You know what phrase I cannot stand? The phrase “women and children.” Why, you ask? Well, one reason why is the phrase’s divisive effect between two groups of people: women and children, and men. In other words, the phrase puts an unnecessary fence between these groups of people.
Another reason why I greatly dislike this phrase is that it goes contrary to the wise adage “what is good for the goose is good for the gander.” Why, then, is it necessary to separate the women and the children from the men? I can only think of one reason why, and it is the simple, physiological rationale that women get pregnant and men don’t. This is why that I can see the necessity of some governmental programs that benefit women and children. Actually, I only see the necessity of one such program, namely, WIC. For the rest of the governmental initiatives that benefit women and children, I can think of at least one way in which men would benefit from each of those initiatives. Which is, in our current year of 2008, sad. Even that is an understatement.
This physiological rationale also applies when it comes to departments of health for the sexes. Because women get pregnant and men don’t, I can see the necessity of having two national Departments for Women’s Health versus one for men’s health. However, how many such departments for the sexes are there? Try one Office for Women’s Health versus a nonexistent Office for Men’s Health, and adding insult to injury, the former gobbles up funding like you wouldn’t believe. Now, I can understand why an Office for Women’s Health is important, but come on. Are men that expendable? Apparently we are, because not only do men have to register for the selective service upon turning 18, but also, women in the armed forces are actually prevented from firing their weapons on the front lines (I read that on some military website). And we wonder why our military men die so much more often than our military women.
Equal opportunity, you ask? Hardly.