23 Responses to Post Removed by Author

1. DavidByron November 12th, 2009 at 3:43 pm «

   What is this? the fifth or sixth diary attacking men’s health?
   Are there any progressives who are NOT sexist around here?
• dakine01 November 12th, 2009 at 3:49 pm «

  Ya know if there’d been “progressives” like you around earlier, we’d still have Jim Crow laws (if not slavery)
• sisterkenney November 12th, 2009 at 3:53 pm «

  It is NOT sexist to point out disparities between the health coverage between men and women..it IS sexist when one cannot see the irony of covering aging men’s desires for sexual activity, and NOT covering women’s basic, core needs for health care.
• Grumpy November 12th, 2009 at 4:55 pm «

  “it IS sexist when one cannot see the irony of covering aging men’s desires for sexual activity, and NOT covering women’s basic, core needs for health care.”

  Then I hope all the Dems that voted for this see the irony, since otherwise they’d be sexists.

  On a side note, why assume Viagra only benefits men? I suppose it’s true in the case of gay couples, but for straight couples couples embracing diversity in gender identification, don’t both partners benefit?
• sisterkenney November 12th, 2009 at 4:57 pm «

  The difference is the difference between NEED and WANT.
• DavidByron November 12th, 2009 at 9:38 pm «

  You can’t afford to debate me and its dangerous for you to pretend you can.
  What if I say “yes”?
• egregious November 12th, 2009 at 9:43 pm «

  oo scary, **dangerous** to debate you. I guess we should all be afraid now.
• sisterkenney November 12th, 2009 at 11:33 pm «

  “Afford to debate you?” That presumes a cost for me..costs nothing to think. Dangerous? hardly..it is only dangerous to think when the possibility of learning something interferes with one’s belief system. btw….ooo I’m scared
2. sisterkenney November 12th, 2009 at 3:48 pm «

   C street is running our country
3. RBG November 12th, 2009 at 3:50 pm «

   I just don’t know if I prefer

   this one

   or

   that one.

   Does that make me less of a man?
• sisterkenney November 12th, 2009 at 4:05 pm «

  Made me laugh, RBG :-)
4. sisterkenney November 12th, 2009 at 4:55 pm «

   http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/12/803879/-On-Abortion,-Like-Everything-Else,-IOKIYAR*

   see above link to a great piece reporting the fact that the RNC AND Focus on the Family BOTH have abortion coverage in their insurance plan
5. egregious November 12th, 2009 at 5:52 pm «

   Why does Linda Ronstadt hate men’s reproductive rights?
• dakine01 November 12th, 2009 at 5:57 pm «

  Ah egr, you know those poor downtrodden men, kept down by the womyns folk. Why all those MOTU can’t make a move without asking permission of their wives and secretaries administrative assisitants. Why they even have to pay the admin assistants!

  The nerve of those people.
• egregious November 12th, 2009 at 6:01 pm «

  It’s tragic. And under the current oppressive regime, a man can’t even have a baby without a woman being involved. I say equality for all – let’s let men get pregnant too.
• DavidByron November 12th, 2009 at 9:39 pm «

  Do you believe the state should have the right to force a person to become a parent?
• dakine01 November 13th, 2009 at 12:50 pm «

  Easiest way to stop that for the man is to wear a condom. And the health benefits of stopping disease spread makes it a two-fer.
• hctomorrow November 13th, 2009 at 4:59 pm «

  By forcing someone to become a parent, do you mean forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes, possibly by depriving her of insurance coverage for basic reproductive health treatment, or do you mean some bizarre hypothetical situation where a man has genetic material extracted against his will and used to create a Frankenstinian pod-baby, perhaps in an artificial womb with one of those nifty plexiglass viewing windows they always put in Alien movies?

  I’m opposed to both, come to think of it. Though the second at least would be a novel form of oppression.
• hctomorrow November 13th, 2009 at 4:55 pm «

  Whoa whoa. I’d rather not get pregnant, myself.

  I don’t want to force anyone else to get or stay pregnant either, so I think that’s a fair and consistent position.
• RBG November 12th, 2009 at 6:03 pm «

  Perhaps because of this?
6. cbl November 13th, 2009 at 8:32 am «

   because there’s no such thing as being “a little bit sexist”
7. cbl November 13th, 2009 at 9:23 am «

   how about this one ?
8. coach777b November 13th, 2009 at 9:32 am «

   In response to DavidByron @ 1 (show text)

   “Do you believe the state should have the right to force a person to become a parent?”

   Answer: NO! But in your case I would support, retroactively, the government’s right to force your parents NOT to become parents.