My first update after three weeks, and SURPRISE, it's about feminism!
Posted on 2008.07.24 at 10:20Emotion:
From one of my new favorite blogs, the Curvature: Offensive Remark of the Week: Bill O’Reilly is Getting Desperate Edition
Regarding insurance companies covering Viagra but not birth control:
Viagra is used to control a medical condition; that’s why it’s covered. Birth control is not a medical condition. It’s a choice.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRR GGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH.
I apologize for my lack of eloquence there, and I know it's Bill O'Reilly, but what's really unsettling is that John McCain was asked to address the same thing, and he balked at an answer. Balked. He didn't even say, "Sex is a choice, so insurance should cover neither one or the other." If he did, then I could actually comprehend his stance and respectfully disagree with him. I hope he comes up with a real answer soon. I mean, he's supposed to be a bold, unabashed "maverick."
Believe me, I'm no dickstomping feminist. I completely understand that "getting off" is essential to male health -- physically and psychologically -- but like Abigail Adams, I'm just saying, "Remember the ladies." Unlike Viagra, birth control goes beyond "getting off," of course, by playing a key role in economic/familial stability through planning and hormonal/menstrual cycle regulation (with certain forms of birth control).
In related news, if you take birth control or want to support the use of birth control, you may be interested in this and this (the second one has less rhetoric and more information). Feel free to sign the petition if you want. The law itself is pretty annoying, but the language of it really bothers me. It's part of that whole "Birth control = abortion" ideology that's been brewing for a while.
Regarding insurance companies covering Viagra but not birth control:
Viagra is used to control a medical condition; that’s why it’s covered. Birth control is not a medical condition. It’s a choice.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRR
I apologize for my lack of eloquence there, and I know it's Bill O'Reilly, but what's really unsettling is that John McCain was asked to address the same thing, and he balked at an answer. Balked. He didn't even say, "Sex is a choice, so insurance should cover neither one or the other." If he did, then I could actually comprehend his stance and respectfully disagree with him. I hope he comes up with a real answer soon. I mean, he's supposed to be a bold, unabashed "maverick."
Believe me, I'm no dickstomping feminist. I completely understand that "getting off" is essential to male health -- physically and psychologically -- but like Abigail Adams, I'm just saying, "Remember the ladies." Unlike Viagra, birth control goes beyond "getting off," of course, by playing a key role in economic/familial stability through planning and hormonal/menstrual cycle regulation (with certain forms of birth control).
In related news, if you take birth control or want to support the use of birth control, you may be interested in this and this (the second one has less rhetoric and more information). Feel free to sign the petition if you want. The law itself is pretty annoying, but the language of it really bothers me. It's part of that whole "Birth control = abortion" ideology that's been brewing for a while.