Have We Really Come Down to a Boys Against the Girls Fight?

[Tx4obama]

Have We Really Come Down to a Boys Against the Girls Fight?

This public debate on whether or not the Obama administration's sensible policy on covering birth control has turned into a boys against the girls fight. And the boys are out of touch and out of line.

Are Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Mike Barnicle, EJ Dionne and George Will etc. going to run around the country telling men to wear condoms? And by the way, pay for them themselves? Because if that isn't their plan for the next few years, they need to keep quiet.

Guess what folks, people have sex. And when they do, unless women want to get pregnant, they need birth control. How dare these guys or anyone say that the young cleaning woman or secretary who just happens to work at a hospital or university owned by the Catholic church should not be able to get birth control paid for by her employer. And if she has a medical problem like endimetriosis where her doctor prescribes birth control pills for that, if they had their way she would have to buy them herself as well.

This issue isn't about religious freedom. 99% of Catholic women already use birth control. This issue is about men deciding that their medical needs are purely "medical" and yet women's medical needs are somehow subject to a political equation. If Catholic Bishops want to make their own rules as employers, then they can stop taking federal government subsidies for Medicaid and Medicare patients in their hospitals, or have their schools subsidized by government sponsored student loans. Church employees are already exempt under the administration guidelines. But they won't. Instead they will try to use political pressure to legalize their discrimination and corral their Democrat and Republican male acolytes to do their bidding for them.

SNIP

More here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/birth-control-womens-health_b_1265204.html

PERFECTLY SAID!!! Brava!!!

[raccoon]

1. Back in the '80's Blue Cross wouldn't pay for birth control pills, unless it was for a medical

condition, not for contraception. That sucked.

Betcha anything as soon as Cialis et al. came out, they paid for that, medical condition or no.

[get the red out]

2. It's always been boys against girls in religion

Boys wanting to control girls because by God the patriarchal God says so.

Women are always one of the biggest losers where Religion is concerned. They used to burn us at the stake.

[Skittles]

19. yup

which is why is disturbs me that so many women willingly participate in such a travesty

[TheMadMonk]

21. Not boys. Men. Men who have built their own little "empire".

YOU become just one more possession to be bartered.

The Church's involvement is at a higher level still. It takes moral control of an imperative behaviour. It literally issues "licences to fuck".

[The Doctor.]

3. Most religions are still very misogynistic.

Given that they are generally inimical to women, it becomes a 'gender fight' by default. Thankfully, the vast majority of women and nearly all intelligent men can recognize this bullshit for what it is.

[bemildred]

4. Who is this "we" you speak of?

The Mighthy Wurlitzer certainly wants to make a fuss about this, that does not mean "we" have to go along.

[Tx4obama]

25. Who is the 'YOU' in your question?

The OP subject line is the title of the article.
I didn't add any commentary to the OP

[bemildred]

30. Yes, I know you did not write it. nt

[peace frog]

5. Some of these religious and other extreme RW leaders

would take us back to the 19th century when women couldn't vote, own property, conduct business or be self-sufficient in any way not overseen by men. Women's lives were ruled by their fathers when they were children, their husbands upon being married, and their sons upon widowhood. It was a life of unremitting servitude with no reward save what her lord and master determined she could have. It seems that some men just HAVE to have someone under their thumb to feel important and all-mighty. And don't for one moment think they won't press every opportunity and advantage to take us back there.

[chervilant]

11. hmm...

You have articulated some of the reasons why 'The Color Purple' is my favorite movie, AND the reasons why it was snubbed at the Academy Awards. (It goes without saying that Alice Walker ROCKS, and I loved her book well before Spielberg made it into a movie.)

I have commented on patriarchy before on this website:

Patriarchy is the pervasive social construct defining gender relationships in virtually every culture on this planet. The measurable negative effects of patriarchy vary in degree only. We can ill afford to ignore the damaging effects of patriarchy, nor should we 'rank' cultures on the basis of how blatantly their 'version' of patriarchy oppresses their citizenry, especially their women and children.

After more than thirty years of advocacy for survivors of relationship violence (predominantly women and children), I have gained a deep appreciation for the pain and distress commensurate with 'power over' (eg, patriarchy). Patriarchy unflinchingly assigns the vast majority of 'power over' to men. This is a deep wound to our species, for both those who are powerless AND for those who must expend significant energy securing and maintaining their 'power over.'

Patriarchy--indeed, all hierarchy--is a wound of a thousand cuts. Most of us are so accustomed to this social construct, we cannot see how much it damages our species--unless the 'traditions' shaped by a given culture's patriarchy are abhorrent enough to elicit condemnation (as seems to be the case here). Furthermore, we are so accustomed to patriarchy as our social framework, few of us can imagine that there might be a better way. Indeed, most historic efforts to address patriarchy (Feminism, Humanism, Egalitarianism) have been met with derision, or marginalized. AND, those who believe that they benefit the MOST from patriarchy--those who have garnered the most POWER OVER--are working the HARDEST to protect it.

Actually, too many members of this website routinely indulge in misogyny and sexism (both patriarchal paradigms). I feel personally violated every time I see a man post such disgusting observations as, "I'd do her!" or "She's hot, until she opens her mouth..." (that one was in reference to Michelle Malkin). Recently, someone here posted an OP featuring unflattering pictures of Republican women--fair game, I guess, since they're 'Republicans.' I have to remind myself that these poor unfortunates are simply manifesting the damages THEY have sustained in our patriarchal culture.

I remain hopeful that our species is now pursuing emotional and spiritual growth by emphasizing personal responsibility for behaviors and choices rather than blaming and shaming; by nurturing dialogues among disparate groups rather than divisiveness; and by embracing our phenomenal intellects rather than promotiing pseudo-sciences like 'Social Darwinism' or 'Intelligent Design.'

[peace frog]

12. Hmmmm, regarding your last paragraph

You may certainly retain hope that 'we' will pursue the positive things mentioned. I remain skeptical that we will witness any such change in the RW anytime soon, and the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

[chervilant]

13. Well,

I meant 'we' on a macro-level, as in: our entire species. I am somewhat skeptical that the very small number of uber wealthy Corporate Megalomaniacs--who've usurped our media, our politics and our global economy--will retain their hegemony in the face of #Occupy, and the myriad other inevitable social movements that will arise to address radical income inequity. I believe that the Human Spirit Prevails (as I've noted relentlessly in my personal blog), and I believe that we vastly outnumber the sociopaths who would have us believe they are our Aristocracy Du Jour.

[peace frog]

14. We do indeed outnumber them

Last edited Fri Feb 10, 2012, 05:08 PM - Edit history (1)

but the few holders of 98% of wealth and power are in no mind to share, and will do all in their nearly unassailable power to see the status quo remains as it is.

[chervilant]

15. hmm...

Aren't you the proud papa of two Crunchy Froglets? I have always appreciated the Crunchy Froglets.

[peace frog]

18. Um well, being female

I could hardly call myself a papa, but I have spawned two sprightly young froglets, thanks for asking.

[Crunchy Frog]

27. I'm the one with the Crunchy Froglets.

And I'm a momma, not a papa. I think you got me and peace frog confused with each other. Not that her froglets aren't crunchy as well, I'm sure they are.

[chervilant]

28. Aha!

Thanks for clearing that up! I do love the moniker "Crunchy Froglets"!

[chervilant]

16. PS

NEARLY unassailable... NEARLY!

[peace frog]

17. Always leave a small window of hope

but prepare for the absolute worst. Yes, I was a Girl Scout.

[chervilant]

20. Me, too!

Sorry I got your gender wrong. That stems back to one of your posts on the old version of DU, and I can't remember when... Ah, the vagaries of getting old!

BTW, I have frogs in every part of my house. They are the 'canaries' of our ecosystem, I'm sure you know. I have fond memories of catching ginormous bullfrog tadpoles and putting them in our 'aquarium,' which was actually a small oval depression in the rock at the spring that flowed magically out of the side of the mountain on our childhood farm. Of course, we always put them back where we found them.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

6. GIANT kick and rec for this AND every post!!!!

This issue is about men deciding that their medical needs are purely "medical" and yet women's medical needs are somehow subject to a political equation.

Brilliant!

[Highway61]

7. well

when all the dust settles, my money is on the girls.

[Nikia]

8. They act like women's reproductive health isn't part of health

Most adults have sex though, especially women of childbearing age that are in a "relationship". Most women of "childbearing age" will get pregnant if they have sex regularly. For most women and families, it healthier not to have pregnancy occurr as often as is biologically possible. Further there is the whole issue of whether large families are good for society. All but the highest earners, would qualify for some kind of government aid if a couple had double digit number of children. Rapidly rising population at this point in history doesn't seem like a good idea anyway.
From an insurance standpoint, paying for a birth every year is more expensive than a year of birth control pills. Then there is the issue of family plans that cover all children. A family with more children will obviously use more health care than a family with less.
Of course, organizations against birth control coverage really hope that families will pay the expense of limiting their family size themselves. What other health issues should we make people cover themselves? Using birth control benefits not only the individual but also society as well as the insurance companies.

[NorthCarolina]

9. That fight is waged only by the simpletons in Congress

and is not reflective of public sentiment on the issue in the slightest. Just further evidence of how utterly disconnected our elected officials truly are.

[Doctor_J]

10. Not exactly. Hate Radio and Big Media are on board

the article mentions a few of the MSRNC psychos, but the thousands of hate radio hosts are reading the same talking points. And that means that the simpletons who listen to them will believe it.

[DonCoquixote]

22. Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Mike Barnicle, EJ Dionne and George Will

These "BOYS" do nto speak for me, especially as they tend to play in sandboxes away from where Men and Women work and play. I am disappointed in EJ, her should know better than to feed the GOP, and well, Tweety has been an embrassment for years.

To sum up, these boys do not speak for all of us males.

We want women to have the medicine they need, be it birth control, or whatever else, period.
Needles to say, that also goes for us, as we know that the rights denied to women become right denied to men, period.

[spooky3]

23. Add Lawrence O'Donnell and Mark Shields to the list

Though I believe Lawrence may have changed his views somewhat once David Boies appeared on his show and explained how this is an employment law (e.g., discrimination) issue and not a First Amendment issue.

I think MSNBC would benefit from having a more diverse set of hosts and guests, particularly on a topic like this (I realize Mark Shields isn't on staff but is a friend of many of this same group and an otherwise respected liberal).

[Kennah]

24. Could this simply be yet another example of The President engaged in Rope-A-Dope politics?

If so, the GOOP is taking the bait and the Knock Out could be the motherfucker of all Knock Outs.

[snot]

26. I've come to believe men are wired to want pregnancies.

A lot of their behavior makes much more sense in that light.

Subsidized birth control is cheaper for everyone, among other considerations.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

29. Some of them hate women and children.

Think women are only good for sex and should not have children. Are in favor of abortion just as a matter of controlling the woman, and see children as a financial burden only.

Feel "tied down" by marriage and children, disproportionately so.

[snot]

31. Of course; I was speaking broadly.

But I've seen too many men who claim they don't want children, nonetheless end up spawning them bec. they failed to take any responsibility whatsoever, ever, for contraception -- even knowing that accidental fatherhood will "ruin" their own lives!

If men didn't unconsciously desire to spawn children, I believe an effective male birth control pill or the like would have been developed long ago.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

32. I was speaking from my own experience

I was married, husband had a good job and good insurance. I got pregnant and the minute I told him about it he told me to get an abortion. I said "Hell no". He really destroyed that moment of happiness for me. He said we couldn't afford to have children. He also said we'd had a discussion and had agreed not to have any children. That was a lie. He saw it only in terms of dollar signs. I had a beautiful healthy child. He had to punish me for doing that. He's a sociopathic narcissist.

He then told people that I had trapped him into marriage. That was bullcorn too. Everything he said to me was a lie. He nagged me so much that my health broke. He looked shocked when I told him he didn't love me or respect me. And when I was in the hospital after my health broke, he told my friends that I was faking it and bribing the doctor to put me in the hospital.



The craziest sumbitch I think I've ever met. Or at least in the top

five.

[snot]

33. I hope you left him!

Still, on second thought . . . hating women and children doesn't necessarily conflict with an unconscious desire to propagate one's own DNA. I'm betting he took no responsibility w.r.t. birth control; and indeed, getting women pregnant could be one way of striking at them, subjecting them to increased risks to their health, as well as considerable pain, not to mention what from at least some points of view could be regarded as the burdens and limitations of parenthood.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

34. I'm sure he thought childbirth was easy.

He probably thought I was supposed to squat down and have a baby in a rice paddy.

I had to have a planned c-section. I couldn't get out of bed for two days after spinal anesthesia and he told me I was LAZY. Complete idiot. Like these Repubs who think that they know everything about women and childbirth, and they know nothing, in reality.

I divorced him and I had to pay him child support. We have equal rights in Texas.

The said child is now a happy and healthy adult of 26. And she's the joy of my life!!

[snot]

35. I'm so glad for you and your daughter!