zengirl Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 The cost of BC (under the laws taking effect) really shouldn't raise premiums or taxes (it will raise premiums because insurance companies will raise them for any reason they can find!) since it saves both taxpayers and insurance companies money, on social services and medical procedures/pregnancies respectively. That's what's so interesting. The only reason premiums are rising is because premiums are ALWAYS rising. The main objection to this law is not financial -- it's religious. The argument is that workplaces should not have to purchase healthcare that provides care they morally object to. Personally, I feel it's wrong to restrict healthcare, which I see as a basic human right, based on your religion. I believe that impedes religious freedom, particularly since workplaces are not supposed to discriminate based on religion (though many do, I can tell you). So, all the arguments about money are strawmen, honestly, since it doesn't actually cost anyone more money! It's also not really a gender war -- about as many men support the new laws as women, and plenty of women who are religious do not support them. Most Americans (men and women) do support the law, and it's more popular than most laws, btw. It may be a "woman's issue" because our bodies happen to be the place where embryos and fetuses develop but it's not really a feminist issue. It's a basic healthcare common sense issue that's been blown up in the media mostly by religious conservatives, male and female, who disagree with the majority of Americans who don't think God is a good reason for practicing backwards sexual health. I think it's hilarious that the irrational half of humanity has sole power to determine whether something is considered an unwanted, parasitic invader one minute, or a precious gift from heaven requiring 18 years of involuntary servitude the next. You find it hilarious that women have the right to determine what happens to their own bodies? When you can move it from the mother's uterus to somewhere else, then the father gets rights in that decision. Otherwise, no one should be forced to be a human incubator. The gender war in politics is generally about smoke screens. Conservatives are fighting on the birth control and abortion issues because they don't have much else to stand on. They can't seem to come up with a feasible economic policy, the new healthcare legislation is gaining popularity, jobs are growing, and even the US is moving towards becoming a hot spot for oil production. So they need things they can take a stand on, make a lot of noise, please the mob, and bash the other guy. Thus why they keep going on and on about abortion, birth control, gays, and now saber-rattling to attack Iran. Though this is pretty much it, too. What's going on in dating is a few things: 1. The changing gender roles. Women are growing in the working world, even earning more than men now in many cases. Thus this can backlash on dating when these same women still want to "marry up", and men who can't handle a woman earning more, or the idea of him becoming Mr Mom while she works. This does happen. I do know many great examples of Mr. Mom men or couples who work out income disparity, on either side, with ease. But that's a legitimate tension, I think more so with people over 30 now than under. 2. The large amount of males who grew up in broken families and thus can't handle themselves in the social world. They are either the douchebags who think women are playthings, or the doormat nice guys who grow into their 30s and 40s without dating or sexual experiences. My hubby grew up in a "broken family" and is a great guy. I do think divorce has had an impact on men and women. But I don't think it's nice to paint all children of divorce (male or female) with the same brush. 3. Both genders trying to figure out what they want. This could be lumped into #1, but I more think about this in terms of all the supposed "man children" out there who prefer video games and watching TV over commitment, marriage, and family. Likewise, I also think about the vast amount of women torn between different ideas of lifestyle when they realize they can't have it all. They want the high-powered career and success, but now can't seem to figure out how they can put a marriage and family in that mix...thus they get frustrated, unhappy, and confused on if they should push to be CEO or give it all up to be a wife and mother. Right. More choices creates more decisions, and people feel overwhelmed sometimes. 4. The growing antisocial gap. TIME Magazine talked about the growing number of people who live alone now. These are the folks who just decided marriage, family, or even dating are not important. So you find the ones who want a marriage meeting loads of men and women who won't go any further than friends or a hookup. More people are simply abandoning any sense of "we" in our society. This is true as well -- though I think the bigger problem is people probably always felt this way and just had no socially acceptable out. Worse than meeting these people and hearing their truth would be marrying them and the person still being antisocial and a loner!
FRlower Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Well, if a woman cheats on a Man, most girls say "you go girl!". Most women see nothing wrong with cheating. Most women love being bitches from young age. I have a little sister 11 and her school mates who are girls, bully her and say "yea we are bitches so what?" They are proud of it. They even have guys with them at all times feeding their self centered entitlement complex.
silvermercy Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 This is precisely the kind of attitude that gives feminism such a bad image. BlueGrl is just a well-known troll. EDIT: Oh and FRlower, too. lol One and the same. 1
Woggle Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 I think the amount of broken families has affected both genders. I meet a lot of people who just seem emotionally broken and screwed up by never having a strong foundation and an example of a healthy relationship growing up. I meet many people who honestly can't say they have ever seen a happy marriage. This has to effect people and the way they approach relationships.
FRlower Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 silvermercy is a well known troll with an entitlement complex and dry vagina. It's a fact ( you can Google it ). How can i be well known if i just registered...don't be silly..you being silly...you're silly. Seacrest out!
silvermercy Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Seacrest? You are Ryan Seacrest? Oh my! You must be such a hot troll behind that screen!
Woggle Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Being responsible for all those crappy reality shows must have finally sent him over the edge. 2
zengirl Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 I think the amount of broken families has affected both genders. I meet a lot of people who just seem emotionally broken and screwed up by never having a strong foundation and an example of a healthy relationship growing up. I meet many people who honestly can't say they have ever seen a happy marriage. This has to effect people and the way they approach relationships. Sure, but plenty of people with divorced parents HAVE seen happy relationships and plenty of people whose parents stayed together "for the children" have seen bleak ones. But, yes, in general our experiences determine our outlook to a degree. It's important that children and teens see relationships that work as well if they're going to more easily develop their own (not saying individuals can't overcome, etc).
Woggle Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Sure, but plenty of people with divorced parents HAVE seen happy relationships and plenty of people whose parents stayed together "for the children" have seen bleak ones. But, yes, in general our experiences determine our outlook to a degree. It's important that children and teens see relationships that work as well if they're going to more easily develop their own (not saying individuals can't overcome, etc). Some people are resilient than others but if you look at these people who just can't have a healthy relationship no matter what most of them have never had a model for one. You all know my family background is as screwed up as they come but over the years I have seen happy relationships. There are people who don't know a single person's who's friends have a happy marriage.
FRlower Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Woogle is right. Even he knows that his current wife will cheat on him sooner or later.
Woggle Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 The only reason birth control is in the news again is because the shrinking of the middle class and the gap between the haves and have nots was getting real mainstream coverage with OWS and other movements. All this talk of the 99% was scaring the elites so they had to throw this bit of red meat for people to fight over. They had to shift the focus and sadly it worked. The gender wars are just a way of keeping control of the population like racial division. If we are mad at each other because of racial and gender differences then we are not looking at the people who have made life a daily struggle for many of us except the elite power structure. 2
Woggle Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Woogle is right. Even he knows that his current wife will cheat on him sooner or later. When did I ever say that?
fortyninethousand322 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 We're heading for a financial cliff here people. 15 trillion dollars in debt. Social Security is going to go bankrupt. And birth control is the issue that gets everyone's attention?! Really? 1
Author Untouchable_Fire Posted March 22, 2012 Author Posted March 22, 2012 I support the basic ideas of feminism but I wish they would realize that the misandrists who have sadly become the face of the movement to the mainstream are doing nothing to help their cause. I like the idea of egalitarianism as well. However the political wing of feminism is focused on ripping wealth away from men and handing it over to women. This forum provides a great example of how this is done. Let's say you bring up an issue you see. They instantly begin attacking you and your marriage. They blame you and try to make you think that your marriage will end because of you pointing out this issue. It's the same tactic played out on a grand scale. First change the topic and then blame/shame and scare you into submission.
verhrzn Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 I like the idea of egalitarianism as well. However the political wing of feminism is focused on ripping wealth away from men and handing it over to women. This forum provides a great example of how this is done. Let's say you bring up an issue you see. They instantly begin attacking you and your marriage. They blame you and try to make you think that your marriage will end because of you pointing out this issue. It's the same tactic played out on a grand scale. First change the topic and then blame/shame and scare you into submission. Wha?? Who the heck except trolls has done this? Me and Zengirl both posted perfectly logically responses that didn't include any personal attacks. Zengirl went into depth about how it has nothing to do with "ripping money away from men and giving it to women." This is an illogical straw man. Read her post again.
dasein Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 The cost of BC (under the laws taking effect) really shouldn't raise premiums or taxes (it will raise premiums because insurance companies will raise them for any reason they can find!) since it saves both taxpayers and insurance companies money, on social services and medical procedures/pregnancies respectively. In order for that claim to work, 1) there must be evidence that large number of women who would otherwise use birth control are not using it now due to expense or lack of availability, 2) there must be evidence that a significant % of the women who would start using birth control who aren't now are employed in the private sector. Those are the proper axes of causality, you can't just leap from forcing the private sector to buy birth control for its employees to >> overall savings from avoided unwanted pregnancies. That's the type of puerile reasoning so typical from the left. The main objection to this law is not financial -- it's religious. The argument is that workplaces should not have to purchase healthcare that provides care they morally object to. That's simply one way the prospect is objectionable, of course the left is focusing the issue here, as the Catholic Church is one of its favorite bogeymen and easy targets used to paint the opposition as "religious nuts." The left has been couching broadly based opposition as "merely religious fundamentalism" for several decades now. It's inaccurate and tiresome. So, all the arguments about money are strawmen, honestly, since it doesn't actually cost anyone more money! A "strawman" is when one characterizes opposing argument too narrowly, too broadly, inaccurately in some way for the purpose of bolstering one's own argument. For example, compartmentalizing objection to the BC initiative as "not financial, but religious," and proceeding to ignore the financial issues -is- a straw man. Claiming that the BC initiative will not result in savings, but costs, is -not-, but rather a simple disagreement with respect to outcome. It's also not really a gender war -- about as many men support the new laws as women, and plenty of women who are religious do not support them. It's a political power grab from the left in an election year couched in "women's rights" terms, which by definition polarizes one gender against the other, so yes, it's a gender war. A majority of people in this country don't pay taxes at all, and it's no wonder they have no problem with it, they won't be the ones paying for it. Most Americans (men and women) do support the law, and it's more popular than most laws, btw. It may be a "woman's issue" because our bodies happen to be the place where embryos and fetuses develop but it's not really a feminist issue. It's a basic healthcare common sense issue that's been blown up in the media mostly by religious conservatives, male and female, who disagree with the majority of Americans who don't think God is a good reason for practicing backwards sexual health. I'm an atheist, and don't see many religious fundamentalists emphasizing the religious issues either here or in the politics section thread on the issue... NONE in fact. The characterization of the issue above is of course the media/leftist spin, but it isn't the truth. You find it hilarious that women have the right to determine what happens to their own bodies? When you can move it from the mother's uterus to somewhere else, then the father gets rights in that decision. Otherwise, no one should be forced to be a human incubator. No one in the thread has seriously suggested forced carry to term, yet you and others keep going back to that. Men should be notified and have a right to confront the mother, pre abortion and register their feelings on the matter. Currently, men do not have this right. Also if women are free to determine whether the fetus is a noxious invading bundle of cells one minute or a bundle of joy the next, men should have a window to opt out of support. Men do not currently have this right.
Author Untouchable_Fire Posted March 22, 2012 Author Posted March 22, 2012 T The main objection to this law is not financial -- it's religious. The argument is that workplaces should not have to purchase healthcare that provides care they morally object to. Personally, I feel it's wrong to restrict healthcare, which I see as a basic human right, based on your religion. I believe that impedes religious freedom, particularly since workplaces are not supposed to discriminate based on religion (though many do, I can tell you). So, all the arguments about money are strawmen, honestly, since it doesn't actually cost anyone more money! It's also not really a gender war -- about as many men support the new laws as women, and plenty of women who are religious do not support them. Most Americans (men and women) do support the law, and it's more popular than most laws, btw. It may be a "woman's issue" because our bodies happen to be the place where embryos and fetuses develop but it's not really a feminist issue. It's a basic healthcare common sense issue that's been blown up in the media mostly by religious conservatives, male and female, who disagree with the majority of Americans who don't think God is a good reason for practicing backwards sexual health. My fiance is Catholic, I'm not. She uses birth control. That doesn't mean she isn't furious at the idea of the government telling the church it can't practice it's own beliefs. Let's face it... if put in front of the Supreme Court this law would have been completely tossed out as a violation of the 1st amendment. There are hundreds of different ways to get these women access to birth control that doesn't step on religious freedom. None of those paths were even explored because the agenda is to remove religion from the public sphere. Feminists hate religion because just like you they see it as containing "backwards sexual health" practices that oppress women. The biggest issue facing the future of our country today is the fact that boys are not attending college. Why are we not tackling that issue instead? Do you think it's maybe because they hate men? I'd put money on that.
thatone Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 We consistently have this stream of threads showing people confused and upset regarding gender roles. Who pays for dates? Who calls after a date? Who should approach who in a bar? ... ect. What I have found interesting is that many posters report never hearing these things discussed outside this website. I can understand that to a degree. However, with a presidential election coming up it's been pretty clear that politicians use the idea of a gender war to fire up the people who vote for them. It's even clearer that those people are primarily feminists. So... I think we can safely say that it is a fact there is a large group of anti-male activists running around the country. I think it's time we cede part of the argument to guys like Woggle. ummm, i don't know what planet you live on but the only "gender wars" going on in the political spectrum that i see are religious conservative types trying to shame women into being a 1950s stereotype, because that's what they think they want. there is no grand conspiracy. people do what they want to do, that's it. 1
verhrzn Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 In order for that claim to work, 1) there must be evidence that large number of women who would otherwise use birth control are not using it now due to expense or lack of availability, 2) there must be evidence that a significant % of the women who would start using birth control who aren't now are employed in the private sector. Those are the proper axes of causality, you can't just leap from forcing the private sector to buy birth control for its employees to >> overall savings from avoided unwanted pregnancies. That's the type of puerile reasoning so typical from the left. Regarding your (1): States slash birth control subsidies as federal debate rages | Reuters The state network, which once provided 220,000 women a year free and low-cost birth control, cervical cancer tests and diabetes screenings, will now serve just 40,000 to 60,000, officials said. Texas legislators who backed the 66-percent family planning cuts say they had no choice - the state budget was in crisis and many worthy programs suffered. But a budget board analysis concluded the cut would actually cost Texas taxpayers more than it saved. The public/private section is a straw man, because many of the women being served by these programs are unemployed or under-employed. The poor and uneducated women are the ones who need the services the most, and yet are unable to pay for them. No one in the thread has seriously suggested forced carry to term, yet you and others keep going back to that. Men should be notified and have a right to confront the mother, pre abortion and register their feelings on the matter. Currently, men do not have this right. Also if women are free to determine whether the fetus is a noxious invading bundle of cells one minute or a bundle of joy the next, men should have a window to opt out of support. Men do not currently have this right. Men DO have the right to opt out of child support. 1) Wear... a... freaking... condom. Why is this such a difficult concept? 2) Become the custodial parent. What I don't understand is the logic behind opting you... The man is just as responsible for the creation of the child. What is your logical justification for why he should get off the hook for supporting that child, when he is just as responsible for its creation as the mother?
Author Untouchable_Fire Posted March 22, 2012 Author Posted March 22, 2012 A guy should get a choice in being a father. He should also be part of the decision of ending or continuing a pregnancy. Most courts have a formula so that parents are expected to contribute to its economic support. Any other questions my petulant child? Perhaps women should be part of the decision when a man votes. Look, it's a tough topic. The burden of pregnancy is entirely shouldered by women... and we have done everything we can to give them the choice to opt out at any point. Men should similarly have a grace period where they can opt out of being a father.
fortyninethousand322 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 The government shouldn't be in health care at all. When it gets involved we have these kinds of colossal arguments over it. What's covered, how much is covered, who co is covered, etc. Since taxes aren't voluntary (unfortunately) someone ends up paying for something they don't really want. Democracy, the great fiction in which everyone seeks to live off of everybody else.
sweetjasmine Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 My fiance is Catholic, I'm not. She uses birth control. That doesn't mean she isn't furious at the idea of the government telling the church it can't practice it's own beliefs. Let's face it... if put in front of the Supreme Court this law would have been completely tossed out as a violation of the 1st amendment. The Catholic Church and all churches are exempt from that provision. The debate is over BUSINESSES affiliated with the Catholic Church, like a hospital or like Georgetown University. Applying the same reasoning to all employers would allow Jehovah's Witnesses who own businesses to deny you access to a health insurance plan which would cover prescription medication because it's trampling on their religious beliefs when their employees do things that are against their religion. Do you think it's acceptable for an employer to decide what health care an employee should have?
fortyninethousand322 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 The Catholic Church and all churches are exempt from that provision. The debate is over BUSINESSES affiliated with the Catholic Church, like a hospital or like Georgetown University. Applying the same reasoning to all employers would allow Jehovah's Witnesses who own businesses to deny you access to a health insurance plan which would cover prescription medication because it's trampling on their religious beliefs when their employees do things that are against their religion. Do you think it's acceptable for an employer to decide what health care an employee should have? They don't though. They offer insurance as part of a benefits package. Unfortunately that package is a tax write off for the business. But, employees are not required to sign up for the insurance benefits. So they're really not dictating anything at all.
sweetjasmine Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 They don't though. They offer insurance as part of a benefits package. Unfortunately that package is a tax write off for the business. But, employees are not required to sign up for the insurance benefits. So they're really not dictating anything at all. Technically, yes. But what happens if you don't sign up for insurance benefits? My insurance coverage is part of my compensation package. If I decline to enroll, they don't raise my salary to make up for the difference, so I would essentially be giving myself a pay cut. I would then have to take that same salary and purchase my own individual plan at a much higher rate. If I had to do that right now, I wouldn't be able to afford health insurance. So what viable alternatives would I have? The only options would be to accept the coverage offered in my compensation package or go without insurance altogether. If I want ANY coverage, I have to accept what my employer decides I should get. To be frank, that's f-ed up.
Woggle Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 I like the idea of egalitarianism as well. However the political wing of feminism is focused on ripping wealth away from men and handing it over to women. This forum provides a great example of how this is done. Let's say you bring up an issue you see. They instantly begin attacking you and your marriage. They blame you and try to make you think that your marriage will end because of you pointing out this issue. It's the same tactic played out on a grand scale. First change the topic and then blame/shame and scare you into submission. To be fair many women on here have been very supportive. I don't think all feminism is like what you describe but the fact that they don't seem to do anything to distance themselves from the misandrists really hurts their cause.
Recommended Posts