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..

"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?

"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')

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 ^*^

"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

"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

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

"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?

"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.
==

"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