A Writer at a Christian Pro-Life Website is Mad Because Sandra Fluke Is a Nominee For Time’s ‘Person of the Year’ Award

While I am utterly un-surprised that Steven Ertelt over at Christian pro-life website LifeNews.com is displeased by the fact that Sandra Fluke is included on a list of nominees for Time magazine’s “Person of the Year” contest, I am amused by his attitude and apparent ignorance of why Fluke is an important person.  

Sandra Fluke at the DNC

I am 90% sure he is being sarcastic, but even his sarcasm completely misses the mark:

Fluke is apparently unable to figure out how to purchase low-cost birth control from places like Target, Wal-Mart or her local pharmacy.

Now, I am not going to explain why this is an unfair and inaccurate summation of Fluke, because I am sure that Ertelt understands that when Fluke spoke to Congress, she was talking about, among other things, a friend whose doctor prescribed medication to cover a real, actual disorder and how it caused her a financial hardship since her school refused to cover her birth control… because of God.  

Also, remember how Fluke became the punching-bag of conservative wing-nuts like Rush Limbaugh who, once and for all, demonstrated the fact that an alarming number of men do not understand how birth control works (“She’s having so much sex, she can’t afford the contraception”)?  

Also, how about that super-awesome speech she made at the Democratic National Convention?  

So it’s just willful ignorance pretending that she’s just some dumb lady-tramp who doesn’t understand how to navigate her local Walgreen’s, right? Right…?

Ertelt, I’m not going to say that you are a condescending asshole by painting Fluke, however flippantly and jokingly, as a bimbo. I will say that you completely missed the mark on what it means to be an influential person. Fluke became the face of women who were demanded because their voices were heard during discussions of things like uteri and vaginae and she endured those attacks against her character with dignity and poise.

I am also going to call BS on your next sentence:

Still, Time magazine felt she was qualified enough to include her with legitimate newsmakers and leaders who are significantly more deserving of the award and recognition.

First of all, it is inarguable that Fluke is a “legitimate newsmaker.” Second, can we agree that conservative men need to stop using the word “legitimate”? Third, look at some of the other members of that list. YouTube sensation Psy? 50 Shades of Grey author E.L. James?  Rapper Jay-Z?  Gymnast Gabby Douglass? I’m not arguing for or against any of these nominees, but if Ertelt wants to keep his list super-exclusive, I don’t know that Kim Jung-un is deserving of recognition just yet. Also, if you want to be picky, the Mars Rover isn’t even a person, so why don’t you direct your vitriol there.

So is it possible that it’s not that Fluke is undeserving of the nomination but that Ertelt just doesn’t like her or what she stands for?

In other news regarding the “Person of the Year” award, Pakistani woman’s rights activist and ass-kicking teenager Malala Yousafzai is also a nominee, and incredibly deserving of the recognition.  Yousafzai was shot in the head on her school bus after she revealed her name and face after speaking out against Sharia law, and is currently recovering in the hospital.

It’s also worth noting that you can go to the Time website and vote for or against nominees. While the voting ultimately doesn’t count towards anything (the winner is always picked by Time editors), it’s interesting to see what kind of percentages people are polling at.  Malala Yousafzai is currently at 71% for and 29% against, which seems low to me, until you look at some other numbers.  

Here’s a selective list of nominees along with their percentage of “Definitely!” votes (as opposed to the other scientific option, “No Way!”):

Karl Rove: 4%

E.L. James: 5%

Joe Biden: 21%

Sandra Fluke: 27%

Hillary Clinton: 35%

Felix Baumgartner: 40%

Barack Obama: 43%

Higgs Boson: 44%

Psy: 48%

Mars Rover: 52%

Mohamed Morsy: 53%

Kim Jong-un: 75% (?!?)

So… I suppose all of the numbers need to be taken with a grain of salt, right?

About Jessica Bluemke

Jessica Bluemke grew up in the suburbs of Chicago and graduated from Ball State University in 2008 with a BA in Literature. She currently works as a writer and resides on the North side of Chicago.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001627228091 Alexander Ryan

    Kind of surprised Malala is at 73% yes and 27% no. (I expected the ‘yes’ to be much higher.)

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

      A lot of people don’t even know who she is.

  • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

    But Jessica, sluts aren’t newsmakers. They’re simply proxies for all that ails a given society. Didn’t you get the memo?

    :-/

    • Robert Freid

      Careful man, you do not want a bunch of angry comments. I fully agree that someone more worthy deserves the “Person of the Year” award.

      • Baal

         Silo was being ironic Bob. 

    • djf

      Women who’ve had 5 partners before marriage have a 70% divorce rate. You can google it, not sure if a link will go through.

      So the answer is “yes,” sluts are anti-society

      • Onamission5

        I think it’s time to play whap-a-troll, folks.

        • brianmacker

          Is that where you call someone a bigot without actually addressing their claims and arguments?

      • BruceMcGlory

        Bitter angry virgins and bigots lie about divorce statistics.   

        • brianmacker

          … or other commenters aren’t virgins or bigots, or they get divorce statistics confused with cohabitation statistics, or some other explanation other than lying.

          You are the typical kind of person who resorts to name calling first because you can’t support your beliefs.

      • RobMcCune

        From a point of view that thinks subjugating women is a pillar of society.

        Btw what are you, christian, mra, just some republican mad that your party lost in part for their misogyny?

        • brianmacker

          So you think it would be valid if he asked you if you are just mad because you don’t have a job, suck cock, or are a feminazi?

          • RobMcCune

            Ahem

            What place do you wish to put women “back” into, one of inferior status? Good luck with that on a comment board, bigot.

            Unless I’m missing the sarcasm there I don’t see how asking what subspecies of bigot djf belongs to is out line

            • brianmacker

              I hadn’t scrolled down to read that part. Have at him. You are right and I was mistaken in thinking that was out of the blue.

      • djf

        Here is the study

        socialpathology.blogspot(dot)co.at/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html?m=1

        onlinelibrary.wiley(dot)com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/abstract

      • Djf
      • brianmacker

        Why is having a divorce “anti-society”?

        I would think out of wedlock births which parasitize on society through welfare would be an actual example. The reason sluts are of low value is because they impose the cost of rearing unrelated children on others, on their husbands if they slept around in marriage, and on society if they use welfare.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

          You are truly a misogynist asshole. Typical crap calling sexually active women sluts. Not all unwanted unwanted pregnancies happen to single women. Of course we shouldn’t expect much from someone that slut shames.

      • brianmacker

        Also it is cohabitation, not premarital sex which correlates with divorce as far as I know. inks are allowed so link away but I’d rather you just admit that divorce isn’t anti-society.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

          lol. You’re a joke. You actually think marrying a person you never had sex with or lived with will lower divorce rates. That’s funny.

          • Deven Kale

            It actually makes sense that fewer long-term cohabitative  relationships would result in a lower divorce risk. The part in all of this discussion that I disagree with is that such a thing is considered good*.

            You learn much more about people when living with them than you would through just dating. And a part of the things you learn from such a situation is both the proper and improper ways of treating others and how to be treated when forced to be around them constantly. It gets more difficult to hide bad behavior in those types of situations.

            The more relationships a person has of that type, the more they learn about how to treat others, and also warning signs of when they’ll be treated badly. With each successive relationship, their standards of proper treatment get higher and higher.

            It makes sense then, that a person with more cohabitative  relationships would have higher standards, and therefore be more likely to divorce a person that doesn’t meet that standard.

            The reason I don’t see this as bad is that it’s weeding out the genes of those who behave badly without the requirement of easily abused policies such as eugenics. If this trend continues for another few generations, I would imagine that overly aggressive, thoughtless, or condescending people will be a much smaller percentage of the population than they are now.

            This also explains why MRA’s are so afraid. They know that their type, the “Real Men” are the ones being selected against in such situations. They’re rightfully afraid that their kind is slowly dieing out, but they fail to see that’s actually a good thing.

            I obviously have no proof of this, it’s more of a hypothesis, but I think it’s a good one. I’m willing to wait another 40 years or so to see if it turns out to be true.

            *Edit: I think good reads better here than bad. I need to proofread a bit better. lol

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

              I agree. It just does not make sense that not living with your intended before getting married will guarantee a good marriage. Sexual compatibility and being able to live with another person are crucial to maintaining a marriage. If you hate fucking your spouse, maybe you should get a divorce.

              • brianmacker

                So you admit you were wrong even if you didn’t realize it. Wrong in both your assumptions and wrong in being ignorant of the actual statistics. JDK also happens to be wrong but that doesn’t make what I have to say invalid because you confuse different positions. You also now agree with my comment that divorce is not necessarily bad.

                Part of your problem is your ignorance of word meanings, or perhaps lack of care in obeying them when you read something. Correlates doesn’t mean what you think it means. Correlation does not imply causation. Correlation can be due to coincidence, or it might be that some third variable is the cause of the two correlated ones.

          • brianmacker

            I didn’t reason that out. Those are the statistics. You keep mocking me but you are consistently wrong, and you never admit when you are.

          • brianmacker

            Also “correlates” does not mean “causes”. Who’s a joke? Who’s funny?

  • A3Kr0n

     Steve is mad?Bummer.

  • what?

    not to fixate on a tangent, but why are you so opposed to the idea that Kim is newsworthy? He’s the “Supreme Leader” of one of the last remaining Communist countries–the first new one in almost two decades–and controls nuclear weapons as well as “a substantial arsenal of chemical weapons” according to the CIA (per wiki). He replaces his father, who was widely considered to be a total nutcase, so his rise to power either represents a major lessening of how much a threat North Korea is to the rest of the world, or he is going to continue his father’s policies. Whichever, he is likely to do so for a very long time.

    I don’t agree with the right-wing spin machine, as usual, and I am fine with Fluke winning this contest (not that I really care what Time says about much of anything), but Kim is certainly newsworthy.

    • Coyotenose

       He’s highly newsworthy. But what has he done in the last year other than have his father die?

  • starskeptic

     Jan. 3, 1983 – Time’s ‘machine of the year’ was the personal computer; go Curiosity!!!

  • Jon Peterson

    If you don’t get why Kim Jong Un is leading the percentage vote (although even in second place, he’s behind Mohamed Morsy in sheer numbers), you just don’t understand the internet.

    Here’s some homework: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) :P

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

    I support her message but there is no way she should be named the person of the year. Malala Yousafzai has truly earned the honor and I will be disappointed if she is not named person of the year.

  • http://www.everydayintheparkwithgeorge.com/ Matt Eggler

    I agree, 73% is to low, but what I really want to know is who the hell are the 27% assrags voting no?!

    • http://www.everydayintheparkwithgeorge.com/ Matt Eggler

      This was supposed to be a reply to Alexander Ryan’s comment about Malala Yousafzai

  • Stev84

    The same Mohamed Morsi who just did a dictatorial power grab by giving himself and his policies immunity from the courts?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

    I’m so sick of listening to old men who understand little to nothing of the female reproductive system talking about it and making laws about it. Ughh.

    • brianmacker

      I’m tried strange women trying to force me to fund their vaginas and what they produce from them.

      • Corey

        im tired of men telling everyone else what should and shouldnt be considered a health care issue, when most get insurance to cover their viagra and are willing to pay for their mistresses abortion and being behind on their child support for one of their x-wives, while screwing a girl half her age, not wearing a condom because it “just doesnt feel normal” then getting angry is the girl asks him anyways to wear one, so she wont end up like all his other mistresses. If men could have babies, abortion would be as much a Constitution right as owning a gun to men.

        • djf

          Legally a man has no right to tell a woman whether or not she can have an abortion, it’s 100% her choice. So don’t give me that bullshit of  “paying for her mistresses abortion”

          Even if a man pays for his mistresses abortion, HE is paying for it.

          2)It takes 2 to have sex, why is it only the man’s responsibility if a  condom isn’t used? You know women can say NO to sex if a man doesn’t want to a wear a condom right?

          • BruceMcGlory

            And that “no” is magically always respected, right?  And you do realize  that literally NO ONE said  its all the man’s fault, right?

            • Djf

              I know right? Men just loooove raping women.

        • djf

          On your “being behind on child support comment”

          What happens when a woman doesn’t want to take responsibility for a pregnancy? She gets an abortion.

          What happens when a man doesn’t want to take responsiblity for a pregnancy? He has his wages garnished or thrown in jail.

          Double standard are only bad when they disadvantage women apparently

          • BruceMcGlory

            An abortion ends a pregnancy.  A deadbeat dad is making a living breathing child suffer.  These are not the same thing.  Grow up.

            • Djf

              And a  woman can irresponsibly bring a child into the world since he has no say.  Why should a man be responsible for a woman’s bad decision?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

            Abortion is taking responsibility.  Just not the way you would take responsibility.  We can not tell a woman or man what to do with their bodies.  Men and women should expect to handle the consequences of an unwanted whether it’s an abortion, adoption, or parenting.

          • Deven Kale

             A man has the ability to forfeit all parental rights to the child in question, which also ends all responsibilities to the child and disallows the mother from filing for child support. So if the man really wants nothing to do with the kid, then there’s nothing to stop him from doing so.

            If the man wants to keep those rights to the kid though, then child support is always going to be an option for the mother. It’s just something that comes along with having a child that you don’t like with, but still want to be a part of their life.

            So obviously, there’s no double standard here. At least, not from a legal standpoint. Doing this is generally frowned upon, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it’s do-able.

            • Jdf

              Nope.

              Even if you forfeit parental rights, you are by law still required to pay child support.

              • Deven Kale

                 Nope. It was forced on me, and that’s the first thing they told me was that I also wouldn’t have to pay child support. Not that I had a problem with the child support anyway.

            • brianmacker

              It depends on the state, and in some you don’t even have to be the husband or biological father to get entrapped in support payments.

        • brianmacker

          I’m tired of liberals supporting laws like tax deductibility of insurance plans that result in everyone getting plans that pay everyday healthcare costs. Insurance should not cover first dollar costs like Viagra, birth control, or simple doctor visits. I don’t know a single man who worked towards getting coverage for Viagra, and wasn’t even aware it was covered.

        • brianmacker

          Don’t you mean “some men and some women”?

      • Onamission5

        Do you also complain about your taxes going to repair roads you don’t drive on and put out fires in houses you don’t live in and pay for wheelchair ramps you don’t need, or do you reserve your disdain solely for women?

        • djf

          LOL

          And paying for the repair of roads and firefighting are comparable to paying for a woman’s birth control?

          You’re being serious?

          • Baby_Raptor

            Yup. They’re all responsibilities to society. They’re all ones that don’t affect you directly, but still. 

            • djf

              How is it societies responsiblity to pay for a woman’s birth control?

              You liberals truly are big on the “nanny state”

              • BruceMcGlory

                You moronic bigots are big on the “total bullshit”.

              • RobMcCune

                You are aware the right is in love with state power when it’s not being used for benevolent purposes, right?

                • brianmacker

                  You are aware that it is possible to disagree with liberals nanny state policies without being “on the right”. I’m also sure that the right you are complaint about define benevolent in a way that makes your statement false. For example, if they actually believe homosexual acts result in eternal hellfire then outlawing it is a benevolent thing to do.

                  This thread however is on Sandra Fluke and under a comment about how one person was tired of men using government to intrude, while ignoring Fluke’s intrusions. I didn’t disagree with the comment and was just adding to it.

                  I’m tired of both sides, but I was responding to a hypocrite. When a christian comes here to bitch about something hypocritically I’ll take them on.

                • RobMcCune

                   I know, thats why I said it to djf, not to you. Consistency regarding the role of government is something I like about libertarians even if I disagree with them about alot of things.

                • brianmacker

                  Fair enough. I hadn’t yet read some of djf’s more ridiculous and predjudiced comments. Like his desire to put women “back in their place” and other explicit advocations of state power like his desire for the banning birth control, and keeping women from careers, etc. He seems to genuinely view women as inferior creatures to be used by the state for the benefit of society.

                  Many who consider themselves not to be on the right include libertarians on the right and even the “far right”. Personally I disagree with libertarians on many issues too.

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

                Bullshit on your whole comment.  No one is being forced to pay for women’s birth control.  More debunked lies from the “small government” types.

                • brianmacker

                  There was no claim that anyone was currently being forced to pay for women’s birth control in djf’s comment. If you read carefully you will notice the same exact thing about my comment.

                  DJF was responding to Baby Raptors false claim that paying for birth control is the responsibility of society. DJF is right and you are wrong.

                  Now you either knew you were wrong and are lying, or you aren’t paying close enough attention. Be a little more circumspect before you go around calling others liars.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

                  It is socities responsibility as long as they restrict access to women’s reproductive choices and teach abstinence only programs. As a society we do nothing to prevent the problem. We all suffer as a society. On a side note, do not lecture me like your my damn teacher.

                • brianmacker

                  That’s ridiculous. “Society” has to pay for birth control because restrict birth control? Let’s get away from the socialist jargon, and therefore be more accurate. By society do you mean government, or do you mean the people you want to force to pay for insurance coverage they don’t need, and even if they did would be stupid to buy?

                  The government restricts access to gas guzzlers. It’s good to know they now owe me a new Humvee.

                  It’s laughable you complaining about my supporting my side of the argument when you obviously are even aware of the issues involved. Plus you make silly arguments that support free SUVs for everyone, and expect the response to not make you look like the student? Plus you throw charges of misogyny about regardless of truth. I’m the one owed an apology.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

                  Where did I say about SUVs? Oh yea you’re full of shit. Yea if society gets to dictate the reproductive rights of women then society needs to take responsibility for the consequences. You can not complain about slutty women having children and then deny any access to solve the problem. Oh yea your lying again about paying for birth control via the ACA. I don’t owe any apologies to someone constantly lying.

                • brianmacker

                  I didn’t complain about slutty women having children.

                  Youd didn’t say SUVs, you argued that society must provide what it restricts access to, and teaches against. Gas guzzlers are an example of that. The are both restricted in various ways by “society” and it is taught by “society” that they are bad. Of course where by society you mean government, because that is the entity that restricts access.

              • Deven Kale

                 Would you rather pay the few cents that would be your portion of insurance premiums that go into sharing the cost of birth control; or the tens or hundreds of dollars which would be your portion that goes into having that unwanted child taken to term and being birthed in a hospital, given up to the state, placed in foster care (having the state raise the child) for the majority of their childhood, and being (somewhat likely) so severely damaged by the ordeal that they cannot function well in society and either suicide or live on disability due to moderate to severe mental illness? Which do you think would cost you more, and which do you think is the more responsible act?

                • brianmacker

                  Where on earth did you get the idea it is a few cents when Fluke claims the costs she desires covered run to thousands a year? You are like those people who cut tom the front of the DMV line and tell not ask the first person on line that it will only be fond minute, forgetting the sixty other people on line eachmof which waits an extra minute. Total stolen sixty minutes. Now the same people might not mind you cutting if your cpkid just pissed his pants, but they know that wasn’t the case any you are just trying to shift your costs onto others.

                  The rest of your argument is silly. You can make condoms free but that won’t make anyone use them, and they are so very cheap that your argument falls apart before you start.

                • Deven Kale

                   Few cents, few dollars, the specifics are actually unimportant and have little to do with the ultimate question at the end: Which do you think would cost you more, and which do you think is the more responsible act?

                • brianmacker

                  I think forcing me to buy insurance will cost me more. I think keeping insurance voluntary is more responsible. Don’t confuse government redistribution with responsibility.

            • brianmacker

              No, they are the responsibly of the couple engaging in sex. If it is “societies responsibility” then it would also be societies choice on whether the couple could even have sex in the first place. You cannot hold some one or something responsible for that which it has no power over. You can’t hold others responsible for an individual’s promiscuous behavior. That’s there own fault and consequences of that their own fault.

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

                well if we had more programs like planned parenthood and comprehensive sex education then you could complain. yet you’ll rail against that too.

                • brianmacker

                  You don’t even understand my stated positions so it is unlikely you’d be able to predict what I’d be for or against. I don’t care about PP unless you plan to force me to pay for it. I’m all for sex education. We should start by teaching the downside of being a womanizer or slut.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

                  Ah you just want to complain and not actually do anything to solve the problem. That would be great if you lived in a bubble, but you don’t. Your solution of calling people sluts is not helpful and really just sad.

                • Jdf23

                  The solution would be to reinstate consequences to being a slut. Eliminate or minimize access to abortion and reintroduce a stigma to single motherhood. Some Restrictions on female  sexuality must exist in order to change women’s incentives from riding as many cocks as possible to being faithful to one man.

                • brianmacker

                  Fuck you jdk23

                • Deven Kale

                   Another solution would be to introduce consequences to men for being sluts. Introduce mandatory child-support for the fathers of all children born outside of marriage, remove all tax breaks for children, introduce a stigma to any man who has sex with a woman outside of wedlock, mandatory sterilization for men who have more than 2 children by women they aren’t married to, and automatic jail-time for any man who rapes a woman.

                • Jdf23

                  Newsflash: there is already mandatory child support required of all men in MOST states in the US and western coutnries. Secondly, due to the biological nature of men and women it would be impossible to create a stigma for promiscuous men as men cannot get pregnant. There are no natural consequences for men who sleep aroudn while there are for women. It also goes against the evolutionary nature of the species. Man are designed to seek out variety (hency why our period for having children is so much longer than women) while women are naturally designed to pair with a man. That’s why throughout society polygamous societies exist (even today) while polyandrous societies all failed.

                • Deven Kale

                  Now you’re just funny. ROFLMAO

                • Gggs

                  The the only thing funny is your belief men can ever feel shame for bedding several women. You understand nothing about masculinity and it shows.

                • Deven Kale

                  No, it’s much better to write angry comments on some random internet blog to mask your shame. You’re right. LOL

                • Jdf23

                  You may believe women are equal but you cannot say they are the same. We are slaves to our biology. Your suggestion stion show nothing more than your lack of knowledge on the  biological dynamic between men and women.

                • brianmacker

                  I never called anyone a slut. You know that and you are therefore a liar.

                • brianmacker

                  Solve what “problem”? I am solving a problem, people mooching off others against their will via the government. That’s a problem unjustly imposed on me, and others.

                  I solve my own personal problems individually. I buy the insurance I believe I need and suffer the consequences out of my own pay check when I bet wrong. For birth control I buy it myself. The solution is for able people to take responsibility for their own lives.

              • ReadsInTrees

                Why are you so obsessed about the sex angle? LOTS of women are on birth control for health reasons, not just to have sex. I was on the Pill for 5 years before becoming sexually active, thank you very much.

          • RobMcCune

            Your right, their not comparable, birth control is covered by private insurance , so you people have even less right to complain about it.

            • brianmacker

              So you mean I was stupid not to make a claim for coverage on all those condoms. Vasectomies and condoms are only covered by insurance if you pay for a plan that covers them. I’ve got no problem with Sandra Fluke taking out a policy that costs more to cover additional things in a private transaction. I don’t pay for her coverage. I’ve got a problem when she works towards forcing me to take put coverage for things I will never collect on, or feel is cheaper to get without insurance. When it is mandatory it becomes little more than a transfer payment.

              We could force everyone to take out a homeowners policy but that isn’t fair to those who don’t own homes. The transfer occurs in the fact that it would tend to lower the insurance premiums of homeowners.

              Part of the reason Obama and co. Want to include everyone in their insurance schemes is for the purpose of doing these transfer payments. There is no reason why they couldn’t force people to participate in a Democrat party single payer system to be a member of the democrat party. Heck it could even cover birth control. There is no need to force non-Democrats to follow their religion on this issue.

              • ReadsInTrees

                This just sounds like you’re going back to the idea that “if I don’t directly benefit from it, I don’t want to pay for it”. Unfortunately, our society does not work that way. If it did, then I could just say, “I’ve just decided that I don’t want any of my insurance money going to pay for prostate exams since that’s coverage that I will never collect on.”

                • brianmacker

                  Sounds like you don’t understand insurance or economics.

                  I can’t control where my money goes when I buy anything once it gets in the other parties hands. If I buy a hamburger that money just might be used to pay for a prostitute.

                  I’m not buying prostate exams when I buy insurance. I’m buying coverage for prostate cancer. Nor am I buying a prostate operation. I’m paying for the coverage. When that coverage is mandated to cover more things than I want then I am being forced to buy them. Different coverage makes policies different products.

                  The insurance company has decided to cover prostate exams because that is cheaper for them. If it were more expensive they would charge me a premium if I wanted them included.

                  You are merely ignorant. I’m against the forced bundling, and especially for things that make no sense to bundle. Birth control is not similar to prostate exams, but more akin to breast implants, something you voluntarily get to have more sex.
                  You don’t have to pay for coverage on either if you don’t want.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  NO. Birth control is NOT “something you get to have more sex.”

                  (And you wonder why we all call you a misogynist?!)

                • brianmacker

                  Sure it is. Without birth control there is a big disincentive to have sex for pleasure called a baby. With birth control one can have more sex. Men even get vasectomies so they can have more and unprotected sex. That’s why I got a vasectomy. Even though I am married without birth control I’d be having much less sex.

                  Again you are ridiculous in your charges of misogyny.

                  I don’t wonder why you are calling me a misogynist. It’s pretty clear that you’ve got issues like not knowing how insurance works, reading comprehension problems, not understanding the difference between birth control and hormone therapy, and the like. Plus a big chip on your shoulder.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  LOL that’s a lot of projection, there, cupcake!

                  I’m on birth control, and it has NOTHING to do with “having more sex”.

                  It’s about keeping myself healthy and keeping my moods stable. The no babies thing is a bonus.

                  It’s clear to me that YOU don’t understand what you’re talking about here. If insurance covers your Viagra (which really IS all about having more sex), it damn well ought to cover my Depo shots WITHOUT me having to justify it. That’s equality.

                • brianmacker

                  I’m perfectly aware that certain kinds of birth control have multiple uses, and effects. Just because you are incapable of distingushing doesn’t mean I can’t. Viagra can be used for treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Viagra can also be used recreationally because benefits for men without erectile dysfunction. Erectile dysfunction is an actual medical condition not “I want to fuck longer or more, by avoiding natural consequences”. It’s “I want to be able to have sex in the first place.” for such men. It can even be used to treat women. I’d be against mandatory coverage of Viagra for birth control if it had that effect, and I am against mandatory coverage for recreational purposes.

                  Projection? About what? I know plenty of women who use birth control so they can have sex without a condom, and more of it. No projection required because it is not only verbalized it is written about.

                  BTW, my sister has endometriosis, and was diagnosed decades ago. So I know about hormone treatments. She has a medical need to suppress her cycle.

                • brianmacker

                  Oh, and don’t call me “cupcake” hypocrite. Imagine the cries of misogyny if I did that? Of course there is a double standard working here. You’d never imagine yourself a misandrist for doing that. Meanwhile if I started the practice you’d soon forget who started it, beefcakes.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  The point is, Viagra is covered, and often with little to no questions or justifications or extra premiums.

                  All we want is the SAME TREATMENT with regards to birth control.

                  To claim that birth control is somehow “different”, or not a “legitimate” need, is simply misogynist.

                  Now sit your ass down, shut the fuck up, and let the grown ups talk, kiddo.

                • brianmacker

                  It’s different because it is different. Viagra isn’t birth control. Despite your claims it isn’t just handed out. If you bought coverage for hormone treatments there is no reason you can’t get a dishonest doctor to proscribe it for other purposes like birth control. Just don’t pretend Viagra coverage is mandatory, or that you can’t purchase insurance to cover hormone therapy. My sister was covered.

                  When and if you get what you want don’t complain when men then want Viagra covered for recreational purposes, which it isn’t now.

                  Plus nothing is stopping you from buying for birth control yourself, either condoms, or the pill, or an IUd. Because of the actually differences you deny the same cannot be said true for recreational use of Viagra.

                • brianmacker

                  Actually I’m lying down, perfectly silent, and 50+ years old. You are quite a hypocrite. Imagine if I told any woman here to “Shut the fuck up” and implied she was a child.

                  You should know by now your ideological ravings and name calling don’t intimidate me. So you can save your energy.

                • RobMcCune

                   Only if s(x) > 0

        • brianmacker

          My distain is for women who attempt to force me to pay for their stuff, and no it isn’t limited to just them. Please learn a little bit about how collecting taxes and the existence of government is justified before discussing the topic. There are valid arguments for forcing me to pay for defense, roads and the like via taxes. That’s not true for private consumption goods like birth control. Also mandating certain types of insurance (another weasel way to make me pay for things I shouldn’t have to) is not a tax in the first place.

      • Baby_Raptor

        Suck it up. Everyone in this country has to pay taxes to fund things they don’t like. Hell, we have to pay for *your* medical care. 

        You don’t get an exemption just because you have a dick. Welcome to society. 

        • brianmacker

          No you don’t. We only need taxes to pay for things that suffer from a free rider problem, like defense and the police. My medical expenses are not something which cause a free rider problem for others. You don’t benefit if I buy Viagra, and I don’t benefit if you do. Likewise you don’t have to pay if I buy Viagra and vice versa.

          • ReadsInTrees

            If it’s about benefiting society, why aren’t you in favor of covering birth control? A huge percentage of pregnancies in this country are unplanned. Unplanned pregnancies lead to more abortions, more hospital bills (which cost insurance companies or tax payers pay more than birth control does), strained families, student drop-outs, unwanted children in foster care their entire lives….Wouldn’t it be better for society if men and women had affordable access to birth control so that they can avoid unplanned pregnancies in the first place?

            • brianmacker

              Because it is not about “benefiting society”. The phrase “benefiting society” is vague, prone to error, and highly debatable. Some people think keeping women barefoot and pregnant benefits society. One of the commenters here in fact, and whole swaths of the Muslim world.

              Solutions of the free rider problem aim to make those individuals who can not be excluded from the benefits of externalities pay for them. It’s not about benefiting society, but preventing individuals from freeloading.

      • RobMcCune

        By “fund their vaginas” do you mean paying into a private, for profit insurance which then pays part of the cost numerous medical services including those icky vagina ones? Because you might want to get rid of your health insurance then, or is it different because it pays for your healthcare?

        Or is this just your feeble attempt at sticking up for the idiocy of a serially married pill popper ranting and raving about how a woman  is somehow a slut how guzzles birth control pills because she wants them covered by insurance?

        • Onamission5

          I believe our dear friend here is upset that a tiny portion of his taxes might be used to help pay for birth control for poor and uninsured women. Can’t have poor women thinking they have the right to bodily autonomy or anything, that might make them uppity, and if they get uppity, who knows what other rights they might think they have. /sarcasm

        • brianmacker

          Fluke wants me to fund using her vagina as playground via mandatory insurance coverage for birth control. She’s wrong despite whatever issues with pain killers some of her opponents may have.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

            Saying that lie over and over is not going to change the truth. We all know you’re lying despite others correcting the falsity many times.

            • brianmacker

              All you and others have done so far is equivocate, spew straw men, slur, and confuse “correlate” with “cause”. What precisely, without emotion or slurs, do you claim is the lie, and or lies? I’m not aware of anything which is false that I am claiming is true. I’m not infallible so I might be mistaken, but I am NOT lying.

          • ReadsInTrees

            Even though I’ve said it several times already….STOP implying that women are sluts because they’d like birth control. If you’d listened to Fluke’s testimony, she never once asked for coverage for herself, but spoke on behalf of her peers, including one who needs the Pill to prevent infertility from ovarian cysts. Sorry, but you’re coming across as a sexist pig.

            • brianmacker

              I can’t stop what I never did. Fluke wants to MANDATE coverage for recreational uses of birth control, and she wants me to pay for such because of that. That’s simple economics.

              I’m all for her using her vagina as a playground on her own dime, and that would not make her a slut.

              • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                BIRTH CONTROL IS NOT USED “RECREATIONALLY”, YOU STUPID, LYING, SACK OF SHIT.

                • Gggg

                  Sex outside the purposes of procreation is recreational moron

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  No, it isn’t. I don’t have sex for funsies, I have sex with my partner because it’s a way for us to bond intimately (and we enjoy it). You’re saying that I should give up an important activity that promotes well-being just because I don’t want children.

                  You’re an idiot, an asshole, and a liar.

                • Jdf

                  HahahahahahahhahahahahhhH!!!!!!!

                  This has to be a joke right? Sex with your partner for enjoyment and bonding is not recreational? You are a mental gymnastics champion!!

                  Go have as much sex as you want, just not on my dime. Pay for it yourself.

                  I find it hilarious you’re calling me an idiot when you can’t even formulate a cogent argument.

      • BruceMcGlory

        Im tired of lying ass bigots who make it embarrassing to have simliar genitalia. 

        • brianmacker

          I’m tired of morons who can’t tell the truth from a falsehood. I’m also tired of morons who don’t understand what a bigot is.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

        I’ll add to my original statement: I’m also sick of listening to people who don’t understand how insurance works.

        Also, birth control is by far cheaper than pregnancy and child care. I’m not sure what the complaining is about.

        • brianmacker

          So stop listening to yourself. The way insurance works is I don’t buy birth control coverage and I get lower rates. Mandatory coverage requires me to buy what I don’t want to.

          • ReadsInTrees

            Again, you keep assuming that women only use birth control when they’ve “landed a boyfriend”. Try talking to some women sometime, and you’ll learn that women use birth control for all kinds of health reasons, such as regulating periods, preventing ovarian cysts, preventing anemia from heavy periods, and, of course, preventing that life threatening condition of pregnancy.

            • brianmacker

              You are confused. I’m using the term birth control properly and you are not. Birth control includes condoms, IUDs, the pill, etc. You can’t use a condom to regulate periods, prevent anemia, etc. Mandatory coverage for birth control means you get it for that purpose.

              Coverage for hormone treatment is not the same thing. Nor is it something you can’t get. Of course a Catholic school isn’t going tomprovide it but the problem ther is that the tax code has caused medical insurance to be tied to employment.

              I’m not against you getting insurance for getting birth control either. I’m against the government mandating that I be covered for it., and anyone like me.

              They don’t cover Viagra for recreational purposes. They prescribe it for erectile dysfunction.

        • brianmacker

          Paying for a pregnancy and child care should also be for by the persons (or person in the case of rape) who made the decision to have sex. Also if you were paying attention I also complained about being forced to pay for both via taxes. I’ve got no problem with a person paying for a non-tax deductible insurance policy that covers the costs of pregnancy. Such a private policy cannot shift costs to me.

          • ReadsInTrees

            This whole “decision to have sex” thing, you sure seem hung up on that (while continuing to ignore the fact that many MANY women use birth control for medical reasons) Would you be in favor of telling a husband and wife that they should abstain from having sex until she reaches menopause, rather than  their insurance covering birth control or paying for childbirth hospital bills?

            • brianmacker

              I didn’t ignore the issue. I’ve touched on it in several comments. The argument isn’t that hormones should be covered for medical issues. The argument is that it should be mandatory for birth control purposes. Besides, I don’t have to address an issue I agree with. Coverage for medical reasons is a separate issue than birth control coverage. It is also something one could reasonably get coverage for, of course it isn’t exactly in the class of brain surgery in terms of risk and cost.

              No, I wouldn’t be for telling a couple (married or not) that they abstain from sex. You’ve created a false dichotomy. Abstinence is merelynone option. There are many other options. She can go on the pill. He can buy condoms. Either one of them can get sterlized. They can practice masterbation, hand jobs, anal or oral sex. I don’t really care.

      • Icyfist

         I’m sick and tired of hearing the tired old LIE that Sandra Fluke’s testimony was focused on sex or contraception. IT WASNT.

        And seriously Brian, if you cant be bothered to watch a 10-11 minute video that had little to do with sex, but everything to do with private care systems people PAY into, personally I’m glad you didnt get your way.

  • http://www.facebook.com/angus.bohanon Angus Bohanon

    Kim Jung Un is so high on the list because the legions of 4-chan have decided to vote him up.

    • Baal

       This also points up why internet pols are not a good idea.  They are, at best, a sideshow.

  • Peekaboo

    Yousafazi for sure. She’s the only option on that list that is standout-ish. That should tell ya something about our society. It’s her versus some machines and a particle. Difficult to be optimistic about our futures right now :/

  • brianmacker

    Naming her person of the year would be just one more nail in their coffin because it is an obvious leftist choice, and would alienate even more of what little non-leftist readership they have.

    • Pawel Samson

      You do realize it’s “person of the year,” not “BEST person of the year” right?  Hitler and Stalin were both given the title.  It’s given to the person who’s been the most newsworthy over the past year, and only hardcore partisans would deny that Sandra Fluke has garnered enough headlines to be in the running.

      • brianmacker

        Fluke isn’t significant. Claiming she made some significant contribution would be a nod to leftism.

    • BruceMcGlory

      So, no downside then!

  • Corey

    conservative Christians dont like it when ANY gets more praise than they do. It has always been thisw way. They claim to be the most persecuted majority I have ever heard of.

  • Corey

    @brianmacker

    PS:

    Stop the House from blocking abortion access for raped soldiers.

    “If a female employee of the U.S. State Department is raped while serving abroad in Afghanistan, her federal health plan will pay for an abortion should she become pregnant. However if a woman serving abroad as a member of the U.S. military is raped, her military health plan will NOT provide for an abortion if she becomes pregnant as a result of that violent and reprehensible act.”
     http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/military_choice/?p=military_choice&r=6900212&id=51176-273577-a7iY6zx

    • brianmacker

      That has nothing to do with me. How about you stop vaginal mutilation in Africa? I mean really, are you so shallow a thinker?

  • Houndentenor

    It’s a silly thing to be upset about.  She’s nowhere near the top of the list.  But the fact that we all know who she is proves that she’s important enough to make the first cut for the list of nominees.

  • DJF

    Blah, she gets nominated to be person of the year for trying to get the government to pay her whore pills? Unbelievable. No

    I thought today’s “modern woman” didn’t need men? You know the people who are indirectly paying for these pills? MEN.

    If she is truly a liberated woman, how about she not rely on men indirectly for financial support?

    • ReadsInTrees

      Um, last I checked, woman pay taxes too.

      • djf

        Not nearly as much as men.

        The redistribution is still huge.

      • brianmacker

        Paying taxes is not sufficient justification for redistribution. Many people pay for auto liability insurance. They don’t get collision coverage for free because they, in general, buy insurance.

        Fluke’s testimony was that most women in college could not afford birth control. If that were true they also couldn’t afford the insurance coverage either because birth control (unlike therapeutic hormone treatment) isn’t an unknown expense. It would be stupid for an insurance company to charge anything less than full cost for such coverage because there is no risk to spread around. If it is mandatory the insurance company would have to shift these known costs to others.

        Fluke was also lying or misinformed because birth control in the form of condoms is cheap, especially since it usually falls on the man. You don’t see men clamoring for condom coverage on their plans.

    • Artor

      Every post you make shows your ignorance. Sandra Fluke was talking about college health insurance, which the students themselves pay for, and that it should cover medicine that students need. The example she gave was her friend who needed hormone supplements, (commonly called “birth control”) to deal with ovarian cysts. The argument you are presenting is the strawman that Rush Limbaugh was pushing in complete denial of the actual relevant facts of the case. You are as disgusting and as ignorant as he is. 

      • djf

        And what do you think most women who use birth control need it for?

        Seriously, if you need birth control so badly, why not pay the $10/month that goes for at Walmart? Or heck, get your boyfriend to buy it for you!

        But no, of course not..

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

          More stupid coming from you.  You do know that birth control is used for other reasons than sex?  But of course you know that.  You just want to call women sluts. 

        • Artor

          Because they already fucking paid for it with their student fucking health insurance. Why is that so hard for you to understand? 

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

          Because some pills work well and others don’t. The first kind I tried was $30/month. I was only on it for a week and I was miserable. I was seriously depressed and had bad headaches and no desire for sex. It was like the worst PMS imaginable.
          The next kind I tried ended up being $60/month, but I feel completely normal on it. It would be great if the cheapest option would work, but different women have different hormone balances.
          And really?? Get your boyfriend to buy it for you? Yes, because we’re just silly women who need men to buy us things.
          Of course in a relationship, it should be split 50/50, but the solution to money problems isn’t just “Let the men handle it.”

          • Gggg

            Lol- buy having it paid through government or insurance men are still paying for your pills indirectly

      • RobMcCune

        Every post you make shows your ignorance.

        Show it? He’s reveling in his own ignorance.

      • brianmacker

        The fact that she wanted to make it mandatory is the problem. Many colleges already make health coverage mandatory (including state colleges that we are forced to support). Medical insurance coverage is subsidized by the taxpayer by giving it a tax break which avoids paying for the services needed to support it.

        Plus her testimony was in support of Obama contraceptive mandate which is broader than just colleges. That mandate requires that no co-payment is needed. That’s not equality as some are claiming. That’s actual privilege.

    • Baby_Raptor

      Her whore pills? Fucking really?

      Go play in traffic. The world needs less assholes like you.

      • Ghhh

        Women love assholes. Just Ask Rihanna

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

      Bullshit!!!!! Like her I want my insurance that I pay into to cover my medications including birth control.  Stop with all the lies.  No believes you.  Is your hatred for women so great you have to lie about Ms. Fluke? 

      • Jdf

        LOL

        And without fail you missed the point completely.

        Women predominantly use birth control for contraception purposes.

    • Deven Kale

       There are more women than men in this country, so most of the cost is being covered by women. Take your persecution complex elsewhere.

      • Jdf

        Doesn’t matter, men pay more overall taxes.

      • Asda

        Doesn’t matter, men predominately pay most of the tax in almost all societies

  • djf

    You guys have no idea the shitstorm this is causing.

    The combination of abortion + the pill + female financial independence has lead to the destabilization of the nuclear family.

    Women have little incentive to a) procreate (see birth rates in western countries) b) stay with their hubands (see divorce rates). Women start most divorce proceedings.

    You’re even seeing trickle down effects. According to PEW, the number of men interested in marriage is in the heavy decline. 

    It’s crap like this (government paying for contraception) that’s caused all this mess. Women now have had all restrictions removed from their sexuality, and now to no informed person’s surprise, single motherhood is on the rise and broken homes are more common than ever.

    You wonder why the US is in decline? It’s because you’re voting for it.

    • Onamission5

      Do feel free to provide a list of verifiable citations for all that ridiculous bullshit you just said.

    • Baby_Raptor

      “Women aren’t choosing to be breeding stock like I want them to! THE WORLD IS ENDING!”

      Again, go play in traffic. The world isn’t going to cling to your out-dated, sexist notions anymore. 

      • nakedanthropologist

        @BR: if I could like your comment a thousand times, I would.  So often we find ourselves faced with the mysogynistic fear-mongering of the far right.  Djf claims that women are the reason (for divorce and societal ill) because the demand for social equality with men and bodily autonomy.  But that will be pushed out of the conversation (if possible) by people like djf because for him/them its all about slut shaming.  Sigh.  It’s sad, really – that someone would rather remain forcibly ignorant, butressed by hate and jealousy – and all because of this more equitable paradigm shift makes djf (and others) insecure.

        • Jdf

          First off, domestic abuse is a gender neutral issue (both sexes commit abuse just as often).

          Second there was no female “oppression,” in fact society was organized to fit women’s preferences.

          Women preferred being in the home  as for most of human history jobs were extremely laborious and dangerous. Why work a 12 hour job in a coal mine, steel mill or factory when you can stay at home in a much safer less laborious setting? Heck, men were obligated to share their wage with women (their wives) anyhow.

          Ask yourself ladies, if you were born 150 years earlier, would you rather work 7 days a week 12 hours a day in a factory, or would you rather raise children and manage household chores? If you’re truly honest with yourselves, you’d say the latter.

          Lastly, women are the limited biological in human reproduction. For that reason it would’ve been disastrous for society if women entered the workplace as work related injuries and death during periods such as the industrial revolution were extremely high. Women were put in the home because their safety was of the utmost importance.

          So no it wasn’t  oppression or any of that nonsense. I reject patriarchy theory completely.

      • djf

        Well some of us believe women are obligated in helping repopulate society along with building stable family households. I guess letting America die out is okay as long as women are “liberated”

        • RobMcCune

           America won’t die out, just stabilize it’s population, why is it you people can only think binary extremes? Does nuance just not compute?

          • Djf

            You people?

            And how does one stabilize a population? Ask the stork to bring babies?

          • Jdf

            And how does one stabilize a population without a proper birth rate?

          • Gkgj

            And how do you populate a society without a proper birth rate?

        • matt

          What indications show you that we need to “repopulate”?

           Please look at world population trends over the last 100 years or so.  There are something like 7.1 billion of us on this planet. 

          With the way we consume and waste,  we should probably worry more about stability than growth.   

          • Djf

            Go look at WHERE the population is growing, it’s not in the west. It’s in Africa, Asia and muslim countries in general.

            You need to repopulate a society in order for it to survive. DO you have any interest in seeing the US, western Europe, Canada and Australian society living on?

          • Jdf

            Look at WHERE population growth is happening, it’s not happening in Anglo countries. In order for a society to survive, it needs to repopulate.

            Do you have any interest in seeing US, Canada, England and Scandinavian countries living on?

            Or should they depopulate in the name of overpopulation?

            I love my country, I want to see it thrive.

          • Djf

            Look at WHERE population growth is occurring. It’s not in western countries.

            Do you want to see the US, Canada and Western Europe live on or should the west depopulate in the name of overpopulation?

            In order for a society to survive it must repopulate itself. I love my country and want to see it continue on.

      • Djf

        lol – you can’t possibly be this stupid. 

        Either that, or you hate western countries and are enjoying their decline.

    • allein

      So let me get this straight… Better access to birth control and women having no incentive to have kids is causing a rise in single motherhood. Do I have that right?

      • RobMcCune

        Well the existence of one thing he doesn’t like about women is the cause of all problems with women and society, because he doesn’t like it. It’s logic and science and stuff.

        /sarcasm

        • allein

          Oh, well I’m just a girl so I don’t get all that brainy stuff. :p

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

      Really?  Women are destroying the family unit because they can not be forced to give birth and marry someone to financially support them?  We are not in the 1950s.  Women do have goals and dreams that may or may not include marriage or children.  Women use birth control to control when they are more prepared to have children.  Wanted children are more likely to be healthier and more successful.

      • Dasda

        Women are unhappier than ever since they entered the workforce.  Just look at the happiness study posted earlier.

        Furthermore, maintaining the family unit is of the utmost important for society to thrive. A society of single mothers cannot sustain itself and that’s why you’re seeing the US in decline. 

        The reality is it’s a small group of undesirable women (undesirable to men) pushing the majority of women into the workplace. If you look at studies most women nowadays want to quit their jobs and become fulltime moms

        84% of working women aspire to quit their jobs and become fulltime moms

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/09/12/is-opting-out-the-new-american-dream-for-working-women/

        • Deven Kale

          Yeah, because an unsourced blog post based on a web-based, opt-in survey on a website designed for working moms is a reliable source for such statistics.

    • brianmacker

      Abortion and the pill are tools used to prevent procreation, not incentives against it. One first has an incentive, like an abusive husband or the existence of rapists, and then decides on the pill or abortion.

      The rest of your claims are similarly shoddy. Why should anyone be against female financial independence on the basis that dependence provides an incentive for them to get married, or pregnant? force all women to into comfort houses and outlaw access to birth control and there would be even greater incentive to procreate. Heck, forcing women to marry by law at puberty would be a big incentive to marriage to. Plus outlawing divorce. Heck, just make rape of single women legal and that would be an “incentive” to get married.

      You can’t argue from mere incentives. You need to provide reasons why the incentives you want, like forcing women not to work, are just. What gives you the right to tell others whether they can work, or whether they can hire a woman?

    • Antinomian

      “It’s crap like this (government paying for contraception) that’s caused all this mess. Women now have had all restrictions removed from their sexuality, and now to no informed person’s surprise, single motherhood is on the rise and broken homes are more common than ever.””You wonder why the US is in decline? It’s because you’re voting for it.”You couldn’t be more wrong… It was Jazz music that caused the moral decay of this country’s youth. All those flappers and ankles showing..Next thing you know, we’ll have white boys singing negro music…

  • djf

    I’ll be back to put you ladies in your place after work, lunch is over.

    Meanwhile I encourage you all to  google “the decline of female happiness” and check out the comprehensive study.

    Then ask yourself: Am I really helping women by spurring these social changes?

    • RobMcCune

      The Decline of Female Happiness: djf’s 15 point plan for creating a utopia solely for djf

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

      Fuck you!!! We are not brood mares to pop out as many children as our bodies can handle. 

      • Djf

        No fuck you disgusting horrible cunt.

        It’s because of cunts like you that family unit has destabilized. It’s because of bitches like you  women who choose to be homemakers appear lazy, slovenly, intellectually deficient, meek, or timid. Fuck you for encouraging women to forgo building families in place of their careers.

        Look at what’s happening in in western Europe especially Scandinavia. In countries like Sweden and Norway the locals are no longer having children leading to a mass influx of muslim immigrants. While the locals are barely having 1 child per couple, muslims are having 3-4  if not 5.

        It’s because of bitches like you Europe will soon become a predominantly muslim continent in the next 50 years. You hate Christianity? Islam is 100x worse. 

      • Jdf

        And it’s because of people like you that scandinavian countries and Europe as a whole will be predominantly muslim in 50 years. 

        Women are choosing to be career women in place of building families and having children. As a result they’ve become heavily reliant on immigration from other  countries leading to an influx of muslims in the country.

        While locals are having barely 1 child per couple, muslims are having 3-5. 

        SO keep pushing this bullshit belief, just don’t wonder why Europe is a muslim nation.

        • Jdf

          *muslim continent

      • Gggg

        No fuck you fat disgusting vile cunt. Who’d want to fuck you anyway? Go on a diet

    • Djf
    • Deven Kale

      Do you mean “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness” by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers?

      I’ve already read it, numerous times. I don’t think you’ve read the whole thing though. I’ll just quote a few important parts here for ya:

      Rather than immediately inferring that the women’s movement failed to improve the lot of women, we conclude with a simple taxonomy for organizing alternative explanations of this paradox.

      First, there may be other  important socioeconomic forces that have made women worse off. A number of  important macro trends have been documented: decreased social cohesion  (Robert D. Putnam 2000), increased anxiety and neuroticism (Jean M. Twenge  2000), and increased household risk (Hacker 2006). While each of these trends  have impacted men and women, it is possible for even apparently gender-neutral trends to have gender-biased impacts if men and women respond  differently to these forces. For example, if women are more risk averse than  men, then an increase in risk may lower women’s utility relative to that of men.

      The second possibility is that broad social shifts such as those brought on by the changing role of women in society fundamentally alter what measures of  subjective well-being are capturing. Over time it is likely that women are  aggregating satisfaction over an increasingly larger domain set. For example,  life satisfaction may have previously meant “satisfaction at home” and has  increasingly come to mean some combination of “satisfaction at home” and  “satisfaction at work.” This averaging over many domains may lead to falling  average satisfaction if it is difficult to achieve the same degree of satisfaction in  multiple domains.

      [...]

      In the context of the findings presented in this paper, women may now feel more comfortable being honest about their true happiness and have deflated their previously inflated responses. Or, as in Kahneman’s example, the increased opportunities available to women may have increased what women require to declare themselves happy. And indeed, [data] shows that contrary to the subjective well-being trends we document, female suicide rates have been falling, even as male suicide rates have remained roughly constant through most  of our sample. As such, from the early 1970s to the mid-1990s, the ratio  of female-to-male suicide declined.

      [...]

      Finally, the changes brought about through the women’s movement may have decreased women’s happiness. The increased opportunity to succeed in many dimensions may have led to an increased likelihood of believing that one’s life is not measuring up. Similarly, women may now compare their lives to a broader group, including men, and find their lives more likely to come up short in this assessment. Or women may simply find the complexity and increased pressure in their modern lives to have come at the cost of happiness.

      Diener (2000) notes that one of the hallmarks of subjective well-being is that it is subjective, stating that “objective conditions such as health, comfort, virtue, or wealth” are “notably absent” and, while influencing  subjective well-being, “they are not seen as inherent.” This aspect of subjective well-being makes understanding what is behind declining female happiness a challenging task, yet decoding the paradox identified in this paper may be the key to a better understanding of subjective well-being.

      Make your own conclusions, as I’m sure you will. But if you’re say that giving women more freedom is inherently bad and makes women less happy, don’t cite this study as your source. That conclusion does not follow from this study, which they even say themselves.

    • brianmacker

      What place do you wish to put women “back” into, one of inferior status? Good luck with that on a comment board, bigot.

    • brianmacker

      What place do you wish to put women “back” into, one of inferior status? Good luck with that on a comment board, bigot.

  • David Starner

    I tend to look at Sandra Fluke as pretty non-notable; she’s a law student who got to speak before Congress. That’s her claim to fame. I have no idea why the right decided to make her notable, and wish I had no idea why they attacked her in the way they did. (Hint to the right: “slut” is not appropriate in general society, and that goes double for anyone whose notability is for testifying before Congress on a political position. Attacking women for being women, besides being uncivilized, is probably not helping you in the elections. If you disagree with what she said, you should have some reason besides the fact she has breasts that you can put forward.)

  • Mark W.

    Higgs Boson and Mars Rover are probably the only 2 legitimate,  world changing candidates I saw up there. 

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

    JDF, DJF and brianmacker are misogynist assholes whose words aren’t worth the bandwidth they take up.

    • brianmacker

      Unsupported claim as per usual. Not everyone who disagrees with what you believe hates women. Especially since your beliefs are unsupported and unsupportable. Like your claim that I hate women, which is laughable. I hate freeloaders and those who support their cause, and women like Sandra Fluke.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

         Right, and it’s just a coincidence that EVERY WOMAN is a “freeloader” (according to you) because we want equal health care coverage, that covers ALL of our needs, including birth control. And you just… happen to only show up whenever women’s rights are being discussed.

        Not buying it, and everyone else here can see quite clearly that you ARE, in fact, a misogynist asshole.

        Now go running back to your mommy and tell her how mean those awful wimminz are. *spits*

        • brianmacker

          You don’t understand my position. Perhaps because you are not capable of doing so. You have stated it incorrectly.

          You aren’t even intelligent enough to figure out that you don’t speak for everyone.

          Someone who wants all of their needs to be paid by others on a mandatory basis is a wannabe freeloader, and not every woman agrees with this nonsense. In fact they’d laugh at you.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

            Women want their insurance that they pay into with their earnings for their medication and some how that makes women freeloaders. Yah that doesn’t sound misogynistic.

            • brianmacker

              I don’t mind women paying for their own insurance. I object to mandating coverage, and especially for things which are predictable and controllable expenses like tooth whitening, penile enlargements for vanity, steroids for weightlifters, face lifts, boob jobs, etc. The actually purpose of insurance coverage is to reduce personal risk. These are all voluntary medical procedures for which risk can not be spread around. They run into lots of money and no sane insurance company would cover them cheaply.

              Insuring such things leads to a perverse incentive. If there were mandatory coverage of boob jobs on all medical insurance plans then lots more women would get them. That would raise insurance costs on both men and women who would never get a boob job. If it were voluntary then the not every plan would have it and those that did would be priced for the average number of boob jobs, and front loaded so people don’t buy the insurance, get the operation, then drop coverage. It would cost way more than than just paying for your own boob job.

              This is why insurance companies don’t cover suicide.

              Covering birth control is similarly stupid. Why have it when you don’t plan to have sex? So you buy coverage when you plan to have sex, and BTW use the most expensive method. When you no longer need it you stop coverage. You would not be able to shift your costs to others who plan not to have sex because they just would not buy coverage. Of course it is stupid to buy such coverage because it is much cheaper in terms of transaction costs to just buy your own condoms, or pills.

              Things may sound or look certain ways to the ignorant but that doesn’t mean their impressions are correct. Just because a black man looks at a white woman doesn’t mean he was planning on raping her despite the obviousness of his intentions to a lynch mob. A lynch mob like we have here.

            • brianmacker

              Oh, and you don’t see me, and I don’t see you complaining about Julie’s comment about old men, although that might sound to some like she hates them when the context is dropped. Freeloaders and women are equivalent classes, nor are they exclusive, nor is one a subset of the other. I can hate rapists without hating all men, or exclusively men.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QIOCTUX55ZX6IP6OYWJGP4IAYI Ruth

        Well, you hate me.  You must also hate my disabled brother who is on SSI.  And must hate my niece who can’t buy insurance due to a preexisting condition and as a result ended up with medical debt she can’t pay.    
        I am sure that I could list a number of people I know that you would hate.  Without ever even knowing them and their circumstances.  

        • ReadsInTrees

          Also, women. Don’t forget he hates women who use their insurance to buy birth control that HE paid for and will never benefit from.

      • ReadsInTrees

        It’s funny though, that you can’t seem to express your “hate” without implying that women are sluts for wanting access to birth control. THAT’s what makes you a misogynist.

        • brianmacker

          Another unsupported claim. I never ever implied women were sluts for wanting access to birth control. That makes you a liar, not a slut.

          • ReadsInTrees

            “Birth control is not similar to prostate exams, but more akin to breast implants, something you voluntarily get to have more sex.” Sounds like you’re implying that women just want birth control to have more sex.
            “Without birth control there is a big disincentive to have sex for pleasure called a baby. With birth control one can have more sex.” Again, you seem to think women just want birth control to have more sex. 
            “Fluke wants me to fund using her vagina as playground via mandatory insurance coverage for birth control.” How is this not calling her a slut? 
            “Covering birth control is similarly stupid. Why have it when you don’t plan to have sex?” Have you ever met a woman? Lots of women are on birth control for YEARS without being sexually active.

            Several other comments of yours seem to imply that you think the women wanting birth control are all women who are young and single (who just want lots of sex).

            Your comments consistently paint people who want birth control as just people who want to have lots of sex, while saying that Viagra for a “medical condition”. Isn’t Viagra also in place so that people can have lots of sex? No one uses Viagra unless they want to have sex. Quit your double standard. Viagra uses benefits no one but those having sex. Birth control benefits those having sex AND everyone else buying into insurance that would have to pay for childbirth costs. 

            Guess what? I’m a married woman, and I recently used my insurance to get an IUD. It costs the insurance company $1400, and me a $15 copay (yeah, I have an awesome insurance plan). An IUD will allow me  to have lighter to no periods, AND it will allow me to have a healthy sexual relationship with my husband, AND allow me to avoid that life-threatening condition known as pregnancy. An IUD is as effective as having my tubes tied, but a lot easier to reverse when we decide it’s time to have kids. Did I get an IUD so that I can have “lots of sex”? Nope. Sex is, and always has been, very painful for me. I don’t really care to have lots of sex. But, for the sake of maintaining a healthy sexual bond with my husband, I want to be able to have SOME sex from time to time. If it makes you feel any better, YOU are not paying for me to have sex. I’ve paid plenty into my insurance plan, so you can just imagine that it’s my own salary and tax dollars that went into paying for my vagina playground.

            • brianmacker

              Your problem is that you are equivocating my arguments away from the precise meaning I am using. When I say “birth control” I mean birth control. Birth control is not equivalent to “the pill” nor is it equivalent to “hormone therapy” You do not get to change the meanings of the words I use. To do so is an equivocation and causes your claims to be straw men.

              If a man showed up at my house with a hammer then. A) If he was a carpenter I would call it a tool. B) If he were a rapist I would call it a weapon. Despite being the same exact object the use determines what it is, either weapon or tool.

              Birth control is a set of tools ( condoms, the pill, IUDs) used to prevent birth. Hormone therapy the use of one of those tools to treat illness. They are NOT the same thing. Just like prophylactic is not equivalent to birth control., because it means something which prevents the spread of disease. The pill and IUD’s are not prophylactics.

              My statements are true using the definitions of the words as I consistently used them. The benefit of being consistent is that it is not prone to the equivocation fallacy.

              I could walk into my doctor perfectly healthy and tell him that I want to have sex but do not want a baby. The would recommend a condom, getting my wife to visit a doctor for the pill, a vasectomy, etc. My intent is OBVIOUSLY not to solve some medical issue. The same is true about a woman who walks into the office perfectly healthy and wants to have sex but does not want to get pregnant because the consequence is a baby. She can get the pill, no problem.

              I cannot walk into the doctors office perfectly healthy and ask for Viagra because I want to have more sex by prolonging it beyond what is normal. My doctor would tell me no, and would be obeying the law and because it would be insurance fraud. Not only doesn’t my insurance cover the drug, he couldn’t even give me a prescription so I could buy it with my own money.

              So despite your complaints women already have superior access to all birth control (not just the pill) than men have to Viagra.

              Both can be covered for therapeutic uses under private insurance, and both can be prescribed for therapeutic reasons (those you’ve listed and others) . However only one can be prescribed for recreational purposes, and because of that only one covered by insurance if you desire to purchase it. That one with easier access is recreational birth control, not recreational Viagra.

              I cannot however go to the doctor per

        • brianmacker

          I never implied women are sluts for wanting birth control. That makes you a liar, not a slut, BTW.
          Women are rational for wanting birth control when they don’t want to get pregnant, and rational for wanting prophylactics so as not to get an STD. Same goes for men.

          Women who want other people to unjustifiably subsidize their freeloading are another story, as are men. I do hate freeloaders even if they are women. I give a pass to freeloaders that are forced by government to be freeloaders, or are ignorant of the fact they are freeloaders. For example, if a woman was against freeloading, but the government mandated coverage then I can’t blame her for using it.

          I also give a pass to people who are too intellectually challenged to understand the subject once it has been explained to them. I feel sorry for them.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QIOCTUX55ZX6IP6OYWJGP4IAYI Ruth

    Today is another reminder that libertarians lack empathy.  

    • Deven Kale

       If that’s true then Democrats are freeloaders, Republicans are totalitarians, Christians are scared little children and atheists are nihilists.

      Or, just maybe, we’re painting with too broad of a brush here. Just maybe.

  • kaydenpat

    Ms. Fluke will always be a punching bag for the Rightwingers.  I think she’s tough enough to not care about that.  Hope she eventually runs for some political office.  Love her!

    P.S.  Isn’t viagra covered by insurance?  Why aren’t conservatives railing about that?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X