Why don't women get equal pay?

In cases where the primary use is medical as opposed to birth control I would think the company should pay for it.

I'd also point out that your best option is to vote with your wallet.

 

Impotence is a medical problem

Amd what a national tragedy it was before the introduction of Viagra...oh, it's such a terrible, terrible psychological tragedy for a male when he can't make the little general stand at attention. Really, my heart bleeds for those guys...

...or maybe not.

If anyone could kindly justify to me why impotence should be considered such a major medical problem that justifies having prescription coverage for it, but not for birth control, please, pray do enlighten me. (And yes, I do think birth control should be covered not only for medical purposes, but for it's original purpose as well...after all, impotence does not actually cause any long-term physical problems in a male that would justify its correction for any reason other than intercourse).

 

<eyeroll.gif>

Ah yes, lets pretend pregnancy is an illness some more.

Damn men for inventing it to keep women down!

 

Ah yes, lets pretend pregnancy is an illness some more.

I'm telling you man, you don't KNOW how sick a woman can get during a pregnancy....

 

farraday: I'll tell you what--swallow a 15-pound bowling ball and leave it inside you for several months, and then tell me you don't feel sick.

We didn't invent it, but I'd love to see a man go through it with a grin on his face. It wouldn't happen.

 

Or try having an unquenchable desire to eat abnormal amounts of pizza and you just can't stop. And then specifically chocolate donuts, and you can't stop the pain until you get those donuts; or wanting to throw it up, but you still can't stop eating...it's like being controlled by an alien, an inner succubus that owns your bodies physical desires and you no longer control it's motives ....

 

<eyeroll.gif>

Because we all know that problems that mostly only effect women are completely ignored, which is why breast cancer researchers are so starved of funding they're reduced to panhandling on streetcorners.

You have two bloody X chromosones, get over it.

Pregnancy is not a disease, an illness, or an abnormailty. The sooner you realize no amount of woman power is going to make you stop being female the better off you'll be.

 

Because we all know that problems that mostly only effect women are completely ignored, which is why breast cancer researchers are so starved of funding they're reduced to panhandling on streetcorners.

They are looking for funding.

I'll tell you what: why don't you list problems that are unique to men.

I'll list three--testicular, penile and prostate cancer. All of which are a hell of a lot more rare than pregnancy, and testicular and prostate cancer are quite curable if caught in the early stages. Ask Lance Armstrong.

Your serve. What problems do men have, exactly?

 

Be that as it may, pregnancy is not an illness no matter which way you cut it, however impotence is.

And a_g, cut the "I'd like to see a man deal with pregnancy blah blah blah" bit, it gets real old to listen too and is nothing but a snide comment that just increases the negativity towards feminists as a whole.

Feminism isn't just about sexual equality for women, but men as well. However, feminists seem to only care for women's needs and to combat the sexual discrimination directed at women, instead of the sexual discrimination affected upon men as well. Men are not as far as being sexually free as women would like to think, and men are still trapped in roles that society dictates. Feminism causes a great deal of confusion over what men and women should be, sexually, and from the male viewpoint our sexuality is at the same time attacked and put on a pedastal for women to attain. But instead of sympathy from women, male sexuality and activity is being unfairly demeaned as well, if not more than, women due to some extreme feminists. I do recognize that there are stereotypes on women, but there exists stereotypes against men as well, that both genders use against the other.

I would advocate a different word other than feminism, because that to me does not entail equality for men and women, but for women only, which is unfair and unethical. Instead of lashing out with tired stereotypes, why not put those aside and try to be civil because both genders here are equal of ad hominem attacks and typifiying the opposite gender.


Mistryl's Paramour

 

Pregnancy isn't an illness.

You can either accept that or whine about how easy men have it and how horrible life is because you have a uterus.

Frankly dear, I don't give a damn.

 

*waves at Rhett*

Neither do I, but I do notice that you didn't answer my question. I'll assume that means that there is no answer to it because men do have it easier.

Moriarte:

And a_g, cut the "I'd like to see a man deal with pregnancy blah blah blah" bit, it gets real old to listen too

Yeah, funny how it never gets any sort of logical response, but only complaints from men about how it's "whining".

As I said, I'll assume that means you don't have an answer and that I'm right.

 

a_g if being female is too hard for you there are places that speacilize in changing your sex.

Other then that all the whinging in the world will not change the fact women are the ones who have the uterus.

I'll grant you're correct about one thing though, you assume you're right.

 

Please, farraday, you'll just make things worse. And then a_g will get mad and feel justified, then you will attack and be justified, etc. ad infinitum

A_G-You are making yourself the problem too. You are assuming you are right because then you do not have to have your own opinions challenged. You are being willfully ignorant. How does it help matters to chastise men and group all men into the same category? If you do not want men to use tired examples on you, don't use tired examples on men, simple as that.

DerthNader-Erectile dysfunction is nothing to gloss over. Is impotence is a sexual dysfunction? Yes. Is it a medical problem? Yes. Is pregnancy a sexual dysfunction? Is pregnancy a medical problem? Nope, it's not. Downplaying erectile dysfunction is not something to mock and is not comparable to prengancy. Male genitalia is very important to men, just as female genitalia is very important to women. It goes along with their sexuality. For a man to not be able to become erect is a very hard thing to go through (HAHA ...get it? See...I can laugh at me). I do not expect women to understand, though a comparable thing could be for a woman not being able to have an orgasm, or whose breasts are non-existant. This lack on the man's part is a very arduous thing to have happen, and is not something chosen, and is always unwelcomed. Pregnancy...or sex since we're talking about the pill is not on the same level.

Erectile dysfunction is an negative affliction while the act of sex is not, nor is pregnancy as a whole. Erectile dysfunction is something that no man choses to have, it is nothing good at all, but sex is something chosen, something enjoyed. The avoidance of pregnancy, then, is not subject to coverage since the act of sex while avoiding pregnancy is not a medical affliction. Simple as that.


Mistryl's Paramour

 

In cases where the primary use is medical as opposed to birth control I would think the company should pay for it.

In my case, and in other cases I've heard about, they refuse to make the distinction. Anyhow, I did a ton of research and found an herb that German and British studies have found to correct my hormonal balance. It works for me, and without the unpleasant side effects of the pill. So, I got mine, and they lost a customer.

Farraday, you sure are a credit to YOUR gender. Read our Freud, have we? Assuming all women just really wish they were men? Well, gosh, you pegged us. I wish I was like you. Woohoo, if only I had me one o' dem penises, I'd be so cool I could come on a message board and roll my eyes at ever'one and think "Hey, ain't I so smart". Den all the peoples would elect me king! Yeah! ::shoots gun in celebration::

I can be pretty sarcastic myself, but at least I manage to have a point instead of just spamming the thread with bizarre and repetitious /eyerolling. I love being female, despite the hassles. Allows me to be underestimated, which is a great advantage in competition.




Moriarte, I don't label myself feminist, I just consider men and women equal. Having not been trained from birth to think of myself as disadvantaged or worth less than boys, I have not had trouble negotiating a higher salary than most women, and I've never had trouble with discrimination, even from men I observed sexually harrassing other girls. This gives me faith that at least part of the inequality could be solved by women changing THEIR attitudes. That said, there are still people - men and women alike - who refuse to change their attitudes no matter how a female presents herself.

You might find it interesting that the two worst mysogynists I've known were my grandmothers. They were so resentful of women who had careers, and at the same time perversely fascinated and vicariously interested in hearing about the sex lives of more liberated women. It was jealousy, pure and simple. They didn't have the guts to do what they wanted in life, and they didn't want anyone else to get to.

Gender inequality is not only a problem for both genders, but also caused by both genders. To get back to the topic of the thread, why would men WANT women not to be able to make what they make? For example, as long as wives rarely make what husbands do, the husbands will always be the ones having to be employed, never the ones getting to stay home with the kids. Any man who thinks gender inequality only makes women choiceless is not examining his own lack of choices very well.

The avoidance of pregnancy, then, is not subject to coverage since the act of sex while avoiding pregnancy is not a medical affliction.

First of all, as I mentioned above, there are MANY non-BC uses for the pill. It's the least harmful medicine to straighten out a lot of hormonal imbalances, including the one that causes polycystic ovaries, which affects about 25% of all pubescent females (and left untreated, carries a high risk of ovarian cancer, which is not treatable). I was prescribed bc pills for that condition as a teen, and the insurance company simply refused to pay for it. They knew the worst case scenario if my disease was left untreated was that I would quickly die from an incurable form of cancer for which there is no treatment - therefore, they could not be out of pocket very much. Furthermore, they declared that anything to do with my reproductive system - including, quite bizarrely, pregnancy - would be a pre-existing condition that they would not have to pay for. You can't argue that pregnancy isn't supposed to be covered by insurance, whether it's a disease or not.

Look, given all the things the insurance companies have been caught doing to show their total lack of concern for anyone's well-being, I don't know why anyone is surprised they've also shown a lack of interest in women's problems. It needn't be out of mysogyny - women have complex reproductive systems, and treat

 

You might find it interesting that the two worst mysogynists I've known were my grandmothers. They were so resentful of women who had careers, and at the same time perversely fascinated and vicariously interested in hearing about the sex lives of more liberated women. It was jealousy, pure and simple. They didn't have the guts to do what they wanted in life, and they didn't want anyone else to get to.

I can understand that. It is similar to people who want to lose weight. Their fat friends will intentionally sabotage them so that they remain the "group"...sometimes families do that as well.

Gender inequality is not only a problem for both genders, but also caused by both genders. To get back to the topic of the thread, why would men WANT women not to be able to make what they make? For example, as long as wives rarely make what husbands do, the husbands will always be the ones having to be employed, never the ones getting to stay home with the kids. Any man who thinks gender inequality only makes women choiceless is not examining his own lack of choices very well.

Hrm, I'm not exactly sure what to make of this. Women who become mothers generally want to stay home with the kids, and men generally chose to work as a result. This practice may have just been compounded upon generations of ancestral couplings and parents. You do make it sound like a conspiracy, though, that men use to keep themselves away from kids like children are the plague, and that is not true at all. Though you may not have intended that reading. I could say that the reason why women want to have jobs is to force men to be stay at home dads as some kind of punishment. That men be "oppressed" and women "liberated" as if all men today are guilty of oppressing women...which would be stereotyping in my book. But that would be conspiracy theory too, and nothing of consequence. My father loves kids, as does my mother. My mother chose to work part-time and raise my brothers and I, and my father worked full time to make the difference. My father always enjoyed spending time with us after work. It is something worked out between them, and it works fine.

First of all, as I mentioned above, there are MANY non-BC uses for the pill. It's the least harmful medicine to straighten out a lot of hormonal imbalances, including the one that causes polycystic ovaries, which affects about 25% of all pubescent females (and left untreated, carries a high risk of ovarian cancer, which is not treatable). I was prescribed bc pills for that condition as a teen, and the insurance company simply refused to pay for it. They knew the worst case scenario if my disease was left untreated was that I would get an incurable form of cancer for which there is no treatment - therefore, they could not be out of pocket. Furthermore, they declared that anything to do with my reproductive system - including, quite bizarrely, pregnancy - would be a pre-existing condition that they would not have to pay for. You can't argue that pregnancy isn't supposed to be covered by insurance, whether it's a disease or not.

If the pill can be used to treat medical afflictions (which I personally know they do), then fine, and should be covered. Using the pill just to prevent pregnancy from sexual interocurse, however, should not. I do not see anything wrong with that.


Mistryl's Paramour

 

You do make it sound like a conspiracy, though, that men use to keep themselves away from kids like children are the plague, and that is not true at all.

Where did you get THAT? Please re-read. My whole point was that men don't generally have the option of staying home with the kids, or of writing novels while the wife supports them, etc. That option is virtually denied them by the employment structure we have, whereas it is easier for a wife to stay home and the family survive on just the husband's salary. Perhaps the unequal system we have now is the result of a "conspiracy" against women, but if so, it was perpetrated by a previous generation, and the net effect has been to deny BOTH men and women of current generationss certain choices. Hence, an inequality for one gender removes choices for both, and is therefore a concern for both.

 

Erectile dysfunction is an negative affliction while the act of sex is not, nor is pregnancy as a whole

Did it ever occur to you that pregnancy might be viewed by many women as a negative affliction, especially at certain points in their lives?

but sex is something chosen, something enjoyed

And so should the outcome of that encounter...no protection, no choice, and certainly no enjoyment. That might be something for a man to think about...

 

Did it ever occur to you that pregnancy might be viewed by many women as a negative affliction, especially at certain points in their lives?

Did it ever occur to you "might" means it's elective, certainly when combined with "at certain points" and "many"?

Since when was it an HMO's job to cover any medical whim that crossed your mind? If you want your HMO to cover birth control, find one that does. Surely you're capable and intelligent therefore it shouldn't be hard.

If all you want to do is whine about how unfair biology is becayse you're a woman, please take it to JCC because it's certainly nothing close to a senate debate.

And, of course, just accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you of mysogeny. Very moderate.

 

A couple of things:

Pregnancy is not an illness, but it is a medical condition. That's why insurance companies do cover many of the costs of pregnancy, and some also cover abortion even when they don't cover birth control.

The problem is, birth control isn't medication to make you "normal", it's meant to prevent a normal process. If the insurance companies covered it, should they also cover condoms for men?

Or is it just that you believe insurance companies should cover anything for which you can get a prescription?

(Btw, I'm all for insurance coverage of birth control - it's just that when you get down to the technicalities of a drug for impotence vs. a drug that prevents fertility, there is a strange logic that the insurance companies use to promote fertility. Odd, when you consider how expensive pregnancy and dependent children will be for the insurance companies...)

 

Since when was it an HMO's job to cover any medical whim that crossed your mind?

That question can be applied to the little male condition, if you would actually think about it. You could use the argument that it's not medically necessary to cover the prevention of pregnancy. I can argue with an equal conviction and standing that it's not medically necessary to cover the ability to have sex.

And, of course, just accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you of mysogeny. Very moderate

Okay, you're a misogynist.

Or is it just that you believe insurance companies should cover anything for which you can get a prescription?

If the insured is willing to pay the high premiums, then shouldn't they have full coverage of all medications, not just ones that certain groups find morally objective? And I still fail to understand why a drug that makes it easier for men to have sex can be covered, but not a srug that can prevent pregancy will not. I know it goes back to the whole sanctity of life issue, but is there more to it than that? Why is it that so many MEN seem not to understand how this can be such an issue for women? The prevention of pregnancy is something that benefits them just as much as it does women. Or would every man like to have at least two children per sexual encounter, unless he has sex with a woman who might be infertile? Or, he had better hope that HE's infertile...

 

The problem is, birth control isn't medication to make you "normal", it's meant to prevent a normal process. If the insurance companies covered it, should they also cover condoms for men?


Actually, it does correct an abnormal condition: celibacy.

Seriously, though. Go to any psychiatrist on earth and tell them you're a 40-year-old virgin because you've never been ready to get pregnant, and see what they prescribe.

It's a joke, but I swear I think I could build a test case for this. LOL!

 

I have to agree with Womberty on this.

The pill was designed so that women couldn't get pregnant after a sexual encounter. It's a contraceptive, just like condoms are. But I don't see WOMEN aruging for the coverage of those items for men, just for the pill for women.

Even so, no matter which way you cut it, pregnancy is not an illness; erectile dysfunction is. Should there be a comparable problem with women i.e. women not being able to attain orgasm (due to medical problems), or the like which I'm sure there are, then any treatments/medication to cure those should be covered as well. Those help to keep a person, of either gender, "normal". This is not a Boy's Club attitude, though I'm sure you think that anyways...it's much easier to hate and ignore me. But contraceptives, no matter the gender, should not be covered.


Mistryl's Paramou

 

I do not expect women to understand, though a comparable thing could be for a woman not being able to have an orgasm, or whose breasts are non-existant.

They aren't making pills at $20 a piece, and covering them with insurance, to make us grow larger breasts or to give us orgasms.

When's the last time an insurance company paid for breast enlargement or breast reduction, even breast reduction due to back problems?

Male genitalia is very important to men, just as female genitalia is very important to women.

Yeah, we all know about that, but your Viagra is still covered more than my surgery to correct endometriosis.

Moriarte: Contraceptives most certainly should be covered--male and female. Yes, I'm in favor of coverage of condoms as well. Otherwise the insurance company is going to end up covering pregnancy. People are going to have sex, and we don't need a lot of unwanted children in the world. Not to mention the fact that pregnancy costs a whole lot more than a packet of pills or a box of condoms.

 

And just because I was misled by the liberal media to believe that all feminists hate men does not make me a bigot, TreeCave.

If the media was truly liberal, then you would get the impression that feminists were benevolent and simply looking for equality (which most are). But since the media is not as liberal as is constantly argued by the right, you have gotten a negative impression of said feminists.

And, farraday, you can be as right wing as you want, but throwing <rolleyes.gif> at every comment with an opposing view does not make a very challenging or supportive argument. And when everyone continues to ignore the questions being proferred by a_g, her point is being supported.

 

Even so, no matter which way you cut it, pregnancy is not an illness; erectile dysfunction is.

And I remind you; pregnancy is covered by most insurance companies. They'll usually cover prenatal exams and hospital bills for the birth. (They may also cover abortion to return you to the "normal" state of not being pregnant.)