Tone down the talk of 'war'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, blasted the ruling as "a direct attack on women and our fundamental rights" from "five male justices." Others hailed the ruling as a resounding win for freedom of conscience. What's largely missing from the debate is the voices of feminists who believe it's dangerous to tie women's freedoms to government-mandated benefits.

It's unclear how broad the ruling's effects will be. The case applies to a specific type of business: corporations with a limited number of shareholders such as Hobby Lobby, the crafts store chain. The court's majority has held that, since religiously affiliated nonprofits such as schools and charities are partially exempt from the contraceptive-coverage mandate (which they believe would force them to pay for abortion-inducing drugs and devices), family-owned businesses are entitled to the same exemption.

Framing the issue as a "war on women" is misguided and polarizing. The fact that the court's three female justices dissented, along with Justice Stephen Breyer, is a function of ideology rather than gender. It is also worth noting that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who provided the swing vote in the case, is a strong supporter of women's rights and reproductive rights. And there are many women who believe the birth-control mandate infringes on religious liberty - among them Hobby Lobby cofounder Barbara Green. To suggest that those who share this view are woman-oppressing Neanderthals if male, and dupes of the patriarchy if female, is hardly conducive to civilized discourse.

Few people dispute that birth control is an essential benefit for most reproductive-age women. But does this mean that women are entitled to coverage that offers contraception at no out-of-pocket cost? No employer is claiming a faith-based right to forbid female employees to use birth control, only the right not to subsidize the use. While the mandate's supporters claim singling out birth control for denial of coverage is sex discrimination, it is worth noting that federal law does not require any contraceptive coverage for men.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Exactly. The law says women must be covered for contraceptives but not men. Some will aptly point out that lacking a BCP for men, and with condoms being the only reliable method of contraception short of abstention or avoiding vaginal intercourse, what limit ought there be on the number of condoms available to men under the law? Simple enough to determine, I say. Each man so covered should have the right to go into a place that sells condoms and has a pharmacy in it and present his insurance ID and receive a box of condoms costing some amount or less, that figure capped per month. Above the ceiling price, he has to make up the difference. The number in the box isn't relevant, though I suggest the ceiling price be set at the avg. cost of a box of 12. Should he need more, the cost is borne by him. HSA money should also be usable to buy condoms.

Some men will need more condoms based on factors such as lifestyle and age (need I elaborate on that last?). Possibly the law should allow men under 30 a greater benefit for this purpose, doubling the benefit amt. In any case, my point is that the disparity between legally-mandated coverage in this area can be addressed. Where there's a will, there's a way. But so far, the will around this issue has been non-existent, at least where the law is concerned.

Like0 Dislike0

no, sorry. gone with the wind of feminism. only women are equal before the law. equal to other women that is. men live somewhere beneath women in the law, and not just in 'family court' where they rarely even rate consideration except by default. in criminal courts women typically serve only a fraction of the time in prison men do for the same exact offense, if they even get charged w/ the exact same crime as a man (unlikely). everybody knows that. false accusations by any woman can ruin any man's life she doesn't like, or seeks to sue, no charge.

this step off into helI happened in the late 60's, early 70's as far as I can tell. $$ came at some point to be more important to greedy lawyers than did honor, justice, truth or fairness. it may have been an inability by law schools to differentiate between an honest, basically decent people from scuzz-bags.

the argument that it just isn't so isn't backed by real statistics (not made up by fem's/prog's). the fruits of this abrogation of due responsibility have given us the abominations of moral and ethical responsibilities we now endure. one need only glance at washington, or the local courthouse to find these perversions in action. need some examples? ok, just a few:

* no top end on c.s., of which almost all is paid by men to women. this allows a man's entire wealth to be transferred to x's.
* well over 90% of first custody awards go to women. they have even fought equal parenting like demons.
* alimony (men paying women) can go on forever, and beyond. again, set up to drain men's wealth to women.
* men paying c.s. for other men's children. (very common)
* women never get the hard time for sexual abuse of children that men typically do.
* court's (most states) will not allow married men to use d.n.a. evidence of parentage, but offer no resistance to women using it.
* the assumption of women being the best (only) fit parent in a divorce, by design, automatically gives the bulk of the marital estate/assets to the woman, including the man's future income. the woman and the lawyers typically split the assets which is (as stated above) the real initial reason for all of this type judiciary corruption.

Like0 Dislike0

Any saying eventually becomes trite and laden with the potential for mockery.

Let them continue the assertion of "war on women."

It will grow trite and it become satirized.

In reality, though, I do understand. Feminists have succeeded into establishing the equality FEMINISM == WOMEN. Any attempt by a man to blast feminism is met with an accusation of misogyny.

But let them use up their arsenal. For there is a war: on feminism.

For this saying, as is used in the US in politics, is an indication of feminist desperation. They know they are losing. So let them proclaim the "war on women" from every mountaintop in the US: encourage them to scream it. Let them grow hysterical for then they will lose focus (i.e.: this recent decision by the Supreme Court is fairly insignificant and focused: but watch the feminists howl over it. They are becoming madwomen.)

MRA should meet every quote of "war on women" with images of male homelessness, poverty, alcoholism, suicide; and do it calmly. Eventually feminism will implode.

The self-proclaimed "war on women" will actually hasten the collapse of feminism.

Like0 Dislike0

A basic tenet of feminism is that if a woman has a right to something, someone else has the obligation to provide that for her. If she must provide it for herself, using her own money, then her "right" to X is being denied.

If a woman has a right to birth control, she has a right to have someone else pay for it. If a woman has a right to have a child, she has a right to have someone else--the taxpayer and the father--pay for it.

It's an astounding idea that has no basis in traditional law, but more and more people are buying it. Whatever choices a woman makes, someone else (the rest of us) should pay for. Used to be only children had this right; now women do as well.

Feminism means making women equal to children.

Like0 Dislike0