Feminism

It's pretty easy to understand why feminism has been in the news a lot lately. There's the birth control debate (with Limbaugh throwing in his two cents, plus some), there's the abortion debate (though I can understand how some would not consider this one a feminist issue, despite my being largely pro-choice), then there's the rampant sexism, although more subtle than in years past. Things like women being allowed in the military, but having lower standards for them. To give an example, when I was in the Air Force, men were expected to run two miles in eighteen minutes or less... women had twenty-one minutes, I think. I also remember many women finding that patronizing and offensive. Those women realized that equality also meant equal standards and expectations.

Obviously, there are some things one sex can do that the other can't - men can't give birth, obviously. Men also tend to have an easier time building muscle. Women, I've heard, have a higher pain threshold (likely because they're the ones who give birth). But in the end, one sex cannot exist without the other. That's kind of the ultimate equality - it takes both to create life. Perhaps men were equipped with the extra muscle so protect and provide while the woman is slowed down from being pregnant. That's not to say that women should just be "barefoot and pregnant," but is instead a sign of equality through balance - one fills a role when the other cannot.

One of the big questions of today is what equality means. To some, it's pretty self-explanatory - equal standards, equal rights, not taking gender into consideration where it isn't relevant. However, today some men consider women's rights to be about standing up for the "little guy" in a manner of speaking. Sounds okay at first, but this is where that patronizing attitude comes in. Not to be insulting to disabled people, but this makes a lot of women feel like they're competing in the Special Olympics - they don't want to be a "special case."

Continuing on this line of thought, there are the women who don't want to be equal, but to be superior. They want to punish men. And some men are inclined toward this line of thought, also. This is where we start seeing biased legal rulings (ie, divorce, child custody, domestic abuse, etc), less than fair public opinion in disputes between men and women, and the open acceptance of misandristic (man-hating) speech while treating misogynistic speech as a taboo equal to or worse than racism.

One thing I find kind of darkly amusing however is how much some of the more radical feminists have in common with their male-chauvinist rivals - they both want to dictate what a woman can or cannot do with her body. Consider their objections to things like porn or the Hooters restaurants. The women who work at these places, or choose to model nude, or choose to be in porn... well, it's their choice. Same as men who choose to do similar. Some enjoy it. And it is their body to do with as they please, in my opinion. If they want to show it off, it's their choice to do so.

Which brings us to this:

Exiled Iranian women pose nude.

Well, I'd say they are certainly in a position to appreciate feminism in its truest sense. In Iran, they may well be risking their lives in doing this. But, I have to admit that I did see some irony in the fact that the photos are still censored here. They may not be arrested for posing nude for photographs in the west, but they still aren't afforded the same rights as men, either - they would be arrested for being topless in public, but men are not. Do people see women's breasts as being objects of sexuality? Yes... as a guy, I will readily admit to being turned on by the beauty of a topless woman. However, women also get turned on by attractive shirtless men, don't they? Don't bother lying about it, I see it regularly. Just that it's more common, so it's not as big of a deal. Why shouldn't this be true for women also?

Going back now to the subject of birth control, it seems that some in power are catching onto my question of why we're making such a big deal of birth control, and its coverage on insurance, but not erectile dysfunction drugs: Ohio lawmaker wants men to get a second opinion from a psychological professional before getting ED drugs.

The bill is rhetorical, certainly. But the point of course is valid. Why should women have to go through that, and the coverage of birth control pills be questioned when that of ED drugs is not? This debate has brought out the knuckle-dragging mentality a lot of people still have.