The fairer sex gets one whole day
Two interesting bits of news came to my attention on this fine "International Women's Day: "
First off, the United Nations Children's Fund has decided that the three most shining specimens of model humanity working to right the plights of suffering women–in this case by educating girls in Afghanistan–this country has to offer are the unlikely triad of Laura Bush, Condoleezza Rice and actor Michael Douglas.
OK, seriously–people of the UN, are you all high? Or have you just given up and resigned yourselves to the fact that you've become irrelevant in global politics and lost your international clout?
Yes, let's honor Condi with a "public service award," just setting aside the number of people across the globe the policies she's helped concoct and enact as part of the Bush cabinet flock of hawks have killed, maimed or traumatized. I realize she's the only woman with any executive authority in this country, but that's no valid reason to praise whatever work she does as good for women or the masses.
Similarly, Laura Bush's most salient claim to greatness is being married to the president, but that's apparently enough to earn her an international "humanitarian award." An award for self-sacrifice, maybe, but humanitarianism? That just doesn't seem part of the Bush way, for it requires not hating, ignoring or exploiting everyone different from yourselves.
And come on, Michael Douglas? If UNICEF is suffering from Bono fatigue and insists on giving someone relatively famous its "citizen award," how about Nicholas Kristof, for using his New York Times column to travel the third world and attempt to bring all sorts of horrors propagated against women, from sex slavery to genocide, to the attention of those with the power to intervene?
Still, I know for a fact there are lesser known but much more accomplished women in this country who devote every day of their lives to trying to help people hurt by the policies and actions of those who hold power over them, on any scale.
Even in my lowly hometown there's a woman who started up and directs PAVE, an organization to help victims of domestic violence and sexual assault by operating a shelter and doing all sorts of things. Yet, in typical American spirit, she tends to get passed over for community honors in favor of dead native soldiers killed in Iraq.
And in particularly ironic discord with all the "Women's Day" articles floating about today, I also came across this one, about some "men's rights group" (because lord knows they need to organize to protect the few they have and fight tooth and nail for more) arguing that since women have the right to end unwanted pregnancies, men should be granted the right to refuse to pay child support on children they co-conceived but don't want.
I think not. Generally, it takes two people acting stupidly to produce an unintended pregnancy. And regardless of which you support, all of a woman's options for dealing with it involve taking responsibility for the situation and incurring costs not merely financial. Men should just get to walk away with zero obligation, even mere inconvenience? Pshaw.
Though just a couple weeks ago I read another piece arguing for laws to make the man's approval mandatory before a woman gets an abortion, or even to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want if the man does, all in the name of "equal rights." You obviously can't have it both ways, gentlemen, so it seems you should just stay out of it.
None of you should probably be reproducing anyway.
First off, the United Nations Children's Fund has decided that the three most shining specimens of model humanity working to right the plights of suffering women–in this case by educating girls in Afghanistan–this country has to offer are the unlikely triad of Laura Bush, Condoleezza Rice and actor Michael Douglas.
OK, seriously–people of the UN, are you all high? Or have you just given up and resigned yourselves to the fact that you've become irrelevant in global politics and lost your international clout?
Yes, let's honor Condi with a "public service award," just setting aside the number of people across the globe the policies she's helped concoct and enact as part of the Bush cabinet flock of hawks have killed, maimed or traumatized. I realize she's the only woman with any executive authority in this country, but that's no valid reason to praise whatever work she does as good for women or the masses.
Similarly, Laura Bush's most salient claim to greatness is being married to the president, but that's apparently enough to earn her an international "humanitarian award." An award for self-sacrifice, maybe, but humanitarianism? That just doesn't seem part of the Bush way, for it requires not hating, ignoring or exploiting everyone different from yourselves.
And come on, Michael Douglas? If UNICEF is suffering from Bono fatigue and insists on giving someone relatively famous its "citizen award," how about Nicholas Kristof, for using his New York Times column to travel the third world and attempt to bring all sorts of horrors propagated against women, from sex slavery to genocide, to the attention of those with the power to intervene?
Still, I know for a fact there are lesser known but much more accomplished women in this country who devote every day of their lives to trying to help people hurt by the policies and actions of those who hold power over them, on any scale.
Even in my lowly hometown there's a woman who started up and directs PAVE, an organization to help victims of domestic violence and sexual assault by operating a shelter and doing all sorts of things. Yet, in typical American spirit, she tends to get passed over for community honors in favor of dead native soldiers killed in Iraq.
And in particularly ironic discord with all the "Women's Day" articles floating about today, I also came across this one, about some "men's rights group" (because lord knows they need to organize to protect the few they have and fight tooth and nail for more) arguing that since women have the right to end unwanted pregnancies, men should be granted the right to refuse to pay child support on children they co-conceived but don't want.
I think not. Generally, it takes two people acting stupidly to produce an unintended pregnancy. And regardless of which you support, all of a woman's options for dealing with it involve taking responsibility for the situation and incurring costs not merely financial. Men should just get to walk away with zero obligation, even mere inconvenience? Pshaw.
Though just a couple weeks ago I read another piece arguing for laws to make the man's approval mandatory before a woman gets an abortion, or even to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want if the man does, all in the name of "equal rights." You obviously can't have it both ways, gentlemen, so it seems you should just stay out of it.
None of you should probably be reproducing anyway.
posted by Holly at 12:49 AM
<< Home