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.
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).