i would have to say that in a way, i agree with him, but probably for different reasons. my Islam 101 class, for example, had a week entitled "women and islam". this (correctly) indicates that the rest of the class is devoted to men and islam. my ex bf's AA pamphlet has a section called "women suffer too", again (correctly) indicating that the the rest of the booklet is addressed to men and their needs. my high school european history textbook always had a little box at the end of each chapter entitled "women and minorities" (correctly) indiciating that the rest of the chapter had been devoted solely to the comings and goings and doings of white men.

by cordoning off a section of a pamphlet, a textbook, a class, a course of study, as "women's" we are recognizing and half-heartedly attempting to condone for the fact that the rest of the pamphlet, textbook, class, and courses of studies were designed by, for, and about, men.

what is Mr. Hollander really asking for? is he asking us to recognize women for their contributions within the context of, say, a history department so that we don't have to have a women's history department? or is he asking for us to ignore their contributions to history altogether? given the tone of his argument i would say it is the former.

but he should be careful what he wishes for; he may just help usher in the era of the latter.

i hate to say it, but in Orange County, $250,000 isn't what i would call "rich". the median house is $530,000, for example. paying for that, plus $300+ per month in homeowner's association dues (and every community has a HOA) is what--$3,000 in PITI plus HOA gone already?

my parents just sold their 1700 square foot townhouse for $600,000 and are looking for another that is similar. so far, no luck finding anything similar for under $600,000. so a family of four in a modest townhouse, saving for college educations, braces, the occasional summer at camp, maybe caring for an eldery parent, each having a honda accord...

yeah i hate to say it, but in orange county, $250,000 is barely a hair above middle class...

i can't help but notice that this seems to be the only, or at least, one of very few, instances in which one's conscience is protected by law. and the only instance in which a special proposal has been drafted to protect this right. examples:

i'm a salesperson at nordstrom but as a practicioner of wahhabist islam, it's against my religion to hear a woman sing. so i can't be on the sales floor,or any where where i can hear when they are playing music on the overhead speakers featuring a female singer because it's against my religion.furthermore, i will decline to sell ladies' pants, or skirts that fall above the ankle because doing so conflicts with what is best for women according to standards set by the Koran.

i'm a teller at a bank, but as a muslim, it's against my religion to participate in the charging of interest for the lending of money. therefor, i will refuse to refer clients to sales representatives who wish to help them take out loans.

i am a christian but i work at the hilton. i believe that men and women should not sleep together before marriage, and that people of the same sex should not sleep tgether period. therefor i will only give rooms to married couples who can prove that they are married.

and finally, i'm a hairstylist a toni and guy, but as a biblical literalist, i believe that women are unclean during their periods, and will be refusing to tend to female clients while they menstruate.

in all of these examples, these people would probably be told to get jobs that didn't conflict with their religious beliefs. healthcare providers who wish to interfere with a woman's right to choose find themselves enjoying the unique luxury of having their right to practice religion, or work with a free concsience, unfettered by their jobs. wouldn't it be nice if everyone else had that right too?

sure in california abortion is legal and widely available. but there is one abortion clinic and one abortion provider in the entire state of mississippi. ditto for south dakota. both of those states, if i am not mistaken, have mandatory waiting periods, wherein a woman must have an initial intake appointment, and then come back 24-48 hours later. if i were a betting woman, i'd wager that in texas, alabama, louisiana, and, oh, kentucky, abortion clinics are tough to come by as well.

in some of these states, women under eighteen must obtain the consent of both their parents; women are forced to view an ultrasound of the fetus; women are lied to and told that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer (acording to the american cancer society there is not); and women seeking the morning-after pill or plan B can be turned away by a pharmacist who refuses, due to his or her conscience, to sell the medicatin or provide information as to where to get the medicaiton.

women in jail, as in a recent example in arizona, have been denied their right to abortion.

also upsetting, women in the military serving overseas are currently not allowed to go to a military doctor for an abortion even if they pay out of pocket. clinics receiving federal funds cannot provide abortions, nor provide information as to where women can get abortions, and insurance oftentimes doesn't cover abortion or birth control.

unfortunately, in many states, abortion is barely legal, and far from widely available.