Who is blowing 80% of the women in Kosovo?

While I was walking my dog Momon to the city park in Pristina, and following him with rebellious submission and his footsteps bringing me down here, and down the top, I saw a woman in her 50s, with yellow hair tied to a belt by a three-year-old kid, or five, who held his dog as a bad owner.

In another case that happened two to three weeks ago, I saw a woman of residence share the September of “Zahir Pajazit” who expelled a Roma family standing on the stairs across from the bank TEB throwing water over his head.

With my own eyes, I have also seen dozens of other women who were violent in their children. Through their slaps, fists, kicks, insults, and shoutings even in front of other people, between the city, without the point of receiver.

And beside the prongial violence that is exercised mainly on young children's bodies, I have heard with my ears many snoring words, even women that slandered and attacked other women. The other men, too. But especially women. Which understood even heterosexuality, let alone homosexuality. That they tolerated no woman to fuck without social approval. They call them ikkurva. That they stop gossiping based on sexism and double standards, which, with the lack of anonymity in this country as much as the troth, are even able to severely detect cultural and social dynamics. And, to a degree, even economic.

In the public realm, meanwhile, I've seen corrupt women, or who were in service to corrupt parties, until they dipped egos at terrible leaders. I have also seen illiterate women in undeserved positions.

Of course, it is not just women who practice violence and who circulate oppressive values. But, And women.. “The action is separated from the asset! ” criticised pre-Previous feminists Judith Butler in her book Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. I mean, it's naive and absurd the idea of women placing a certain moral superiority in relation to men. No, it would mean Butler, the problem is to narrate and use language, to shape values from women and men together. You have sexism to make such a separation. Women on one side, men on the other.

True, over 80 percent of working - age women in our country are currently unemployed. However, most women who work, according to AK statistics, generally have jobs far better than most men. They mostly work in office in an expanded space market and have higher salaries. Along with men and relatives of rulers, they receive privileges within a trillite that produces nothing. A few women, let's say, participate in the hatching of the sewers, collecting the trash, in construction companies, as taxi drivers 1sts and taxis 4-shares, as bus control driver, and so on. The worst and most unconventional jobs, which, however, produce the effects seen with the naked eye, make men with even discriminatory salaries. The biggest involvement of women prejudges that it occurs in the food industry and the service sector. And imagine what major damage is done to our economy by this non-involvement?

This shows the orientation that makes sexism a job market through acceptable opportunities for women. On the one hand, we have extreme pressure on the poor and untrained class of women, but in the other, positive privileges and discrimination against educated middle - class or wealthy women.

Women themselves are not morally superior. It's sexism to say that. They alter extraordinary rape potential, except to perhaps smaller size than men, and practical in other social bodies. But as we see well from established sexism within a particular context, in this case the job market does not suffer at once, just as all men do not. No, in the case of women, the majority suffer and the benefits of minorities suffer in the case of men, and the majority benefit. And even this generalization is extremely problematic to rise.

I took an excuse for this scripture from Installation made by an American artist at the “NewBorn” monument. The portraits and words of 99 Kosovo women under the successful quality were placed there, thus raising a huge noise over meritocracy. Many and many women are missing, including Majlinda Kelmendi, who is the most successful Kosovo athlete in both genders. Hence, the apparent subjective criteria for their selection were criticised. Among the truly successful women were others whom a few knew, and thus were given the conclusion that “this work was done with the same. By recommendations. Just as it happened in wiretapping known as Pronto was among PDK politicians.

But, in my opinion, the main problem is not the presence of these women éanonymies. The big problem is the presence of well-known public figures and the last name successful in that advertising. Not to be a successful wife within a society of terrible social, economic, and gender inequality, which offers too limited opportunities, would not have to suggest the guilt of expulsion. What does it have to do with a woman being unsuccessful? The advertising in question made a naive, malicious division with the understanding that “on one side is 99 successful women”, while on the other “we have another 1 million to follow their example”. But what exactly example? Should all of these 1 million women, who make up half of the country's population, engage in activism often simply for the status of other women? Because if all the women in our society were active, then half the population would remain virtually unemployed.

Why should there be so few women in charge? And why should there not be any woman who does a stigmatized job with small wages? Suppose it were not for the only woman in Pristina to be a bus producer? Is that how another service was given the same disparaging spirit that leaves women uninvolved in other areas of the job market? In spaces beyond activism?

That's exactly what I think happens. Because success as a quality tries to set the example to follow. And if this example is followed, then only that gender inequality would increase. Because there is something called an economy that we cannot deny.

While women already are well-known public figures, we see them every day on different media platforms telling their stories. They have a voice. Yet, it does not represent nearly any other women who are more oppressed by not sharing the same economic fate. New and more powerful confessions are necessary. And even if they came from other spaces, they would break taboos. But it seems that the presence of such women would undermine the image and advertising of a privileged part of women.

Further, the number used is significant. No. This is a number that expresses restriction or closure, unlike the number "101," which, like that one "1001," in the case of "1001 nights," tried to show the endless number of famous Arabic stories. But, 99 attempts unconsciously to close the confession to successful women. That's it. No more. Whether the author intended it or not. The work is separated by the author/author. Just like sexism is separate from the author/author.