NEWS: Latest News from the War on Women

You know, I really wish that men would think about why they find feminism divisive. Or why they think that women's rights aren't human rights. Or that feminism is about blaming men.

Pointing out things that adversely affect women, as a class, is not the same thing as blaming men.

What's divisive is people whose response to "hey, this shit really fucks women over" is "oh yeah? But what about men?!?" or "stop whining, everyone has it rough!"

You boys don't always have to be the center of attention. Really. Didn't your mamas ever teach you to share?

I have a feeling this could have been condensed into fewer than a dozen words.

I barely read the rest, this was way too convoluted.

If by "increadibly sexy" you mean "extraordinarily long-winded", then yes.

FuckOffKid, some people enjoy the English language and see neither purpose or joy in the economy of words, solely for the sake of it.

If that offends your sensibilities, I'm sorry.

"My insistence upon the use of stilted language interferes with the dissemination of my point? Must be the audience's fault!"

Anyone can use more words to make a point.

"Forsooth, those tasteless cads who, for want of a slightly expanded attention span, do spurn my exotic wordspinnings and revert to the bareness of just-the-facts-ma'am Joe Fridayishness, they do vex me so. I blame, of course, as do all other right-minded and similarly locquacious purveyors of grandiloquent verbosity, the pernicious influence of the goggle-box, as I colloquially refer to the television set that has so blunted people's appreciation for the elegantly expressed written word. 'Idiot box' may perhaps be crueler, but yet, perhaps not unfairly so."

"...there are two issues here. One is the loss of the subsidy. The second is that this class of drugs is not covered by insurance. That is an issue of sexism - one that is highlighted by the fact that drugs to enable men to fuck women are covered..."

Now if that is in fact a fact then it does seem to be a little sexist.

Ummm, no, welcome to what happens when you cut the funding from a quasi regulated, largely monopolistic federal program that does little but inflate the prices of name brand drugs.

There is no sexism, There is no war on women. Its pure coincidence that all the people attacking this article (or more accurately in most instances the ideology of the author) are single men.

I don't believe that it was the economics that were the problem, but rather the abuse of grammar and syntax. If you're going to bloviate, you should first learn to write. I'd suggest starting the with proper construction of subordinate clauses and the use of our friend the semi colon.

she tried, but my daddy wouldnt let her have visitation rights, her being a second class citizen and all.

So someone can use inflammatory language declaring that we are somehow complicit in a war against women, and when we argue against that assumption, we lose because we are men?

Wow! Those are some rather uncivil responses to innocent enough errors.

It certainly wasn't my intention to come across in anything other than a friendly manner and I made no claims as to infallible mastery of the written language.

My apologies for unnecessary fits of bloviation, long-windedness and occasional grammar and syntax mistakes. I hadn't understood a PhD in English was necessary for posting here.

I'll just run along and take my rightful place amongst the Philistines then.

Just kill off all the run-on sentences before you use up the entire internet's supply of commas.

Exactly. Moreover, whatever you were trying to say got buried beneath the verbiage.

I sometimes write long-winded posts, but by God, I strive to keep the sentences short and readable. Otherwise, I have no-one but myself to blame if people go "Fuck this, dude, I ain't reading that!"

PS:

A PhD in English is not necessary.

But neither is writing like you want to show that you've got one (whether you do or do not).

That's incredible. I'm sure people will be having less sex this year if the pill is too expensive for them to afford, but it's a priveledge I guess I could do without in the name of peace.

I'm spending my first year studying academic language. And it sucks. But this is just my opinion. I only want to have to study it for Uni. On a discussion board, it's nice to be able to talk to everyone like a regular person.
I'm sure that you would be able to be like the rest of us and write like a regular person aswell. Especially here, it's a discussion board.
Having a love of the English language is a beautiful thing but maybe leave that kind of conversation when your around your other academic buddies and talk like everybody is equal in here. We're all on the same level.

I sincerely wish they would make a male birth control pill. I would feel much safer if I had one to take. I have had condoms break multiple times (thank god she was on birth control). Not to mention it would take some of the responsibility off of women and make things a little bit more egalitarian.

God bless Canada, where birth control for a month costs $16.99 and is fully reimbursed by my cheap-ass student health plan. I fucking LOVE socialized medicine!

Just FYI: that's not what feminism is, by the way.

Meh. All's well.

Well, you lose because as best as I can gather you're a stone cold moron with the life experience of a houseplant.

The article doesn't say or imply what you claim. Just as in the Bloomberg thread, you've substituted a strawman canard that you can use other peoples ideas to knock down. Bravo.

PS: Including yourself in the company of men is a bit of a stretch.

I don't know that there is an agenda toward women. Just that prescription drug companies and insurance companies tend to like fucking us all in the ass as brutally as possible. While of course paying members of our government (the Bush administration especially) to allow them to continue to do so. Unfortunately women are disproportionately affected by this. And one of the reasons for this is that they are disproportionately represented in government. Our government tends to be run by selfish, older, white, christian, men. So I wouldn't say that there is an agenda, but I will say that most of the people who make decisions in our government don't give a shit about women.

Our system of government would work a lot better if everyone took a part in the political process. Unfortunately, we've been inactive for far too long and we've allowed a bunch of dipshits to elect a bunch of other dipshits into office. And now these dipshits are so protective of their power they aren't going to let the rest of us have a voice. We just have to stay informed and vote and hope that things will get better.

I know it isnt. I was just stating that i'm not a feminist or a man basher.

Sorry for the confusion.

hey, it's not our fault that women and pussy-whipped men don't have a penis to help them think clearly.

you're putting words in peoples' mouths, and my mouth is one of 'em, so i'll respond. i did not say--and, off the top of my head, i don't recall anyone saying--that sexism doesn't exist, or that there isn't what Bitch_PhD terms a "war on women". what i said, and what the people i've agreed with have said, is that this particular issue does not stem from that war.

why are men the ones saying "no, it isn't," in this case? because we're the ones this article is pointed at. if there is a "war on women", then the fact that i'm a man is going to cause most people to pigeonhole me as one of the aggressors. charges of widespread sexism are, by their nature, attacks directed at men (and rightly so, because it is largely the actions and attitudes of men that perpetuate sexism). being attacked, whether it's justified or not, is liable to make someone respond. most women who read this aren't likely to feel threatened by the charges of sexism, making them less likely to feel the need to respond even if they disagree with the author.