U.S. News & World Report: 'Why Men Are So Good at Dying'
March 17th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
I can do without some of the man-blaming in Adam Voiland's U.S. News & World Report article Why Men Are So Good at Dying (3/14/08), which is not to deny that he's partly correct. Voiland writes:
"Until about 15 years ago, it was women who lacked information; traditionally, the standard patient in all kinds of medical research on disease and treatments had been the white male. In 1991, the Women's Health Office was created in the Department of Health and Human Services to promote gender equity in research and raise awareness about conditions such as breast cancer, osteoporosis, and depression. Since then, men's activists have been grousing that it's men who aren't getting a fair shake from the federal government. A bill calling for the establishment of a Men's Health Office to tackle such urgent male concerns as prostate cancer, accidents, and suicide has been languishing in congressional committees for years.
"Considering the statistics that supporters of the men's office brandish, you'd think it would be an easy sell. According to the Men's Health Policy Center, for example, men die at higher rates than women for many leading causes of death. That includes, for example, a death rate for men that's 50 percent higher than that of women for cancer; twice that of women for ischemic heart disease, and three times that of women for HIV/AIDS. On average—as it's often pointed out—men live a total of 5.2 years less than women.
"Yet, the bill has been the victim of controversy about funding between the men's health activists who argue that in the past 20 years medicine has tilted too far toward Venus and feminists unprepared to give up an inch of their hard-won territory. Men's health advocate Glenn Sacks, for example, makes the case in this column that men's health is underappreciated and under funded by the federal government. It's true that women's health initiatives have seen a boost in funding, says the Wall Street Journal. Yet, there's a good argument to be made that that's no reason to start a gender war..."
My column that Voiland cites is When Men's Health Doesn't Count (Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, 10/9/02)--it appears below. I hardly think the Men's Health Act has been the victim of a male-created "gender war"--the Men's Health Network, and its associated activists are supportive of the Office on Women's Health, as was my column. We see a need for similar efforts for men, and have cited the Office on Women's Health's success as something we'd like to emulate for men.
Read the full U.S. News & World Report article here. My column, co-authored with Dianna Thompson, is below.
When Men's Health Doesn't Count
By Dianna Thompson and Glenn Sacks
Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, 10/9/02
Learn more about major areas of men's health like how to protect against Male Prostate Cancer. there are even more subtle issues specific to men's health like Health Supplements which meet the nutritional needs specific to men.
Congress is sending a message to American men: men's health doesn't count.
The disturbing health and mortality disparities between American whites and blacks are well known, but most people do not realize that the health and mortality disparities between women and men are just as great. For example, the gap in life expectancy between whites and blacks is six years, while the gender gap is 5.7 years. Adjusted for age, men are 1.6 times as likely as women to die from one of the top 10 causes of death, and blacks are 1.5 times as likely to die from them as whites.
Despite this, it is women's health, not men's, which continues to receive government attention and funding. For example, the National Institutes of Health--the federal focal point for medical research in the U.S.--spends nearly four times as much on female-specific health research as on male-specific research. And though the average man is as likely to die from prostate cancer as the average woman is from breast cancer, the Department of Health and Human Services' National Cancer Institute spends three and a half times as much money on breast cancer research as on prostate cancer research.
In fact, prostate cancer makes up 37% of all cancer cases but receives only 5% of federal research funding. In addition, the breast cancer postage stamp has raised over $25 million for breast cancer research since it began in 1998, while a 1999 bill proposing a similar stamp for prostate cancer research was unsuccessful.
When Congress formed the Office on Women's Health in 1991, its goal was to improve women's health by directing and coordinating women's health research, health care services, and health education. Since then men's health advocates have been trying to create an Office of Men's Health, with the goal of duplicating the OWH's success. Yet while a new bill which will help to make the OWH's funding permanent was just passed by the House, the Men's Health Act of 2001 (H.R. 632) remains trapped in the House Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittee on health. If not rescued soon, the bill will die when the 107th Congress adjourns this fall.
According to Tracie Snitker, director of public affairs for the Men's Health Network, "the number and quality of federally funded women's health education projects is outstanding. But while outreach programs teach women about breast cancer and cervical cancer, there are few if any programs which educate men about their own gender-specific health needs.
"We want to do for men what the OWH has done for women," she adds. "Men need education about the cancers which disproportionately affect them, such as prostate cancer, skin cancer and colorectal cancer. Young men need education on testicular cancer. Most importantly, we need to teach men to seek preventative health care."
Part of the reason an Office of Men's Health has been so long in coming is the common but nonetheless false perception that the government and the scientific community have paid more attention to men's health than to women's. In 1990 Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) made national headlines by citing the fact that women-specific health research comprised only 14% of the budget of the National Institute of Health (NIH). She called it "blatant discrimination" and led the successful campaign for the creation of the OWH. What Mikulski and many in the media who publicized Mikulski's claims did not understand was that only 6.5% of the NIH's budget went to male-specific research--the vast majority of the NIH's research was gender neutral.
Today the disparity in favor of women in NIH research has grown, as has the gender disparity in enrollments in non-gender-specific studies. According to the Government Accounting Office, one of the few areas where men comprise the majority of research subjects is in initial trials of experimental drugs. These are the trials undertaken to ensure that the drugs are not lethal or seriously harmful.
First, drugs are usually tested on rats and monkeys. If there are no adverse effects, they are then tested on people--usually men. If the men also show no adverse effects, the drugs advance to larger trials, where women comprise the majority.
Considering Congress' repeated refusal to act to help men's health, one can't help but wonder--is men's health as important as women's, or is it merely more important than monkeys'?
This column first appeared in the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot (10/9/02).
"));
19 queries. 0.830 seconds.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
"Until about 15 years ago, it was women who lacked information; traditionally, the standard patient in all kinds of medical research on disease and treatments had been the white male."
I've heard this framed as a complaint by women and feminists numerous times but how many of those "white males" volunteered to be a part of any testing. Could it be that they were either soldiers or prisoners who were given no choice?
March 17th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Barbara Mikulski affair:
In 1990 ,then senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) made national headlines by citing the fact that women specific health research comprised only 14% of the NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTHS yearly budget..She called it “BLATANT DISCRIMINATION” and led the successful campaign for the creation of the ORGANIZATION OF WOMENS HEALTH (OWH)..What Mikulski and the media conveniently omitted was the fact that only 6.5% of the (NIH) yearly budget went to mens specific research, and the rest went to gender neutral studies. So what happens to the men who were discriminated against to begin with, and now even more so???
March 17th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Characterized as "hard won":
"Part of the reason an Office of Men's Health has been so long in coming is the common but nonetheless false perception that the government and the scientific community have paid more attention to men's health than to women's. In 1990 Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) made national headlines by citing the fact that women-specific health research comprised only 14% of the budget of the National Institute of Health (NIH). She called it "blatant discrimination" and led the successful campaign for the creation of the OWH. What Mikulski and many in the media who publicized Mikulski's claims did not understand was that only 6.5% of the NIH's budget went to male-specific research--the vast majority of the NIH's research was gender neutral."
Characterized as "starting a gender war":
"In fact, prostate cancer makes up 37% of all cancer cases but receives only 5% of federal research funding. In addition, the breast cancer postage stamp has raised over $25 million for breast cancer research since it began in 1998, while a 1999 bill proposing a similar stamp for prostate cancer research was unsuccessful.
When Congress formed the Office on Women's Health in 1991, its goal was to improve women's health by directing and coordinating women's health research, health care services, and health education. Since then men's health advocates have been trying to create an Office of Men's Health, with the goal of duplicating the OWH's success. Yet while a new bill which will help to make the OWH's funding permanent was just passed by the House, the Men's Health Act of 2001 (H.R. 632) remains trapped in the House Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittee on health. If not rescued soon, the bill will die when the 107th Congress adjourns this fall."
March 17th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Has anyone considered that men want to die 5.7 years before women? (-;
b
March 17th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Despite this, it is women's health, not men's, which continues to receive government attention and funding. For example, the National Institutes of Health--the federal focal point for medical research in the U.S.--spends nearly four times as much on female-specific health research as on male-specific research. And though the average man is as likely to die from prostate cancer as the average woman is from breast cancer, the Department of Health and Human Services' National Cancer Institute spends three and a half times as much money on breast cancer research as on prostate cancer research.
I'm sure this statistic does not have the approval of N.O.W. In our oppresive patriarchal society it couldn'y possibly be that we spend 3.5 times as much on a woman's health issue as a man's. Call for that man's resignation!!! He must be stopped!
March 17th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
While women benefit from the advocacy and budget inputs related to Federal and many State Office's of Women's Health, men continue to get the overall 'shaft' in terms of life expectancy. The I explored the data, the average lifespan for a U.S. man was about 5 years lower than that of the average U.S. woman. Further, State data still states that men from my State suffer a 10 year difference, and about the twice as negative for men as the average difference as I presently. The last World Health Organization data I came across showed the worst difference in average lifespan by gender had average men in Belorussia living 13.5 years less than average women in Belorussia. And our State consistently gets identified as the 'best State to live in the U.S.', but apparently they're criteria didn't include whether the men (and newborn boys) get to live on average as long as women (and newborn girls). (The surveying firm perhaps was a woman-owned business? I would suspect as much.)
March 17th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
A couple of years ago one of the organisations under the UN umbrella released data showing that women were now outliving men in every single country. It was released with some fanfare as though it was cause for celebration.
March 17th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
"Until about 15 years ago, it was women who lacked information; traditionally, the standard patient in all kinds of medical research on disease and treatments had been the white male."
Damn right. If there is any risk at all, throw them disposable men at it by the hundreds. After it's proven safe for humans then, and only then, are women "allowed" to be test subjects.
By the way, in the horrific Atlanta storms this past weekend, how many single and capable women joined the men, husbands, and fathers out in the storm protecting lives and property?
DanH
March 17th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
The real reason men are so good at dying is that society teaches us to be reckless with our physical safety so that we will be less resistant to carrying out physically dangerous tasks for the good of the community, tasks such as police work, soldering, mining etc. To this end society teaches us to risk our safety in a myriad of ways, and then criticizes us for not taking care of ourselves!
As usual, when society teaches women something that is injurious to them, women are victims, when society teaches men something that is injurious to them, men are to blame.
March 17th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
It's wrong to say that in the past, men's health was focused on at the expense of women's. To quote Warren Farrell in
The Myth of Male Power (p. 189), "we do more research on men in prison, men in the military, and men in general than on women, for the same reason we do more research on rats than we do on humans." That is the reason so many studies used men. That does not imply that men's health is what was being focused on. The vast majority of health studies (approximatel 85%) focus, now as in the past, on non-gender-specific health problems.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
I sent the honorary woman dork who wrote the article, a letter containing the above. I also sent him another one saying,
"Your pointing out the various behaviors such as smoking, drinking, etc by men, as at a greater rate than that of women, fails to take into account two things:
"1) Undue societal pressure on men, as compared to women, to achieve, be successful, and support a family (the male is still the primary bread-winner in most families); and ramapant misandry, and bias and discrimination against men in today's society, which is bound to cause increases in some of these behaviours you mention; and,
"2) The plain fact that males have not had their "awareness raised" (a phrase which the media is tiresomely fond of), to the extent that women have, on how to address and prevent some of these problems. Women have been encouraged to come forward more than men have, and provided with more gender-specific programs, tests, etc., to do something about them.
What you are doing here amounts to blaming the victim."
March 17th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
I think it's odd that some lady who sent the writer a comment, found it necessary to specify that 3 of the 4 guys who rear-ended her husband in various car accidents, were "white males". She made this remark out of nowhere, it had nothing to do with the rest of her comment or the content of the article.
I'm going to paint myself a different color tonight. No group has been targeted for hate the way white men have lately.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:41 am
I saw a commercial on TV the other day that talked about how women can avoid heart disease.
However, all of suggestions that were given, such as exercise regularly, stop smoking, avoid alcohol, eat well, etc., also could help men avoid heart disease, but the commercial was gender specific for some reason.
According to the CDC, heart disease is the number one killer of American men.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:58 am
SoJ NewsWire
---------------------
Title: EVERYONE DIES!! - Women hardest hit
March 18th, 2008 at 1:52 am
A men's office for health in government makes absolutely no sense.
The women's health office is there for only one reason - to grab more funding for women's health than men. They have succeeded admirably and will continue to do so.
To get a better deal for men, the women's office needs to be shut down. Creating another office for men would simply negate the effect of the women's office and the bureaucracy created would consume more funds. Shutting down the woman's office and insisting that gender specific funding be divided 50/50 is the simplest, most cost-effective way of getting research done on men's diseases.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:18 am
Norman L. Says:
March 17th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
I'm going to paint myself a different color tonight. No group has been targeted for hate the way white men have lately.
= = =
Bart: Are we awake?
Jim: We're not sure. Are we black?
Bart: Yes, we are.
Jim: Then we're awake, but very puzzled.
b
March 18th, 2008 at 2:26 am
What the heck is that dialog from? Bart Simpson?
March 18th, 2008 at 2:28 am
JRP,
there has been an officially increased focus on women's heart disease, starting last year I believe. I read that in the paper.
Don't you love it?
March 18th, 2008 at 2:41 am
Norm,
Blazing Saddles (1974)
b
March 18th, 2008 at 2:46 am
Norman L. Says:
March 18th, 2008 at 2:28 am
JRP,
there has been an officially increased focus on women's heart disease, starting last year I believe. I read that in the paper.
Don't you love it?
= = =
That is because heart disease is the #1 killer of women even over men . . . here is the slant this happens in their 70's and 80's not in the premature way it kills men , , , so more focus needs to be paid attention to women and heart disease because of the fact they the are dying of something . . . it is called "old age".
Fascinating . . it is
b
March 18th, 2008 at 2:48 am
SirJess Says:
March 18th, 2008 at 12:58 am
SoJ NewsWire
---------------------
Title: EVERYONE DIES!! - Women hardest hit
= = =
You got that slightly wrong, more women and children are dying than men, doctors puzzled . . .
b
March 18th, 2008 at 5:01 am
Men should die good to take a place for other. Good does not happen much!
March 18th, 2008 at 8:02 am
"Until about 15 years ago, it was women who lacked information; traditionally, the standard patient in all kinds of medical research on disease and treatments had been the white male."
Well yes, if you read any research it was thought that woman were too valuable to 'experiment' on. When i get to work I can quote the passage from the book I had to read for HIPAA certification.
plus it is just sickening how much money is going to breast cancer research compared to all the other forms of cancer, esp as a survivor of a cancer that can only effect males.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:11 am
The stress that the family law system puts on males is probably the biggest factor!
March 18th, 2008 at 8:22 am
"Until about 15 years ago, it was women who lacked information; traditionally, the standard patient in all kinds of medical research on disease and treatments had been the white male."
I'm not even sure this is correct. I think that in NIH funded studies, women have outnumbered men since 1980.
The other part is that women's reproductive health is so vastly different -- and vulnerable to longterm damage -- than is men's. Part of the lag prior to 1980 is that scientists were often unsure how the offspring of female subjects might be affected. Thalidimide anyone? This is then spun as how science doesn't care about women.
The other part, is that with clinical drug studies, there are three phases: phase I is to test for safety, phase II for safety and dosage and phase III for efficacy. At each stage, risk to the study subjects is assessed prior to moving on. So, based in women's reproductive health, they are much more likely to be represented with parity only in the third phase of clinical study.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Yeah, that's what I thought. It's not nearly that straightforward:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/408956_2
Reviews on Women's Participation From Published Clinical Research
A recent review by Meinert and colleagues[5] emphasizes that the percentage of female subjects (61%) in clinical trials exceeds that of male subjects. The methods used by this group include counting the number of participants in both sex-specific and non-sex-specific trials, limited to studies that include sex in the reported results, published in 5 journals in 1985, 1990, and 1995. By contrast, Vidaver and coworkers[6] emphasized the lack of analysis of data by sex, noting that two thirds to three fourths of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded studies published in 4 journals in 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1998 lacked sex-specific analyses. Harris and associates[7] looked at National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)-funded studies from 1965-1998 and reported that 54% of participants in all trials were female.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Speaking of all this, I did an interesting experiment a few days ago. I was interested in all the promotion women's cardiac health has been getting lately -- things like "women are much more likely to die from their first heart attack than men," or "heart attack fatalities are the leading cause of death for women."
Intuitively, I kind of knew that couldn't be true, so I started to research it on the web. My first instinct was that these statements may be true, but with the very important contextual qualifier that women get heart attacks MUCH later in life than men do. So I tried looking at that angle.
Guess what?
Good luck finding published statistics on heart attack by gender that graphically display this. It took me probably two hours of Googling to find a single study that wasn't "age corrected." I wish I'd saved that link because it was a lot of time consuming work.
It turns out that the heart attack rates for men and women are only identical for men under 35 and women OVER 65! The reason women have a higher mortality rate from first heart attack is because they're already so FREAKIN OLD by the time they have it!
So the lesson here is that it's obvious that men's health concerns are being INTENTIONALLY obscured to favor women. If that's not the case, such straightforward statistics would be easy to find. So there's another BIG reason most don't think men's health issues are all that important.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=heart+attack+statistics+by+gender
March 18th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Seems pretty obvious to me why the government takes this tack.
A man dying sooner means
1. is estate gets liquidated sooner
2. his wife/kids get all his assets, liquid and otherwise sooner,
3. these assets get "spent" into the economy sooner, and
4. GDP goes up.
It is just like the economic stimulus checks the Federal Government is about to shower down upon a large chunk of the U.S. population.
Once a man has lived out his productive years, the best thing from a politician's and an economist's perspective is to liquidate him. (When he is a young man, the best use was to send him into a politician's war, which also stimulates the economy.)
That's why.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:41 am
So sad that even health care isn't immune from the gender wars fomented by women's lobbies.
The fact is, the vast majority of women don't want men to be second-class passengers on the health care bus. Men's health affects women as much as men, as most women know. For every man who is stricken with prostate or testicular cancer or any of the other diseases that disproportionately target males, there's a wife, a girlfriend, a daughter or a mother also affected.
Men's health AND women's health are largely gender-blind PEOPLE issues, and it's wholly improper to bring the gender war to this sphere.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
So I'm confused about something. Haven't the feminists been telling us for decades that the only difference between men and women is a few bits of flesh? If so, then how can all these female-specific health issues exist? Aren't we all the same inside?
March 18th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Pg 144 or Protecting Study Volunteers in Research 3rd edition
"Woman
Today, in many studies, women make up 50% or more of the study cohort. This has not always been the case. As recently as the 1990s, it was the FDA's states guideline that women of childbearing potential were to be excluded from phase 1 and early phase 2 studies. Unfortunately, this policy, which was enacted in the early 1970s due to concerns over possible pregnancy and potential toxicity of experimental medications on the developing fetus, had the unintended effect of restricting participation by women in not only early trials, but later trials as well. In 1993, the FDA reversed the rule........"
So men trying to protect woman and non-born babies now will suffer for that act.
No good deed goes unpunished.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Top Causes of Death by Sex
Of the top eighteen causes of death in America men suffer greater than woman by a factor as high as 4.3.
http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/library/causesofdeath2003.pdf
on average woman live life longer than men by almost a decade.
http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/library/lifesexraceages.pdf
Compare the government and marketplaces response,
http://www.4woman.gov/mens/index.cfm
Yes - men's health initiative is under the government's National Woman's Health Information Center
I could not find a men's health clinic in Chicago, so I am unable to provide an example for the marketplace. In Chicago there are many women's health clinics.
Men die too early: women hardest hit
March 18th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
It is interesting that for all Hillary's talk of universal health care, she really doesn't care one whit about men's health. As I wrote here, she has plan descriptions for lots of constituent groups - but nothing about men.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Mark: If someone were to offer a men's health clinic, that would probably be deemed discriminatory. Someone would sue, and a court would shut it down and order the owners to pay damages.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Preda
"So men trying to protect woman and non-born babies now will suffer for that act."
MCA, Women have pitted man against man, to see who will be their "misplaced super protector" at the expense of mens basic civil rights..
March 18th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Rob
I agree. Instead of demanding an Office of Men's Health, we should work to abolish the Office of Women's Health.
It makes no sense to have a whole bunch of different government agencies catering to various constituencies and demographics.
The MRM should avoid the mistake of assuming more government is always the answers. This is where feminists and countless others have gone wrong.
The only reason for supporting the establishment of an OMH is that it would be less controversial than demanding the abolition of an organisation established to help women. So it seems to be good PR only.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
The telling thing about articles like this is that even when male problems end up being dealt with at all, it is always in such an insufferably condescending manner.
The author and many others blame men for not doing enough to promote their own health. This is a curious argument. For a long time we have been told that men have run the world for their own benefit, and have selfishly put their own needs and interests ahead of others. Yet now men are blamed for not doing enough to help themselves. Quite a neat contradiction.
The author also says that greater male risk-taking contributes to higher death rates. Yet it is seldom acknowledged that it is also this very same risk-taking that leads to greater male success in many other areas, particularly in big business. So we can acknowledge these behaviours if it helps to blame men for their problems, but then ignore them if it could help explain male success. This sort of ideological blindness and selective reasoning is all too typical of feminism.
Another issue that has been ignored is that women are biologically programmed to place a greater value on their own self-preservation. That is why they spend more time lobbying for more funding for women's diseases, even though women already live longer. Men are biologically and socially conditioned to be more self-sacrificing. It is men who sacrifice themselves in times of danger, work more at unpleasant jobs in order to support families, and go to earlier graves. To put it bluntly, women are simply more selfish.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Funny thing breast cancer proportionally twice as many men die of it than women 32.8% to 18.6% from cancer org
b
March 18th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
This is not likely to happen to women with testicular cancer . . . (-;
b
March 18th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
The article points out that men drink and smoke more, and that this contributes to shorter life expectancy.
Yet there are a number of lifestyle factors that contribute to women's health problems also. For example, there is some evidence to suggest that things like abortion, the pill, or delayed childbirth and breastfeeding contribute to an increased risk of breast cancer and some other illnesses. Not to mention hormone replacement therapy. Yet I can't imagine anyone writing an article claiming that reckless modern women are bringing these problems on themselves.
The prevailing doctrine is that women are always helpless victims who deserve every bit of compassion and support, and are never responsible for their problems. But it is alright to blame men for all their problems.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Why do men drink and smoke more? I will not answer that, too easy.
b
March 18th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Bernie,
I drink mainly to clear my mind and relieve the tension caused by the endless tirade of feminist BS propaganda that gets rammed down our throats.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
funny thing funding
Major cancers research spending 1.3577 billion
breast........... 551.1 million....40% of the money 15% of the total cancer
colorectal......249.1 million
lung...............261.9 million
prostrate......305.6 million....22.5% of the money 17% of the cancer hmmmmmm
cancer org and NCI
b
March 18th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Nick S Says:
March 18th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Bernie,
I drink mainly to clear my mind and relieve the tension caused by the endless tirade of feminist BS propaganda that gets rammed down our throats.
= = =
B-I-N-G-O-! give that man a cigar! oops that is a smoke, give that man a shot, oops that is a drink AND enough feminists give him that already . . .
b
March 18th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
funny thing funding
Major cancers research spending 1.3577 billion
breast........... 551.1 million....40% of the money 15% of the total cancer
colorectal......249.1 million
lung...............261.9 million
prostrate......305.6 million....22.5% of the money 17% of the cancer hmmmmmm
cancer org and NCI
I'm gonna borrow those numbers for a minute Bernie. Okay we all know how feminists like to shout that men don't want women to be equal because we fear that in order for them to raise up and become our equals we have to lose something right?
Do we actually have to guess how feminists will react to men trying to raise awareness and funding?
March 18th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Feel free to use anything I post here NCI is national cancer instute they had the numbers I gave them percentages easy math . . .
b
March 18th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Just for full disclosure I noticed that:
the numbers of people with cancer were from 2004 funding from 2007 I tried to use the most current data . . . cannot imagine the percentages changed that much . . .
b
March 18th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
actually I just went back and more money was spent in 2005 this is as far as that chart went back and there was even a greater breast prostrate disparity you are all set . . .
b
sorry for any confusion
March 18th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
*delurk*
You guys are aware, aren't you, that most health insurance plans cover Viagra prescriptions, but *still* do not cover many female contraceptives (and even then, those that are covered have only become so very recently, even though BCPs have been around for nearly two generations, whereas Viagra was instantly granted "covered" status upon approval by the FDA)? This is especially ludicrous when you consider the fact that it would *save* insurers a significant amount of money to cover more forms of contraceptives (when weighed against the much more expensive costs associated with giving birth).
The increased funding for women's health research over the past couple decades has focused on actually important things like breast cancer, HPV, HRT, etc. Are you absolutely positive that the billions of dollars poured into research AND MARKETING for Viagra, Extenze, Enzyte, etc., etc., etc., don't make up for the additional money spent on medical research for women? I honestly don't know the answer to this (and will defer to someone who can present *legitimate* stats), but I certainly have my suspicions. It is a LOT more logical to look first to *where* the money spent on research for men is going, rather than jumping to the conclusion that more money being spent on breast cancer research than on prostate cancer research means oh noes it's a conspiracy the feminists are destroying the universe and taking over the government even though the vast majority of politicians are men!!!!111!!one1!!
I'm honestly racking my brain to think of equivalent expenditures on women's health research for non-necessaries -- of course, you gentlemen are free to decide that Viagra is more important to you than prostate cancer research, but that is not *women's* doing, and it is beyond selfish of you to suggest, at least implicitly, that funding for important women's health research -- i.e., our *needs* -- should be slashed so that men get both their needs *and* their wants satisfied. If you decide that having lots of sex in your old age is more important than living a long life, more power to you. But don't you dare tell me that I should expose myself to greater health risks so you can keep your willy up when you're 65 (or much younger, if you're one of the scores of young recreational Viagra users).
And as for education/awareness, much of what we know and hear about breast cancer, we started hearing because of GRASSROOTS WORK from organizations like the Susan G. Komen Foundation. I don't know of any grassroots foundations that men have started to bring awareness to their health issues. MRAs are fond of saying that most sexist problems are caused by women themselves, because women don't solve the problems on their own. Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, boys.
Those of you who purport to care about fathers and their children, certainly, ought to be showing a *lot* more concern for the women who BEAR those children, and their ability to do so safely. Without the increased funding you are complaining about, there would be a lot fewer healthy babies and healthy mothers, and, accordingly, a lot fewer happy fathers.
*/delurk*
March 18th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
The law fairy, you're a sick and twisted women to try and find obscure areas where women's health care is neglected, when the elephant in the living room is "men are considered almost diposeable". or better yet feminist agit-prop has conditioned society to see mens health as nearly disposeable.
What has gripped the white middle class female to the degree that she is doing this????
March 18th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
The law fairy
"Without the increased funding you are complaining about, there would be a lot fewer healthy babies and healthy mothers, and, accordingly, a lot fewer happy fathers."
MCA, the problem is you are simply not raising healthy children, you are raising violent, anti-social, drug addict children , raised in matriarchal chaos.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:07 am
How is this country raising such sick, selfish, and twisted women, that in light of men having heart attacks at 35 is compareable to women's first heart attack at 65....and these women are causing hysteria for more women's funding????
This is absurd, how did we get here????
March 19th, 2008 at 12:18 am
The law fairy
"even though the vast majority of politicians are men!!!!111!!one1!!"
If you look at the voting records of these men, you will see they are just about clawing each others eyes out to protect women, while neglecting mens/fathers/boys needs.
These misplaced protectors are simply reacting to the non-stop women as victim agit-prop that they are being exposed to!!
I will close for the evening with the thought, has America raised some of the most violently selfish, narcicistic women in the world???
March 19th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Law Fairy,
Yawn.
You are comparing apples with oranges, and then throwing in a few red herrings just to confuse the issue some more.
The comparison between health plans that cover Viagra but don't cover female contraceptives is not a fair comparison. Viagra is at least a drug that is used to treat a medical problem or deficiency. Contraceptives are not used to treat a medical problem. Rather, they are used to alter natural bodily functioning. For that reason, they probably should not be covered by health plans. Perhaps a fairer comparison would be to compare whether or not health plans that cover female contraceptives also cover male contraceptives (such as condoms or vasectomy operations).
The argument about Viagra funding is more nonsense. Here we have largely been debating government funding for medical care and research. I am quite sure governments have not devoted any resources to researching Viagra. If you want to compare how much money private drug companies spend on research for men's and women's health problems, that is a different matter. I would be interested in seeing any stats on that. But I doubt very much if they put more resources into men's health than women's. I suspect it is much less.
"And as for education/awareness, much of what we know and hear about breast cancer, we started hearing because of GRASSROOTS WORK from organizations like the Susan G. Komen Foundation. I don't know of any grassroots foundations that men have started to bring awareness to their health issues. MRAs are fond of saying that most sexist problems are caused by women themselves, because women don't solve the problems on their own. Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, boys."
Please refer to my comment above (8:09 pm). As I said, men have been blamed for allegedly running the world for their own convenience and selfishly looking after their own interests. Now men are being blamed for not doing enough to promote their own interests. Nice contradiction.
Basically what you are saying is that because women spend more time looking after their own interests than men spend looking after theirs, this is a virtue for women. No. As I said, it just shows women are more self-serving.
Then there's the clincher:
"Those of you who purport to care about fathers and their children, certainly, ought to be showing a *lot* more concern for the women who BEAR those children, and their ability to do so safely. Without the increased funding you are complaining about, there would be a lot fewer healthy babies and healthy mothers, and, accordingly, a lot fewer happy fathers."
That's just what I needed. More shaming and guilt-tripping. I guess we all just need to accept what a bunch of scumbags we are for having the audacity to believe that men's health is just as important as women's health.
Perhaps those who purport to care so much about women and children should also spare a thought for the men who sacrifice in order to protect and support them.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:33 am
oh noes it's a conspiracy the feminists are destroying the universe and taking over the government even though the vast majority of politicians are men!!!!111!!one1!!
I always find it funny that when politicians are supporting things that feminists want they don't care what gender they are but as soon as they want to argue the first thing they point out is that most politicians are men.
Are you absolutely positive that the billions of dollars poured into research AND MARKETING for Viagra, Extenze, Enzyte, etc., etc., etc., don't make up for the additional money spent on medical research for women?
While you have a point about research no one said anything about marketing (and with those ED drugs there is a HUGE difference). And like you I'd really like to see some numbers on it.
but that is not *women's* doing, and it is beyond selfish of you to suggest, at least implicitly, that funding for important women's health research -- i.e., our *needs* -- should be slashed so that men get both their needs *and* their wants satisfied.
Yawn....What did I just say?
But don't you dare tell me that I should expose myself to greater health risks so you can keep your willy up when you're 65 (or much younger, if you're one of the scores of young recreational Viagra users).
You mean like men from generations past who put exposed themselves to greater health risks so women could live in relative comfort only to have today's women/feminists selectively rewrite history to make it look like women have always been oppressed?
MRAs are fond of saying that most sexist problems are caused by women themselves, because women don't solve the problems on their own. Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, boys.
No they are fond of saying when they try to address men's issues women are one of the biggest roadblocks they face. Women aren't the cause of sexist problems but since benefit so much why would allow them to be corrected?
Those of you who purport to care about fathers and their children, certainly, ought to be showing a *lot* more concern for the women who BEAR those children, and their ability to do so safely. Without the increased funding you are complaining about, there would be a lot fewer healthy babies and healthy mothers, and, accordingly, a lot fewer happy fathers.
We do concern for those mothers. But excuse us for wanting men to live longer so that they may be at the mother's side to raise those children right? (Or are you one of those that think that once the guy ejaculates he of no more use?) No need to cut funding for women's health but there is a need to increase funding for men's health. Perhaps you should be a little more concerned about the kids whose may face the possibility of losing their father at an early age.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:19 am
it's a conspiracy the feminists are destroying the universe and taking over the government even though the vast majority of politicians are men!!!!111!!one1!!
Basically all male politicians either are feminists or pander to feminists in order to be re-elected. Therefore, just because most politicians are male does not mean that the government is pro-male.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Law fairy
"You guys are aware, aren't you, that most health insurance plans cover Viagra prescriptions, but *still* do not cover many female contraceptives "
That's because erectile dysfunction is a clinical indication -- that is, a disease condition or symptom of disease. Often it's a secondary symptom of a cardiopulmonary condition like high blood pressure or poor circulation.
Contraceptives are matters of choice for a healthy function person. Insurance companies don't cover non-disease or clinical indications. Should they cover condoms too?
March 19th, 2008 at 9:25 am
ESTHER VILAR in her 1998 re-publication of her bestseller “THE MANIPULATED MAN” states that “American men are the most suppressed, exploited, and manipulated men on the face of the earth”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTHER VILAR also states “They have been blinded by the stereotyped image of women as victim to such an extent that they do not realize that they themselves are in fact the sufferers.”
March 19th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Law ferry, I don't believe it's some conspiracy (although some mention femi-nazi), I believe as Esther Vilar might say also, that we may be in a state of un-challenged women' nature.
As you and others have shown, un-challenged womens nature may in fact be selfish. narcissistic, and barbarically callous.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Law fairy:
"This is especially ludicrous when you consider the fact that it would *save* insurers a significant amount of money to cover more forms of contraceptives (when weighed against the much more expensive costs associated with giving birth)."
It's just as ludicrous that my car insurance company won't pay to have new brakes put on every time I need them. I mean, imagine how much money they'd save from accidents if they'd pay to have new brakes for all insured cars!
But instead, those idiots don't pay out a cent until there's an accident!
March 19th, 2008 at 11:27 am
These twisted sisters win when they can distract the topic of the column, to some area that they are more comfortable in..
As Esther Vilar states, men are conditioned to listen to women, and women have been conditioned to ride and exploit men like mules.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Hi guys,
Thanks for responding to my comment. I don't usually comment here because the vitriol is just too much (e.g., the victim-blaming comments about rape), and I know that posting angry only adds more fuel to the silly "feminists are all mean angry hateful bitches" fire. Because, clearly, given the comments here, no one could *ever* accuse you men of being mean angry hateful bitches.
Anyway, I do find it interesting that you actually defend the coverage of Viagra over contraceptives. That's the one response I found surprising, out of all of the other, much less rational and much more emotional, responses. As for legitimate medical problems, that may be true for *some* Viagra users (though I don't think old age counts as an actual medical dysfunction), but it's also true for many women who are on birth control for reasons other than contraception. Many women suffer from things like endometriosis, ovarian cysts, and other, *extremely painful*, dangerous, potentially-infertility-causing conditions. Some forms of birth control are more effective than others at treating these conditions, yet they aren't given the automatic approval Viagra is.
Also, birth control is, for many women (for those who don't want to get pregnant and are responsible about it, certainly), a prerequisite to having sex, just as getting an erection is a prerequisite to sex for men. So is it more important to us as a society that men be able to have sex? If I'm not mistaken, most of you on this site are anti-abortion and are fond of the refrain that women should be "more careful" about not getting pregnant if they don't want a baby. Seriously, think about the contradiction in these two views. On the one hand, women ought to use birth control if they don't want to get pregnant, i.e., if (most) women want to have sex, they need birth control. On the other hand, we're more willing to help men get prescription medication to help them have sex, than we are to help women get birth control, which for many is the only responsible way for them to have sex.
Look, I think MRAs actually have a handful of legitimate insights on issues like father's rights, and the really, really smart and reasonable MRAs would be surprised to find out they're actually feminists are well (that is, those MRAs who believe in actual equality, rather than complaining about the "matriarchy" because they want to further entrench patriarchy, rather than EQUALITY, which is what many -- but I will grant not all -- feminists want). But what I see in these comments, and in articles like this, is some really disturbing antipathy -- hatred, even, from, some -- toward women. Glenn says he'd like to see the two sides work together. So would I. But you have to acknowledge it's a little difficult for us women to get on board with a bunch of men who are constantly griping that we are out to get them. Just like you guys would not want to get on board with a bunch of feminists who spew anti-male language (as some, but certainly not all, often do).
Finally, step back and take a look at your own comments. There's a lot of victim language here, lots of playing the martyr. I get that you guys feel like you are actually victims, fine. But can you not see how, upon objective examination, you in fact sound EXACTLY LIKE the feminists you so disdain?
And, to be clear, my point in all this is that, even if there is an apparently unfair disparity in *federal* funding for cancer research, if you're going to look at how unfair things are for men in the medical world as a whole, you have to take a broader view. As for "feminist" politicians, most of them are not feminists -- they're sexists acting under the misconception that chivalry is a virtue. Benevolent sexism, though less immediately offensive on its face, is just as bad as misogynist sexism.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Oh, and also, as to MCA's comment that women's natural state is selfish, narcissistic, etc. Being that women, like men, are imperfect and severely flawed human beings, I could not agree more. But, so as not to be sexist (and thereby not completely correct) about it, I would say "humans" rather than "women."
March 19th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
"You guys are aware, aren't you, that most health insurance plans cover Viagra prescriptions, but *still* do not cover many female contraceptives (and even then, those that are covered have only become so very recently, even though BCPs have been around for nearly two generations, whereas Viagra was instantly granted "covered" status upon approval by the FDA)?"
before i argue the other points you make, since that is the crux of your argument, could you show me where that is the case?
Also for what tiers?
like i said, when i contacted the fertility clinic, i was told i shouldn't call them because i was male.
I would check my health plan but i'm not sure what generic BC pills are out there.
March 19th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Preda, when you engage her distraction from the topic of the near total neglect of mens health care in comparison to womens ....to some abstract viagra discussion....she wins.
Womens issues have near complete hedgemony in all media outlets, and it doesn't matter how much rubbish it includes, they dominate the airwaves, they set the hand picked topics, they win. " the media lace curtain".
March 19th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Law Fairy - "You guys are aware, aren't you, that most health insurance plans cover Viagra prescriptions, but *still* do not cover many female contraceptives..."
This issue was big news quite some time ago. Are there actually any insurance plans that have not rectified this situation? Maybe you could provide the names of those that do not? And, perhaps you might provide references so we might verify that they still refuse to?
I honestly don't know what outcome there was from the "big revalation" of disparity, but since it's no longer to be found in news headlines, I have to wonder if it's no longer an issue. I suppose until an effort is made to show that the practice no longer occurs, Feminist will be free to keep claiming it as an issue.
March 19th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Law Fairy, please allow me to address your post point-by-point:
"You guys are aware, aren't you, that most health insurance plans cover Viagra prescriptions..."
I don't know where you are getting your information. Google isn't turning up anything, but the company I work for has us insured through the largest insurer in the state, and our plan is considered top-notch by most in the industry. It specifically excludes all ED treatments. If I want Viagra, I'm on my own. (BTW, the FDA cannot tell the insurance companies what to cover or not cover.) On the other hand, it will pay for the pill if it's prescribed to a woman for treatment of endomeitriosis.
"The increased funding for women's health research over the past couple decades has focused on actually important things like breast cancer, HPV, HRT, etc. Are you absolutely positive that the billions of dollars poured into research AND MARKETING for Viagra, Extenze, Enzyte, etc., etc., etc., don't make up for the additional money spent on medical research for women? "
You're comparing apples and oranges. How about if I compare the money spent on testicular cancer research to the money spent marketing Botox, face peels, and cosmetic breast implants? If we just compare marketing for feel-good drugs and treatments, I think we can agree that there is a lot of silliness being pitched at both sexes.
"but *still* do not cover many female contraceptives..."
Because the purpose of insurance is to indemnify against risk. By definition, a risk is something that might happen but probably (hopefully) won't. There is no "risk" of a woman taking contraceptives -- if you ask any Western woman of child-bearing age, the odds that she is doing so are very close to certainty. Forcing insurance companies to cover contraceptives would amount to a government-mandated transfer payment. My wife and I are beyond child-raising age, and there is no possibility of her getting pregnant. Why then should we be forced to subsidize someone else's contraceptives through our insurance?
"I'm honestly racking my brain to think of equivalent expenditures on women's health research for non-necessaries"
If you are suggesting that a lot of government money has gone into Viagra research, you are very much mistaken. If you are resenting the amount of money that drug companies have spent on their own to research Viagra, then tough luck. It's their money, not yours. If you have a problem with it, buy a block of stock in a drug company and introduce a proposal at the annual shareholders' meeting. But first, know this: There *is* lots of money, government money, going into reseraching the equivalent of Viagra for women, something that would increase desire and sexual response. But the drug companies aren't interested. Want to know why not? Because they've learned that there's no market for it. Draw your own conclusions; I don't think I need to spell it out.
"And as for education/awareness, much of what we know and hear about breast cancer, we started hearing because of GRASSROOTS WORK from organizations like the Susan G. Komen Foundation. I don't know of any grassroots foundations that men have started to bring awareness to their health issues."
It took me about five seconds with Google to come up with The Prostate Cancer Foundation (www.prostatecancerfoundation.org). They do good work. The Komen Foundation does good work too. I've donated money to both. The Komen Foundation gets lots of positive media coverage and significant corporate donations. The Prostate Cancer Foundation can't get the time of day from the media, and other than Gillette, they get little from corporations whose boards are skittish about offending feminist groups.
"Those of you who purport to care about fathers and their children, certainly, ought to be showing a *lot* more concern for the women who BEAR those children, and their ability to do so safely."
A proper amount of concern is being shown; I don't see how it can be argued when you total up the funding, the legal privileges, and the media coverage. Now I'd like to see some women's groups get concerned about explaining to their daughters why their fathers have to be punished by society, work harder, and die earlier just because they are men.
March 19th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Wow, you are right. I was being an idiot.
From what I understand where i get my healthinsurance from the big wigs get to choose which medication is put on list of perscription medications that you can get deduction from.
if they want to put viagra on it, but not any type of BC(condom, pills, etc) well thats their choice and she should take it up with her employer.
besides, LF. Viagra is(maybe?) on the list, but I can't claim freezing my sperm due to cancer to my health insurance.
March 19th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
One other thing, Law Fairy:
"Also, birth control is, for many women (for those who don't want to get pregnant and are responsible about it, certainly), a prerequisite to having sex, just as getting an erection is a prerequisite to sex for men. So is it more important to us as a society that men be able to have sex? "
According to nearly all leading feminists, it's not important at all. Name any prominent feminist, and I will guarantee you that she agrees, mostly or totally, with Betty Freidan's comment that all hetrosexual sex is rape. How many good birth control options do you think are available to men? Answer: none. Condoms are unreliable (if a man uses condoms for birth control for 10 years, his probability of getting a woman pregnant is near certainty), vasectomy is permanent, and... well, there isn't anything else. Researchers who want to study male contraceptives can't get federal funding because feminist groups consistently block it. And yet feminist groups have the nerve to complain about men not taking enough responsibility for birth control. When these facts are pointed out to them, the feminists always respond by saying that if men don't want to become fathers, then they should remain chaste for life.
"If I'm not mistaken, most of you on this site are anti-abortion and are fond of the refrain that women should be "more careful" about not getting pregnant if they don't want a baby. Seriously, think about the contradiction in these two views. "
There is no contradiction because the men that those women are getting pregnant with aren't the type of men who get involved in MRA. The men getting those women pregnant are the "bad boys" that the women seek out specifically because they're trouble-makers. Then, when trouble gets made, guess who gets to play the victim? And guess who has the "privilege" of paying for it?
March 19th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Cousin Dave takes the BS by the horns - "I don't know where you are getting your information. Google isn't turning up anything, but the company I work for has us insured through the largest insurer in the state, and our plan is considered top-notch by most in the industry. It specifically excludes all ED treatments."
I had asked for the "Law Fairy" to show where health insurers where still covering ED treatments, but not BC's. I doubt I'll get a response.
So, it's go to see you attack it head on. I though most companies had been "shamed" into dropping ED treatment coverage by all the Feminist squawking.
In a weird twist of timing, I got a call from one of my adult daughters just after posting my questions to LF. After answering a question she had for me, I asked her whether or not her BC’s were covered by her health insurance.
She gave me one of those shocked “Dad!?!?” responses, but when I explained the context, she indicated that her BC were, in fact, part of her prescription drug plan.
So, while it’s hardly overwhelming evidence, I now have two examples to refute LF, with one example to support LF.
Thanks, Dave
March 19th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Here's the thing.
For centuries, pretty much anything having to do with humans -- health/medicine, culture, politics, etc. -- was discussed as though its focus were gender-neutral. Feminism came along in the 1970s and pointed out "hey, wait a minute, in fact this is *not* all gender-neutral; society is taking a standard of behavior/health/etc. that applies more readily to *men* and extrapolating this to mean 'everyone,' while at the same time explicitly ensuring that women are treated differently. Something seems unfair about this." Then, over the next few decades, people began to realize that, whoops, yeah, actually, we were being pretty unfair, and even shooting ourselves in the foot as a society, since women have a lot to offer. So laws changed, policies changed, and a lot of people (but not a lot of others) got used to the idea that women leaders are not inherently worse than men leaders, that the unique social experiences of women and men (not to mention the multitude of races, ethnicities, and cultural origins) can actually *add* a lot of value to the workplace, to culture, to life, to everything. A lot of these changes were for the better. Some weren't. And, of course, change does not happen overnight. Which means you'll see a lot of change, and imperfections will *still* be there. A whole LOT of them, in fact.
For instance, something that MRAs rightly point out is that men are unfairly discriminated against in family court. This is a problem, and when (if) we reach true equality, this will no longer be the case. It will also not be the case that women are thought of as more "naturally" being suited to things like childrearing, and less suited to things like law and politics. Women aren't required to register for the selective service, but we also face an uphill battle should we decide we want to join the military. Women aren't socially expected to pay for dates, but we're also not socially allowed to take charge in our relationships; men are the pursuers and women, the pursued. Women aren't expected to be breadwinners, but we're also discriminated against in the workplace (and when the discrimination occurs, we're generally told it's not discrimination, it's because we weren't ___ enough, even though if we had been more ___ it would have gotten us labeled troublemaking b*tches and inherently unfit wives and mothers). Did it ever occur to you that perhaps many women hate this dynamic just as much as some of you do?
I mean, ask yourselves: on the road to equality, will there be bumps? Of course. Change is hard. It's even harder when the people doing the changing and affected by the change focus on resenting each other instead of sympathizing with each other. Feminists and MRAs *both* do this. Yes, we're guilty of a lot, but you guys are guilty of just as much. So, as our good Lord Jesus would suggest (yup, there are feminist Christians out there), perhaps it would be more prudent to first examine *yourself* before accusing others of wronging you. Again, both sides ought to do this, and you're free to disregard this because it's being said by a feminist, or whatever. It's simply sound advice that's passed the test of time, so you can do with it what you will.
So, sorry if you guys feel like I "derailed" the men's health discussion; admittedly, I've made a much broader point here, so feel free to ignore and go on discussing men's health research. I just saw the unfair things that were being said about women and felt the need to comment. Also, I'll acknowledge that my point here is premised on the assumption that gender inequality has historically harmed and impeded women, and I don't know, maybe you guys disagree with that very simple point. In which case, I guess, go on feeling like victims, and godspeed.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Okay, also, in the hopes that I can put a rest to this portion of the discussion, I did not say that most health insurance doesn't cover BC. I said it doesn't cover MANY contraceptives. Meaning by implication, fairly obviously, I thought, that other forms ARE covered (the problem being that not all forms are equally effective for various conditions, or for various women who have differential body chemistry). Sorry, I guess sometimes I forget the entire world doesn't read like lawyers.
March 19th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Law Fairy, I'm tired of you coming in here and laying out sweeping slanderous assumptions, and then when we refute your points, instead of standing up for what you said, you come in and try to parse words while laying out even more nonsense. Like your assumption about how discrimination against women on the job is still widespread. Here is my challenge to you: Name me three ways in which women are commonly, frequently, and legally discriminated against on the job *specifically because they are women*.
March 19th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Law ferry
Also, I'll acknowledge that my point here is premised on the assumption that gender inequality has historically harmed and impeded women, and I don't know, maybe you guys disagree with that very simple point.
MCA, women in all cultures around the world share a "protected status" as mostly men are called to their deaths to protect them. women and children are mostly spared.
Never in history has mens protection of women been used as an instrument to oppress other men.
March 20th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Law Fairy,
I pointed out a number of logical flaws in your argument that you have failed to answer. Instead you choose to lapse into general rhetoric and sweeping generalisations, or else simply change the subject.
As is pointed out countless times on this site and others, the claim that women are discriminated against in the workforce is false. For instance, the claim that women are paid less for doing equal work to men is based on misleading evidence. As is the claim that women are passed over for promotion in favour of less capable men. The evidence for this simply does not stack up, as I pointed out on a recent thread 'This Makes American Feminists Seem Reasonable'. Invariably, the feminist argument simply boils down to 'women are under-represented, so it must be a conspiracy against women'.
The fact that women are still under-represented in many higher-paying occupations is actually largely the result of male obligation and female privilege. Women make fewer sacrifices in order to get better jobs because they have fewer financial responsibilities and more alternative sources of support. There are fewer women who are sole breadwinners, and more women who live off either a partner's earnings, inherited wealth, government benefits etc. So why would they bother working their butts off to get the best job?
Women today have more opportunities than men. Women and girls get better education, and women benefit from affirmative action in the workplace. The fact that not all women make the most of their opportunities is not society's fault.
The problems we are dealing with are not the result of society moving towards equality. Rather, they are a result of society moving even further in the direction of female privilege.
You mock us for playing the victim. Yet you are happy to trot out a whole lot of spurious excuses for why women are victims. I guess men should just stop whining and cop it sweet.
Your post simply illustrates how much we have been conditioned to ignore the male perspective on any issue. People have been conditioned to believe that women's rights and needs is the only legitimate perspective on any gender issue. How dare we put the other side of the argument.
March 20th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Law Fairy said "Hi guys,
Thanks for responding to my comment. I don't usually comment here because the vitriol is just too much (e.g., the victim-blaming comments about rape), and I know that posting angry only adds more fuel to the silly "feminists are all mean angry hateful bitches" fire. Because, clearly, given the comments here, no one could *ever* accuse you men of being mean angry hateful bitches."
I responded to your comment in a rational and fair manner. Yet you choose to ignore my comments and simply focus on the most extreme elements, yet you couldn't actually quote any comments that were so extreme or hateful.
P.S. calling people b____ is not an argument. No-one hear called you a hateful b****. We tried to point out the logical flaws in your argument in a reasonable manner. You are the one being uncivil here.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:49 am
Doesn't "sweeping slanderous assumptions" describe the majority of posters' opinions of women? We are all out to get you poor defenseless men. We only want your money, we will trick you into getting us pregnant and then steal all your money in the form of child support and never let you see your kids. There is no such thing as women's oppression or discrimination--men are all the ones who suffer. Many of you are caricatures of the type of males that women have a problem with, at least you are according to your posts. It is all very anti-woman. You adore females who jump on your bandwagon and beat up other females.
I hear the craziest things here--"women in all cultures around the world share a "protected status" as mostly men are called to their deaths to protect them. women and children are mostly spared." (tell that to women in the Middle East, such as in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia). More men are victims of domestic abuse than women. Really? Condoms don't work. They don't? Where do you get your data?
Very surprising that some of you don't think that covering birth control is all that important. Especially in light of the fact that you don't seem to get that much sex but want more. Birth control is expensive and inaccessible to many of those that need it the most (the young and the poor). Should they just not have sex because they can't afford pills?
March 20th, 2008 at 4:03 am
Law Fairy,
I've never seen anyone blame a rape victim on this board. Maybe there have been times when somone said something negative about a rape victim, but that is not the same as "blaming" the victim. I suspect you're one of those people who is "rape-P.C." - the mere suggestion that a rape victim has not been a life-long saint sounds terrible to you and you can't stomach it.
As an aside, studies have shown that the "rape fantasy" is the most common fantasy among women. (Of course that doesn't mean that they consciously want to get raped). That's the main reason romance novels (pornography for women) now outsell all other forms of fiction.
March 20th, 2008 at 4:18 am
jeana says,
"More men are victims of domestic abuse than women. Really?.."
You have a very sneaky way of wording things..congratulations. How do you define "abuse"? If you mean to say "violence", even that has a ridiculously broad interpretation nowadays, the courts consdering such things as "economic, emotional, or mental abuse" to count as dometic violence (but only when directed against a woman).
And finally, I've never seen anyone on this board claim men comprise a majority of the victims of DV. But it has been pointed out frequently, here and elsewhere, that there are over 200 scientific studies and analyses, which conclusively show that women initiate domestic violence at a rate equal to or greater than men:
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
March 20th, 2008 at 8:30 am
My employer's health plan covers birth control-- female contraceptives. It does not cover condoms-- the equivalent male birth control. Who is getting the short end there?
Jeana says: "I hear the craziest things here--"women in all cultures around the world share a "protected status" as mostly men are called to their deaths to protect them. women and children are mostly spared." (tell that to women in the Middle East, such as in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia). "
Well I present a very simple and clear piece of evidence that women at least in this country have a "protected status."
Selective Service.
I'm also sure that the largely Muslim countries you mention also do not require such a thing. I draw a distinction between the amount of liberty one has and whether one holds "protected status."
Mrs. Clinton is running for President--which is her right-- without ever having had to face compulsory military service-- men's obligation. (I believe she was of appropriate age to serve in Vietnam-- when there was a draft.)
Rights without obligations? How is that not a "protected status" or even a "prefered status?"
March 20th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Law Fairy: "...hey, wait a minute, in fact this is *not* all gender-neutral; society is taking a standard of behavior/health/etc. that applies more readily to *men* and extrapolating this to mean 'everyone,' while at the same time explicitly ensuring that women are treated differently. Then, over the next few decades, people began to realize that, whoops, yeah, actually, we were being pretty unfair...."
(In other words, research on heart disease should count as male research.)
Glenn and Dianna: "Part of the reason an Office of Men's Health has been so long in coming is the common but nonetheless false perception that the government and the scientific community have paid more attention to men's health than to women's. In 1990 Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) made national headlines by citing the fact that women-specific health research comprised only 14% of the budget of the National Institute of Health (NIH). She called it "blatant discrimination" and led the successful campaign for the creation of the OWH. What Mikulski and many in the media who publicized Mikulski's claims did not understand was that only 6.5% of the NIH's budget went to male-specific research--the vast majority of the NIH's research was gender neutral."
Without counting heart disease as male research, it was already 14% female-specific research versus 6.5% male-related research, and then "Congress formed the Office on Women's Health in 1991, its goal was to improve women's health by directing and coordinating women's health research, health care services, and health education. "
March 20th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Jenna, if you'll stop resorting to name-calling every time someone disagrees with you, maybe you'll start to get a better response. We're a pretty tough-minded crowd when it comes to reason-based arguments here. I'm going to issue you the same challenge that I issued to Law Fairy (who has declined to respond to *any* of my points): Name three specific, documented ways in which women are legally discriminated against in the workplace in America today.
March 20th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
You guys don't like feminists. Fine. You guys don't like me. Fine. You guys don't see how someone could come in here and look at the things that are written (by the way, if you're going to be offended by my comments, PLEASE take care to read them accurately. I don't believe I have many any direct accusations against any individual here, although I have not been shown the same courtesy) and see them as vitriolic/woman-bashing/victim-playing/etc. Fine. Then I guess feminists and MRAs can just sit around and throw rocks at each other until someday, maybe, hopefully, good God PLEASE, our great-great-great-great-great grandchildren will actually mature a little bit and realize how fruitless and futile this whole exercise is. I made some concessions to your side because, as I've said before, looking at things logically and objectively, you have some points. But you don't have all of them. NO ONE has all the points and all the answers to anything in the universe. And if you can't see that, then I guess I really am wasting my time here.
I came here to make a simple point: there is more than one valid perspective. Indeed, this simple statement seems to be the ENTIRE POINT of your movement, and yet you reject this simple point, made in the way I've made it, because I haven't responded to every single nitpicky point or argument that's been put out there. Something I learned very early on in my legal career is that it is simply not the case that every argument is worth responding to. You pick out what you think to be the most important points (that is, those most pertinent to the larger picture you're trying to draw) and focus on those. If opposing counsel throws out a red herring in a legal brief, responding to that red herring hurts my response more than it helps it. So to the extent that I haven't responded to everything every person here has said, sorry to break it to you, but it probably has something to do with the principle I just laid out above.
Nick, you were no more "rational and fair" than I was, and you're incorrect that I "ignore[d]" your comments. You started off by mocking me ("yawn") and challenging my analogy (okay, that's legitimate, now let's see how you do it). The way you challenge it? By misreading what I've written as saying insurance doesn't cover birth control AT ALL, which is not what I said, as I later explained (thus, I did address something you wrote). You then go on to justify the disparate treatment of Viagra where it does exist and has historically existed, another point I later addressed. So that's two things you said to which I directly responded. You then made a valid distinction between government and private funding -- one which I recognize, but, honestly, don't find particularly persuasive in any direction without more information -- and, if you recall, my original comment explicitly noted that I did not have the additional information in question. My original comment was meant only to provoke THOUGHT, yet unfortunately it seems, much more, to have provoked only reaction. You went on to quote a couple of points from my comment and opined that they demonstrated only that women are selfish (which we are, as I noted above, but no more so than men), and that I am attempting to guilt-trip and shame the men here (which I was not and am not). I'm not sure how I am supposed to respond to those points any more than I have.
I will grant, Nick, that yours WAS one of the more reasonable and fair comments. But it was far from perfect. Hey, I'm far from perfect. We're all far from perfect. Humanity is pretty freaking far from perfect. And yet you would rather paint me, as a woman and a feminist, as the bad guy, the one who makes unfair accusations, and yet you are apparently incapable of seeing that you yourselves do THE EXACT SAME THING, and to a pretty extreme extent in some cases. I *GET* that this is a board that caters to your views, and I understand the natural human tendency to take a more extreme position when you're surrounded by people who approve of your views. Certainly, you likely find this phenomenon in reverse if and when you step onto feminist boards for a look. My point is simply that we (feminists and MRAs, men and women) are not so very different as many of you may like to think. You can either acknowledge this, or live in willful ignorance.
Cousin Dave, I'll forego responding to your unfair, rude, and legally deficient accusation that I have "slander[ed]" anyone here and try to focus on the impossible question you've posed to me. I call it impossible not because there is no answer, but because I suspect you will not *accept* any answer. Three ways in which women are discriminated against in the workplace (based only on my personal experience; I understand that it is even worse in certain less-female-friendly industries, and law already has a ways to go to be female-friendly): (1) lack of legitimate mentoring, (2) cultural masculinity, and (3) underconfidence. These are my terms, I didn't take them from a book or website. The lack of legitimate mentoring stems from the fact that there are very few women in positions of authority in the legal world, even though half or more than half of graduating law students are, and have been for quite a while now, female. This is a problem for ehtnic minorities as well. Although, certainly, mentors don't *have* to be the same sex, same race, etc., a mentor-mentee relationship requires a certain level of empathy and understanding. It takes a lot more work for a 50-year-old male partner to empathize with a 26-year-old female associate than for him to empathize with a 26-year-old male associate. So you systematically see the better mentorship opportunities going to male lawyers. Cultural masculinity refers to the baseline assumptions that underlie the practice of law and business development in law firms. As an example, although a male lawyer may on occasion be gracious and reasonable to the opposing side, and be seen as mature for doing so (as he should be), when a female lawyer does it, she is seen as weak (I know this from being yelled at by male partners for not wanting to make unreasonable demands on others -- even though I have seen these VERY SAME male partners defer to my male peers when they have similar contributions). Of course, we have to walk a fine line here, because research shows that women who are seen as angry are respected, if you can believe it, EVEN LESS than "weak" women (and, certainly, less than a man of any temperament). Business development opportunities lie largely in masculine-themed events and gatherings (e.g., sports games), or, at best, neutral gatherings (e.g., MCLE receptions). And underconfidence refers to partners' hesitance to give better or more challenging assignments to young women attorneys than to young men attorneys. You can accept that this happens, or you can reject my experience for nothing more than the simple fact that it does not reflect *your* experience. But there's your answer.
Also, I'm curious about something. Many of you seem to think (if I understand you correctly) that the existence of things like chivalry point to the triumph of feminism. I'm curious why you would think this, or why you would think that feminists WANT a society like the one you describe. Like I tried to make clear in an earlier comment, MRAs see special protection for women. Feminists see infantilization of and control over women. We come at the problem from different directions, but if I'm not mistaken, we all see it as a problem, we all want to change it, and we all ultimately want the same outcome -- equality for men and women. Don't we? So if we're all agreed that we don't WANT these things, why the f are we fighting????
March 21st, 2008 at 2:15 am
The Law Fairy Says:
March 18th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
*delurk*
You guys are aware, aren't you, that most health insurance plans cover Viagra prescriptions, but *still* do not cover many female contraceptives (and even then, those that are covered have only become so very recently, even though BCPs have been around for nearly two generations, whereas Viagra was instantly granted "covered" status upon approval by the FDA)? This is especially ludicrous when you consider the fact that it would *save* insurers a significant amount of money to cover more forms of contraceptives (when weighed against the much more expensive costs associated with giving birth).
Do you realise that you are comparing apples and dump trucks? One is for a dysfunction. A medical condition. A problem both medical and psychological. That is a huge difference. The need for a medical condition is just a tad more important than for one that is not. I believe if you check that insurance does not cover prophylactics which would be a fair and equal comparison, but we can not have that can we?
The increased funding for women's health research over the past couple decades has focused on actually important things like breast cancer, HPV, HRT, etc. Are you absolutely positive that the billions of dollars poured into research AND MARKETING for Viagra, Extenze, Enzyte, etc., etc., etc., don't make up for the additional money spent on medical research for women? I honestly don't know the answer to this (and will defer to someone who can present *legitimate* stats), but I certainly have my suspicions. It is a LOT more logical to look first to *where* the money spent on research for men is going, rather than jumping to the conclusion that more money being spent on breast cancer research than on prostate cancer research means oh noes it's a conspiracy the feminists are destroying the universe and taking over the government even though the vast majority of politicians are men!!!!111!!one1!!
Bernie Misiura Says:
March 18th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
funny thing funding
Major cancers research spending 1.3577 billion
breast........... 551.1 million....40% of the money 15% of the total cancer
colorectal......249.1 million
lung...............261.9 million
prostrate......305.6 million....22.5% of the money 17% of the cancer hmmmmmm
cancer org and NCI
b
I'm honestly racking my brain to think of equivalent expenditures on women's health research for non-necessaries -- of course, you gentlemen are free to decide that Viagra is more important to you than prostate cancer research, but that is not *women's* doing, and it is beyond selfish of you to suggest, at least implicitly, that funding for important women's health research -- i.e., our *needs* -- should be slashed so that men get both their needs *and* their wants satisfied. If you decide that having lots of sex in your old age is more important than living a long life, more power to you. But don't you dare tell me that I should expose myself to greater health risks so you can keep your willy up when you're 65 (or much younger, if you're one of the scores of young recreational Viagra users).
Again see above and the one before that it is not just for recreation and/or sex after 65 nor is it covered if you check on it for recreational purposes there has to be a medical need and be accompanied by a prescription.
Also you will find that if there is a medical need for the pill (irregular period etc.) that it is covered.
Why is it that girls and women receive more stitches then men? If it is not necessary for men then it is equally not necessary for women . . . but I guess it is OK to charge the insurance companies more for more stitches and doctors time and perhaps a plastic surgeon because of your vanity and psychological well being hmmmm?
And as for education/awareness, much of what we know and hear about breast cancer, we started hearing because of GRASSROOTS WORK from organizations like the Susan G. Komen Foundation. I don't know of any grassroots foundations that men have started to bring awareness to their health issues.
We cannot do this no one cares about men's issues, and that is what we are complaining about.
MRAs are fond of saying that most sexist problems are caused by women themselves, because women don't solve the problems on their own. Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, boys.
and what is good for the goose is good for the gander yours should have read what is good for the gander is good for the goose.
Those of you who purport to care about fathers and their children, certainly, ought to be showing a *lot* more concern for the women who BEAR those children, and their ability to do so safely. Without the increased funding you are complaining about, there would be a lot fewer healthy babies and healthy mothers, and, accordingly, a lot fewer happy fathers.
And women cannot show a lot more care for the fathers who support those children and more than likely are the ones that have the insurance through their work? It takes much nerve to complain to the people who have the insurance for their families to ask for more coverage and funding. You realize that we get this insurance and because we do we do not receive more pay because this is included in the contract negotiations as what we receive from our employers, apparently not! I am sure if you ask any unionized men or women here that they will tell you that there have been raises eliminated or lowered because medical insurance went up. Do you realize that we get this insurance and because you live longer you will have its benefits after we are dead, again apparently not. Things are not as simple as you would have people believe. You are right we are selfish and self absorbed and centered. Try to digest what I have said for awhile
b
March 21st, 2008 at 2:18 am
Did you also know that breast cancer treatments that women receive are not covered for men? Hmmmmm.
b
March 21st, 2008 at 2:26 am
The Law Fairy Says:
March 19th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Also, birth control is, for many women (for those who don't want to get pregnant and are responsible about it, certainly), a prerequisite to having sex, just as getting an erection is a prerequisite to sex for men. So is it more important to us as a society that men be able to have sex? If I'm not mistaken, most of you on this site are anti-abortion and are fond of the refrain that women should be "more careful" about not getting pregnant if they don't want a baby. Seriously, think about the contradiction in these two views. On the one hand, women ought to use birth control if they don't want to get pregnant, i.e., if (most) women want to have sex, they need birth control. On the other hand, we're more willing to help men get prescription medication to help them have sex, than we are to help women get birth control, which for many is the only responsible way for them to have sex.
= = =
Dear, if you want to be responsible, the pill does not protect from STD's and you should be using a prophylactic. That is just a tad more important considering the death sentence that some STD's carry and the amount of insurance money tat is spent on someone who is going to die from their selfish recklessness.
No you do not need the pill to have sex, a prophylactic is the wiser choice, no?
Sorry I think I have proven that the pill is not the most responsible method to have sex.
b
March 21st, 2008 at 2:40 am
The Law Fairy Says:
March 19th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Here's the thing.
I mean, ask yourselves: on the road to equality, will there be bumps? Of course. Change is hard. It's even harder when the people doing the changing and affected by the change focus on resenting each other instead of sympathizing with each other. Feminists and MRAs *both* do this. Yes, we're guilty of a lot, but you guys are guilty of just as much. So, as our good Lord Jesus would suggest (yup, there are feminist Christians out there), perhaps it would be more prudent to first examine *yourself* before accusing others of wronging you. Again, both sides ought to do this, and you're free to disregard this because it's being said by a feminist, or whatever. It's simply sound advice that's passed the test of time, so you can do with it what you will.
= = =
Nope, you first and we will be more then glad to follow after all our movement is younger and we have more to loose in the future if we stop now.
b
March 21st, 2008 at 2:49 am
Nick S Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Law Fairy said "Hi guys,
Thanks for responding to my comment. I don't usually comment here because the vitriol is just too much (e.g., the victim-blaming comments about rape), and I know that posting angry only adds more fuel to the silly "feminists are all mean angry hateful bitches" fire. Because, clearly, given the comments here, no one could *ever* accuse you men of being mean angry hateful bitches."
I responded to your comment in a rational and fair manner. Yet you choose to ignore my comments and simply focus on the most extreme elements, yet you couldn't actually quote any comments that were so extreme or hateful.
P.S. calling people b____ is not an argument. No-one hear called you a hateful b****. We tried to point out the logical flaws in your argument in a reasonable manner. You are the one being uncivil here.
= = =
Which is far better treatment then men receive on feminist sites, the horrific plethora of profanities that accompany their posts are simply dreadful and disrespectful. Comparing the way women are treated here as apposed to men there is a non-contest.
b
March 21st, 2008 at 2:57 am
jeana Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 2:49 am
Many of you are caricatures of the type of males that women have a problem with, at least you are according to your posts. It is all very anti-woman. You adore females who jump on your bandwagon and beat up other females.
THAT was uncalled for!
Very surprising that some of you don't think that covering birth control is all that important. Especially in light of the fact that you don't seem to get that much sex but want more.
That too, I am loosing respect for you.
Birth control is expensive and inaccessible to many of those that need it the most (the young and the poor). Should they just not have sex because they can't afford pills?
Try a prophylactic they require a much smaller monetary investment up front.
b
March 21st, 2008 at 3:04 am
The Law Fairy Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I came here to make a simple point: there is more than one valid perspective.
= = =
Perspective is another word for opinion. . . you know what they say about opinions . . . however there is only one valid truth.
b
March 21st, 2008 at 3:21 am
The Law Fairy Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I *GET* that this is a board that caters to your views, and I understand the natural human tendency to take a more extreme position when you're surrounded by people who approve of your views. Certainly, you likely find this phenomenon in reverse if and when you step onto feminist boards for a look. My point is simply that we (feminists and MRAs, men and women) are not so very different as many of you may like to think. You can either acknowledge this, or live in willful ignorance.
As I stated earlier women are by bar treated better here than men on feminist sites and you can either acknowledge this, or live in willful ignorance.
Cousin Dave, I'll forego responding to your unfair, rude, and legally deficient accusation that I have "slander[ed]" anyone here and try to focus on the impossible question you've posed to me. I call it impossible not because there is no answer, but because I suspect you will not *accept* any answer. Three ways in which women are discriminated against in the workplace (based only on my personal experience; I understand that it is even worse in certain less-female-friendly industries, and law already has a ways to go to be female-friendly): (1) lack of legitimate mentoring, (2) cultural masculinity, and (3) underconfidence. These are my terms, I didn't take them from a book or website. The lack of legitimate mentoring stems from the fact that there are very few women in positions of authority in the legal world, even though half or more than half of graduating law students are, and have been for quite a while now, female. This is a problem for ehtnic minorities as well. Although, certainly, mentors don't *have* to be the same sex, same race, etc., a mentor-mentee relationship requires a certain level of empathy and understanding. It takes a lot more work for a 50-year-old male partner to empathize with a 26-year-old female associate than for him to empathize with a 26-year-old male associate. So you systematically see the better mentorship opportunities going to male lawyers. Cultural masculinity refers to the baseline assumptions that underlie the practice of law and business development in law firms. As an example, although a male lawyer may on occasion be gracious and reasonable to the opposing side, and be seen as mature for doing so (as he should be), when a female lawyer does it, she is seen as weak (I know this from being yelled at by male partners for not wanting to make unreasonable demands on others -- even though I have seen these VERY SAME male partners defer to my male peers when they have similar contributions). Of course, we have to walk a fine line here, because research shows that women who are seen as angry are respected, if you can believe it, EVEN LESS than "weak" women (and, certainly, less than a man of any temperament). Business development opportunities lie largely in masculine-themed events and gatherings (e.g., sports games), or, at best, neutral gatherings (e.g., MCLE receptions). And underconfidence refers to partners' hesitance to give better or more challenging assignments to young women attorneys than to young men attorneys. You can accept that this happens, or you can reject my experience for nothing more than the simple fact that it does not reflect *your* experience. But there's your answer.
I believe you missed his point. Where is it written legally that it is OK to discriminate against a women in the work place. I is written that a man cannot obtain a federal, state, county and in many cases a local government job (this is not universal yet but it is getting there) job because he cannot or will not produce a selective service card.
Also, I'm curious about something. Many of you seem to think (if I understand you correctly) that the existence of things like chivalry point to the triumph of feminism. I'm curious why you would think this, or why you would think that feminists WANT a society like the one you describe. Like I tried to make clear in an earlier comment, MRAs see special protection for women. Feminists see infantilization of and control over women. We come at the problem from different directions, but if I'm not mistaken, we all see it as a problem, we all want to change it, and we all ultimately want the same outcome -- equality for men and women. Don't we? So if we're all agreed that we don't WANT these things, why the f are we fighting????
Let me ask you a question. Why are you not fighting to eliminate the selective service rules or fighting for them to apply to women also? The answer to that is why we are fighting. You know on a feminist site you would have been able to drop the f bomb but not here . . . hmmmmm
b
March 21st, 2008 at 7:01 am
Law Fairy said "Nick, you were no more "rational and fair" than I was, and you're incorrect that I "ignore[d]" your comments. You started off by mocking me ("yawn") and challenging my analogy (okay, that's legitimate, now let's see how you do it). The way you challenge it? By misreading what I've written as saying insurance doesn't cover birth control AT ALL, which is not what I said, as I later explained (thus, I did address something you wrote). You then go on to justify the disparate treatment of Viagra where it does exist and has historically existed, another point I later addressed. So that's two things you said to which I directly responded. You then made a valid distinction between government and private funding -- one which I recognize, but, honestly, don't find particularly persuasive in any direction without more information -- and, if you recall, my original comment explicitly noted that I did not have the additional information in question. My original comment was meant only to provoke THOUGHT, yet unfortunately it seems, much more, to have provoked only reaction. You went on to quote a couple of points from my comment and opined that they demonstrated only that women are selfish (which we are, as I noted above, but no more so than men), and that I am attempting to guilt-trip and shame the men here (which I was not and am not). I'm not sure how I am supposed to respond to those points any more than I have."
There are so many problems with what you have said, I don't know where to start.
Firstly, I don't know what you are talking about when you say I misread your statement as meaning that insurance does not cover BC. I never said anything about that. I merely said that comparing birth control with viagra is not a valid comparison. You are comparing apples with oranges, as Bernie and I have pointed out again and again.
As for me claiming that women are selflsh, that was in response to your comment. You said that because women had spent more time promoting women's health than men had spent promoting men's health, therefore this was a failing that men are responsible for. I simply pointed out that if women spend more time looking after their own interests than men spend looking after men's interests, then this just shows women are more self-serving. This was a fair comment, and you led me straight to it.
You also object to me claiming that you are trying to shame and guilt-trip men. Well, how else do you describe statements like this. "Those of you who purport to care about fathers and their children, certainly, ought to be showing a *lot* more concern for the women who BEAR those children, and their ability to do so safely. Without the increased funding you are complaining about, there would be a lot fewer healthy babies and healthy mothers, and, accordingly, a lot fewer happy fathers."
Or there is this little gem "If you decide that having lots of sex in your old age is more important than living a long life, more power to you. But don't you dare tell me that I should expose myself to greater health risks so you can keep your willy up when you're 65 (or much younger, if you're one of the scores of young recreational Viagra users)."
Or this " I don't usually comment here because the vitriol is just too much (e.g., the victim-blaming comments about rape), and I know that posting angry only adds more fuel to the silly "feminists are all mean angry hateful bitches" fire. Because, clearly, given the comments here, no one could *ever* accuse you men of being mean angry hateful bitches." BTW: I am not aware of people commenting here claiming rape victims are to blame for their fate. Maybe I missed it.
If you don't consider any of these statements attempts to shame or guilt-trip men, what would you call them?
Basically, anyone who doesn't agree with you or believe that women should come first is obviously a piece of vile scum. I know that. I don't need you to remind me what a worthless piece of trash I am. I've had it drummed into me by our misandrist society for many years.
March 21st, 2008 at 7:58 am
Law Fairy,
whenever you are cornered on a particular issue where you cannot defend your argument, you either change the subject, or lapse into more general rhetoric, or claim that anyone who disagrees with you has some personal problem, or else revert to relativist nihilistic statements. You basically want to argue around in circles until your opponent gives up. This becomes frustrating.
It would be nice if you could stick to the subject matter instead of basically throwing the entire kitchen sink at us. I don't have all day to answer every last one of your points, but I have pointed out many flaws in your arguments already. Could someone else please take over?
Instead of acknowledging the basic truth that far more resources are devoted to women than men, you want to endlessly nit-pick and find any tiny piece of evidence that might defy the trend in order to negate the whole argument. I think you accused us of ignoring the big picture. Yet you are the one who wants to ignore the broader picture, and nit-pick over minor details.
One more thing. You claim to be opposed to chivalry. It is a standard feminist tactic to claim to oppose chivalry, while at the same time demanding special treatment in other areas and exploiting chivalry in order to stop men opposing them. This is a classic feminist sleight-of-hand. If you really oppose chivalry, surely you would oppose devoting more resources to women's health than to men's. After all, as a strong independent woman you must resent the implication that you are somehow weaker or more needy than a man?
March 21st, 2008 at 1:30 pm
The Law Fairy Says:
March 18th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
*delurk*
You guys are aware, aren't you, that most health insurance plans cover Viagra prescriptions, but *still* do not cover many female contraceptives (and even then, those that are covered have only become so very recently, even though BCPs have been around for nearly two generations, whereas Viagra was instantly granted "covered" status upon approval by the FDA)? This is especially ludicrous when you consider the fact that it would *save* insurers a significant amount of money to cover more forms of contraceptives (when weighed against the much more expensive costs associated with giving birth).
= = =
Another comment on this:
It would not save insurers a significant amount of money to cover more forms of contraceptives when weighed against the "much more expensive" costs associated with giving birth.
I guess the point is giving birth is not more expensive int the long run. The bottom line is like any business health insurers want to stay in business. They have been in business for a long time and know exactly what they are doing and apparently you have been buffooned by them. If the supply free contraceptives and this results in negative or zero population growth they will not be able to meet rising expenses and overhead. They need new people to replace the dying consumers, period. It would be counterproductive and counter good business sense to discourage birth. This should be simple to see.
b
March 21st, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Re: above point. Perhaps a fairer comparison would be to look at whether health plans that cover Viagra also cover or exclude treatments to help female potency. Also you could look at whether health plans that cover female contraceptives also cover male contraceptives. This would be an honest comparison.
Feminists don't like honest comparisons, because they invariably refute the idea that women have it worse. So they need to set up false equations in order to win arguments.