this tells us everything we need to know about him. yes, i am being heteronormative. but he's a he, unless he is living in california and happened to get married in that tiny eight month window and he is a she in a gay marriage. but the below sentence tells us all there is to understand his point of view:

I've got an IQ of 165, have done well finanancially, have a gorgeous wife and in pretty much every way you can imagine shown intelligence and capability in my life.

his "gorgeous" wife is listed as one of his measures of success. not his "smart" wife. not his "wife with the doctorate in rocket science." But the GORGEOUS wife. right next to the high income. as a measure of success. i guess he shows he's intelligent by making a lot of money and marrying someone gorgeous so she can be another tangible piece of evidence of his success.

i think that tells us pretty much where he's coming from.

Of course, people lie on these types of polls all the time, and that the questions were phrased in a vague manner--for example, i'm ALREADY smart, (duh), but i'm not thin, so I might have opted for the thin versus smart choice, ergo seeming shallow. u

But this notwithstanding, 25% of women are not blind. They have absorbed thousands upon thousands of messages when they turn on the TV or flip through a magazine or are accosted by billboards telling them that they are valued more for their looks than anything else.

That 25% that has been dismissively referred to as "shallow" could be re-labeled as "realistic", and know that they have a much better shot at a job, much less a husband, if they are thin instead of smart. I dare say that given the extent to which the obese-particularly obese women--are discriminated against, a thin woman of average intelligence might find herself in a better economic and emotional position than a fat woman of higher intelligence.

Furthermore, I would be interested in seeing a similar poll asking men if they would make their best friend fat in exchange for a thin wife, for example, or prefer a gorgeous girlfriend to a brilliant one.

I don't know that men would come off looking much better...

For example, if an African American refused to fly to South Africa during that country's era of apartheid, would we be more understanding? What if an African American didn't want to fly to Alabama in the 60s? And, stay with me here: what if he declined to change jobs due to its accompanying decrease in pay, but found himself en route to, say, South Africa anyways. And was told that when there, he had to walk behind all white employees no matter what, because it was their culture?

To what extent should we respect local culture? If the local culture required her to walk around topless, rather than wear more clothes, would she be asked to do so? doubtful. If local culture required that black employees tap dance or play basketball for the entertainment of white employees, would that be required? even more doubtful. And rightfully so, because human beings of any race or gender or sexual orientation deserve to be treated with dignity even when "local culture" might dictate otherwise. For a company to ask her to walk behind her male colleagues is disrespectful and somewhat outrageous when put in the context of race.

I see little difference. This is not religion; this is culture. There are no hadith suggesting that Mohammed forced Khadija, or Ayesha, or any of his other wives, or any other woman, for that matter, to walk behind him. The fact that this strict adherence to gender segregation is a hardship borne exclusively by the women also indicates that motivations lie less in piousness than in misogyny.

If Lisa Ashton had refused to fly to Qatar AND Yemen AND Egypt AND Saudi Arabia, perhaps we could call her xenophobic. But we have no evidence of that. Just of her refusing to fly to Saudi Arabia, which, for all practical purposes, practices gender-based apartheid.

.

the government has no business getting between you and your health care needs! unless you are a woman and you are pregnant and don't want to be. or you had unprotected sex and want to take the morning after pill. in that case, politicians have every right to put a significant amount of bureaucracy between you and your healthcare decisions. in every other case, however, do you really want politicians deciding what's best for you? of course not! because healthcare is about people. by that we mean: unborn people, babies, mothers, and men.

...am i old? decrepit? horribly disabled? no. i'm in my early thirties, have never smoked, barely drink, go to the gym four times a week, and am a vegetarian. and yet i have two health insurance policies. the one i get through my graduate school program has excellent coverage for my birth control, ADD/ADHD meds, and the misfortunes that may come from having a cold or flu or whatever. but the max coverage is $250,000 per year so if i like...got cancer, or got in a major car wreck, i'd be screwed.

the blue cross, which is an individual PPO, has no prescription drug coverage and a $5,000 deductible and no maternity coverage but goes up to a $1,000,000 per year so i can feel free to get cancer or have a car accident.

for the privilege of having two health insurance carriers, i pay $200 per month. this is just for the coverage, mind you; i still have copays on my meds and doctor visits. but it's the cheapest option.

but thank god i'm too dumb to realize how wonderful it is to have this opportunity to pay so much!