Feminism, law and gender politics (Split from "Any other LGBTQ VBers?") - Page 2 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 Old 05-24-2009, 01:46 AM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
I believe that the only "men" who feel threatened by feminism are those that have held the power over everyone and are afraid of losing that power. They are so insecure, that they can not feel secure unless they subjugate others.



Agreed, czar2004! Joss Whedon (creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly, and Dollhouse) gave a great acceptance speech when Equality Now gave him an award, and one quote from that has always stood out for me:



"Recognizing power in another does not diminish your own."

— Joss Whedon



SO TRUE!
RedLotus is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 Old 05-24-2009, 04:36 AM
Veggie Regular
 
WonderRandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,591
The two feminism thread have been merged - one was inspired by the LGBTQ thread, and one was split frome the same thread.

Nec Aspera Terrent
WonderRandy is offline  
#33 Old 05-24-2009, 04:52 AM
Veggie Regular
 
AussieShane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 464
interesting posts by RedLotus and Dormouse. I just skimmed it, i'll read it in detail and respond later on.



Quote:
Originally Posted by czar2004 View Post


I believe that the only "men" who feel threatened by feminism are those that have held the power over everyone and are afraid of losing that power. They are so insecure, that they can not feel secure unless they subjugate others.



I have to disagree.

Power hungry men do oppose feminism because they're against equality.



But then there's another group of men (particularly new generation men like myself) who are pro-equality. But it seems to us that modern-day feminism is antagonistic to original feminism such that it focuses on oppressing men rather making men and women equal. And that's what I wanted more clarity on. So this entire debate focuses on whether modern day feminism is pro-equality or anti-male.
AussieShane is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#34 Old 05-24-2009, 06:18 AM
Veggie Regular
 
AussieShane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by dormouse View Post


I'm going to re-state what you said with one major change.



Feminism is a form of female empowerment but at the cost of men's privileges.



Feminists don't want women to have rights over men. They just want justice. Being a man comes with an "invisible backpack" of advantages that help you succeed, just because you're a man. This is privilege. There are some privileges that everyone should have--and women don't want to take these away from men. An example is being able to go out at night alone without the fear of rape. There are some privileges that no one should have, and these are the ones that feminists try to deny men. Men used to be allowed to rape their wives (in the US). Only in the 1993 in the US was this privilege taken away from them.



Well i'm not aware of this invisible backpack of advantages. Can you please elaborate?



... the example of going out at night alone holds little validity and merely reflects on the lack of security in the society; As a man, I fear being stabbed at night and having my wallet stolen just like you as a woman may fear being raped. However in a country like Singapore, both of these things extremely rare because the government has created such a controlled environment.



As for the rape example, ok I agree this is something valid. Rape shouldn't be tolerated and sex has to be consensual. So on that part, feminists did fight for equality. However, now that gives women the ability to exploit the situation as consent is not clearly defined.



I've read about a case where the woman consented to sex. However during the intercourse a few seconds prior to the man having orgasm, she revoked the consent by telling him to stop. As a result of non-consensual sex, the man was jailed for rape. She gave no reason as to why she wanted him to stop. In this situation, I definitely think the law was unfair on the man. I see inequality but what I didn't see was any organization fight for his rights.



Quote:
Originally Posted by dormouse View Post




To be perfectly honest, I have no idea how affirmative action works in practice. I do know that the idea of accepting lesser qualified candidates because they belong to an oppressed group is a myth, or at least that is not how it is meant to work. Just looking around my college, wealthy neighborhoods, and the companies my parents work for--it doesn't seem to me that white people are having trouble getting jobs or getting into college. Besides, men should get over the fact that they have to compete with women and people of color. White men don't deserve these jobs more than anyone else. Everyone has a right to them. That's what affirmative action is trying to achieve.



Everyone has a right to the opportunity of the jobs. But what I want to know in this case is, are feminists fighting for equal Opportunity or they fighting for females to have some sort of priority?



I'm not sure about Affirmative Action in US. But I'm half Aborigine (Indigenous Australian). As a result, despite being from a reasonably stable 2 parent family, the Australian government has given me priorities which I'm not sure I deserve. I was one of the very few aborigines to study an engineering / technology related course at university. The Aus government gave me a whole university scholarship (yes, free uni) because of that. Not to mention, the cut off TEE score (similar to SAT in USA) was lower for me to get into college than for non-indigenous children.



Aborigines have been brutally oppressed forever in Australia, and I myself was bullied a lot in primary school by racist white kids. But I don't see how reducing the college cut off score for me (while keeping it high for others) can be labeled as equal opportunity. It's simply a government stunt to attempt to increase the number of Aborigines in university so it appears to be a more equal environment.



But anyway, enough about me.... do feminists seek for women to have a similar advantage over men so the numbers appear more equal?









Quote:
Originally Posted by dormouse View Post




Why the use of the word "knee jerk"? Feminism is a reaction to sexism. The term "male chauvinism" to me implies an individual level of prejudice. Sexism is systematized. It's not individual jerky men keeping women down, the sexism is institutionalized in society. So, women get pissed off about that. If that's what you mean by "knee jerk" then fine, but you're ignoring the whole academic arm of feminism and the detailed and astute analysis provided by feminists.



Sorry, knee-jerk wasn't the correct way to put it. But the real question is, do you think the system functions in a way to keep the women down?...

If so, how? because from what I see (atleast in Australia), like my case of being Aborigine, the government sector as well as many companies seem to prioritize females just to create an image of a numerically balanced male-female environment.
AussieShane is offline  
#35 Old 05-24-2009, 07:57 AM
Ankle Biter
 
Poppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Central Virginia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pixelle View Post


When you think about it, that's just an unnecessarily wordy way of saying that it's about equality.



I didn't mean that though. I meant that it's the process of getting to equality. Feminism started as a way to promote women and their issues in a male-dominated society. If the result of feminism is a closer to equality inequality, wonderful, but to say it's about equality almost dismisses the efforts and challenges so many women have gone through to bring society to where it is now and where it will go from here forward. It's been a movement, a process, a cultural shift - not an easy change from point A to point B.

It is our choices that show what we truly are far more than our abilities. ~A. Dumbledore
Poppy is offline  
#36 Old 05-24-2009, 08:16 AM
Veggie Regular
 
greensgood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieShane View Post




.







Everyone has a right to the opportunity of the jobs. But what I want to know in this case is, are feminists fighting for equal Opportunity or they fighting for females to have some sort of priority?











But anyway, enough about me.... do feminists seek for women to have a similar advantage over men so the numbers appear more equal?













Sorry, knee-jerk wasn't the correct way to put it. But the real question is, do you think the system functions in a way to keep the women down?...

If so, how?



first of all, it has been stated by several of us already that the feminist movement is not about giving women more power than men and taking away rights, it is about equal opportunities for everyone regardless of gender and eliminating stereotypes concerning femininity and masculinity.



i can think of a major system that continues to "keep women down"....healthcare. women's health is very low priority in medical advancements. many women's health problems are outright ignored and dismissed such as hormonal imbalances, irregular periods, and pain during sex. i work with a lot of middle aged women and nearly all of them have horror stories about mistreatment, misdiagnosis, and disappointment in women's healthcare. the majority of professionals in medicine for centuries have been men, it makes a bit of sense that they would not prioritize women's issues. yearly pap's are stupid, yes i know that they test for very important dangers etc, however it seems that by now there should be much better less invasive and expensive procedures for finding out whats going on in there. also, the fact that pap's miss a huge list of major issues, and getting one yearly does not mean everything is fine and dandy....how often do guys have to do that cajone cough exam (that they try to compare to the invasiveness of a pap....ya right!)?
greensgood is offline  
#37 Old 05-24-2009, 10:32 AM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
I've read about a case where the woman consented to sex. However during the intercourse a few seconds prior to the man having orgasm, she revoked the consent by telling him to stop. As a result of non-consensual sex, the man was jailed for rape. She gave no reason as to why she wanted him to stop. In this situation, I definitely think the law was unfair on the man. I see inequality but what I didn't see was any organization fight for his rights



A Woman does NOT need to give a "reason" why she wants to stop having sex. It doesn't matter if she said yes and changed her mind, doesn't matter how close to orgasm her partner is, etc. No means no, and every person (man and woman) has a right to say "Stop" at any time and have that right respected.



It seems odd that he was "jailed" for rape, given that usually, even with a mountain of physical evidence, perpetrators get away with rape. In this case, based on what you are telling me, they convicted him based on simply "she said so?" Maybe Australia is different in this area than the US, but given how reluctant juries and judges tend to be to "ruin a man's life" by convicting him of rape, even with evidence of violence etc, I'm surprised that he was just tossed in jail. According to the US Senate Judiciary Committee, only 2% of rapists are ever tried and convicted of their crimes, so you can see why this scenario seems a bit off to me. Can you site this case/your source?



Quote:
. the example of going out at night alone holds little validity and merely reflects on the lack of security in the society; As a man, I fear being stabbed at night and having my wallet stolen just like you as a woman may fear being raped. However in a country like Singapore, both of these things extremely rare because the government has created such a controlled environment.



Rape isn't just some creepy stranger grabbing a woman off the street. 77% of sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone you know (Bureau of Justice Statistics), and this is a feminist issue as well. Are you afraid of your spouse, family member, friends, or classmates robbing and stabbing you?



According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, close to 600 women are raped every day in the US. The way our media and society portrays women - objectifying them, turning them into sex objects, etc - influences the way boys view women as they grow up. When you see women as little more than an object there for your own gratification, rape is not such a stretch. In a study of 6,000 students at 32 colleges in the US, 1 in 4 women had been the victims of rape or attempted rape. Of the nearly 3000 male students surveyed, 1 in 12 male students surveyed had committed acts that met the legal definition of rape or attempted rape. Of these college men nwho committed rape (as legally defined), 84% said what they did was definitely not rape. In another study, 13% of college women indicated they had been forced to have sex in a dating situation. A study of 477 male students, mostly 1st and 2nd year students, found 56% reported instances of non-assaultive coercion to obtain sex. Examples included: threatening to end a relationship; falsely professing love; telling lies to render her more sexually receptive. THIS is the sort of stuff that needs to be addressed by feminism. If 1 in 12 college age men don't even see what they have done as rape, there needs to be a HUGE change in the way they are educated about the subject, and the way they see and treat women in general.



Also in the US, sexual assault against women in the military is a HUGE issue. Women serving overseas especially are at risk. Superior officers and fellow soldiers use the fact that the woman's very survival rests with them in order to insure her silence when she is abused. Changing the way our society teaches boys to treat women, and the way the military treats its female soldiers, are feminist issues.



Quote:
modern-day feminism is antagonistic to original feminism such that it focuses on oppressing men rather making men and women equal.

Can you clarify what this oppression IS? What specifically are 'feminists" doing to oppress men? I'm just not sure what you are referring to here.



Quote:
i can think of a major system that continues to "keep women down"....healthcare.



That is definitely an issue. Healthcare won't cover my cousin's birth control, but the same plan covers her husband's erectile dysfunction meds. So it will pay for him to have the ability to impregnate her, but won't pay for her to be able to prevent said impregnation. Often, medical trials and studies are done exclusively or primarily on men. Only recently, for example, have heart disease meds and studies been done in the US that focus on women, despite the fact that heart disease is the leading cause of death in women in the US.



I've had seven knee surgeries due to an injury in a car accident, and was told at one point that I might need to have the whole joint replaced (since I am only 27, this was not an optimal solution and luckily a new surgeon was able to save my knee). My surgeon at the time, a well known orthopedic doc, said to me 'Well, lucky for you, they've finally started making knee joint replacements for women.' I was like, "What?!" Turns out, the artificial joints made up until 2006 were made to be replicas of male knees. Thus, they were often oversized and out-of-alignment when put in women's bodies, due to the fact that there are three very distinct differences in size/mechanics of female vs male knees. This, despite the fact that over 2/3 of the 200,000 annual knee replacements in the US are done on WOMEN. My grandma has two of the male replacements herself, and has had issues with them due to the fact that they are not made for a woman. As it turns out, had I had my knee replaced, my insurance was not going to cover the female joint, because it was still classified as "experimental" and the ONE company making them was charging about twice as much as for the male joint. This, again, is the sort of imbalance that needs to be addressed by feminism.
RedLotus is offline  
#38 Old 05-24-2009, 12:30 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieShane View Post

But then there's another group of men (particularly new generation men like myself) who are pro-equality. But it seems to us that modern-day feminism is antagonistic to original feminism such that it focuses on oppressing men rather making men and women equal.



dont include me in that group of men cuz i dont see 3rd wave feminism like that at all. i have some criticisms of it but i dont perceive it as a movement that has the oppression of men as its focus. within any social movement there is always a small faction of angry fundamentalists and feminism is no exception. i think what youre doing is trying to hang the views of that small faction onto the entire feminist movement, which is clearly a mistake.





Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieShane View Post

Aborigines have been brutally oppressed forever in Australia, and I myself was bullied a lot in primary school by racist white kids. But I don't see how reducing the college cut off score for me (while keeping it high for others) can be labeled as equal opportunity. It's simply a government stunt to attempt to increase the number of Aborigines in university so it appears to be a more equal environment.



calling it a government stunt is very cynical & misinformed imo. a lot of aborigines come from families where no one in the family has been capable of finishing school or holding down a job theyve been that bloody oppressed. that is what this government & previous labor governments have tried to address. they do actually care about trying to put right what has gone on in our history ya know, it isnt just a juggling of numbers to make things appear good. a good mate of mine works as an aboriginal youth worker and most of the kids he looks after are so ****ed up as a result of the history of white mans oppression in australia that they have one thing only in their future and thats jail. the government knows this and is trying to give kids like that a chance to break out of the cycle. so while you may not have needed the government help you were given, there are plenty of other aborigines that do. thats if the poor *******s even get to the stage where they are able to take advantage of it like you did.
GhostUser is offline  
#39 Old 05-24-2009, 01:34 PM
Veggie Regular
 
beatricious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,904
Quote:
As for the rape example, ok I agree this is something valid. Rape shouldn't be tolerated and sex has to be consensual. So on that part, feminists did fight for equality. However, now that gives women the ability to exploit the situation as consent is not clearly defined.



If you think the current rape law is biased in favour of women, you are sadly mistaken. Men routinely get away with rape, while women are routinely blamed for their own rape.



Quote:

I've read about a case where the woman consented to sex. However during the intercourse a few seconds prior to the man having orgasm, she revoked the consent by telling him to stop. As a result of non-consensual sex, the man was jailed for rape. She gave no reason as to why she wanted him to stop. In this situation, I definitely think the law was unfair on the man. I see inequality but what I didn't see was any organization fight for his rights.



Even the most misogynist, conservative men's rights group would have a hard time defending their decision to fight for a man's right to rape. If the scenario played out as described above, it was most definitely rape. I am extremely happy to see a perpetrator of rape behind bars and can't think of any reason why you see this as unfair.
beatricious is offline  
#40 Old 05-24-2009, 02:57 PM
Newbie
 
agee309's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Posts: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLotus View Post

If 1 in 12 college age men don't even see what they have done as rape, there needs to be a HUGE change in the way they are educated about the subject, and the way they see and treat women in general.



I don't think that this is as simple as that. For this change to occur, it would require a shift in the views of the entire society. As well as increased education in schools, the indervidual views of parents would need to be addressed as these views and treatments of women are often passed down from generation to generation. Boys see the way that their mothers and sisters were treated and that is all that they know so they tend to treat woment the same in their own lives. (I recognise that this does not happen in every situation). I also think that radical adjustments would need to be made in advertising and product placement (go back to the example of the advertising of childrens toys). This changeof society is likely to be met with reluctance and take many many years before we see a major difference. That is if companies even agree to make a change. This kind of collaboration of society will not take place if only a few changes are made. Todays entire system would need a overhaul.



This is not to say that I don't think we should try. I only mean to say that if commitment to this kind of change is made, it will take dedication and time for all members of society. I wonder if this kind of goal is something we should set our sites on or should we make small changes and hope that the lasting effect will be one of change and development?



A

Check out: lovelifeontheside.com
agee309 is offline  
#41 Old 05-24-2009, 03:33 PM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
I don't think that this is as simple as that. For this change to occur, it would require a shift in the views of the entire society. As well as increased education in schools, the indervidual views of parents would need to be addressed as these views and treatments of women are often passed down from generation to generation. Boys see the way that their mothers and sisters were treated and that is all that they know so they tend to treat woment the same in their own lives. (I recognise that this does not happen in every situation). I also think that radical adjustments would need to be made in advertising and product placement (go back to the example of the advertising of childrens toys). This changeof society is likely to be met with reluctance and take many many years before we see a major difference. That is if companies even agree to make a change. This kind of collaboration of society will not take place if only a few changes are made. Todays entire system would need a overhaul.



This is not to say that I don't think we should try. I only mean to say that if commitment to this kind of change is made, it will take dedication and time for all members of society. I wonder if this kind of goal is something we should set our sites on or should we make small changes and hope that the lasting effect will be one of change and development?



I do think it is a very big, multi-faceted issue for sure. But I also think that we need to try to address it in every way we can. Yes, setting our sights on small steps makes sense, but they need to be small steps as part of a much larger scale journey. I'm sure that at least SOME of those male college students would be horrified to learn that they had raped someone by the legal definition. Even if their morals weren't up to par on the situation, some of them would probably avoid repeating that behavior out of fear of legal ramifications if nothing else, should someone educate them. Also, women need to be educated on their rights and the definitions of consent, so that they can stand up for themselves. I can't tell you how many women I know who have been sexually assaulted but feel that it wasn't rape because they were drunk, they initially said yes and then changed their mind, or they feel they "led him on." Education that clearly defines consent in sexual situations won't solve the whole issue for sure. But if it can keep even a few people from being raped isn't it worth it? Nothing will change if we don't actively try to change it, and I think that even though it's a daunting prospect we need to strive to change the way society hurts women, minorities, and yes, men as well.
RedLotus is offline  
#42 Old 05-24-2009, 08:21 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Move of Ten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,157
Capitalism combined with advancements in media technology deserves a lot of blame for exploiting and exacerbating already present female objectification in the US and the ridiculously high level of sexual assault that comes with it.
Move of Ten is offline  
#43 Old 05-24-2009, 08:23 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Move of Ten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,157
This is also comparable to its effects on animal treatment BTW.
Move of Ten is offline  
#44 Old 05-25-2009, 01:54 AM
Newbie
 
agee309's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Posts: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLotus View Post

I do think it is a very big, multi-faceted issue for sure. But I also think that we need to try to address it in every way we can. Yes, setting our sights on small steps makes sense, but they need to be small steps as part of a much larger scale journey. I'm sure that at least SOME of those male college students would be horrified to learn that they had raped someone by the legal definition. Even if their morals weren't up to par on the situation, some of them would probably avoid repeating that behavior out of fear of legal ramifications if nothing else, should someone educate them. Also, women need to be educated on their rights and the definitions of consent, so that they can stand up for themselves. I can't tell you how many women I know who have been sexually assaulted but feel that it wasn't rape because they were drunk, they initially said yes and then changed their mind, or they feel they "led him on." Education that clearly defines consent in sexual situations won't solve the whole issue for sure. But if it can keep even a few people from being raped isn't it worth it? Nothing will change if we don't actively try to change it, and I think that even though it's a daunting prospect we need to strive to change the way society hurts women, minorities, and yes, men as well.



I definetly agree. I am a stronger believer that having/gaining education and being aware of ones rights is extremely important as it allows people to protect and defend themselves. I do think that greater education inside and outside the home, is an important step in the right direction.



I also think that dramatic changes need to be made inside the legal system. We are currently studying rape and sexual offences in my legal studies classes at school and the way victims are treated while going through the court system is atrocious. One woman described it as being "raped a second time." It is often the women proving the purity of their own charater rather then the guilt of the accused. I believe that the legal system needs to be changed to make it fairer to the women/ victim. The problem is how do we make it easier for the victim without making it unfair for the accused?



Many changes need to be made to ensure fairness and justice for all people in society. I think that we are heading in the right direction as awareness of these issues is increasing and many people, feminist or not, are beginning to realise that these issues need to be addressed.



A

Check out: lovelifeontheside.com
agee309 is offline  
#45 Old 05-25-2009, 09:05 PM
Veggie Regular
 
veggiemeggie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post

Capitalism combined with advancements in media technology deserves a lot of blame for exploiting and exacerbating already present female objectification in the US and the ridiculously high level of sexual assault that comes with it.



I am inclined to agree with you about this... but could you elaborate? What specific media technology?



An aside, one thing that drives me absolutely *up* the wall is that many insurance companies reimburse ED medications (viagra, etc.) but refuse to cover birth control for women. Ugh.
veggiemeggie is offline  
#46 Old 05-25-2009, 10:08 PM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
An aside, one thing that drives me absolutely *up* the wall is that many insurance companies reimburse ED medications (viagra, etc.) but refuse to cover birth control for women. Ugh.



For sure. What gets me even more angry, though is the blatant sexism present in the pharmaceutical industry and medicine when it comes to sexual disorders in general. There have been BILLIONS of dollars spent on erectile dysfunction research and treatment in the US alone. I mean, do you remember what a BIG F'ING DEAL it was when Viagra hit the market? It was like someone had announced a cure for cancer.



Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for helping someone have a more satisfying and healthy sexual life. I'm glad men with ED have access to effective treatments. But what about the women? Inability to have sex/orgasm is an issue across gender, not just for men. In fact, statistically, it is far more common for women to be unable to have an orgasm or enjoy sex than it is for men. This is taken from a medical paper on sexual dysfunction:



Quote:
In the National Health and Social Life Survey, 1,749 women ages 18 to 59 were surveyed about their sexual function (Laumann, Paik, & Rosen, 1999). Persistent or recurrent inability to achieve orgasm over the last year was reported in 25%. Unmarried women and those without a college degree were more likely to have problems with orgasm (Laumann et al., 1999). Recent studies report a lifetime incidence of total or partial orgasm difficulties of between 16% to 30% (Paik & Laumann, 2006). Approximately 5% of women have never achieved an orgasm (Klassen & Wilsnack, 1986).



So if you extrapolate from those numbers, one in four women age 18 to 59 in the US have the female version of some sort of ED. That's not even counting women 60 and older, which has the highest incident of sexual dysfunction for both genders. And if 5% of women have NEVER had an orgasm at all... Well, based on the current US population of women and that percentage, 7,601,493 women have never had an orgasm (or will be unable to once they reach sexual maturity, since the census includes children and infants as well)



So.... where's the billion-dollar rush to fund a medication that addresses female sexual dysfunction? Apparently it's not a concern. Must be because a woman can still usually physically have intercourse, regardless of rather or not it results in sexual satisfaction for her. There seems to be this mentality of "God forbid he can't get it up!", but "female sexual dysfunction? Huh?" That sort of attitude hurts women, but it also hurts MEN, because it sends the message that their validity as men lies primarily with their ability to... ahem... you know.



So it's another incidence of the medical and pharm field focusing billions of dollars on a male problem while virtually ignoring its female equivalent, despite an equal or greater demand. I suppose it's because the pharm industry is run primarily by older white men, but it still ticks me off!
RedLotus is offline  
#47 Old 05-25-2009, 10:23 PM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Rape laws only seem to favor women when the rape is underage (teacher/student rapes especially).



Otherwise, rape often boils down to two people claiming two different events. That's not enough to prove rape. Because of this, the law favors the rapist, which the majority of the time seems to be men.
das_nut is offline  
#48 Old 05-25-2009, 10:24 PM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Also, why is not covering BC pills sexist?



Last time I checked, my healthcare plan doesn't cover condoms.
das_nut is offline  
#49 Old 05-25-2009, 10:58 PM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
Rape laws only seem to favor women when the rape is underage (teacher/student rapes especially).



I'm assuming that you're referring to statutory rape here, and not violent sexual assault against minors?



Quote:
Also, why is not covering BC pills sexist?



Last time I checked, my healthcare plan doesn't cover condoms.



The major argument here is that insurance covers drugs like Viagra, giving a man the ability to impregnate a woman, but does not cover BC, which allows that same woman to prevent becoming pregnant. Also, the financial burden of paying for oral contraceptives almost always falls solely on the woman (not so much in some marriages, but for single women or dating women) and that can run up to $600 a year. A lot of my straight female friends keep a supply of condoms that they purchased, and routinely contribute to the cost of buying condoms as well. You can also access free condoms etc at places like Planned Parenthood and health clinics (and yes, they can provide cheap oral BC too, but it's a more involved process for sure and you are still charged for the pills).



Also, I think that prophylactics like condoms SHOULD be covered by insurance companies as preventative care.
RedLotus is offline  
#50 Old 05-25-2009, 11:09 PM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Well, there is an argument for insurance companies paying for condoms, since they do prevent the spread of diseases.



OTOH, $20 for a box of the non-latex condoms is pretty cheap.



I can live with that expense. It would end up costing everyone more if we added insurance company paperwork to it.



And if I couldn't afford $20 for a box of condoms, there's plenty of free condoms out there.



So why should insurance companies cover a method of birth control that is more expensive and does not prevent the spread of disease?
das_nut is offline  
#51 Old 05-25-2009, 11:19 PM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
So why should insurance companies cover a method of birth control that is more expensive and does not prevent the spread of disease?



Condoms break. Plus, while a woman has a right to say "no glove no love" etc, the actual use of the condom is in the man's control. Oral contraceptives are something that a woman has total control over, on her own, to prevent pregnancy.



Doctors usually recommend that sexually active women who DON'T want to get pregnant take oral contraceptives. Also, they're prescribed for menstrual-related health issues on a regular basis
RedLotus is offline  
#52 Old 05-25-2009, 11:43 PM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLotus View Post

Condoms break. Plus, while a woman has a right to say "no glove no love" etc, the actual use of the condom is in the man's control.



I'm not sure what part of the world you live in, but in the United States, there is the female condom.



Interestingly, from what I've been told, they are all non-latex as well.



As for actual use of a male condom, sure, he has the actual control when it comes to using it, but his partner has the actual control if she or he wants to participate in sex.
das_nut is offline  
#53 Old 05-25-2009, 11:59 PM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
I'm not sure what part of the world you live in, but in the United States, there is the female condom.



Interestingly, from what I've been told, they are all non-latex as well.



As for actual use of a male condom, sure, he has the actual control when it comes to using it, but his partner has the actual control if she or he wants to participate in sex.



My sister was in a situation where she was getting intimate with a man, it was dark, he "pretended" to put on a condom, and had unprotected sex with her under the false pretense that he was using protection - that's the sort of thing I meant when I talked about the man having control etc.



I do live in the US, and now that you mention it I do remember reading about the female condom. Since I'm a lesbian, accidental pregnancy isn't something that I tend to worry about personally! But good point.
RedLotus is offline  
#54 Old 05-26-2009, 12:10 AM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLotus View Post

My sister was in a situation where she was getting intimate with a man, it was dark, he "pretended" to put on a condom, and had unprotected sex with her under the false pretense that he was using protection - that's the sort of thing I meant when I talked about the man having control etc.



Some people are horrible people.



Hopefully she kicked him to the curb.
das_nut is offline  
#55 Old 05-26-2009, 12:14 AM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
Some people are horrible people.



Hopefully she kicked him to the curb.



Yeah, well, I sort of beat her to it! I think he'll be scared of me for the rest of his life! But yeah, she did break it off with him, and didn't get knocked up or sick either, thanks heavens.
RedLotus is offline  
#56 Old 05-26-2009, 09:52 AM
Veggie Regular
 
greensgood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post




So why should insurance companies cover a method of birth control that is more expensive and does not prevent the spread of disease?



because their customers use it and want it to be covered. insurance companies are businesses, it is disgusting that they ignore the demand for products at affordable prices from one sex yet dole out similar drugs for the other sex no problem.



im pretty sure way more women use oral bc than men use ed meds. also unwanted pregnancy is more expensive and complicated a problem than a limp penis...



the only medication i use is oral bc, i don't have insurance so i spend $600 a year on it. i had insurance a few years ago that did not cover my bc, so i ended up paying $3,000 a year for insurance plus an extra $600 for my prescription. i only used my insurance for my yearly pap and Rx for bc, i quit the dumb insurance because i cannot afford to waste $2000 every year for something that doesn't even help me when i need it.
greensgood is offline  
#57 Old 05-26-2009, 12:03 PM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by greensgood View Post

because their customers use it and want it to be covered. insurance companies are businesses, it is disgusting that they ignore the demand for products at affordable prices from one sex yet dole out similar drugs for the other sex no problem.



There's a male birth control pill?



Quote:
im pretty sure way more women use oral bc than men use ed meds. also unwanted pregnancy is more expensive and complicated a problem than a limp penis...



False comparison.



Show where insurance companies have failed to approve pills approved to treat the female libido and then you'll have a case.



Right now, you're comparing apples to oranges.
das_nut is offline  
#58 Old 05-26-2009, 12:23 PM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
There's a male birth control pill?



It's in the making. It'll probably hit the market in about 5 years or so. A lot of men interviewed on the subject, however, state that they would never take a hormonal contraceptive. Apparently that responsibility falls on women alone.



Quote:
False comparison.



Show where insurance companies have failed to approve pills approved to treat the female libido and then you'll have a case.



Right now, you're comparing apples to oranges.



They would have to actually MAKE a pill for female libido issues first. Like I said before, modern pharm companies are way more interested in solving male sexual dysfunction than female sexual dysfunction, despite the fact that the number of women with sexual dysfunction is at least as high (if not higher) than men.
RedLotus is offline  
#59 Old 05-26-2009, 01:53 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Nishani's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 7,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLotus View Post

Condoms break. Plus, while a woman has a right to say "no glove no love" etc, the actual use of the condom is in the man's control.



No really. There's nothing to stop a woman buying her own condoms and insisting on putting them on her partner's penis herself if she wants to.



Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLotus View Post

My sister was in a situation where she was getting intimate with a man, it was dark, he "pretended" to put on a condom, and had unprotected sex with her under the false pretense that he was using protection - that's the sort of thing I meant when I talked about the man having control etc.



He had control in that situation because she LET him have control by having sex in a place that is so dark that she can't even see what is going on.



Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLotus View Post

They would have to actually MAKE a pill for female libido issues first. Like I said before, modern pharm companies are way more interested in solving male sexual dysfunction than female sexual dysfunction, despite the fact that the number of women with sexual dysfunction is at least as high (if not higher) than men.



That's partly because it's easier to help with male sexual dysfunction because the majority of it is physical in origin. With females, a lot of the dysfunction can be attributed to sexual abuse as a child and that kind of dysfunction is difficult to overcome with a pill without having a psychoactive component to the drug. You would need a pill like Viagra or Cialis that stimulates blood flow to the sexual organs, but more importantly, it would also need to break down inhibition and increase libido at the same time. Once you make a pill like that, a lot of people will want to take it recreationally just like they do with the illegal drugs that already act in that way, and then it will be in demand on the street, which is obviously a problem.

m8itcanw8.com
Nishani is offline  
#60 Old 05-26-2009, 02:03 PM
Veggie Regular
 
greensgood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 761
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478/ its been developed and they have been saying for years that it will be available in a few more years...still waiting. one of the possible side effects is decreased sex drive (also a side effect for women's oral bc) and that is one of the things they have been working on before making it available for sale.



my point with comparing ed meds to oral bc is that the insurance companies obviously value men's sexual issues more than women's because they cover meds for ed and not oral bc. both ed and pregnancy are sexual concerns, how is that a false comparison?
greensgood is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off