in the wake of this whole chick-fil-a debacle, the following blog post by Wayne Self has become particularly popular and widely circulated amongst supporters of gay marriage: http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288.
i have a few problems with this post - the main one being that he claims the whole thing has nothing to do with First Amendment rights...
"Let’s also agree that this isn’t about curtailing anyone’s rights under
First Amendment. The Constitution is a legal document. This is not a
legal argument. No one is arguing that Chik-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy should
be put in prison, or silenced, or censored by the government. This has
nothing to do with government censorship or government abridgment of
Freedom of Speech." (paragraph 5)
... which is simply not true. when the mayors of Boston, Chicago and San Francisco started calling for a ban on Chick-Fil-A franchises in their cities, they made this about First Amendment rights. it didn't have to be, but sadly, it is: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/jon-stewart-chick-fil-a-video_n_1736996.html (citing your sources is just more fun when it comes from the Daily Show).
but the part of Self's post i want to focus on in particular is this statement:
"This isn’t about mutual tolerance because there’s nothing mutual about
it. If we agree to disagree on this issue, you walk away a full member
of this society and I don’t. There is no “live and let live” on this
issue because Dan Cathy is spending millions to very specifically NOT
let me live. I’m not trying to do that to him." (point #2)
the problem i have is not with the statement itself, because i actually think that he has a valid point here. his point (if i understand it correctly) is that, when human rights are on the line, we cannot and should not merely "agree to disagree". to do so would be a gross injustice to those in society whose rights are being denied them. i absolutely agree with this.
what makes me frustrated is the fact that this is the exact point Pro-Life activists have been trying to get across for years. that there is no "live and let live" on the abortion issue because there are individuals and corporations (not to mention government-sponsored programs) that are spending millions to very specifically NOT allow children to live. that the statement, "if you don't like abortion, don't get one" isn't going to cut it. why? for the same reason that Mr.Self says he cannot, in good conscience, simply agree to disagree on the gay marriage issue: because in both his case and the case of Pro-Life activists, to do so would be to turn a blind eye to a portion of society that we perceive as being oppressed and denied basic rights.
it depresses me that it took the gay marriage issue for this concept to suddenly make sense to so many people, when for years it has been the cry of those fighting to protect the unborn. the Pro-Life opposition has instead opted to assume that there's no way the Pro-Life movement could actually have anything to do with protecting children, which would actually be kind of understandable, choosing rather to assume (or to pretend) that it has everything to do with suppressing women's rights for no apparent reason.
there are anti-gay marriage activists who are just as bad. those who choose to assume that supporters of gay marriage couldn't possibly think they are actually promoting equal rights, which would actually be kind of understandable, but rather choose to assume (or pretend) that they're all God-hating perverts who are hell-bent on living in sin for no apparent reason are just as guilty.
i'm going to propose something ridiculous. what if, just what IF... we all chose to assume the best of one another? if you're Pro-Choice, can you at least agree that it's a lot more likely that your Pro-Life neighbors are genuinely interested in promoting the rights of the unborn, not in trying to stomp on the rights of women? if you're against gay marriage, can you at least agree that it's a lot more likely that your pro-gay marriage neighbors are genuinely interested in promoting the rights of homosexuals, not in trying to hate on God?
regardless of where you stand on either issue, can we all agree that we're using the same argument to promote our cause, because ultimately, we are all trying do the same thing: to stand up for those who need us?
*disclaimer: i should hope this would be obvious, but i am in no way claiming that all pro-abortion activists or all anti-gay marriage activists assume the worst of their opposition in the way i described above. there are plenty of you out there who are very respectful in the way you disagree with one another, and i applaud you for that.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
HHS mandate is a blow to feminism
i'm confused. this whole birth control mandate has liberals screaming about women's rights and how women have fought so hard for the "right" to birth control and so forth and so on and on and on and on....
what confuses me is this: if these women are so concerned with equality and advancing women's rights, why are they hurling themselves back into the dark ages by running to big brother to pay for the birth control they can't afford, instead of to oh, i dunno, the men they're having sex with? God forbid the men be asked to pay for anything! God forbid we inconvenience our sexual partners. if you really care about empowering women, you should be up in arms over the notion that a man should be able to use a woman for sex without taking any responsibility whatsoever for the birth control they are both utilizing.
which brings me to the next thing that confuses me. certain women are making the case that birth control is too expensive to pay for themselves. foregoing for a moment the argument that, as with everything else in life, if you can't afford it, you either find a way to make more money or go without it instead of simply passing the buck to someone who has nothing to do with it (like your employer)... foregoing that for a moment, if your birth control is too expensive, it's unlikely that you're using condoms (which are cheap), and it's a fact that you're not using the "pull-out" method (which is free), both of which would require some exertion/sacrifice on the part of the man. so not only is the woman the only one who is actually exerting herself in any way in the whole "safe sex" process (going to the doctor for the prescription, dropping it off at the pharmacy, picking it up from the pharmacy, taking the medication on a regular basis, and then repeating the whole process throughout the year) - not only are these women taking all of the actual effort upon themselves, they're also the only ones paying anything. and they're doing this voluntarily!
as far as i can tell, these women, understandably, are sick of being the only ones taking any preventative measures in their sex lives, but instead of demanding that the equally responsible party (i.e., the men) step up and do their fair share, instead these women are petitioning the government to make their bosses shoulder that burden - two equally non-responsible parties who have no business getting involved in anyone else's sex life. it blows my mind.
ladies, next time you wanna complain that conservatives are the ones trying to hold you back and keep you in the dark ages, ask yourself why you apparently want men to take advantage of you both physically and financially. you're not the prostitutes, as Rush Limbagh might suggest, your men are. no one's paying you for sex. you're the ones who are essentially paying them by fronting the cost of their half of the birth control as well as your own half.
trying to pass the bill to your employer because you're too insecure to pass it to the men is an affront to the feminist movement in the worst way.
what confuses me is this: if these women are so concerned with equality and advancing women's rights, why are they hurling themselves back into the dark ages by running to big brother to pay for the birth control they can't afford, instead of to oh, i dunno, the men they're having sex with? God forbid the men be asked to pay for anything! God forbid we inconvenience our sexual partners. if you really care about empowering women, you should be up in arms over the notion that a man should be able to use a woman for sex without taking any responsibility whatsoever for the birth control they are both utilizing.
which brings me to the next thing that confuses me. certain women are making the case that birth control is too expensive to pay for themselves. foregoing for a moment the argument that, as with everything else in life, if you can't afford it, you either find a way to make more money or go without it instead of simply passing the buck to someone who has nothing to do with it (like your employer)... foregoing that for a moment, if your birth control is too expensive, it's unlikely that you're using condoms (which are cheap), and it's a fact that you're not using the "pull-out" method (which is free), both of which would require some exertion/sacrifice on the part of the man. so not only is the woman the only one who is actually exerting herself in any way in the whole "safe sex" process (going to the doctor for the prescription, dropping it off at the pharmacy, picking it up from the pharmacy, taking the medication on a regular basis, and then repeating the whole process throughout the year) - not only are these women taking all of the actual effort upon themselves, they're also the only ones paying anything. and they're doing this voluntarily!
as far as i can tell, these women, understandably, are sick of being the only ones taking any preventative measures in their sex lives, but instead of demanding that the equally responsible party (i.e., the men) step up and do their fair share, instead these women are petitioning the government to make their bosses shoulder that burden - two equally non-responsible parties who have no business getting involved in anyone else's sex life. it blows my mind.
ladies, next time you wanna complain that conservatives are the ones trying to hold you back and keep you in the dark ages, ask yourself why you apparently want men to take advantage of you both physically and financially. you're not the prostitutes, as Rush Limbagh might suggest, your men are. no one's paying you for sex. you're the ones who are essentially paying them by fronting the cost of their half of the birth control as well as your own half.
trying to pass the bill to your employer because you're too insecure to pass it to the men is an affront to the feminist movement in the worst way.
the government's money, aka your money
i'm starting to think that there is a significant number of Americans who literally do not realize that the federal government's ONLY source of revenue (that's money, folks) is TAXES. who pays taxes? WE do. so before you get all excited the next time the government tells you it's going to start paying for something, remind yourself who's really paying for it: you and i.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)