There's been a heck of a lot of talk lately about gay marriage ... or as I like to think of it, marriage. Lots of places have been making it legal [link] [link], some have been choosing to make it illegal [link], and every man and his dog has very strong feelings about the whole shebang, yours truly not excluded.
Personally, I've never understood the argument that two men or two women getting married will somehow affect other people's marriages. That's like me saying my chocolate donut was ruined because a bloke I don't even know is having a raspberry filled one. It's ridiculous and makes no sense whatsoever.
In my humble opinion, if your marriage is so easily influenced by two people you've never even met having feelings for each other and declaring that legally, you've got more problems than the issue of whether gay marriage should be allowed.
Just saying.
But no matter your opinion on this particular issue, I think we can all agree that the opinion of a certain British politician is a wee bit of a leap [link]. His main concerns? That it could lead to a lesbian Queen, an heir to the throne conceived via IVF, and, even more mind bogglingly, family members marrying each other to avoid inheritance tax.
Okay, so I can see the twisted logic that brought him to the lesbian Queen issue. It's ridiculous of course, as if anyone really cares if a potential imaginary future monarch is possibly gay. But I can at least see what lead him there.
But he's worried that gay marriage will lead to fathers marrying their sons to avoid inheritance taxes? That's a pretty big leap in logic.
Sometimes you just have to laugh or you'd cry over the stupidity of some people.
I am, like most women of my generation, a feminist. A post feminist? A humanist? I'm not even sure what the acceptable expression is anymore, feminism has gotten a pretty bad rap and most people avoid the phrase if they can.
I hate having to admit it ... but I can see why it's gotten such a bad reputation. Feminists are pretty much believed to be a bunch of angry, bitter women who want to be treated better than men because in the past women were treated worse, like it'll even out the cosmic scales. There's something inherently unlikeable about people who try to counter injustice by swinging things in the other direction. Rather than striving to fix the problem, it like they're trying to punish people for what happened. Bad, bad things were done in the past, so now we demand preferential treatment to make up for it! That'll show ya! It's even worse when the people demanding and the people being demanded of weren't even the ones involved in the original injustice. I guess I just don't get that whole "Sins of the Father" mentality.
Having said that, and as someone who did a major in Ancient History in university, I am a strong believer in the whole learning from history or you'll be doomed to repeat it concept. Knowledge is power. It's important that we know what the injustices were in the past, and how they came to be, so we can make sure we don't walk down that path again. I just don't think that past wrongs necessarily translate to future preferential treatment or the right to be douchebaggy. There's far too much douchebaggery in this day and age, in my opinion.
Of course, I have the highest level of respect, awe and gratitude for the women who in the past fought so I could do whatever I wanted with my career and would earn the same amount, could vote (even if last time I voted for Donald Duck), could own property, and a billion and one other things that men already had the right to do. Those women deserve all the praise and reverence the rest of us can muster. I just can't help thinking that when women (and I've seen many of them do it) take their fight and what they accomplished, and then use to to somehow gain preferential treatment, it's spitting in the face of what those women were trying to accomplish! Using a struggle for equality to force inequality onto others ... oh, the irony.
I suppose you're wondering why I'm rambling on about this topic. It's pretty much out of left field. The reason is I stumbled across this youtube video and I couldn't help but be appalled. Feminists protesting at a forum that was promoting support for abused husbands. Seriously? It's things like this that have made feminism such a controversial term.
I suppose I'm lucky. I'm old enough to vaguely remember when women weren't necessarily treated equally, but young enough that it didn't really affect me. I guess I'm part of that generation that they all talk about when they say that a social injustice won't truly disappear until everyone who remembers it is dead and gone.
But I heard someone use an expression the other day that got me thinking. Feminazi. I suppose I can understand where they're coming from. Committing mass genocide while trying to take over most of Europe ... wanting equal rights regardless of what's between your legs ... they're totally the same thing.
