"We make up 51% of the population and we may decide one day to kick all your arses out and do the job ourselves."
This is the key. Up until now - in a "man's world" - the number of women holding elected office has been relatively low. The solution is to have more women run for office and to elect them. But beware - there's no guarantee that a large block of women would see things the same way. From watching the news, I see lots of women who seeming support the "open season" by way of supporting the bills/new laws that some say constitute a "war."
I wonder whether we'd be involved in so many overseas conflicts if women were in the majority in Congress and held the White House? I guess we just have to put 'em there in order to find out.
So I totally support giving women the opportunity to "do any worse." Let them have the steering wheel, and let the men whine about the way things are for a change.
It would at least settle the argument.
"...there are a heck of a lot of men who CAN'T STAND IT that women have total control of their lives."
I guess you got me. I've been telling my wife for 41 years that I can't stand it that she has total control over my life. She always tunes me out, though...
In my experience, females are more "academically inclined" and can better focus on academic goals at an earlier age than males. Here's a pretty good analysis which uses statistics (with apologies to Senator Reid):
..and maybe this explains why:
College doesn't make you smarter, study finds.
A new study has found show no significant improvement in the key measures of critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing among students by the end of their sophomore years.
You are told that to make it in life, you must go to college. You work hard to get there. You or your parents drain savings or take out huge loans to pay for it all. And you end up learning ... not much.
A study of more than 2,300 undergraduates found 45 percent of students show no significant improvement in the key measures of critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing by the end of their sophomore years.
Not much is asked of students, either. Half did not take a single course requiring 20 pages of writing during their prior semester, and one-third did not take a single course requiring even 40 pages of reading per week.
The findings are in a new book, "Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses," by sociologists Richard Arum of New York University and Josipa Roksa of the University of Virginia. An accompanying report argues against federal mandates holding schools accountable, a prospect long feared in American higher education.
And roger, it is unfortunete though. Any point trying to be made is clouded by personal biases as oppossed ot being objective. If it helps, I am not angry.....
And the humilation and subjugation contiues.....
hmm.... last time I checked it took two to play. But then this is where the double standard comes into play. Men are players and women are 'hos. Men get perscriptions for viagra so they can poke anything with a hole and women are the ones who have to pay the price, while same men walk away without looking back. IMHO, this is just to grind women under the male heel so men can feel powerful and in control.
"But then this is where the double standard comes into play. Men are players and women are 'hos. Men get perscriptions for viagra so they can poke anything with a hole and women are the ones who have to pay the price, while same men walk away without looking back. IMHO, this is just to grind women under the male heel so men can feel powerful and in control."
I don't feel that way.
What's the solution? Is it for women to fornicate, humiliate, and walk away (too)? As you say, it takes two to play. So why don't the "victims" just cut off the situation before it begins? (They have the "power," you know.) Or are all the "victims" just too naive, too uneducated, or too unable to control their own "animal lust and passion?"
You've identified a problem. How would YOU fix it?
Equal medical access. If I can't have BC then you can't have viagra. If I am denied medical information that impacts my health because of the possibility of not having an abortion then your medical information regarding your prostrate cancer. needs to be with held. If I can't have the morning after pill after i've been raped then you don't get mediation due to the social disease you have contracted. And so on as so forth.
I don't want/use viagra, - and I think it is a stereotype to assume that all men do - but I have no stats to back it up. But you've said plenty that I don't understand:
How are you denied medical information that impacts your health because of the possibility of not having an abortion? Who says you "can't have" the morning after pill? Do you mean that you can't have it at government expense? From what I understand - throughout the United States:
"In 1999, the progestin-only Plan B (two 750 µg levonorgestrel pills) became available with a prescription. This form has been replaced by the manufacturer, Teva, with Plan B One-Step (one 1.5 mg levonorgestrel pill). In 2009, a generic version of the original two-pill version of Plan B became available, called Next Choice (manufactured by Watson)."
"Emergency contraception became available without prescription to men and women over 18 in 2006. As of April 2009, Plan B is available from pharmacies staffed by a licensed pharmacist to men and women 17 or older; women 16 and under require a prescription."
You've listed a bunch of medical "problems," and cited "equal medical access" as the solution, but how does that solve the situation where:
"Men are players and women are 'hos. Men get perscriptions for viagra so they can poke anything with a hole and women are the ones who have to pay the price, while same men walk away without looking back. IMHO, this is just to grind women under the male heel so men can feel powerful and in control."
In other words - I don't see "equal medical access" as a solution to men "walking away without looking back," and "grinding women under their heels." Those sound more like interpersonal relationship problems to me.
because the issue at hand is equal medical access which the PTB wishes to deny women while rewarding men for similar activity.
when I say "you" I am not speaking of you specifically but men in general.
Thanks - I assumed not (but do I believe in the old saying that to "assume" makes an "*ss (out of) u (and) me"). But I'll have to assume anyway that PTB means "Powers That Be," but if the morning after pill is available to "everyone," I still don't "get it" (or the reference to "hos" and "heels"). Please excuse me - in some ways I'm probably just a dumb old guy, but I'd like to know more about the issues you've raised, but none of them have ever touched my life personally (that I recall).
And since I'm being called to supper - I'm gone for tonight. Have a good one....
Here is a wonderful opportunity for an entrepreneur to make a smart business move. If the assumption is correct, that there’s a huge demand for insurance companies to provide birth control, and (again, if the assumption is correct) there is a lack of insurance companies doing this; then there’s a market to be had. Take away the unhappy customers and offer insurance plans that provides this demand. That’s how smart business men become successful. No mandate, no regulation, no bi-partisan law. Simply the market providing the supply to meet the demand.
"In fact, in all my years of working in healthcare, I have NEVER seen any man's insurance not cover ED drugs..."
Apparently during those years you should have kept looking. In August of 2009, an article in the NY Times said this:
"Medicare and many insurance plans don’t cover the cost of E.D. drugs."
A related article at everydayhealth.com says this:
"Most insurance companies won't cover the cost of erectile dysfunction drugs, and Medicare won't either."
But whatever - there has apparently been enough progress in the area of the availability of "birth control" for women that feminists at feministcampus.org less than nine months ago proclaimed "VICTORY" and said this:
"As of Monday August 1st, 2011 Health and Human Services adopted regulations that will eliminate co-pays for all FDA approved contraceptives, making health care far more affordable for women. In addition the recommendations would also cover STI counseling, HIV testing and counseling and a whole range of other reproductive healthcare benefits."
"Insurance companies have exactly one year to comply with the new regulations, however it will take until 2014 for many people to receive coverage. For more information about the breadth of proposed benefits check out this amazing article at Color Lines."
"In a news release by the Department of Health and Human Services, Secretary Kathleen Sebelious commented, “These historic guidelines are based on science and existing literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need.”"
…and especially this:
"Eliminating co-pays does not mean “free” birth control, nor will it benefit uninsured women. But according to Torrez, the IOM recommendation will impact a huge group of women, especially those in the middle class."
"This is an amazing victory we need to celebrate. Most college and university insurance plans currently cover contraception with a co-pay; with this new regulation by HHS, they will no longer have to pay these co-pay. This is a huge breakthrough for college students because of the increased tuition costs and the current slate of ongoing attacks on Title X funding. These developments will increase access to contraception. The battle for reproductive justice is far from over but we are now one step closer to closing the gender gap and gaining reproductive equality."
So - IMHO - it's one thing to say that we haven't gone far enough in providing "equality" of access in order to maintain some sort of "equality" in control over one's "reproductive lives." But from the above, to portray the situation as totally one-sided - as the arguments do - in the recent words of another blogger: obfucates the main issues and is dishonest and disengenuous.
Thank you for that info Sebekm, if true it will go a long ways toward having healthy and productive women.
Your welcome, up2. As I mentioned in another blog string, when I actually worked for a living, I probably personally interviewed and hired several hundred civilian employees. None were men. I suppose some could see some "inequality" in that, but in almost almost all instances there were no male applicants; and in the remainder there were no males who were - in my opinion - "best qualified."
I always tried my best to stay out of their "reproductive lives" - in all ways you can imagine - even when invited in. Regardless, I have always been in favor of "equality" for women as in equal rights, equal opportunity, equal pay, and equal status and standing. In my personal experience and in the workplace I supervised, women as a group were always MORE THAN EQUAL in their presence; in the influence they exerted UPON ME; and in their representation when I took their issues to higher level management for resolution.
I am proud to say that before and after my retirement, I've had women who worked for me tell me that "I was the best boss they ever had." And I can assure you that these were not "milquetoast" or "easy women to work with," or those who would make that kind of a statement "just to make conversation" or to be flattering. (I could tell you some stories, believe you me...)
(....there were also many women co-workers who called me a "dinosaur" - so you can take that for what it's worth...)
I don't disagree with your argument. But while you personally may have never seen a case where ED drugs were denied, that's obviously not been the case across the country - as evidenced by the NY Times and everydayhealth.com articles (and tens of others I chose not to cite).
Also - in your comments - you seem to always portray essentially ALL MEN (not just angry conservatives) as mysoginist, disempowering, abusive, angry white male religious fanatics/other sexists who feel women are ruining the world with their "immorality."
In your world, are there any exceptions? If so, who are they?