Someone anonymously posted a link to the above as a comment on my 'Hypocrisy' post. And I went thru the whole article. I had never actually given serious thought to this issue, but this is so dumb f***ing stupid, I just had to devote a full post to it. Here is the link by the way.
"The girls generally range in age from college down to the tiny 4-year-old " Yeah catch 'em young, teach them the virtues of purity while they are still babies. Don't people realize that if you carry this to its logical conclusion, you will end up with covering up all your womenfolk in burkas and trying to control every aspect of their lives?
"they wrote a vow for fathers to recite, a promise "before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the areas of purity," Patriarchy, anyone? You are responsible for your 'harem'.
"We're trying to be realistic," Lane says. "I'm not ready to be like India--have arranged marriages. But there is some wisdom there, in that at least the parents are involved." I guess if you stay on this course, Lane, you will soon be ready for arranged marriages and then, extend it logically, even 'honor killings'.
"I don't really know," she says, and she's shy about talking about all this. "But it means you make a promise to your dad to be a virgin until you are married and not have a lot of boyfriends." That is a 10 year old trying to make sense of what is happening around her.
What bugs me is how the parents' define the term 'purity' when talking about their daughters or their womenfolk in general. I am against promiscuity, let me make that clear. Instill in your children the concept of personal responsibility from a young age. I am with you on that. What irritates me is having one standard for your sons and another for your daughters.
What I have realized by going thru this article is that looking down on women in contempt or with prejudice is not restricted to eastern cultures. Perhaps the desire to have control is built into the male psyche worldwide.