If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
From the "No duh!" files - Has bias pendulum swung against men?
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil #3" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:gURKf.4181$Sp2.1801@fed1read02... "Dusty" wrote in message ... Monday, February 20, 2006 snip As for health care, you hit the nail on the head. Why women, who already way outlive men, get the lion's share of health care escapes me. Maybe, at least in part, because men don't take responsibility for their own health care, and go see the doctor when needed? Unless it's to get viagra, or cialis, or whatever other erection-helpers there are now. Interesting priorities. And you claim to not be sexist. "In part", women are the same, perhaps worse but to promote your version of sexism, you failed to mention that. You also failed to mention that in a *large* part, women are quick to waste medical resources because they tend to seek medical attention where none is needed. Have you ever considered seeing a professional to discover why you hate men or is it just too comfortable to blame all ills on men? I blamed no ills on anyone - simply proposed a "maybe". If men want more health care, why don't they just go get it? How did it become the women's fault that men don't seek and obtain their own healthcare? And what's your excuse for not having "gotten it" yet? You've had plenty of opportunity to get it, but refuse to. Is there something blocking your way? Ya know, Dusty - I just read your last 3 posts, all in response to my posts, and all slamming women in general, and me in particular. Did you have anything constructive to say, or are you just posting to vent your spleen on women in general, and me in particular? Now there's a load of crap. Other then the post to you about not "getting it" (and no, there was nothing sexual inferred, it was about you opening your mind instead of your mouth), I can't see where I slammed you for much of anything. And as for targeting "women in general", you are, once again, waaaaay off base. I slammed, quite deliberately, the radfems. I left out, also quite deliberately, females that posses the ability of processing a rational thought and the ability to form coherent ideas and express them without getting emotional or paranoid. Which is something that, quite obviously, you are both unable and unwilling to even make an attempt at. Once again Moonie, you've been caught in another outright lie. Quitely clearly, you have nothing constructive to say. Thank you, you've proved my point so very nicely. Ya know, I may just quote you the above in your next rant.. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
From the "No duh!" files - Has bias pendulum swung against men?
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... "Phil #3" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:gURKf.4181$Sp2.1801@fed1read02... "Dusty" wrote in message ... Monday, February 20, 2006 snip As for health care, you hit the nail on the head. Why women, who already way outlive men, get the lion's share of health care escapes me. Maybe, at least in part, because men don't take responsibility for their own health care, and go see the doctor when needed? Unless it's to get viagra, or cialis, or whatever other erection-helpers there are now. Interesting priorities. And you claim to not be sexist. "In part", women are the same, perhaps worse but to promote your version of sexism, you failed to mention that. You also failed to mention that in a *large* part, women are quick to waste medical resources because they tend to seek medical attention where none is needed. Have you ever considered seeing a professional to discover why you hate men or is it just too comfortable to blame all ills on men? Phil #3 Oddly enough, in what she says, Moonstruck has a tiny part of the answer to this question right. There IS evidence that men endanger their health by being unwilling to go for checkups. Remedying this reluctance is part of what responsible groups like the Men's Health Network are about. However, Moonstruck's nasty comments about Viagra are only another indication of her hatred of men. That would be incorrect. I don't hate men. I found it mildly amusing that so many insurances, in the past, wouldn't pay for birth control pills, but would pay for erection pills, however This is a false choice. It wasn't any sort of choice at all - it was simply reality. What you posted was your opinion that you found insurance company's non-coverage of BC pills to be amusing. I see no correlation between your personal opinion and what you call "reality". To accept your logic, a person would have to believe your opinion is everyone else's reality. It compares drugs for preventing pregnancies to drugs that facilitate sexual activity. The insurance companies are concerned about equality arguments and how they treat both genders. They classify birth control pills as birth control and don't cover male or female birth control options. Your argument tries to reclassify birth control pills from their intended use to a female sexual activity facilitator so they can be directly compared to ED drugs. I didn't try to reclassify anything - merely commented on what was the reality. Okay. You stated a feminist based opinion that ran contrary to all conventional wisdom and decisions by the government about how drugs are classified. But your opinion suggested the government's classification of BC drugs was "amusing". A better comparison would be to compare ED drugs to female menopausal drug therapy. Both drugs do the same thing - help both genders adjust to changes in life and facilitate ongoing sexual activity. The true female counterpart to male ED pills is covered by insurance. BTW - If a woman can get her doctor to state birth control pills are prescribed for a reason other than birth control, the insurance companies will cover them. BTW - at this point in time, far more insurance programs cover BC pills for their intended purpose, too. So what was your point again? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
From the "No duh!" files - Has bias pendulum swung against men?
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message .net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... "Phil #3" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:gURKf.4181$Sp2.1801@fed1read02... "Dusty" wrote in message ... Monday, February 20, 2006 snip As for health care, you hit the nail on the head. Why women, who already way outlive men, get the lion's share of health care escapes me. Maybe, at least in part, because men don't take responsibility for their own health care, and go see the doctor when needed? Unless it's to get viagra, or cialis, or whatever other erection-helpers there are now. Interesting priorities. And you claim to not be sexist. "In part", women are the same, perhaps worse but to promote your version of sexism, you failed to mention that. You also failed to mention that in a *large* part, women are quick to waste medical resources because they tend to seek medical attention where none is needed. Have you ever considered seeing a professional to discover why you hate men or is it just too comfortable to blame all ills on men? Phil #3 Oddly enough, in what she says, Moonstruck has a tiny part of the answer to this question right. There IS evidence that men endanger their health by being unwilling to go for checkups. Remedying this reluctance is part of what responsible groups like the Men's Health Network are about. However, Moonstruck's nasty comments about Viagra are only another indication of her hatred of men. That would be incorrect. I don't hate men. I found it mildly amusing that so many insurances, in the past, wouldn't pay for birth control pills, but would pay for erection pills, however This is a false choice. It wasn't any sort of choice at all - it was simply reality. What you posted was your opinion that you found insurance company's non-coverage of BC pills to be amusing. I see no correlation between your personal opinion and what you call "reality". To accept your logic, a person would have to believe your opinion is everyone else's reality. You can't conceive that I found something amusing? Surely, I didn't post anything about it being a choice, as you first asserted, nor did I post anything that comes close to stating that what I find amusing needs to be anyone's reality except my own. It compares drugs for preventing pregnancies to drugs that facilitate sexual activity. The insurance companies are concerned about equality arguments and how they treat both genders. They classify birth control pills as birth control and don't cover male or female birth control options. Your argument tries to reclassify birth control pills from their intended use to a female sexual activity facilitator so they can be directly compared to ED drugs. I didn't try to reclassify anything - merely commented on what was the reality. Okay. You stated a feminist based opinion that ran contrary to all conventional wisdom and decisions by the government about how drugs are classified. But your opinion suggested the government's classification of BC drugs was "amusing". And precisely what "feminist based opinion that ran contrary to all conventional wisdom" are you claiming that I stated? I stated something that I found mildly amusing, nothing more, nothing less. A better comparison would be to compare ED drugs to female menopausal drug therapy. Both drugs do the same thing - help both genders adjust to changes in life and facilitate ongoing sexual activity. The true female counterpart to male ED pills is covered by insurance. BTW - If a woman can get her doctor to state birth control pills are prescribed for a reason other than birth control, the insurance companies will cover them. BTW - at this point in time, far more insurance programs cover BC pills for their intended purpose, too. So what was your point again? That perhaps the reason men aren't getting as much health care as women because they choose to not SEEK their own health care. You must have missed it, in your rush, yet again, to condemn me for things that I didn't post. (like that 'false choice' and that 'reclassifying') |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
From the "No duh!" files - Has bias pendulum swung against men?
Moon Shyne wrote: "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message .net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message hlink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... "Phil #3" wrote in message rthlink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:gURKf.4181$Sp2.1801@fed1read02... "Dusty" wrote in message news:bIWdnc9ArfSUVWfenZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@ade lphia.com... Monday, February 20, 2006 snip As for health care, you hit the nail on the head. Why women, who already way outlive men, get the lion's share of health care escapes me. Maybe, at least in part, because men don't take responsibility for their own health care, and go see the doctor when needed? Unless it's to get viagra, or cialis, or whatever other erection-helpers there are now. Interesting priorities. And you claim to not be sexist. "In part", women are the same, perhaps worse but to promote your version of sexism, you failed to mention that. You also failed to mention that in a *large* part, women are quick to waste medical resources because they tend to seek medical attention where none is needed. Have you ever considered seeing a professional to discover why you hate men or is it just too comfortable to blame all ills on men? Phil #3 Oddly enough, in what she says, Moonstruck has a tiny part of the answer to this question right. There IS evidence that men endanger their health by being unwilling to go for checkups. Remedying this reluctance is part of what responsible groups like the Men's Health Network are about. However, Moonstruck's nasty comments about Viagra are only another indication of her hatred of men. That would be incorrect. I don't hate men. I found it mildly amusing that so many insurances, in the past, wouldn't pay for birth control pills, but would pay for erection pills, however This is a false choice. It wasn't any sort of choice at all - it was simply reality. What you posted was your opinion that you found insurance company's non-coverage of BC pills to be amusing. I see no correlation between your personal opinion and what you call "reality". To accept your logic, a person would have to believe your opinion is everyone else's reality. You can't conceive that I found something amusing? Surely, I didn't post anything about it being a choice, as you first asserted, nor did I post anything that comes close to stating that what I find amusing needs to be anyone's reality except my own. It compares drugs for preventing pregnancies to drugs that facilitate sexual activity. The insurance companies are concerned about equality arguments and how they treat both genders. They classify birth control pills as birth control and don't cover male or female birth control options. Your argument tries to reclassify birth control pills from their intended use to a female sexual activity facilitator so they can be directly compared to ED drugs. I didn't try to reclassify anything - merely commented on what was the reality. Okay. You stated a feminist based opinion that ran contrary to all conventional wisdom and decisions by the government about how drugs are classified. But your opinion suggested the government's classification of BC drugs was "amusing". And precisely what "feminist based opinion that ran contrary to all conventional wisdom" are you claiming that I stated? I stated something that I found mildly amusing, nothing more, nothing less. A better comparison would be to compare ED drugs to female menopausal drug therapy. Both drugs do the same thing - help both genders adjust to changes in life and facilitate ongoing sexual activity. The true female counterpart to male ED pills is covered by insurance. BTW - If a woman can get her doctor to state birth control pills are prescribed for a reason other than birth control, the insurance companies will cover them. BTW - at this point in time, far more insurance programs cover BC pills for their intended purpose, too. So what was your point again? That perhaps the reason men aren't getting as much health care as women because they choose to not SEEK their own health care. Hmm. And perhaps the reason women aren't getting high-ranking positions in the workplace is that they choose not to SEEK them, too, eh? Might as well throw affirmative action bennies for women out on their ear, I guess. - Ron ^*^ |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
From the "No duh!" files - Has bias pendulum swung against men?
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message nk.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:gURKf.4181$Sp2.1801@fed1read02... "Dusty" wrote in message ... Monday, February 20, 2006 snip As for health care, you hit the nail on the head. Why women, who already way outlive men, get the lion's share of health care escapes me. Maybe, at least in part, because men don't take responsibility for their own health care, and go see the doctor when needed? Unless it's to get viagra, or cialis, or whatever other erection-helpers there are now. Moonie - I have to admit you are right on about this issue. Your comment above is one of the sad outcomes of feminist ideology. Once women rejected the "Ozzie and Harriet" lifestyle and adopted the feminist attitudes to be hostile and demeaning toward men, women stopped being "erection-helpers." So to compensate for the way the "new woman" treated men, medical science was forced to develop products and medications to replace the role women used to play in male sexuality. The feminist woman demands perfection from men or he is criticized for his shortcomings if he doesn't measure up to her expectations. If you haven't noticed, all the advertising for ED medications feature women encouraging their men to go see their doctor so the women can get what they want from the men. The message is clear - Men need to perform up to women's expectations and anything less is unacceptable. So then sort of what you say is that men don't mind if they can't get it up. The problem arises when a women is upset that his penis isn't hard? No, I think you read to much into a commercial. What I see being portrayed is a message to men with ED that its ok for them to seek help. Especially as already pointed out, other health issues could be the reason behind it all. I think it also portrays to both men and women that its not some helpless situation you have to live with, there is help. You also can't blame women for the rise of ED. The amounts of stress, the lack of healthy food, environmental issues, ect all contribute to MOST health issues effecting humans at this time. We are living in an unhealthy environment and I can guarantee that the decline of our health is going to continue, regardless of how many pills they produce. T |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
From the "No duh!" files - Has bias pendulum swung against men?
"Chris" wrote in message news:KF6Lf.4228$Sp2.3160@fed1read02... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:gURKf.4181$Sp2.1801@fed1read02... "Dusty" wrote in message ... Monday, February 20, 2006 snip As for health care, you hit the nail on the head. Why women, who already way outlive men, get the lion's share of health care escapes me. Maybe, at least in part, because men don't take responsibility for their own health care, and go see the doctor when needed? Unless it's to get viagra, or cialis, or whatever other erection-helpers there are now. Interesting priorities. Which proves my point. If men start being more responsible, then such outcomes would be reversed. Women lack the ability to be responsible for their own care, thus requiring government to take care of them. Whereas men, who DO have the ability, ought to take care of themselves. Instead, the men with the biggest guns are attacking the other men which forces them to spend more time defending themselves as opposed to watching their health. As for "erection-helpers"; perhaps if men had better lookin' wimmen, they wouldn't need such aid. Is your knowledge regarding such "erection-helpers" based on personal experience? May I ask you fellow's just where this government is that is taking care of women? Is there some secret agency that will give me insurance that I don't know about? Because I am female and have not had any insurance for about 4 years. I must not be poor enough. T |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
From the "No duh!" files - Has bias pendulum swung against men?
wrote in message ups.com... BOO HOO HOO. Big deal. The issue is funding for research into certain diseases and programs targeting "women's health" when in fact men die younger. "Heart disease is the number 1 killer of women." Well guess what, heart disease in the number 1 killer of Americans! http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm Of course, you are probably one of the socialist types who think the government is your daddy and should take care of poor whittle yooouuu. Grow up. As to the BC issue. Bob is right. The end. lol you might want to read some past posts about me. you would see you are dead wrong. No one takes care of me but me. The end. T |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
From the "No duh!" files - Has bias pendulum swung against men?
"Tiffany" wrote in message news:uuIMf.4079$%v4.1948@trnddc03... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message nk.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:gURKf.4181$Sp2.1801@fed1read02... "Dusty" wrote in message ... Monday, February 20, 2006 snip As for health care, you hit the nail on the head. Why women, who already way outlive men, get the lion's share of health care escapes me. Maybe, at least in part, because men don't take responsibility for their own health care, and go see the doctor when needed? Unless it's to get viagra, or cialis, or whatever other erection-helpers there are now. Moonie - I have to admit you are right on about this issue. Your comment above is one of the sad outcomes of feminist ideology. Once women rejected the "Ozzie and Harriet" lifestyle and adopted the feminist attitudes to be hostile and demeaning toward men, women stopped being "erection-helpers." So to compensate for the way the "new woman" treated men, medical science was forced to develop products and medications to replace the role women used to play in male sexuality. The feminist woman demands perfection from men or he is criticized for his shortcomings if he doesn't measure up to her expectations. If you haven't noticed, all the advertising for ED medications feature women encouraging their men to go see their doctor so the women can get what they want from the men. The message is clear - Men need to perform up to women's expectations and anything less is unacceptable. So then sort of what you say is that men don't mind if they can't get it up. The problem arises when a women is upset that his penis isn't hard? No, I think you read to much into a commercial. What I see being portrayed is a message to men with ED that its ok for them to seek help. Especially as already pointed out, other health issues could be the reason behind it all. I think it also portrays to both men and women that its not some helpless situation you have to live with, there is help. You also can't blame women for the rise of ED. The amounts of stress, the lack of healthy food, environmental issues, ect all contribute to MOST health issues effecting humans at this time. We are living in an unhealthy environment and I can guarantee that the decline of our health is going to continue, regardless of how many pills they produce. I was trying to make two points - First, ED can be caused by physiological and psychological issues, and sometimes a combination of both. While I agree with your statement there are health issues behind ED, there are many more psychological reasons. My point was feminist ideology that permeates society encourages women to treat men with hostility and in a demeaning manner. And that creates a lot of the stress, anxiety, depression, and the head stuff that causes ED. And second, ED advertising is deceptive. Consider a man encouraging his partner to go see her doctor to get pills to enhance their sex life. Wouldn't you think the women's movement would be screaming "It's her body, and her decision" and claim the man is only trying to get her to change for what he can get out of it? I was pointing out that the ads flip this thinking when it's the woman encouraging the man to go see his doctor to get some pills. Why would it not be just a logical to recognize the woman is manipulating the man into acting to get what she wants out of it? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
From the "No duh!" files - Has bias pendulum swung against men?
"Bob Whiteside" wrote ............................ And second, ED advertising is deceptive. Consider a man encouraging his partner to go see her doctor to get pills to enhance their sex life. Wouldn't you think the women's movement would be screaming "It's her body, and her decision" and claim the man is only trying to get her to change for what he can get out of it? == Good point. I try to do gender reversals with ads to see how they measure up but hadn't thought of it for these ads. You' re right. There would be a loud cry of foul. == |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
From the "No duh!" files - Has bias pendulum swung against men?
"Gini" wrote in message news:LL0Nf.1713$%a2.761@trndny05... "Bob Whiteside" wrote ........................... And second, ED advertising is deceptive. Consider a man encouraging his partner to go see her doctor to get pills to enhance their sex life. Wouldn't you think the women's movement would be screaming "It's her body, and her decision" and claim the man is only trying to get her to change for what he can get out of it? == Good point. I try to do gender reversals with ads to see how they measure up but hadn't thought of it for these ads. You' re right. There would be a loud cry of foul. == I totally get what you are saying Bob and Gini. But I think there is one more way that the ads are deceptive. That being (and this is just my talking with many married women) women are at times very happy that their husband aren't as interested in sex because to the women, it has become a chore. But maybe in other ppls worlds, it is different. Just note, I don't speak from experience on this. T |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Another pendulum that has swung too far.... | Pohaku Kane | Foster Parents | 0 | December 15th 05 11:24 PM |