Insulting Talk on Women's Rights
- Print print this page
- Discuss 27 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
How much of a howl would go up across this nation if there were a panel made up entirely of women who, not allowing any men to speak, decided health issues and reproductive issues for men?
Would they like to be denied their Viagra, no matter what positive side effect it might have for various conditions for which it was not originally intended? Can we honestly assume that all men north of "a certain age" are looking to father children? Or might we rightly assume pleasure is involved?
There is something very creepy about a panel within our governmental structure that would discuss men's or women's health issues and not include at least testimony from those who are (a) experienced with the issue in an up-close and personal way, and (b) most directly effected by the ruling of said panel. I would hope the panel itself would be at least 50-50 in its makeup.
The right to be heard before a government panel should not be denied to a woman, even if one does not support her position on an issue that directly affects her. She is a citizen and deserves her place at the table - especially when that table is going to directly impact her health and life.
There may be rational arguments on both sides of any health and insurance issue, but I find it hard to believe that all the people cheering for the exclusion of Sandra Fluke do not, in the privacy of their homes, rant and rail when their private insurance company denies something they want/need. I bet they say something like, "Why don't they think of me as a person, not a case number?" Or, "How can they make this decision without ever talking to me or my doctor?"
So how much more indignant should we be when our very own citizen-government does this? Even if you do not agree with Ms. Fluke's position, you may at some point have yet another panel that excludes you when your side should be heard. So beware the sanctimony you may be feeling because you don't approve of coverage of birth control by private insurance. Your turn will come if we do not howl about this now.
Robert Levy, in a March 11 column in this paper, made a statement I found a bit distressing - something about a guy getting a girl to drink two or three Long Island Iced Teas (and for folks who don't know, these are very, very potent drinks, not your Southern sweet tea) and then finding his solution for birth control in the restroom for the cost of about $1 for a condom.
How sad that Mr. Levy would find humor in getting a girl drunk on Long Island Iced Teas and then "getting lucky," with the added bonus of cheap condoms, as being what this is about.
Firstly, let's not find getting girls drunk to have sex with them a great way to view women. Or men. Then let us remember that a woman's reproductive life is not as easily handled as a man's. Lucky for his scenario that the "young man" supposedly got a condom. I'll bet many get the girl drunk and don't bother. Guess who raises the baby?
Mr. Levy probably has not been writhing on a floor monthly with terrible cramps or various lovely side effects of the beautiful right to bear children. He probably never wondered how he would drive to work in time to change a pad before bleeding through his pants.
Sorry, but these are some of the issues that many women face and that some medications can help. The right to bear children is wonderful. The path to it is walked monthly and is not always pretty.
I would hope that when men speak again about women's rights, they find less salacious ways to look at our reproductive rights. They might find it far better to sit and talk with a woman and get to know her and understand her life, work and needs.
Then he and Mr. Limbaugh might not be so afraid to have one of us speak before a panel of men about something they know next to nothing about.
Joyce Reehling lives in Pinehurst. She recently retired here from New York after a 33-year career in theater, TV and commercials.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
JimHeim 1 year, 1 month ago
Well reasoned and clearly presented. Well done, Ms. Reehling. A pleasure to read.
Easygoing 1 year, 1 month ago
Great column, right on!!
JimHeim 1 year, 1 month ago
When my wife was active duty, she selected my physicians for me. It was no surprise that they were mostly women. I found that I preferred them. Women tend to talk less and listen more and seem less ego driven. I always felt I had 100% of their attention.
I found the same thing among engineers. My male colleagues & I tend to jump to conclusions and try to be first with the solution. The women I worked with tended to be more methodical and deliberative. They may have seemed to be slower, but they were much more likely to be right on the first try.
One of the most important developments of the 20th century was bringing women more fully into the workplace. They have added immeasurably to the process.
Now I have to ask: wdd101st, what was your point?
moonchild7 1 year, 1 month ago
JimHeim and im_a_harleyman, you do realize that wdd101st and quite a few others have no idea where they are, what they are writing, or probably even who they are? Difficult to believe that it's 2012 with this many people having so much trouble facing reality and who want/wish that we were still living in the 1800's? Thanks so much Joyce for your great comment, please join us more often. I could use the backup.
fugitiveguy 1 year, 1 month ago
"Would they like to be denied their Viagra"
First straw man only 4 lines in. Nobody is denying women birth control. That is a fact.
dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago
The dismissive, discriminatory, and occasionally downright vicious attitude of Republicans towards women and their health issues is leading to some good results for Obama :
The findings of a Pew Research Center poll released Wednesday show that President Obama has steadily increased his lead over Mitt Romney in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup, which now stands at a whopping 12 points, 54 percent to 42 percent. These results echoed a Reuters/Ipsos poll released earlier this week that showed Obama leading Romney by 11 points, 52 percent to 41 percent. As Reuters pointed out, that is “nearly double the margin from February....Want more good news, Team Obama? How about this: the Pew poll, the Reuters/Ipsos poll and a Gallup Poll released this week all show the president’s approval rating at or near 50 percent for the first time in months. ...Obama outperforms Romney by 20 points among all women, and by 31 points among women aged 19-49. He outperforms Romney by 28 points among young people 18-29 years old and ties him among people 65 and older. And he outperforms Romney in every region of the country and among every income group."
And before someone trots out the NY Times poll showing a decline in approval ratings, they should really look up the term "outlier" as it applies to polling. And no, it doesn't have anything to do with untruth.
So please, keep up the good work of frittering away the election, wingnuts! Keep damaging that Republican brand with every post! We love ya! Mwah!
JER 1 year, 1 month ago
fugitiveguy: I believe the point is that men can have their Viagra covered by their health insurance plan and that women do not have their birth control covered by their insurance plan. In order for us guys to be able to understand this concept, it must be put into the context of sports. Suppose that the rules for a NFL football game stated that the visiting team will be issued all the protective gear necessary for them to play the game while the home team will be responsible for providing all their own gear. Both sides have the opportunity to have all the necessary gear but one side doesn't have to make any effort to obtain them while the other side does.
dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago
They don't seem to get that this is about discrimination. And that women regard discrimination against them as a bad thing, especially when it comes to health issues.
fugitiveguy 1 year, 1 month ago
JER-I thought this all started because certain employers felt it violated their religious principles to pay for or have company supplied insurance pay for birth control. Was this not the case?
fugitiveguy 1 year, 1 month ago
"They don't seem to get that this is about discrimination"
I disagree. I think its a common tactic of the left to convince certain segments of the population that they are being discriminated against (at the hands of the rich, white people, corporations, conservatives, all the above) even though they on their own may have never considered themselves discriminated against. Not trying to start anything, its just the way I see it.
dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago
Are you saying women have been fooled into thinking they're being discriminated against when insurance covers Viagra and not contraception?
JimHeim 1 year, 1 month ago
What amazes me is that I can go to the doctor and know that I'm going to get advice based on the soundest medical science available.
When a woman goes to her doctor, she's going to get Republican talking points instead.
I'm sure lucky to be male.
Bflat 1 year, 1 month ago
^ Ha! There might be another side to what Mr Levy was saying. Perhaps he meant that the male should take responsibility for birth control. Of course the cheapo solution he noted might not work in every situation but it certainly indicates mature thinking along those lines.
DADDYMANx4 1 year, 1 month ago
This is not about civil rights. This is just on more case of trying to legislate opinion. The government has no business discussion at all. Insurance is not a right; it is a product, created by a company for profit and sold to consumers based on simple the law of supply and demand. If you want birth control you have to pay for it either up front or by increased premiums. All government health care is an insurance policy that you are required by law to purchase even if you believe it to be a poor value.
JimHeim 1 year, 1 month ago
daddy guy, 28 states already regulate health insurance as they do life and auto insurance. Are you saying that they have no right to do that?
moonchild7 1 year, 1 month ago
DADDYMAN.........here's the PROBLEM. The insurance companies, the doctors, the hospitals and the pharmaceutical companies have run the prices up on all HEALTH CARE SERVICES and PRODUCTS so much that an awful lot of Americans can't afford it anymore. Plus, Employers are starting to drop the benefit for employees. And guess what, people who have NO HEALTH INSURANCE still get sick and most of the time they go to the Hospital Emergency Room to get help. This can cost upwards of thousands of dollars when perhaps a $100 Urgent Health Care Provider visit would have sufficed. GUESS who pays for that THOUSAND DOLLAR visit? We do, they don't. This is becoming a serious issue bordering on National Security. Our mental and physical health here in America is suffering because of the imbalances. It's time we become civilized and have Health Care for everyone with ONE HEALTH CARE CARD and all of us pay SOMETHING instead of the few paying everything.
AFCHIEF 1 year, 1 month ago
Once again this whole debate was shifted by the liberals. This whole issue originally revolved around obamanation trying to FORCE the Catholic religion to forgoe their faith by forcing birth control down there throats. BRAVO to the libs for changing the original story!
fugitiveguy 1 year, 1 month ago
"Are you saying women have been fooled into thinking they're being discriminated against when insurance covers Viagra and not contraception? "
Not at all, I don't think they are that easily led. BTW, according to you all the women you know are outraged. Tell me why with all these posts on this issue, practically evey one seems to be from males. Please correct me if I am wrong, isn't moon currently the only female who has commented?
dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago
BRAVO to the libs for changing the original story!
Yep, conservatives have totally lost their former control of the narrative. W00t!
BTW, according to you all the women you know are outraged. Tell me why with all these posts on this issue, practically evey one seems to be from males.
You realize there's a world beyond this message board, right? There are even other places online. Here, for example, is a quote from a commenter on my Facebook page when I asked:
do you feel you're being unfairly discriminated against when insurance providers cover Viagra but demand to be allowed to refuse coverage of birth control? If so, did you feel that way because you were convinced by "The Left."?
"Fugitiveguy, you are an ignorant fool and a marvelous argument for legalized retroactive birth control."
Not my words, mind you.
mcg2010 1 year, 1 month ago
Oh I'm a girl, let me chime in (again)!
An earlier comment stated: "I thought this all started because certain employers felt it violated their religious principles to pay for or have company supplied insurance pay for birth control. Was this not the case?"
Okay, let's start there. If birth control is not part of God's will and alters his divine plans and therefore employers or churches shouldn't have to pay for birth control through a company supplied health care plan, then by that same thought process then shouldn't those employers and churches not supply Viagra either? Is impotence not part of God's will? What about other illnesses? Cancer? That's God's will, no treatments for you. I know that example might seem extreme, but do you see the flawed logic in their outrage?
To answer this: do you feel you're being unfairly discriminated against when insurance providers cover Viagra but demand to be allowed to refuse coverage of birth control? If so, did you feel that way because you were convinced by "The Left."? I do feel as though I am being unfairly discriminated against, but it's nothing that "the left" convinced me of. It's because I see this as people, for fundamental relgious reasons, telling me what treatments I can and cannot have access too, because I am a woman. As a matter of fact, and this might come as a shock to you, I am an independent minded female who doesn't need a political party to tell me what is best for me, nor do I need them to tell me how I'm some sort of harlot because I choose to take birth control to prevent a medical condition, all the while men can have their little blue pills provided to them no questions asked. If that isn't a double standard, I don't know what is.
I'm sorry, but until men start dealing with the "lady issues" that I deal with on a monthly basis then you don't get to have a say in this argument. You can have an opinion, and I as an educated woman with my own mind, I will choose to ignore it.
fugitiveguy 1 year, 1 month ago
"Fugitiveguy, you are an ignorant fool and a marvelous argument for legalized retroactive birth control."
Anger.....let it out man, let it out. Who says its just for conservatives.
fugitiveguy 1 year, 1 month ago
"do you feel you're being unfairly discriminated against when insurance providers cover Viagra but demand to be allowed to refuse coverage of birth control? If so, did you feel that way because you were convinced by "The Left."?"
I don't think I have ever seen a better example of a leading question (and doubt I ever will). Was this inspired by me? If so, I hope you gave me credit.
moonchild7 1 year, 1 month ago
These "religious" organizations that are essentially businesses are providing an employee benefit called HEALTH INSURANCE. There is no Human Being alive who at one time or another hasn't needed some sort of health care service. I've worked many different jobs. Some that provided health Insurance, some that did not. Those jobs that provided Health Insurance also required for me to pay a premium and sometimes it was a minimal amount and other times it was alot. So, some of those "Plans" also had very different coverage but one thing they all had as far as Women's Health Care was concerned was excellent coverage for Gynecologists, Obstetricians, and Birth Control. These are the part of health care services that are "For Women Only". Women are now more than 50% of the work force and we need our good health. So, in my opinion then, if "Religions" who also run businesses and provide a Health Insurance Benefit to their employees are so "morally" sickened or "morally" against having Birth Control as part of the plan then they should also DENY their Male employees any and all coverage for any and all of men's SEXUAL "Issues/Problems". Don't any of you see the Hypocricy and Male CHAUVINISM in any of this?
fugitiveguy 1 year, 1 month ago
No holy roller here. Cannot remember the last time I've been to church. I just feel its a manufactured issue. No one is being denied birth control. Is anyone prohibited from purchasing it? Is it cost prohibitive? Its just another case of the government trying to force private business to do something that it will later trot out at election time. Its all about votes, its all about staying in power.
fugitiveguy 1 year, 1 month ago
Also I do not think insurance provided by the government funded by tax dollars should be buying viagra or other similar drugs unless they have some clinical indication other than limpus noodalus. If a private insurance company wants to provide that coverage, thats their business, hence the descriptor "private insurance"
dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago
You just keep right on missing the point, fg.
fugitiveguy 1 year, 1 month ago
DR, on a completely unrelated note. Have you ever considered doing talk radio (as a host) ?
JustThinking 1 year, 1 month ago
Women, listen up......it was a group of men who decided that it be legal to murder an innocent child in the womb! Just to make you suffer for the rest of your life and never figuring out why!! When are you "women's rights" idiots going to figure that out! Women have human rights, there is no need to fight for anything! Women's Rights?????
dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago
DR, on a completely unrelated note. Have you ever considered doing talk radio (as a host) ?
There was actually some talk about that, a while back. Never panned out.
dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago
When are you "women's rights" idiots going to figure that out!
Please, do go on.
mcg2010 1 year, 1 month ago
Justthinking, which is a screenname clearly meant for ironic purposes, your barely coherent rant somehow makes men responsible for abortion, to which you again have missed the point. It is a woman's choice. And whether or not I agree with that choice is irrelevant, and she does have to live with that decision. Not the man, who could be a dead beat or a rapist, but the woman. Until you start making people in your body, you don't get to tell me what to do with mine.
wrich49 1 year, 1 month ago
All of this discussion is about the Catholic Church or any religion providing health benefits for employees that go against the tenets of that religion. I disagree with those tenets, am not a Catholic, and am conflicted about abortion but not about birth control. I would not want to work in an institution that did not provide health benefits that included birth control. So, could I work for any of those institutions? Yes, if I needed a job that bad I could, and I'd buy my own birth control. It's possible that a higher wage at one of these institutions could make up the difference in coverage. Like much of life, an individual must determine what works best for them. If this gets to the Supreme court, I don't think they will uphold any law that makes the Catholic Church pay for abortions and birth control. However, I am not a lawyer, so I may be wrong about that. Maybe Mr. Rhodes knows of an instance in which that happened.
DADDYMANx4 1 year, 1 month ago
Moonchild, you missed the point. I am among those who would benefit from having you and every one else pay for my health care, as I have a permanent disability and an income just over the poverty line. But I am a firm believer that it is not greedy doctors and hospitals that have run up medical cost beyond the reach of many Americans, but the unintended consequences well meaning people trying to help us poor fools who can’t help them selves through government regulation. If you see a social problem, don’t say “There ought to be a law” find or form a volunteer group and do something about it. The best example I know of is low income housing. The government gives you “The Projects” Habitat for Humanity gives you homeowners.
OldSpook 1 year, 1 month ago
DADDYMANx4 - I like your sentiments, thank you. I agree (if I may paraphrase) it is better to teach a person to fish than it is to give them the fish. Of course, we would be expecting that person to then go and catch their own fish which might somehow be violating their rights to a handout. So I guess we'll always have an extremely vocal minority whining about how things are not fair. But it would seem that the quieter majority prefer this hand up approach and accept responsibility for their own choices. Chose to live in the projects and whine about it or accept responsibility for the situation, work with Habitat for Humanity and improve the situation.
Again, thank you for insights into personal responsibility and as an aside, as I am looking for a new charity to support. I shall look into Habitat for Humanity, as I like the idea of individuals being held responsible for their choices, especially when it improves their families situation.