smattering of accomplishments: meanwhile, strength of body and mind are sacrificed to libertine notions of beauty, to the desire of establishing themselves, the only way women can rise in the world--by marriage. And this desire making mere animals of them, when they marry, they act as such children may be expected to act: they dress; they paint, and nickname God's creatures. Surely these weak beings are only fit for the seraglio! Can they govern a family, or take care of the poor babes whom they bring into the world?

The frivolous sex, that once had at least the role of mother in those representation, has become even more frivolous:
At primary school, my teacher taught me to draw grechine (pretty little borders) to separate one piece of work from another on the same page. There were decorative figures that would frame my work. Television teems with women acting as decorative frames, some of these have erotic attitude, other are just pretty decorations, young fresh faces who are there during a commercial break, or serve as furniture, exactly like pretty little borders. Who said that to go on TV you have to have skills, I mean you dont have to know how how to dance, sing They are pretty!

I think this should be enough to make you understand that an image is not just an image. You want to be part of this system? Then continue imposing those images to other people, youll do a good job. My sister in law knows me better than the other one, thats why she didnt say nothing. This line doesnt have any sense. And this time is not I dont understand you: its you who dont even realize what you are doing. Playing with symbols and stereotypes, requires a thorough knowlwdge of the rules of the game or you might get burt. Think about it. And Mary Wollstonecraft have a question for you:
And will moralists pretend to assert, that this is the condition in which one half of the human race should be encouraged to remain with listless inactivity and stupid acquiescence? Kind instructors! what were we created for?

As for me, what I find most detestable is the fact that you state to be an observant religious and then you take this kind of stuff with such superficiality: while muslim women cannot even go to the beach because the only thing they are allowed to show foot and hands, male muslim publish those kind of stuff without even thinking that they will be seen also by his famale muslim friends.