War - What is it Good For

No matter what side of the Hobby Lobby or abortion clinic buffer zone decisions you fall, no matter what your thoughts on women’s reproductive rights and income inequality, it is important to realize – none of these are a #WarOnWomen.

There is no dispute that women have been discriminated against and abused throughout history.  In fact, all sexes (including the LGBT population), nationalities and faiths have experienced prejudice and even violent attacks at some time. No argument.  But to classify current disputes on birth control and other issues as “war” is an insult to any who have experienced war, as either a combatant or innocent victim.

If you want to see a real war on women talk to the kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls.  Oops, can’t talk to them, they’re still missing and the hashtag #bringbackourgirls  seems to have disappeared from recent trending lists as well, replaced by #hurricanearthur and, ironically,  #worldcupgirls (apparently, images of scantily clad female soccer fans are not considered acts of aggression in the supposed war on women).

Other acts of war against women?  How about sex-selective-abortion or human trafficking?  And let’s not forget the multi-billion dollar porn industry.  Though not limited to the female gender, victims of these atrocities are predominately women or more accurately, girls.  Young girls.  Children. 

That Hobby Lobby employees have their choice of prescription contraceptives limited to non-abortifacients is an inconvenience; they are not suffering any consequences of battle.   Though a nuisance and even possibly a financial challenge, having to pay for certain non-covered birth control methods does not qualify them for victim status.  And, quite frankly, Plan-B (the morning after pill) should be a one-time purchase and not a regular expense for any woman.

To categorize any of this as war minimizes the sufferings of those who have been the casualties of war.

Duck Hunting

I've never seen the show Duck Dynasty so I speak as an observer, not as a fan or combatant.  Since I live in a country where free speech is still allowed, here are some of my random thoughts on the topic:

1. We live in a country where free speech is a right protected by the Constitution.
2. Phil Robertson has the right to express his opinion.
3. We live in a country where freedom of the press and other media is protected by the Constitution
4. GQ magazine has the right to publish Phil Robertson's comments.
5. A&E has the right to set their programming schedule or discipline, hire and fire whomever they want, within contractual or regulatory requirements.
6. Citizens and residents of our country have these same rights to express their opinions on Phil Robertson, A&E or whatever.
7. With every right comes a corresponding responsibility.  In this case one of the responsibilities is to respect others' rights and to express opinions in a manner showing consideration of others' rights in a mature manner.
8. Duck Dynasty is a reality show, with "reality" defined by the producers, directors, editors and network.  A&E did not like Phil Robertson's "reality" so they're trying to change it to suit their business needs.
9. A&E is owned by The Hearst Corporation and Disney, who's job it is is to make money for their shareholders.  Entertainment is a means to an end. Own any Hearst or Disney stock?
10. Are you willing to forego a trip to Disney to support Phil Robertson?  Are you willing to subscribe to Hearst publications or watch other A&E programs to support A&E?  Put your money where your mouth (or keyboard) is.
11. Is A&E's beef with Phil Robertson about his opinions or that these opinions were expressed in a GQ interview, which is owned by Conde Nast, and not a Hearst Corporation publication?