Does anyone think there'd be nearly the same kerfuffle about insurance-provided birth control pills and other contraception if it was for men instead of women?
Does anyone seriously think Republicans like Senator Blount, political party enforcers like Rush Limbaugh, or Presidential candidates like Rick Santorum would be so recklessly intent on driving their party over a cliff if the issue was male contraception?
To be fair, I think the Catholic Bishops are consistent enough that they'd be trying to stir up a fuss about it. But what are the chances that 'winger conservatives would be any less disrespectful of Catholic opposition to male birth control than they are about, say, Catholic opposition to capital punishment or Catholic support for the poor and the sick?
Would 'wingers go running around the countryside with poorly-spelled handmade signs on posterboard trying to stop men from getting a "The Pill?"
I mean, yeah, sure, Patriarchy, misogyny, slut-shaming, "sanctity of 'life,'" yada, yada, yada. All that.
But...
It's like... even after the Utah State Legislature gets through with "sex education" people are still going to understand that it's... pretty irrelevant who's using the contraception. They're going to realize that women can be just as "promiscuous" if men are using contraception as when women do. They're going to realize that if the whole point of keeping contraception out of the hands of women is really to raise the consequences of sex such that women are unwilling to have it or else be so wracked by anxiety that they can't enjoy it then all that would still go out the window when men bring the contraception instead.
So on paper you'd think they'd be as liable to throw temper tantrums about male contraception as about female contraception.
But...
But...
I'll ask again, does anyone think there'd be nearly the same kerfuffle about insurance-provided birth control pills and other contraception if it was for men instead of women?
I just don't think so.
That's just so weird to me.
---
For the record, repeated market studies show that if or when a contraceptive "pill" for men became available roughly as many men say they're willing to use it as women say they're willing to use The Pill. Not all men, no, but then not all women do either -- it's about the same either way. But, as with The Pill for women, you don't need 100% adoption for it to be pretty darn successful product.
Tags:
Next up: a congressional
Submitted by Anonymous2 (not verified) on Mon, 2012-03-12 10:14.Next up: a congressional hearing on whether insurance coverage can now be limited only to those who voted in the Republican primary
In this new Republic of Gilead--see Kansas' law that doctors may not inform a woman if her life is endangered by pregnancy and Texas' new law that women have to be raped (excuse me, have an invasive unnecessary vaginal ultrasound and an anatomic lecture) if they want an abortion--I don't think it's presumptious to think that they don't want to cover prenatal care, childbirth, or new baby care either (except for their own kids). Because, you know, people having kids means someone's having sex, and that's bad unless it's their own...because...well, because. Because everyone's underage or unmarried or an immigrant or poor or whatever. And if they're not, well they shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them or if they can but must use insurance or they're not the right denomination or whatever. So why does that make us a Republic of Gilead? Because they want more births, even though they don't approve. Or at least it seems apparent they do since contraception is a lot cheaper than babies.
Most mid- to large-size companies self-insure and use insurance companies as managers of their programs. Meaning real insurance does not kick in until an employee's medical expenses exceed $20-25K. Most pre-menopausal woemn/couples, they're healthy and putting more into their insurance fees than they take out. They're funding older Republicans' knee replacements and Viagra. There's more to it than that, but my sarcasm is kicking in. Or maybe not--a lot of people can't afford to use their insurance even if they have it.
Kinda like the way you never
Submitted by Irene (not verified) on Mon, 2012-03-12 12:10.Kinda like the way you never hear men getting told to just put an aspirin between their knees, even though it would be at least as difficult, though probably not impossible, for men to have sex that way. (Okay, I don't even watch porn, and now I totally want to see a video of a man and a woman trying to have sex with aspirins between their knees. I am sure I have heard complaints about there not being enough humorous porn out there.)
I would argue we already have
Submitted by Heather (not verified) on Tue, 2012-03-13 15:31.I would argue we already have an example to prove that they wouldn't care. If we use condoms as a stand-in for the male pill, we suddenly find that Republican legislators just aren't that upset with public universities providing free condoms for students. And yet, the funding of condoms by public universities actually fits the reasons for the current rage over the Pill better than the Pill does! Those condoms are LITERALLY being paid for with tax-payer funds (and donor grants, of course). Additionally, unlike the Pill, which assists with a host of female health issues, condoms have no purpose beyond providing safe, protected sexual activity. The condom even fits Rush Limbaugh's ridiculous assessment of being more expensive the more sex you have, because, unlike the Pill, you need a new one every time!
And yet, somehow, no one is getting angry at being expected to fund men's sexy good times.
Do Catholic universities provide condoms? I suspect not, because I agree that at least the Church is consistent in its anti-sex stance. Still, if anyone knows if they do . . . whoo boy would I like to know about that hypocritical nonsense.
There seems to be a weird disconnect in that no one in these camps seems to understand that every time a condom or Pill is used to prevent pregnancy, BOTH the woman AND the man are enjoying the benefits of that item.
Good points, but I think
Submitted by jillian (not verified) on Wed, 2012-03-14 11:44.Good points, but I think you're leaving out a whole area here -- married women. Santorum has 7 kids and Romney has 5. Now, that's no Duggar family, but it's enough to keep a woman barefoot and pregnant and/or chasing after a brood for most if not all of her adult life. Preventing women from controlling the size of their families is a very effective way of keeping them out of the workforce, out of politics, out of activism, and generally keeping their mouths shut.
I don't by any means disagree
Submitted by Irene (not verified) on Thu, 2012-03-15 11:55.I don't by any means disagree with your general point, but I do feel compelled to remark that two women in my own extended family, both pro-choice, continued their professional careers (doctor and lawyer) despite seven and five children respectively (oh, and another woman doctor in the extended family, whom I've never met, had nine kids). They did at least nominally choose those family sizes (though I have some evidence that the lady with seven kids originally planned only four -- and I suspect societal pressures acted on them as much as on anyone else in the fifties), which I suppose is what makes the difference. And I know these women were exceptions anyway. I certainly would have made an awful hash of raising that many kids, even without a professional position to boot.
Riffing on Irene's point I
Submitted by figleaf on Sat, 2012-03-17 12:21.Riffing on Irene's point I think the point isn't so much that no women can "do it all." Some obviously can. But not *all* can. And for that matter not all who can *want* to. The difference is the expectation of the 'winger gang is that if a woman can't "do it all" then she should be obliged to fulfill her "real" function and just stay home and bear and raise kids. --fl