Warning: I’m getting all political-rant-y again. You have been warned.
All across the country a large group of Americans are enjoying rights that are denied to other Americans, solely because of something genetic that they have no control over. Those withholding equal rights to the others are obviously motivated by prejudice, fear, and hate, and therefore the government needs to intervene to protect the oppressed from the oppressors, regardless of whether they represent the majority or not.
I am, of course, referring to the Obamacare mandate that women be provided with free contraception coverage, while no such legal protection exists for men. Clearly women are denying men their reproductive rights, and are motivated by an intense, bigoted hatred of men for something that is beyond their control. Men were simply born male, and no amount of conversion therapy prescribed by hateful women will change that.
Now obviously I’m engaging in reductio ad absurdum here. But seriously, if we apply the same logic many people seem to apply to the issue of gay marriage to other situations there are a great many people out there who would find themselves painted with the same brush they use to tar their enemies. So can we back off and admit that people who hold certain views may actually hold those views for reasons other than hate?
I regularly hear friends post on Facebook that hearing about such-n-such law in such-n-such state making them angry at all the haters. What they don’t consider is that such behavior fits the definition of hate:
1.to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
Those who claim that you cannot defeat hate with hate would do well to take their own advice. I may oppose certain things that others favor, but I don’t get all bent out of shape and froth at the mouth whenever I hear of the opposition making progress. Hard to believe, I know, considering the conventional wisdom, but you’re free to come over and visually verify sometime.
And while we’re on the subject, please explain to me why women need free contraception, but men don’t? Haven’t we heard for years the complaints of women that men don’t like to use contraception? Wouldn’t making it free for them give them added incentive to use it? So why is it some Georgetown coed needs free contraception to the tune of thousands of dollars, but we can’t offer the same to men–even when it would cost much less?
Seriously, was the idea of equal coverage even considered? Was it originally in the bill, but those evil Republicans managed to get it struck before the final vote? Did men march on Capitol Hill demanding that the provision be removed? I really, really doubt it. It was just never considered.
Why wasn’t it?
Don’t talk to me about fairness and equality. This year my company added free contraception for women to the health plan, while touting the fact that our premiums haven’t gone up for at least two years now. I’ll be greatly surprised if they don’t go up next year. Meanwhile, not only do I not get free contraception (though seriously, who cares? I can cover it, and I won’t try to force others to pay for it), but I pay full price for an echo-cardiogram to check the progress of a serious, genetic health issue, to the tune of $2000 per visit. They can cover hundreds of dollars in contraception, but they can’t cut my bill even $5? They’ll pay for women to not have babies, but they won’t help at all if a woman chooses to have a baby.
It’s not that I’m advocating the government start paying for my echo-cardiograms. It’s my heart–and it’s my problem. I don’t expect my neighbor to pay for it. But it does bother me to see someone else getting extra perks simply for being a pet project of a pandering political party–and with my taxes. Almost literally, they’re saying that if you’re a white, anglo-saxon, protestant male…drop dead. We’d rather pay women for something they could simply avoid by not having sex in the first place. Trust me, if there had been something I could have avoided to not have a leaky heart valve I’d have been willing to try it.
I’m sorry, but you liberals have some pretty screwy ideas about equality. You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means. So at the very least, stop with the hate already. The least you could do is stop bad-mouthing the guy paying for your progesterone.