So clearly, ignorance is the gateway to wisdom; and therefore, by the same logic, if one hopes to get an intelligent answer, one must ask a stupid question. Enter our cerebral friend, Selwyn Duke.
Why accept contraception as a women's issue?Exactly. It's like Romney's statements about Jeep moving its manufacturing jobs to China -- just because he says it doesn't mean we're obliged to believe it -- and if we're truly serious about this whole "sexual equality" business, then the ladies should be subjected to the same standards; and that means men are under no compulsion to accept the claim that birth control is a "women's issue" just because women have a vested interest in controlling when they give birth.
While many points have been made about this campaign's contraception controversy, there's one that I haven't yet heard anyone mention.Frankly, I think this unrelenting emphasis on birth control is taking the focus off other, equally important issues of public health, such as the plight of women afflicted by bad prostates.
Why do we accept contraception as a women's issue?
After all, there is a prophylactic designed for use by men, and insurance policies would have covered it no more than they would female birth control.I wonder if Selwyn carries liability insurance for accidental death or dismemberment caused by trying to parse that sentence. Anyway, while he's checking his policy, he might want to read the rest of the brochure and note that insurance companies actually do cover "female birth control" -- the Free Market having decided that pills are cheaper than pregnancies.
Even more significantly, contraception is unnecessary unless there's the possibility of conception, something impossible without the participation of a man. In other words, contraception is always used by both sexes.Back when I was still on the dating scene, I never understood why my girlfriends would insist on popping their prescription birth control every day -- even when we weren't planning to see each other. Yes, they'd hand me some scientific gobbledegook about "hormones" and "cervical mucus" and "placebo pills," but logically there's no reason for them to have taken the Pill on days when they weren't having sex, so clearly they were all cheating on me.
The likely response here is that I'm being obtuse.Well, that's certainly the usual response...
"Don't you know, Duke, that women generally have to assume the responsibility for birth control?" But hold the phone.That's not the phone you're holding, Selwyn. I'll, uh...come back when you're done.
The feminists have long maintained that men should shoulder half the burden of contraception and that thinking otherwise is "sexist." So why did they make that antiquated, "sexist" assumption an implicit centerpiece in their argument for government policy?Selwyn is right to reject the fanciful notion that a gap exists between aspirations and reality. When I was little I wanted a pony, so shouldn't I be going out to the stable that must therefore be somewhere in our apartment, and shoveling horseshit every day? Or is reading Selwyn's column enough?
Personally, I think men will "shoulder half the burden of contraception" only when they start getting pregnant half the time, but then, I'm a sour old cynic, and not a dewy idealist like Young Dr. Chinfinger.
Additionally, the burden stressed when defending the contraception mandate is the financial one. But not only is birth control quite cheap, it isn't entirely true that this expense is footed only by the fairer sex.Men often pick up the dinner check and movie tickets that require women to spend money on contraceptives. (But you don't always score, so if you do find yourself contributing half the cost of birth control, be aware that current IRS law allows you to amortize the cost of each Pill over three separate trips to The Sizzler.)
After all, if a man and woman truly are a couple, expenses are often a mutual responsibility.You buy half her tampons and birth control pills, she buys half your Rogaine and porn -- it's the only rational way to approach public health policy.
And not only is this especially true of married couples, it's also a fact that husbands are much more likely than wives to be the main or even sole income source.Is Selwyn married? I've never seen him mention a wife, but considering that RenewAmerica doesn't actually pay its contributors, perhaps that's all for the best.
So is it primarily "female" or "male" dollars that pay for birth control? It would be interesting to see a study to that effect.Well, since Selwyn's image of family finances dates back to the Fifties, a time before the birth control pill existed, I'm not sure how we could possibly devise a study that would validate his assumptions without also causing a dangerous causality loop that could produce a rip in the space-time continuum and lead to Selwyn accidentally impregnating his own grandfather.
Of course, then there's the type of single woman targeted by the statist contraception appeal, the species known as the Fluke.Anyway, enough manly joshing...let's get on with the initiation. Duke, your Delta Tau Chi name will be "Nematode"...
Single women who have one-night stands or who enter into other low-commitment sexual relationships aren't going to collect tolls before allowing partners in lust to cross the bridge to nowhereI'm not sure, but I think he just called Sarah Palin a slut.
so they would have to pay to play (who, however, pays for the dates?).Yeah, I'm sure Selwyn knows nothing about that.
But this raises a question: is facilitating such behavior good social policy?Hm. Someone seems a tad bitter. Frankly, I'd be willing to pay Selwyn not to have sex, just as a gesture of goodwill to my species, but I have a feeling that'd be like bribing an oyster not to compete on So You Think You Can Dance.
So our government funding has gone from midnight basketball to midnight...well, you know. Paying for people's healthful recreational activities was bad enough; now we have to finance their recreational sex.
And since these tax dollars come partially from women, robbing the taxpayer to pay for contraception is as much a "women's" issue as is the use of it.Tax dollars? What tax dollars? I thought the issue was over requiring private insurance plans to cover contraception. Alright, never mind, let's just go with it...So women are paying taxes, and part of their taxes go to pay for something that women use, which means that they're being robbed...by themselves...
Hm. Maybe if I finger my chin it'll become clearer...
Nope...Okay, let's trying focusing on Selwyn's larger point -- that there should be an equal division of labor and resources when it comes to contraception, just as there was in hunter-gatherer societies, where men did the hunting and women the gathering. Therefore, I believe what Selwyn is proposing is that we divide up "birth control" 50-50. Women get the "birth," men get the "control."
And Selwyn gets to "hold the phone" (at $2.95 a minute).
It's been some time since I've bought rubbers, as we so quaintly called them, but I'm pretty sure even a month's supply of raincoats is still significantly less expensive than birth control pills, IUDs, diaphragms or Norplant, & they remain easily available at 7-Elevens, grocery stores, pharmacies & the 99¢ Only Store, & while there may be some embarrassment involved in purchasing them, they sure as hell don't require a visit to the doctor, a prescription, & whatever tests the croaker may want to make before prescribing them.
Also, "Sold for prevention of disease only."
Just sign me "Ramses, Sheik of Forex."
Why do we accept contraception as a women's issue?
If his point is, men need to step up and take responsibility for not leaving a litter of little Selwyns, I could not possibly agree more.
After all, there is a prophylactic designed for use by men, and insurance policies would have covered it no more than they would female birth control.
Sadly, his point is he's being a douchebag. Undoubtedly, he believes this is another form of contraception.
The feminists have long maintained that men should shoulder half the burden of contraception and that thinking otherwise is "sexist." So why did they make that antiquated, "sexist" assumption an implicit centerpiece in their argument for government policy?
Lemme try an exercise for ya, Sellie.
"YO! SELWYN! GIMME A BEER AND A SAMMICH, STAT! "
Startin' to get the picture? If a man can't even slap a slab of meat between two buns, who the hell can assume he'll wrap that meat in a baggie?
Dr. Chinfinger puts the "celibate" in "cerebral."
If we tease him like this, he's just going to go off and do that ameba thing. Eww.
"Frankly, I'd be willing to pay Selwyn not to have sex, just as a gesture of goodwill to my species, but I have a feeling that'd be like bribing an oyster not to compete on 'So You Think You Can Dance'."
Funniest line I've read all week.
Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Pinky?
I think so, Brain, but how are we going to make contraception seem to be the result of liberal policies?
After all, there is a prophylactic designed for use by men, and insurance policies would have covered it no more than they would female birth control...
I dunno, don't insurance comps. cover vasectomies?
You've been nominated for the Liebster Blog Award. http://mackthewriter.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/the-liebster-blog-award-nomination/ You may accept or not, as you wish. :)
Selwyn's danger of death 'n' dismemberment primarily stems from the Moebius strip he's twisting himself into, in order to deny (in a logically rigorous manner, natch) any validity to "The feminists'" positions on shared responsibility.
I wonder what it's like to date the guy? Does he take his hand away from his face long enough to cut up his own steak, or must one do that for him, glowing the while with gratitude that he paid for the movie tickets?
Y'know, I actually think that I fell down the fucking rabbit hole. The more that I read, even with Scott's acerbic death-scythe wit interposed --- the more that I read of this pud-thumper's drivel, the less I felt like I was still in the "real world." No, it's nothing drastic, like gravity giving up and finally letting me have perky tits, it's just that his blathering was so... outright flaming-fucktard-on-a-tricycle STOOPID, that it made me think that I must have HALLUCINATED this entire experience. Surely such wanton slaughter of the English language, coupled in an unholy union with such batshit-crazy antithesis to "logic" --- can't actually EXIST amongst carbon-based life forms on THIS PLANET, can it?
Oh, right. Nevermind.
Scott reminded me where I was...
"Frankly, I'd be willing to pay Selwyn not to have sex, just as a gesture of goodwill to my species, but I have a feeling that'd be like bribing an oyster not to compete on So You Think You Can Dance."
Ahhhhh. So much better now.
If I had it, I'd happily pay a large, angry man with scabies & crabs to fuck Selwyn, and on video. Not saying that Selwyn would be a willing, compliant participant, but with reich-wingers, does that really matter? All that REALLY matters about rape, after all, is that THE DEMON-SPAWN BE BROUGHT TO TERM.
If only Selwyn's "parents" (they can't have liked him MUCH, with THAT name) had thought about birth control options, back long ago, the night that "Mr. Ed" was pre-empted for something, oh, y'know, boring and NEWSY... *sigh*
BTW, belated but still true: We'll miss you, Mongo. R.I.P.
(And no, I am in no way slandering the memory of Alex Karras by associating him with THIS outright water-headed fucking CLUSTERFUCK of a fucktard, because even when felled by Dementia, Alex still had at LEAST 100 I.Q. points over Sssssellllwyyyynnnn.)
Why accept contraception as a women's issue?
Uh, 'cause women are the ones who get pregnant?
Chinfinger - he's the man
The man with the dumbass touch
He knows so much...
Post a Comment