Category Archives: She’s a Lady, Not a Feminist

Ladies, you didn’t march for me.

Leave a reply

Many women marched Saturday, but many weren’t marching for me.

I’m always amazed when people can gather in such large numbers. It’s a very powerful

Photo: The Globe and Mail

Photo: The Globe and Mail

thing and shows a considerable effort and movement. Between news headlines and Facebook friends, we were all able to get a real-time view of many of these marches around the country. I watched all day and saw a grave disconnect between purposes.

First, it is very difficult to believe the march wasn’t an “anti-Trump” gathering when it happened the day after the inauguration. This is coming from someone who many most would label “anti-Trump.” None of us believe you. The narratives were blurred as some women said it was only about equal rights while others said they marched because Friday they were suddenly with fewer rights than on Thursday. Some activists said the march was in no way a partisan thing, however, several high profile speeches, i.e.Madonna and Ashley Judd, make it evident that that simply isn’t true. And don’t even get me started on some of the financial sponsors of the march. It was partisan. Full stop.

By the way, how are rights partisan? If this is about a Republican president, then why, after eight years of a Democrat president, are women not in the perfectly equal position that feminists believe we should be?

So, we’ve acknowledged that for many (not all) the march was a political resistance, can we discuss how the marches came to organize?

I will never deny that President Trump has made some distasteful, downright inappropriate comments about women, but I struggle to distinguish how some of these signs, statements, and slogans aren’t any less degrading to women. How does a sign that reads, “Eat ***** not grab it” promote equality?

I’ve spent the last 18 months blasting Trump on every word and he’s made no mention of restricting the rights of women. We will still vote, we will still own property, drive vehicles, dress as we please, work, and even protest. His daughter, Ivanka, is a successful, powerhouse entrepreneur who doesn’t seem to back down. While you may not agree with their ideologies, Trump’s cabinet and administration is plush with women in high ranking positions. I don’t think they are there to pour coffee and straighten ties.

The media is at a greater risk of losing access and rights than women are.

While I don’t necessarily consider myself a traditional “feminist” in any sense of the word, it’s not even the issues or battles they’re fighting, but how they’re battling those fights. I love my freedoms and will stand to protect them any day of the week. I’ll stand beside others to fight for their freedoms, but I will never understand what is gained from this type of “resistance.” What exactly are they resisting?

The vulgar, non-policy driven rhetoric has got to stop. The disservice you are doing to

Photo: CNN

Photo: CNN

women who have actual concerns grows by the day. The women marching for equal pay, the glass ceiling, or paid maternity leave should be ashamed of these other women. I am. We can all agree there are chauvinist men. I live in rural Georgia where some men are still behind the times. I promise you I’ve seen it. I still see it. “Be seen, not heard,” they say. But I’ve also seen women force those walls to crumble because of their hard work, their integrity, and their brilliance.

Some of that hard work, integrity, and brilliance is demonstrated here:

But if you believe you are, in fact, equal, stop isolating yourself in an activist group by gender.

There’s a gross misunderstanding between “different” and “equal.” Women are, and always will be, different from men. Whether you believe in a God who created us in His vision or a spontaneous creation followed by years of evolution, we. are. different.

How does getting free birth control paid for by someone else demonstrate that you are a strong, independent woman? How does personifying your genitals legitimize your cause? How does a generation of young girls benefit when you teach them that their bodies make more statements than their brilliant, untarnished minds?

All of the rights that are afforded to ‘man’ are applicable to women without clarification. Free speech, the Second Amendment, due process, speedy trials, voting, property rights – these rights apply to us. We are equal under our the reign of our government.

I don’t know what was accomplished yesterday. I don’t even know what they wanted to be accomplished yesterday. My hope is that many female activists gathered and connected for future work, for efforts, for organizations…not for headlines. My hope is that these women made themselves known so they can become, or stay, engaged in the political process.

But I’m engaged and I didn’t march yesterday. I don’t need a pink hat to demonstrate that I am equal. The only thing under my clothing that empowers me is my heart. My brain and my dignity do the rest. I am equal because I believe I am equal. The very fact that millions gathered around the nation, and world, Saturday without any kind of barrier is evidence of just that.

Many of you marched Saturday, but many of you didn’t march for me.

Stereotypes & Stigmas of Women in Politics: Religious Rants & Pro Life Marches

Leave a reply

The media isn’t always wrong. Across the board, both parties are horrible at bringing out the women base, unless of course it’s through hot button issues like birth control and abortion. We often times use men to be the talking heads of these issues (when it should be women – both conservative and liberal) and then keep women in the back row on every other issue. Women bring more value to the conversation than just religious rants and pro-life marches.

It’s no secret: we are really bad at letting women play in the political arena. It’s not specific to the GOP, but we are definitely batting at the amateur level, mainly on an internal level.

So naturally, I’ve compiled a list of how we label our ladies who play ball for the GOP. I won’t name names, because that wouldn’t be appropriate, but I would imagine it won’t be difficult for anyone paying attention to politics on any level to pin point who’s who.

The Woman in the Boxy Jacket: This woman is, generally speaking, very smart, eloquent and well-versed on the issues but they’ve been forced into a boxy jacket because men are intimidated by them. The boxy jacket represents a strong personality that can match up against anyone without question, but we quickly label her
as ‘wicked’ and ‘ferocious’. This woman can’t be direct without being called ‘unstable’ and can’t call out a wrong without being ‘bitter’. We don’t support her publicly but then wonder why she can’t get elected.

The Attractive & Spunky Politico
This woman is usually vibrant and cheery both in personality and physical features, but her upward mobility is limited because men in politics have reservations about hiring her for fear of rumors of sexual impropriety. The majority of her accomplishments will likely also be tainted by the same stigma. If she would just pipe down and put on a boxy jacket, she could get somewhere. Or that’s what we tell her. We like her, but she’s dangerous.

The Quiet Frumpy Girl Who Doesn’t Have A Lot To Say
This girl will get offered all the jobs but she’ll lack the zeal because she’s too malleable. We can tell her who to support and what issues to champion, but it isn’t pure. She won’t be able to match up head to head with a liberal or recruit folks to the party because she doesn’t know why she’s doing it. For some reason, these are the people we put on our front lines.

The Judgmental Old Lady With 8 Pins on Her Tweed Jacket.
This lady knows everything. She’s been around long enough to watch the cycles of every election since FDR but that’s not enough. She knows what we had and what we need, but she’s just a little off her rocker. Bless her heart, she’s lost it a little in her old age. We still let her hang around, begrudgingly.

The Work Horse Soccer Mom. This woman is invaluable to any party in which she participates, and while that value will be acknowledged, it will stop there. There’s not much time for an opinion or feedback. Just stuff the envelopes and make those calls, please. We’ve got the rest handled.

You see, we’re hurting our own. This fight will never be about feminism, as the left would like to claim, so please don’t be mistaken. But we squash the ones that can be successful in helping our brand- and judging by the stereotype list- that’s A LOT of them. This is about the boxes we lock women into in the political realm. We’re all guilty of being judgmental, but the perpetuation of the rumors, stigmas and  stereotypes is breaking our brand.

I’ve always said, politics or not, women are the harshest critics of other women. But at some point, both men AND women have to draw the line in the sand for when we stop stereotyping and start recognizing the value of the individual. After all, that is what we stand for – the individual. This isn’t just affecting the ‘image’ of our party or causing tension among activists. It bleeds into elections and engagement and outreach. It stunts growth and it halts volunteers. It affects the involved and the un-involved. It brings our numbers to a screeching halt.

Society: To Hell in a Handbasket With Just One App?

Leave a reply

The “HuffPo Women” section of the Huffington Post often brings tears to my eyes. Tears from laughing at ridiculous or crying because we’re doomed…it matters not. Supposedly a page to empower women and highlight “equality” between men and women, the page is often littered with topics that distinctly make women…feminine. This week, one of the articles details “The Most Offensive Apps for Women” with the most offensive one being ‘SkinnyCam’ where you can supposedly upload a photo of yourself and “pinch” yourself thinner to see what you would look like if you shed a few pounds here and there.

::sigh::

The whole ‘body images of women are deteriorating on account of societal pressure’ really bugs the heck out of me. Allow me to turn their argument around on them: Essentially feminists are saying that women aren’t strong enough to combat the “pressures” to be thin from society. I could argue that men in magazines and on TV shows have an unreasonable expectation for their looks as well but we don’t see men caving to the pressure and crying in their clothes because they have to go purchase the next size up in jeans. So are women weak?

The reason I haven’t given feminists any credence to date is because they make arguments out of the most ridiculous things. I doubt men sit around uploading photos of women onto SkinnyCam with their buddies drinking beer and acting all manly only to then return home to show their girlfriend, wife, life partner, mate –whatever-term-is-now-politically-acceptable– how much better they would look if they would just tweak the necessary curves according to a smartphone app. (They may do it now that I have suggested it, but I digress.) Can we all agree how ridiculous that sounds?

As a person who had a ever too long period of my life where I was not thin, I can confidently say that the pressures to be fit, thin and lean do not come from men or society or the magazine covers. The pressure is a personal thing. If you take away all the magazines, the TV ads, the Victoria Secret fashion shows and every last man…women will still feel inferior. Women don’t sit on the couch eating M&M’s and white cheddar popcorn and suddenly begin to feel self-conscious when a L’Oreal commercial comes on the screen. The folded arms, keep your purse in front of you while tugging on all your clothes come from standing next to a woman you feel looks better than you. This is because WOMEN COMPARE THEMSELVES TO ONE ANOTHER!
This will never change but ignoring the concept and deflecting does nothing. So I would like to see women acknowledge that they themselves want to look a certain way.

Magazines or no magazines, app or no app, men or no men…Let’s take some [personal] responsibility here.

Abortion? That’s Extra

Leave a reply

File this under “Not a War on Women”. From the Detroit Free Press: “A controversial initiative requiring women to buy additional insurance if they want abortion coverage in their health insurance plans passed the Legislature Wednesday afternoon and will take effect 90 days after lawmakers adjourn for the year.” If signed into law, women would have to purchase a rider if they believe they will possibly have an abortion in the future.

Liberals and activists alike are up in arms over the recent legislation. Democrats believe it’s an issue that should be put forth to the voters to decide and claim Right to Life went “way too far”. I am somewhat surprised to see a measure such as this come out of a state like Michigan but it seems to be a trending perspective for conservatives and religious activists who adamantly prefer not be on the hook for abortions through new ACA regulations. The argument is that one cannot know if they could encounter a horrible experience, such as a rape or incest, that would, based on their argument, require coverage. A simple response would be that, just as they exist today, women have options for such circumstances.

From my perspective, this doesn’t seem like too big of an issue. You pay extra for dental, chiropractic and women (prior to the ACA) had different coverage parameters than men based on needs. It’s also a true political divide. Those who are pro-life need not purchase the rider and those who are pro-choice will have the opportunity to purchase the plan, or pay out of pocket. I can’t help but giggle a tad as this type of legislation gives liberals a taste of their own medicine. They will now purchase a rider on the premise that they may or may not use the option. It’s kind of like men paying for pregnancy coverage under new ACA guidelines. Or group insurance plans used to “balance” the good and bad.

We cannot plan for everything in life. Sometimes our deductibles are too high when an emergency arises or we didn’t purchase dental insurance the year you need two root canals. The reality is that health insurance cannot, and never will, be one size fits all. Additional “opt-in’s” are a better way to ensure coverage and cost is catered to the person. It also appears to offer a glimmer of hope for businesses that will be required to offer health benefits but don’t want to finance things of this nature, since it would be a premium” (for lack of a better word) package. Paging Hobby Lobby.

A Defense of Blurred Lines: Feminists, Relax

3 Replies

Here we are again. Everyone knows how I feel about modern-day feminists (I can’t stand them and they can’t stand me). I love dresses, I look forward to the day that I’m someones wife and mom and I believe that if you’re secure enough in your “equality” to the guy sitting next to you, you don’t have to tell everyone.
So when this article was posted on Policy Mic over Blurred Lines and the ‘rapey’ lyrics and video, of course I had to respond.

The author and self-proclaimed feminist, Elizabeth Plank, takes issue with what she calls ‘offensive’ lyrics, objectification of women and an agenda for greater tolerance for sexual harassment. When she says, “The stunning model (who I wouldn’t recommend looking at unless you’re ready for a dramatic drop in your own self-esteem)…”, I can almost picture her foaming at the mouth in total disgust. Clearly the song has struck a chord. (See what I did there?) So let me pose a few questions to Ms. Plank:

1) When did you begin to look to pop culture as leaders in your movement? Have we, as a society, hit such a low that our role models and leaders are those in the entertainment industry? I find that embarrassing. When I look for women of accomplishment, I can assure you that I’m not looking at a stage. Also, your linkage of Blurred Lines to violence against women is quite a stretch. I have a hard time believing that someone would hurt a woman and then follow with ‘Well, Robin Thicke did it in his music video”. Please.

2) Where is the outrage towards Lil Wayne? Jay-Z? Brittany Spears? Nicki Minaj? John Mayer? Neil Diamond? Madonna? Whitney Houston? Please be consistent.

3) In response to the ‘If you ask Robin Thicke, the video is absolutely degrading to women’ statement. Can you say publicity stunt? Sorry honey, but you’ve been duped. It’s not uncommon for musicians and actors to make inflammatory statements in order to draw attention to themselves and their projects. Paging Alec Baldwin.

4) What happened to the constant diatribe about women being free to do whatever they want, whenever they want without judgement when it comes to sexuality? Is that not one of the core principles around the ‘free’ birth control argument? So why the sudden issue with ‘crazy, wild sex’? And what about that notion of ‘It’s no ones’ business what happens in another persons bedroom”? Paging Sandra Fluke. And again, consistency is key.

5) Finally, let’s address the “right to choose”. I was under the impression that feminism is principled on women and choices, regardless of circumstance. Why condemn the Director of the video who is obviously fairly successful? Why shame the models in the video who are earning a living? Why condemn the ladies who love the song and are just having fun? No one put a gun to the Director’s head, no one forced those girls to dance in next to nothing and no one told me I can’t change my radio station.

This is so old. It’s time to stop looking for reasons to be upset. I can respect a viewpoint I don’t agree with if they are consistent on principle and application, but the invariability in the feminist movement is beyond frustrating.  Going back to #2, I would imagine I could find something offensive in almost every song out there (like here, here, here, here, here or here, to name a few), but isn’t the liberal mindset about freedom of expression? Music is an expression and some people express themselves differently (I hope you hear the Madonna’s “Express Yourself” right now). Who are you to cast judgment? I would also suggest you lighten up because nothing looks weaker than a bitter woman.

Besides, how are you so uptight that when you hear the “bump…bump…bump”…, you don’t start to wiggle? Errybody get up.

“Teen Pregnancy is a Good Thing”

3 Replies

I made a grave mistake this morning. As I was trolling on some feminist blog sites, I found the article “Will the teen mom shaming ever stop?” Like a train wreck, I couldn’t look away.

Apparently, May is “National Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month”. The images are below, but the ridiculousness is clearly in the text. It seems as though the author is upset by the apparent insinuation that mother’s can’t change the world. Wrong. I believe the message depicted is targeted at teen mom’s not changing the world. Which is a substantial claim. The blogger is also upset about the particular comments about the cost of raising a baby because it doesn’t matter what age you are, it’s still expensive a raise a baby. We all know this is true, but how many teenagers do you know that make enough money to support themselves WITHOUT a baby?

This brings me to my confusion with feminists. There are so many types yet they don’t adequately identify themselves. There are those that don’t see ‘sex’ at all and define women as the same as men, despite a few physical differences. We can think of them as the ‘feminist jihadists’. There are the feminists who believe that career trumps family, these are the ‘orthodox feminists’. And there are the feminists who simply think that they are always right regardless of topic. These are the ‘feminist ignoramuses’. (Point of information: the word ‘feminist’ separates you from being a ‘male’ equal just by default use of the term.) All types wear pant suits.

Despite the ‘type’ of feminism said blogger is aligned with, I can come up with several hypocritical and contradictory notions based off of just these few statements.
1). If the idea of feminism promotes the idea of being career oriented and not being in the home,
2.) Weren’t they the same people lobbying to have Plan B Emergency Contraception available over-the-counter to young girls?
3.) Teenagers engaging in sexual activity is not about love. (They may think it is, but it is not.) That means that the acts are simply meaningless, experiments on account of both parties. Doesn’t this also contradict the idea of respecting women and making people aware of your ‘value’?
4.) Feminists want women to be career-driven and independent. At what point would a teen mother be independent if she can’t afford to care for her child and herself and is pushed to collect social benefits?
5.) Why are we upset about discouraging children from having children?

Being a mother is supposed to be a heart-warming experience some people would give anything to get (check http://www.advancedfertility.com/choose.htm to learn about the fertility issues). Being a teenager is supposed to be fun and about finding yourself. You can’t find yourself if you’re caring for a baby. These advertisements are not about shaming, they are about prevention. Hence the name of the awareness month: National Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month. The reality is that teenage pregnancy DOES affect the outcomes of your life. And if you’re doing it alone, as feminists would expect, that creates even more hardship. It’s time that feminists stop looking for problems when there aren’t any. They are lookin’ for love in all the wrong places.

candies-psa-carlycandies-hilary-duff-psacandies-psa-hayden

Why Needy Women Embarrass Me

2 Replies

I am so gosh darn tired of hearing about contraception I could just vomit. “Women need contraception to be equal.” “Women need contraception to get a good job. ” “Women need contraception to be free.” “Contraception keeps women from suffering in the working world.” “Stop the War on Women!” It was a driving topic in the election. Sandra Fluke. Lena Dunham. Now the UN has come out with a statement (joy!) declaring the need for globalized contraception. The US offers 22% of UN funding so not only do I have to pay for someones birth control here in the United States under ObamaCare, I now have to pay for the globalized initiative to send contraceptives around the world. The statement from the UN claims that making it difficult to access birth control is an infringement on women’s rights………………..

What did women do before the government gave everything out? Hell, What did women do before contraception was invented? ( I don’t actually want the answers to these questions because it’s a societal thing, and the evolution is sad.) The results of sex are not new and $10/month is not outrageous. Birth control is not mandatory preventative care. (And to be perfectly honest, synthetic hormones and chemicals aren’t really that good for you any way- but that’s a whole different rant.) Also, please don’t tell me that it’s cheaper for taxpayers to pay for birth control than it is to pay for a child. The government shouldn’t be doing that either.

Let’s get a grip and focus. I respect the right to do whatever you please in your own bedroom, whether it be moral or not. I’m not judging. But seriously, for the love of Pete…stop telling the government to stay out of your bedroom and uterus, and then demand them to pay for the insurance to cover the lady parts. That’s called hypocrisy and I’m tired of it. We’ve got more important things to worry about.

Liberals Are Ugly

1 Reply

No really, they are. Okay, not ‘ugly’. Less feminine. Last week, UCLA released a study showing that the GOP has a more feminine face. Their findings seemed significant: “Female politicians with stereotypically feminine facial features are more likely to be Republican than Democrat, and the correlation increases the more conservative the lawmaker’s voting record,” said lead author Colleen M. Carpinella, a UCLA graduate student in psychology.

Did we really need a study to tell us that conservatives tend to be a bit more on the feminine side?

So why is this so? Upon my immediate desire to research this further, I was impressed by the plethora of results already on Google regarding this topic. Things like ‘Ugly Comments by Ugly Liberals, LiberalsAreHypocrites.com, and ‘Why are Liberals So Butt- Ugly?’ But I wanted to stick to liberal and conservative politicians and figureheads, not people who mouth off to stir controversy.  Some people said it was because ‘conservatives have more wealth’. I thought that was funny. I had no idea Hilary and Bill were scraping for groceries or that Elena Kagan was receiving WIC benefits. Another ‘reasoner’ stated that liberals look the way they do to appeal to the people they want to vote for them. What? There really isn’t a ‘reason’ except that ‘people think so’. But that’s reason enough for me.
I’m going to go ahead and make my own associations here: class & femininity. I’ll also fully disclose that I am a bit old-fashioned. I like long hair, skirts and dresses and looking like a woman. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t spent any time around men who said “Man, did you see how good that chick looked in her pant suit?” Love ’em or hate ’em, you cannot deny the class that conservative women exude.

But you can’t tell me that you have to have a pixie hair cut, wear a pant suit and a pinkie ring to be powerful and successful. It sometimes seems like liberals get so hell-bent on being pro-choice, pro-equal pay, pro-free-birth-control, anti-objectivity feminists, that they forget to be feminine. They forget that they are actually women.

Would it kill you to put on a skirt or a shift dress? Would using a hair dryer and a curling iron mean you no longer believe in equality? A little blush? I don’t think so.

Get Back in the Kitchen

2 Replies

In recent days, behind the Walker-Wisconsin victory and behind the Obama-Mitt race lies a continuously divisive issue: The War on Women. In that liberal named “war” is the Paycheck Fairness Act.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is “legislation being considered by the United States Congress to expand the scope of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Fair Labor Standards Act as part of an effort to address male–female income disparity in the United States.” The bill has failed twice before.

Senator Barbara A. Mikulski claims that women make “77 cents for every dollar that a man makes with the same education doing the same job. That’s 23 percent less”. (Thak you for the math, Senator. Maybe you should check your own: According to CNN, Mikulski pays her own female staffers 27% less than male staffers.) And does this account for geographical location, work experience, work experience in the field, hours worked weekly, etc.?? Also, if this were true, if women could be paid only 70-80% of what men are paid, and this was truly a pay-driven issue, don’t you think the greedy, money-hungry business owners would fire all men and replace them with “cheaper” women?

As a provable female, I feel that I can criticize this legislation, unlike a man who would be shamed as “attacking the female population”. When the Senate GOP blocked the bill on Tuesday, it was another War on Women accusation. I say no. This is a War on Freedom of Choices.

So let’s explore a few of the undiscussed and unexplained repercussions of this legislation that lead me to think this way:
1.) Fewer women will be hired. If you regulate so much and make it difficult to hire women, companies just won’t. Same logic as the health care mandate. Companies will pay the fine instead of provide insurance because it will cost less. Also, now you can seek punitive damages. Companies aren’t going to want to take the risk and hire someone who can easily file a lawsuit with simply a suspicion of inequality.

2.) You are in essence creating a minimum wage for positions at companies. This meddles in what is the responsibility of private companies and private firms.

3.) I think maternity leave is a wonderfully generous thing. Motherhood is certainly not easy but you are given 6 weeks and a guaranteed job when you return. No matter how spin it, you are granted special treatment because you are raising children. Men don’t have this luxury. Should we equalize this as well and allow them to work from home during their son’s football season?

4.) I would consider “same education” to be same degree fom the same school during the same time. Not a Bachelors in Business Administration versus a Bachelors in Women’s Studies. Those are not comparable. I would also consider “the same job” to NOT mean one person who is training level and one who holds 10 years experience. I’m not sure we are comparing apples to apples. And finally, would you consider the “same job” to be a lawyer who settles 15 cases in a quarter compared to a lawyer who settles 55 cases in a quarter. I would not.

5.) Who says equal pay will be an increase? What if male salaries were decreased in order to accommodate such legislation? You’re still making ‘less’ and now your husband is, too!

6.) Finally, facts say it ain’t true. Single, childless women between 22 and 30 earn 8% more than men and unmarried college-educated males between 40-64 earn almost 15% less than their femal counterparts.

I was under the impression that women wanted EQUAL treatment, not SPECIAL treatment. Why do you want a pay increase BECAUSE you are a woman? Don’t you want a pay raise because you are qualified, have proven yourself and have earned it? And it’s not equal WORK, but equal PRODUCTION. I don’t follow the logic. How is this any better than Affirmative Action? We see how well THAT worked out. When will people wake up that you cannot just regulate everything you don’t like?

I’ll close with my daily WTF Question to President Obama: Have you looked at wage discrepancies in the White House? 🙂

Birth Control, Sandra Fluke, Viagra & Conservatives

5 Replies

20120315-084954.jpg

I’ve about had it with all the birth control talk. Call me old fashioned, but I was talking with a colleague the other day and we were discussing how open people have become about their personal lives. Right, wrong or indifferent…twenty years ago, no woman would stand up in front of the country and discuss her sex life and her birth control needs…with costs.

After months and months of “the war on women”, I’m over it. I’m tired of hearing about what Sandra Fluke said and did and how hurt she was by Rush Limbaugh’s comments. I’m tired of Nancy Pelosi and Gloria Allred. I don’t want to hear anymore about how Republicans are (I do, however, take issue with the fact women were not allowed access to certain hearings pertaining to women’s health) out to confiscate the rights of women. It’s simply not true. Republicans and Libertarians alike simply don’t want it at taxpayers expense. On the counter, I’m tired of all of the regulation. Last week, Nina Turner of Ohio presented a bill that would require a “medical issue” in order for men to be prescribed Viagra. This was an attempt to “strike back” at the men in office who are working to “limit women’s rights”. Enough already!

So here is what I propose: make birth control available over the counter.

People need choices. They should be free to take birth control as they please–at their own expense. If people want to be sexually active and take risks not only with their bodies but with a grotesquely synthetic drug every day, then so be it. If its over the counter, then it can’t be covered by insurance and the burden is immediately off of the the tax payers. You ask about minors? Well they are getting it anyway and will continue to get it anyway, so it’s really a moot point. That’s on the parents, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Drug companies could still market their product competitively and no liberal could whine and cry that their health insurance company or employer is denying them access to “their constitutional right to birth control”. You want it? You buy it. If you “need it for medical purposes” like endometriosis, then you’ll have access to it at a competitive market price.

This intense argument is nothing but political banter. Rush. Fluke. The War on Women. All of it. Shut up and just eliminate the problem.