Actually, we've been through this before, the pill is not prescribed anymore in the vast majority of these cases. And even in the small amount it is, it is not the majority of why the pill is used. You know that, but like most arguments that surround this sort of issue, the left latches on to the 1 in 100K example to justify the broad coverage, and deflect why the standard application is what they want.
I don't know that. All I know is I was prescribed it for severe pain when nothing else worked, why should people like me be denied it in a healthcare plan because other people are upset if someone else uses it for sex?
This sometimes is why the super-femme-nazi's get on my last nerve . . . they lose their ability to logically reason through **** - look:
This is what he said:
Just how should that reworded to be 'not-offensive' because when you're talking about sexual discrimination in the workplace it's obvious he's addressing men who DO the discriminating . . . and he's trying to get these stupid men to think of these women as someone's mother, someone's wife, someone's daughter - etc . . . You know - see them as people and respect them. It's a negotiation tactic, actually.
Just what exactly do they want to hear instead?
You know - since they're so much smarter than me on this maybe they can give an example of what's acceptable.
Uh no - they just want it to be said, "We know of economy is stronger when women can live their lives free from discrimination in the workplace and free from the fear of domestic violence."
Well call me a retarded rock - because that just doesn't deliver the same personal message to me. It's cold and distant - merely defining women by their gender alone and nothing more, don't you think? :roll:
LOL - but I am laughing at the 'we know our economy is stronger' - what the **** does sexual discrimination have to do with the economy?
LOL - not a damn thing.
You wouldn't have been denied it when prescribed for treatment other than BC, because the codes, and prescription itself, although chemically the same, it is not billed the same as BC. So, the argument is moot.
Just how should that reworded to be 'not-offensive' because when you're talking about sexual discrimination in the workplace it's obvious he's addressing men who DO the discriminating . . . and he's trying to get these stupid men to think of these women as someone's mother, someone's wife, someone's daughter - etc . . . You know - see them as people and respect them. It's a negotiation tactic, actually.
...but we're talking about future universal healthcare that everyone would be paying for and birth control comes up time and time again as something that they would not want covered so I don't think the argument is moot that Obama is for women in at least some way by being for a health care plan that includes healthcare specific to women.
Good.
I don't necessarily think that he's a misogynist -- probably just careless -- but this kind of language referring to women is prevalent and it's demeaning. Women are more than simply whatever domestic role they happen to be involved in.
Women are always "mother" or "wife." They're never just "women." On the other hand, men are always men, in ADDITION to be a father, husband, whatever. And a man who's a father can also be a businessman, but women who are mothers are still just mothers even if they're businesswomen.
Men are prefaced as "a man," and then it might say, "who is a father of ___ with his loving wife, and works at a local business" For women, it's just "a mother/wife."
Men are recognized as multifaceted, and women are routinely pegged as one-dimensional. For men, their independent identity is always mentioned first (man), and their relational identities second. For women, their independent identities are rarely mentioned at all.
Whatever relationship women are involved in is forced on her as the totality of her identity, as though she has nothing outside of those roles to others, which are implied to be servile.
Seriously. Take a look at the front page of whatever local news organization you prefer. Look at five stories about men, and five about women -- people who are not famous, and who are not themselves criminals.
Tell me how many of them refer to a woman as "mother/wife" right off the bat, and how many refer to men as "father/husband" right off the bat. For fun, count up how many of them never say "woman" at all. For even more fun, look up some articles about female criminals and count up how many times they say "woman" (hint: it's a lot more).
The problem is that those stupid men who commit sexual discrimination already view women as inferior possessions. His appeal to emotion reinforces that position, at least subconsciously.
Those stupid men won't be swayed by emotional appeals like this, either. Anyone who is already willing to subjugate others doesn't give a **** about other people's feelings. they care about "My wife, my mother, my daughter", not anyone else's mother wife or daughter.
It's a self-defeating tactic. The only way that a man like that would change is if it WAS his own wife, mother, or daughter who was directly affected, and even then, the daughter would be the best bet since most of those types have wives and mothers who fit with their worldview already. The daughter is the most likely to "rebel" against that kind of thing.
Well, he was pandering to all facets of the base, and women are the kingmakers of late. Just a few points--women can be vicious with each other in the workplace too; in the age with so many single moms, women making less does adversely impact our economy via the need for more welfare, less economic velocity, etc; and financial woes are the leading cause of divorce so it would seem logical that they contribute to domestic violence that precedes divorce in some cases and it would be harder for some to seek that divorce if they did not think they could survive on their own. Either way, it was nothing more than pandering for applause.
I still don't see how saying someone is a wife/mother/daughter defines them by their relationship to MEN.
Wife = could be a homosexual marriage as is permitted in several states.
Mother = no men need to be around for this. She could be single with all girls, even.
Daughter = again - doesn't need a male figure there - could just have a mom.
This is stating your relationship to OTHERS in your life - just relationships . . . if people cared in general about that then they'd have issues with the opposite. Yet I've never heard someone get pissed when they say "our husbands, fathers and sons" . . . it's just a common phrasing. Definitely no petitions go around when this is used, here.
It's ok - you know - for a president to refer to men or women. It was obvious who he was directing that to.As you pointed out yourself, it was obviously targeting men. Women do not define other women relationally, only men do that. Women define each other as "us", not wives, mothers, and daughters. That's a part of who they are, but they are so much more than just that.
And people do NOT use the term "our husbands, father, and sons" in discussions about equal treatment of men. Those kinds of comments about men are almost exclusively used in discussions of war where the attempt is being made, specifically, to humanize the soldiers who die in war. It's not really comparable because it has a different goal. It isn't used as a replacement of the term "men", it is used as a replacement of the word "soldiers". "Men" is far more humanizing than soldiers is.
Obama used wives, mothers, and daughters to replace the word "women". It wasn't done to humanize women in the workforce, it was used to appeal to the emotions of those who would subjugate them, and as such, he was, inadvertently, lowering himself to their level. You yourself have made note of that, so there's no point in backtracking now by pointing out that there was no necessity for men to be present in any of the relationships described. The fact of the matter is that it was an attempt to appeal to the emotions of men, and as such, the words were intended to define women by their relationships to men.
Now, do I think it was petition-worthy? No, not at all. Do I think that it eradicates the value of his other comments? Absolutely not.
Do I think that it acts as a convenient means to engage in a legitimate discussion about the way that language affects inequality? Most certainly.
Nonsense in search of outrage. Listen, women should take pride in carrying the title of the primary raiser of this nations children....I can hardly think of a more important job, or a tougher one.
It's ok - you know - for a president to refer to men or women. It was obvious who he was directing that to.
Also - where'd you come up with this notion of "women don't refer to people by their relationships - but as us" ?? Is there research on this? Strawman argument.
I've heard it countless times and not even in regard to 'soldiers' - I guess it depends on what we're tuning into, hunh?
And I'm supposed to get my panties in a twist and sign a petition because of it?
It was not meant to be offensive
and if anyone felt 'degraded' they (I say again) need to get their head out of their ass.
I promise you that his language *in that regard* had no effect on inequality
- he was trying to deliver a point . . . and people got distracted from the point and instead focused on semantics.
I'm going to continue to not care - not get pissy - and not get my wittle fewing hurt
I don't need a single reference in a speech to be what gives me a conniption fit.
Don't use the term "strawman argument" if you don't know what it means, Aunt Spiker. I didn't attribute anything to you in that statement, I was supporting the point that he was targeting men with his reference to women. You agree with that point even before it was made.
I'll just respond with a clarification - your strawman argument was how you presumed women talk . . . claiming we don't use 'relationship labels' to identify people and instead we always say 'us'
It was a ridiculous declaration.
Per the rest of your post - we just disagree - you think he shouldn't and I don't care if he does. Apparently the difference is how we interpret his meaning.
There's no point in trying to convince me as to why I should be offended.
Birth control is a tool used in a political rhetoric filled wedge from the administration to force religious institutions, and people of faith to cover something they are morally opposed to paying for. It is a measure of control, nothing more. Why should I as a taxpayer be forced to cover your BC for you, so that you can engage in an elective practice with no responsibility on your part to protect yourself in the matter?
What is the nature of the debt from me to you, that I should pay for that?
You want to have sex? pay for the BC yourself.
Oh, please.
Women should get to carry the titles they like.
Why shouldn't daddies be proud to have that title forced on them as the only thing of meaning they do?
Because it isn't. That's why. And the same applies to women.
All politicians have their platforms. Birth Control is a big issue for a lot of women and Romney clearly failed at getting his perspective and concerns across to the vast majority of women voters who have placed that high on their lists of what's important to them.
I currently pay for my healthcare on my own and the taxes I pay go to other people and their health care in my state so I'm going to take the 'you' in your post as being a generalized 'you' and not aimed specifically at me. In any case I don't see why it's so difficult for anyone to understand why a woman would be more interested in Obama's platform then Romney's, they're not "Bimbo's" as one poster put it for voting for someone who is pandering to their needs and the GOP needs to either get a handle on this and better understand it or find a way to get around losing all those votes from women.
Oh, please.
Women should get to carry the titles they like. Why shouldn't daddies be proud to have that title forced on them as the only thing of meaning they do?
Because it isn't. That's why. And the same applies to women.
Because it isn't "manly" to raise children.
That's the little womans job. Come on, this isnt 2013!!
Since you made it clear that you are being sarcastic, I am not sure whether you are mocking, or basically saying this as a statement on how society has boxed men out.
Is that any justification for why the administration would continue a policy of paying women in the WH 16% less than men doing the exact same job? Then not even thinking that the American people are smart enough to see through the talking point platitudes?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?