Deadbeats

"Pammie1" southerngirl@The Real Thing wrote in message
lkaboutparenting.com...
Yes, a fair minded person would recognize a century of sexist
discrimination against men.


1) Developing a male pill would be expensive;

NOT when compared to money spent on female pills. Are you saying that
only expensive products for females are necessary?


2) Drug companies may conclude that there is little chance they would
make back that investment because:
a) A pill for women already exists, and most monagamous men are
content to allow women to bear the burden of contraception (and
non-monagamous men are likely to use condoms);

More sexist prejudice. They used to say that blacks didn't want good
jobs. Thanks for confirming and describing the sexist prejudice.


b) Women are likely to use their own contraception no matter what a
man says he is doing to protect her because they have much more to
lose from an unwanted pregancy.

Irrelevant. Schools for whites do not eliminate the need for schools
for blacks. Again you affirm sexist prejudice against men.


c) Culturally, men have been reluctant to take responsibility for
birth control and aren't good about taking their medicine.

Cow****! It's easy to claim that men aren't good at taking BC pills
when no man has ever had one to take. Women are notorious for failing
to take their pills -- especially on "that day." More sexist
stereotypes do not translate into equality.


You seem to be looking for conspiracy when simpler explanations exist.

You describe pervasive sexism, and then claim it as evidence that there
is none.

-------------

Okay can someone tell me why is it so important to have a numerous amount
of birth control? You only need one. Just use a condom. You are
protected against babies and STDs.

Pammie1

Come on now, if that were the case, the researchers should have stopped
years ago when they discovered the BC pill for women.

There is a need. Until something new comes along though, men need to USE A
CONDOM.

T

In article outparenting.com,
Pammie1 says...

Pammie1 wrote:
In California, the MAJORITY of kids are born to single mothers who had
no intention of getting married and forming a family. In the rest of
the US, the percentages are rapidly approaching those in California.

-------------

Wow that's new news to me. I had intentions on getting married. I
never
thought I would bring a kid into this world without a father.
Pammie1

It "just happened." Yea, got it.

Bob
-------------

No it didn't just happen Bob. He wanted a kid. Now he doesn't want to
take care of her. Well I have news for him. He is going to take care of
her I don't care if he doesn't like it. You make the kid you have to
support it regardless.
===
Unless you're Pammie?
===
That's the way I feel.
===
Yeah, that'll teach your daughter how to stand on her own two feet.
Find a loser man, have a kid with him then spend your life chasin him down for a
couple bucks. Makes sense.
===
===

Pamme1

In article outparenting.com,
Pammie1 says...

Pammie1 wrote:
In California, the MAJORITY of kids are born to single mothers who had
no intention of getting married and forming a family. In the rest of
the US, the percentages are rapidly approaching those in California.

-------------

Wow that's new news to me. I had intentions on getting married. I
never
thought I would bring a kid into this world without a father.
Pammie1

It "just happened." Yea, got it.

Bob
-------------

No it didn't just happen Bob. He wanted a kid. Now he doesn't want to
take care of her. Well I have news for him. He is going to take care of
her I don't care if he doesn't like it. You make the kid you have to
support it regardless.
===
Unless you're Pammie?
===
That's the way I feel.
===
Yeah, that'll teach your daughter how to stand on her own two feet.
Find a loser man, have a kid with him then spend your life chasin him down for a
couple bucks. Makes sense.
===
===

Pamme1

Bob wrote in message .

The market place can be very sexist. Ask the majority of women who are
paid less than their male counterparts in similar positions with
similar qualifications. That systemic prejudice does not amount to a
"conspiracy," however. And on the whole, men get off easy, even in the
area of bc, since they get most of the gains without paying the price
of hormonal disruption. By the way, you haven't explained the
silliest of your notions, that "feminists" *want* to limit the bc
choices of men. Why would they want this?


Feminists demand power for women to control sex and reproduction.
Feminists want women to have the power to control fertility. Feminists
have lobbied agaisnt research money for men's BC for decades.

Evidence?



since it is only relatively recently
that men have been pushing this (and because condoms still make sense
for men who aren't in committed relationships).

Wrong. It's only since the Internet that men have been able to spread
information without it being controlled and silenced.

Controlled and silenced by the woman dominated publishing industry?
Oh yeah, sure. What planet do you live on?

Surgical modification is invasive, violent, and not usually reversible.
Don't want kids now does not guarantee the future.

Do you think women would give up female BC methods and rely solely on
surgery? Why then do you suggest that for men?

Just making the point that many fewer men are willing to go through
vasectomy than women are willing to go through a tubal. And tubals
are much more "violent" and invasive procedures.

Black people went quietly to the back of the bus for years too. That
didn't make "white's only" any less bigoted. Neither does men going
along make "female only" any less bigoted.

This comparison of men to blacks is silly and offense. Men have
dominated all power structures in this country and in most of the
world for centuries--and still do.

No. For example, much medical research for general disease assumes
male physiology.

Cow****. Women receive about 3/4 of medical treatment in the US, and
during the 20th century have received the lion's share of all kinds of
medical research.

Evidence?

Men are considered expendable and are used as guinea
pigs for research that might be fatal.

So you admit most medical research has been based on research w/male
subjects?


Any fair minded person could find numerous reasons for this lack of
interest:

Yes, a fair minded person would recognize a century of sexist
discrimination against men.

Men have triumphed heroically, I see. For despite this long century
you describe, they still dominate in most areas of life.

Men dominate by working harder in areas where hard work makes a
difference.

In general, men are paid better for the same work with the same
credentials. But my main point is that men do dominate. If they
dominate (as you admit), it is silly to also claim they are
discrimnated against.



1) Developing a male pill would be expensive;

NOT when compared to money spent on female pills.

Why do you say this? The FOX article itself makes the point that the
demands on a male bc pill are far more complicated, since men make
sperm all the time; and the production of sperm is directly tied to
hormonal activity controlling sex drive (among other things).

Above you posted, "Reports are they are now very close," even with
minimal research budgets. Now you contradict that and claim that it's
far more complicated.

They are close despite the extra complication. Maybe it has taken
longer because of this extra complication (as well as the perception a
male pill would not sell).

Are you saying that
only expensive products for females are necessary?

No. Only that drug companies (or any other capitalist enterprise),
when faced between the choice of developing an expensive drug for a
segment of the population that they know will buy the drug because
they are strongly motivated to do so (and because they are good about
going to the doctor and following doctors' orders), and an expensive
drug for a segment of the population that has less incentive to buy,
they will make the safe choice.

IOW: You admit that systematic discrimination in favor of females and
agaisnt men has gone on for most of the 20th century.

I admit that drug companies did not develop a male pill. I think
there are many reasons--and that a feminist conspiracy is not one of
them.


And how do you know that men have "less incentive to buy"? Free clue:
Women are not an authority on men's incentives.

Women don't run drug companies, either. Nor do they dominate in the
medical profession.

Getting trapped into 20 years of child support or marriage, etc., by a
female who claims she's "on the pill" has been a major concern of men
since "the pill" was invented.

If men feared this as much as you think, they would use rubbers more.

I don't follow. But what about non-monogamous men using condoms in
any case? (I believe the FOX article makes this point.)

Why are you still arguing that crude 19th century devices are good
enough for men when women have had large array of BC options developed
by massive funding over the subsequent century. Talk about total bigotry.

I'm just saying drug companies could reasonably conclude men would not
buy the male pill, because they'd use condoms anyway. Condoms,
however 19th century, are the only reliable protection agains STD. So
drug companies have not seen the market value in investing in the male
pill.

Compare the % of men who go to the dr. regularly to the % of women who
do.

A recently published study of the doctor process reported that the
process was psychologically offensive to men, but acceptable for women.

I haven't seen this study. But it seems to support what I have said:
that men don't go to the doctor and so would be seen by drug companies
as not reliable customers, especially for a product they have not
indicated they want (for a variety of reasons).
Men have known that forever. We didn't need a psychological study.
The whole doctor process is designed to meet the needs of women and to
hell with men.

How did this happen? After all, doctors are mostly men.


If you were a drug company, which group would you think more
likely to get a prescription and take their medicine regularly? (BTW,
the advent of viagra and other ED drugs may be changing this statistic
somewhat!)

Yes, the sexist thinking of drug companies is coming around now that
they have tried a product for men. If they had sense they would know
that men are a HUGE market.

I hope more bc choices for men become available. And I hope men make
use of these choices when they do become available. But I'm man
enough to suspect that men will be much more likely to take a pill to
get hard than to remember to take one day after day so they won't get
anyone pregant.

trifold
www.vasectomy-information.com

Bob wrote in message .

The market place can be very sexist. Ask the majority of women who are
paid less than their male counterparts in similar positions with
similar qualifications. That systemic prejudice does not amount to a
"conspiracy," however. And on the whole, men get off easy, even in the
area of bc, since they get most of the gains without paying the price
of hormonal disruption. By the way, you haven't explained the
silliest of your notions, that "feminists" *want* to limit the bc
choices of men. Why would they want this?


Feminists demand power for women to control sex and reproduction.
Feminists want women to have the power to control fertility. Feminists
have lobbied agaisnt research money for men's BC for decades.

Evidence?



since it is only relatively recently
that men have been pushing this (and because condoms still make sense
for men who aren't in committed relationships).

Wrong. It's only since the Internet that men have been able to spread
information without it being controlled and silenced.

Controlled and silenced by the woman dominated publishing industry?
Oh yeah, sure. What planet do you live on?

Surgical modification is invasive, violent, and not usually reversible.
Don't want kids now does not guarantee the future.

Do you think women would give up female BC methods and rely solely on
surgery? Why then do you suggest that for men?

Just making the point that many fewer men are willing to go through
vasectomy than women are willing to go through a tubal. And tubals
are much more "violent" and invasive procedures.

Black people went quietly to the back of the bus for years too. That
didn't make "white's only" any less bigoted. Neither does men going
along make "female only" any less bigoted.

This comparison of men to blacks is silly and offense. Men have
dominated all power structures in this country and in most of the
world for centuries--and still do.

No. For example, much medical research for general disease assumes
male physiology.

Cow****. Women receive about 3/4 of medical treatment in the US, and
during the 20th century have received the lion's share of all kinds of
medical research.

Evidence?

Men are considered expendable and are used as guinea
pigs for research that might be fatal.

So you admit most medical research has been based on research w/male
subjects?


Any fair minded person could find numerous reasons for this lack of
interest:

Yes, a fair minded person would recognize a century of sexist
discrimination against men.

Men have triumphed heroically, I see. For despite this long century
you describe, they still dominate in most areas of life.

Men dominate by working harder in areas where hard work makes a
difference.

In general, men are paid better for the same work with the same
credentials. But my main point is that men do dominate. If they
dominate (as you admit), it is silly to also claim they are
discrimnated against.



1) Developing a male pill would be expensive;

NOT when compared to money spent on female pills.

Why do you say this? The FOX article itself makes the point that the
demands on a male bc pill are far more complicated, since men make
sperm all the time; and the production of sperm is directly tied to
hormonal activity controlling sex drive (among other things).

Above you posted, "Reports are they are now very close," even with
minimal research budgets. Now you contradict that and claim that it's
far more complicated.

They are close despite the extra complication. Maybe it has taken
longer because of this extra complication (as well as the perception a
male pill would not sell).

Are you saying that
only expensive products for females are necessary?

No. Only that drug companies (or any other capitalist enterprise),
when faced between the choice of developing an expensive drug for a
segment of the population that they know will buy the drug because
they are strongly motivated to do so (and because they are good about
going to the doctor and following doctors' orders), and an expensive
drug for a segment of the population that has less incentive to buy,
they will make the safe choice.

IOW: You admit that systematic discrimination in favor of females and
agaisnt men has gone on for most of the 20th century.

I admit that drug companies did not develop a male pill. I think
there are many reasons--and that a feminist conspiracy is not one of
them.


And how do you know that men have "less incentive to buy"? Free clue:
Women are not an authority on men's incentives.

Women don't run drug companies, either. Nor do they dominate in the
medical profession.

Getting trapped into 20 years of child support or marriage, etc., by a
female who claims she's "on the pill" has been a major concern of men
since "the pill" was invented.

If men feared this as much as you think, they would use rubbers more.

I don't follow. But what about non-monogamous men using condoms in
any case? (I believe the FOX article makes this point.)

Why are you still arguing that crude 19th century devices are good
enough for men when women have had large array of BC options developed
by massive funding over the subsequent century. Talk about total bigotry.

I'm just saying drug companies could reasonably conclude men would not
buy the male pill, because they'd use condoms anyway. Condoms,
however 19th century, are the only reliable protection agains STD. So
drug companies have not seen the market value in investing in the male
pill.

Compare the % of men who go to the dr. regularly to the % of women who
do.

A recently published study of the doctor process reported that the
process was psychologically offensive to men, but acceptable for women.

I haven't seen this study. But it seems to support what I have said:
that men don't go to the doctor and so would be seen by drug companies
as not reliable customers, especially for a product they have not
indicated they want (for a variety of reasons).
Men have known that forever. We didn't need a psychological study.
The whole doctor process is designed to meet the needs of women and to
hell with men.

How did this happen? After all, doctors are mostly men.


If you were a drug company, which group would you think more
likely to get a prescription and take their medicine regularly? (BTW,
the advent of viagra and other ED drugs may be changing this statistic
somewhat!)

Yes, the sexist thinking of drug companies is coming around now that
they have tried a product for men. If they had sense they would know
that men are a HUGE market.

I hope more bc choices for men become available. And I hope men make
use of these choices when they do become available. But I'm man
enough to suspect that men will be much more likely to take a pill to
get hard than to remember to take one day after day so they won't get
anyone pregant.

trifold
www.vasectomy-information.com

Gini wrote in message ...

====
Perhaps historically (aside from wages), but this has changed dramatically in
the last two decades.

You deny that men in most fields are still paid better than women?

====
even in the
area of bc, since they get most of the gains without paying the price
of hormonal disruption.
====
"Gains?" What gains?

Men gain from women being more willing to have sex with them. And men
with a conscience (and in committed relationships) gain everytime the
pill prevents an unwanted pregnancy without their having to wear a
condom.
====
By the way, you haven't explained the
silliest of your notions, that "feminists" *want* to limit the bc
choices of men. Why would they want this?
=====
So that women maintain control over reproductive rights. Feminists oppose any
measure of loss of "power" for women (I use "power" loosely as it is my
contention that feminists actually call the government act of propping up women,
"power." I call that weakness. I prefer to stand on my own two feet).

Where is the evidence that feminists oppose bc options for men? Where
is the evidence they view being solely responsible for bc as a form of
power? Where is the evidence they view "power" as a zero sum
game--that giving men control over their own fertility subtracts from
a woman's power over hers?

If men
have effective birth control, men can chose whether to have children and can
exercise that choice regardless of the woman's desire to have children. The
woman can now lie about being on birth control ensnaring men into years of
lifestyle support awards. If men have access to BC pills, there will be fewer
births, fewer marriages, less alimony, less child support paid. It may sound
silly/conspiratorial, but I'm not sure the assertion is far off.

Sorry. I'm not buying.

trifold
www.vasectomy-information.com

Gini wrote in message ...

====
Perhaps historically (aside from wages), but this has changed dramatically in
the last two decades.

You deny that men in most fields are still paid better than women?

====
even in the
area of bc, since they get most of the gains without paying the price
of hormonal disruption.
====
"Gains?" What gains?

Men gain from women being more willing to have sex with them. And men
with a conscience (and in committed relationships) gain everytime the
pill prevents an unwanted pregnancy without their having to wear a
condom.
====
By the way, you haven't explained the
silliest of your notions, that "feminists" *want* to limit the bc
choices of men. Why would they want this?
=====
So that women maintain control over reproductive rights. Feminists oppose any
measure of loss of "power" for women (I use "power" loosely as it is my
contention that feminists actually call the government act of propping up women,
"power." I call that weakness. I prefer to stand on my own two feet).

Where is the evidence that feminists oppose bc options for men? Where
is the evidence they view being solely responsible for bc as a form of
power? Where is the evidence they view "power" as a zero sum
game--that giving men control over their own fertility subtracts from
a woman's power over hers?

If men
have effective birth control, men can chose whether to have children and can
exercise that choice regardless of the woman's desire to have children. The
woman can now lie about being on birth control ensnaring men into years of
lifestyle support awards. If men have access to BC pills, there will be fewer
births, fewer marriages, less alimony, less child support paid. It may sound
silly/conspiratorial, but I'm not sure the assertion is far off.

Sorry. I'm not buying.

trifold
www.vasectomy-information.com

"Pammie1" southerngirl@The Real Thing wrote in message news:
Okay can someone tell me why is it so important to have a numerous amount
of birth control? You only need one. Just use a condom. You are
protected against babies and STDs.

Pammie1

Condoms don't feel good. In non-monagamous relationships, they are a
necessary evil. In monagamous ones, I prefer to go without. There
are ways to do this, most putting the burden on the woman. There is a
risk she may cheat and try to get pregnant. But I wouldn't form a
monagamous relationship with a woman who would cheat. If I suspected
she would cheat, I'd go back to rubbers.

I'm happy to say, vasectomy has put all that behind me. (And that I'm
happy my wife no longer has to put up with the pill.)

trifold
www.vasectomy-information.com

"Pammie1" southerngirl@The Real Thing wrote in message news:
Okay can someone tell me why is it so important to have a numerous amount
of birth control? You only need one. Just use a condom. You are
protected against babies and STDs.

Pammie1

Condoms don't feel good. In non-monagamous relationships, they are a
necessary evil. In monagamous ones, I prefer to go without. There
are ways to do this, most putting the burden on the woman. There is a
risk she may cheat and try to get pregnant. But I wouldn't form a
monagamous relationship with a woman who would cheat. If I suspected
she would cheat, I'd go back to rubbers.

I'm happy to say, vasectomy has put all that behind me. (And that I'm
happy my wife no longer has to put up with the pill.)

trifold
www.vasectomy-information.com

"Phil #3" wrote in message ink.net...
"trifold" wrote in message
om...
"Phil #3" wrote in message
nk.net...
"trifold" wrote in message
om...

Sex with other men? That's just plain disgusting.
What options do men have "when they (or their partners) **** up"?
I count... well, none. If I'm missing something please fill me in.
Phil #3

Historically, they disappear.

trifold
www.vasectomy-information.com

Are you saying that men disappear when they find out they may or will become
parents? If so, I'd have to call you on that. Typically, men do NOT
disappear, only a few do. There are more abortions each year than men who
"disappear", which means that women have an out that is not available to men
and even then, men almost always stick around. Even then, it's not really an
option, not a legal one at any rate.
Phil #3

I was only saying that historically it has always been easier for men
to disappear than for women, in part because they are less attached to
the child, in part because they have more options for employment, they
are more mobile, etc. This, I would argue, is one reason women have
had greater incentive to practice bc. (Men also have less incentive
because they don't have to carry the kid for 9 months: Can you
imagine any man putting up with that!) This difference, I suggest, is
one reason drug companies have been more willing to invest big $$s in
a female pill.

trifold
www.vasectomy-informations.com