2020 presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren appealed to young women with a plethora of life advice in a video Wednesday, saying, “Dump the guy who ghosted you.”
The Massachusetts senator discussed “everything from student debt to reproductive rights” in an exclusive video with Elle titled “I’ve Got A Plan For That.”
The video features questions that Elle readers submitted for Warren, such as, “I’ve been casually dating a guy for the past three months, but now he’s ghosting me. He won’t return my texts, but he still looks at all my Instagram Stories. What do I do?”
“Give him up,” Warren said in the video. “You’re too good for him. If he wants to go silent, let him go. He is not the one for you.”
“You’re better than that,” she whispered. Warren tweeted out the video with the caption, “You deserve better. Dump the guy who ghosted you, convince the roommate to let you adopt a dog, and I’ll take care of canceling your student loan debt!”
You deserve better. Dump the guy who ghosted you, convince the roommate to let you adopt a dog, and I'll take care of canceling your student loan debt!
Elizabeth Warren Wants You to Ditch That Guy, Get a Dog, and Vote to Tax the Rich
In an exclusive video with ELLE.com, Warren answers reader questions because—if you haven't heard—she has a plan for that.
Another reader posed the question to Warren, “I really want a dog, but my roommate isn’t into the idea. How do I convince her?”
Warren suggested bringing the reluctant roommate along to the dog shelter to convince her that a dog is a good idea.
“Make it specific, and you’ll have a roommate who will be into a dog.”
The 2020 presidential candidate also discussed a question on student loan debt, promising to eradicate student debt, and suggested that to take the perfect selfie, you should “stop thinking about yourself.”
“When you go back and look at the selfies later on, what you mostly remember is what a great time you had,” Warren said. “For me, selfies are about fun. So have some fun!”
Source
Warren is making the same mistake Hillary made by dismissing or discounting the male vote. If I were a democrat I would be angry that Warren is playing the misandry card. This move will backfire on her and cost her support from men.
Showing posts with label anti-male sexism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti-male sexism. Show all posts
Thursday, January 9, 2020
Saturday, August 30, 2014
Men shun women
Fallout from campus sexual assault hysteria: College men now suspicious of women
BY ASHE SCHOW | AUGUST 22, 2014 | 11:58 AM
Thanks to an increased focus on sexual assaults on college campuses, young college men are...
Thanks to an increased focus on sexual assaults on college campuses – mostly due to an overblown statistic claiming 20 percent of college women have been sexually assaulted – young college men are starting to rethink how they talk to women.
At first glance that might seem like a good thing – men learning to be more respectful of women and not be so rapey – but that’s not what this is.
This is about men actually avoiding contact with women because they’re afraid a simple kiss or date could lead to a sexual assault accusation.
Bloomberg reporters John Lauerman and Jennifer Surane interviewed multiple men from colleges like Harvard and Stanford who expressed concern over what was once known as a "hook-up culture" but is now labeled by feminists as "rape culture." The change in terminology ensures that all responsibility is placed on men, just because of their gender.
Take Malik Gill of Harvard University, who said he wouldn’t even give a female classmate a beer.
“I don’t want to look like a predator,” Gill told Bloomberg. “It’s a little bit of a blurred line.”
Gone are the days of buying a woman a drink – even if it’s just to be nice.
Gill also told Lauerman and Surane that after he passed on the contact information of a woman who said she was interested in his fraternity brother, his friend was hesitant to call her.
“Even though she was interested, he didn’t want to pressure her,” Gill said. “He was worried about making her feel uncomfortable.”
William Pollack, a Harvard Medical School psychologist, told the Bloomberg reporters about a patient who was kissing a girl during a party and began thinking about what would happen if things went further.
“‘I want to go to law school or medical school after this,’” the student said, according to Pollack. “‘I said to her, it’s been nice seeing you.’”
Pollack also noted that the media attention to campus sexual assault has led to a “witch-hunt” mentality.
“Most males would never do anything to harm a young woman,” Pollack told the Bloomberg reporters. But the current focus is “starting to scare the heck out of the wrong people.”
Like Clark Coey, who will be a freshman at East Carolina University in North Carolina this year. He’s worried that the definition of consent might not be clear exactly what it means.
“I haven’t learned anything about consent since I was a freshman in a health class,” Coey told Bloomberg. “They have to give you a better understanding of what’s right and what’s wrong.”
Oscar Sandoval of Stanford University said a female friend asked if he wanted to hang out. His friend was drunk when she arrived, Sandoval told Bloomberg. She flirted, but he just walked her to her dorm.
“Among the people I hang out with, there’s more hesitancy to hook up with someone when there’s alcohol involved,” Sandoval said. “Something that you might have thought would be okay when you were drunk might not be okay later on.”
Joshua Handler of New York University’s comments brought up another interesting consequence of so much media attention: Having to talk to women in a very specific manner.
Handler told the Bloomberg reporters that he is now very clear about what he wants when he talks to women.
Because now, apparently, women can’t interpret conversations and need to be spoken to like children (my words, not his).
I would also remind readers of Kevin Parisi, who was accused of – but found not responsible for – raping a fellow student at Drew University. He certainly has reason to be wary of women, and he told the Washington Examiner that he’s afraid that what happened to him at Drew could happen at other schools.
“I don’t see any way that this — I don’t see how these — the laws at hand don’t protect me from this happening again,” he said.
We’re facing a cultural shift where soon men might be afraid to talk to women at all for fear of being labeled rapists. Without presumed innocence on college campuses, the only way this will be fixed is after universities have to start paying out millions of dollars to students after being sued for denying them due process.
And with the current landscape – that might not be too far in the future.
Source
These days you're better off shunning sex and women and just hang around your buds. You can go drinking and playing pool with your buds without running into a bullshit rape accusation. Women clamoured for this law and now it's here. They made the bed they can lie in it all by themselves.
BY ASHE SCHOW | AUGUST 22, 2014 | 11:58 AM
Thanks to an increased focus on sexual assaults on college campuses, young college men are...
Thanks to an increased focus on sexual assaults on college campuses – mostly due to an overblown statistic claiming 20 percent of college women have been sexually assaulted – young college men are starting to rethink how they talk to women.
At first glance that might seem like a good thing – men learning to be more respectful of women and not be so rapey – but that’s not what this is.
This is about men actually avoiding contact with women because they’re afraid a simple kiss or date could lead to a sexual assault accusation.
Bloomberg reporters John Lauerman and Jennifer Surane interviewed multiple men from colleges like Harvard and Stanford who expressed concern over what was once known as a "hook-up culture" but is now labeled by feminists as "rape culture." The change in terminology ensures that all responsibility is placed on men, just because of their gender.
Take Malik Gill of Harvard University, who said he wouldn’t even give a female classmate a beer.
“I don’t want to look like a predator,” Gill told Bloomberg. “It’s a little bit of a blurred line.”
Gone are the days of buying a woman a drink – even if it’s just to be nice.
Gill also told Lauerman and Surane that after he passed on the contact information of a woman who said she was interested in his fraternity brother, his friend was hesitant to call her.
“Even though she was interested, he didn’t want to pressure her,” Gill said. “He was worried about making her feel uncomfortable.”
William Pollack, a Harvard Medical School psychologist, told the Bloomberg reporters about a patient who was kissing a girl during a party and began thinking about what would happen if things went further.
“‘I want to go to law school or medical school after this,’” the student said, according to Pollack. “‘I said to her, it’s been nice seeing you.’”
Pollack also noted that the media attention to campus sexual assault has led to a “witch-hunt” mentality.
“Most males would never do anything to harm a young woman,” Pollack told the Bloomberg reporters. But the current focus is “starting to scare the heck out of the wrong people.”
Like Clark Coey, who will be a freshman at East Carolina University in North Carolina this year. He’s worried that the definition of consent might not be clear exactly what it means.
“I haven’t learned anything about consent since I was a freshman in a health class,” Coey told Bloomberg. “They have to give you a better understanding of what’s right and what’s wrong.”
Oscar Sandoval of Stanford University said a female friend asked if he wanted to hang out. His friend was drunk when she arrived, Sandoval told Bloomberg. She flirted, but he just walked her to her dorm.
“Among the people I hang out with, there’s more hesitancy to hook up with someone when there’s alcohol involved,” Sandoval said. “Something that you might have thought would be okay when you were drunk might not be okay later on.”
Joshua Handler of New York University’s comments brought up another interesting consequence of so much media attention: Having to talk to women in a very specific manner.
Handler told the Bloomberg reporters that he is now very clear about what he wants when he talks to women.
Because now, apparently, women can’t interpret conversations and need to be spoken to like children (my words, not his).
I would also remind readers of Kevin Parisi, who was accused of – but found not responsible for – raping a fellow student at Drew University. He certainly has reason to be wary of women, and he told the Washington Examiner that he’s afraid that what happened to him at Drew could happen at other schools.
“I don’t see any way that this — I don’t see how these — the laws at hand don’t protect me from this happening again,” he said.
We’re facing a cultural shift where soon men might be afraid to talk to women at all for fear of being labeled rapists. Without presumed innocence on college campuses, the only way this will be fixed is after universities have to start paying out millions of dollars to students after being sued for denying them due process.
And with the current landscape – that might not be too far in the future.
Source
These days you're better off shunning sex and women and just hang around your buds. You can go drinking and playing pool with your buds without running into a bullshit rape accusation. Women clamoured for this law and now it's here. They made the bed they can lie in it all by themselves.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Let's go to Asia instead
Former heads of state urge EU to outlaw anti-feminism
Europe, October 28, 2013 By Robert O'Hara
Earlier this month in Rome a council comprised of former European heads of state called on the European Parliament to establish national surveillance units to monitor citizens suspected of anti-feminist leanings.
The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), a “tolerance watchdog”, which includes former presidents of the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Albania, Latvia, and Cyprus, and former prime ministers of Spain and Sweden, made the proposal in a report delivered during a 45-minute speech to the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE).
The proposal, titled the Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance calls for “concrete action to combat intolerance, in particular with a view to eliminating racism, colour bias, ethnic discrimination, religious intolerance, totalitarian ideologies, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-feminism and homophobia.”
Notice "sexism is not on the list. (sarcasm)I wonder why.(/sarcasm)
These “special administrative units,” the report says, “should preferably operate within the Ministry of Justice.”
“There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant,” it states, especially “as far as freedom of expression is concerned.”
It also calls for actual criminal sanctions to be levied against offenders.
Congratulations. You have just eliminated basic freedoms and the economy of United Europe in one piece of legislation. Swift move.
European Dignity Watch, a civil rights watchdog group based in Brussels, has warned that this directive “aims to impose governmental control over the social and economic behavior of citizens in the widest possible sense.”
In a scathing critique, the group says that the ECTR Framework’s basic principles are flawed and that it “interferes in an unprecedented manner with citizens’ freedom and rights” and “distorts the concepts of ‘justice’ and ‘equality’.”
Finally some common sense at the end. Europe doesn't look too male friendly right now.
Source
Europe, October 28, 2013 By Robert O'Hara
Earlier this month in Rome a council comprised of former European heads of state called on the European Parliament to establish national surveillance units to monitor citizens suspected of anti-feminist leanings.
The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), a “tolerance watchdog”, which includes former presidents of the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Albania, Latvia, and Cyprus, and former prime ministers of Spain and Sweden, made the proposal in a report delivered during a 45-minute speech to the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE).
The proposal, titled the Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance calls for “concrete action to combat intolerance, in particular with a view to eliminating racism, colour bias, ethnic discrimination, religious intolerance, totalitarian ideologies, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-feminism and homophobia.”
Notice "sexism is not on the list. (sarcasm)I wonder why.(/sarcasm)
These “special administrative units,” the report says, “should preferably operate within the Ministry of Justice.”
“There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant,” it states, especially “as far as freedom of expression is concerned.”
It also calls for actual criminal sanctions to be levied against offenders.
Congratulations. You have just eliminated basic freedoms and the economy of United Europe in one piece of legislation. Swift move.
European Dignity Watch, a civil rights watchdog group based in Brussels, has warned that this directive “aims to impose governmental control over the social and economic behavior of citizens in the widest possible sense.”
In a scathing critique, the group says that the ECTR Framework’s basic principles are flawed and that it “interferes in an unprecedented manner with citizens’ freedom and rights” and “distorts the concepts of ‘justice’ and ‘equality’.”
Finally some common sense at the end. Europe doesn't look too male friendly right now.
Source
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Anti-male article from Time magazine
One of the most pernicious biases in the media is the bias against men. Time today published a piece by Jeffrey Kluger titled: “Women Make Better Doctors Than Men.”
In a new report released by the University of Montreal, investigators found that women outperformed men on certain metrics of patient care.
Kluger suggests, ironically, that the difference may be due to some of the oldest stereotypes of the sexes.
It’s possible the female doctors were simply more willing to devote more time to their patients.
No fear, though, because no anti-male, sexist article can be complete with out a bit of ageism thrown in for good measure.
…there’s hope for improvement. The younger the doctors in their study were, the narrower the divide between the sexes, suggesting that hurry-up male doctors are aging out of the system, being replaced by a newer, gentler generation.
One need not wonder whether a similar story might have appeared in Time had the results been inverted. A quick search of the Time online archives reveals the following titles:
"Women at the Auto Repair Shop: Better at Haggling, Yet More Likely to Get Ripped Off" – a piece that celebrates women for being good at shopping, and then blames men for their failure to protect themselves from being ripped off.
"Do Women Make Better Traders than Men?"
"What Stereotype? Women Are Better Than Men at Parking, Study Finds"
"Why Women Are Better at Everything"
"Study: Women Better at Using Social Media to Keep in Touch"
"Survey: Women More Satisfied With the College Experience"
All of these titles return on the first page of results. The search criteria: men better than women!
Not surprisingly, there were no exact returns for that criteria.
Source: click here
More bullshit at Crime uh er Time Magazine. Watch them become irrelevant. The same irrelevancy that the New York Times was looking at. In fact it got so bad at the NYT that they had to actually print genuine news stories without the usual liberal bias. They were looking at their finances going into the red. The same will happen with Time Magazine: it's either sink or swim.
In a new report released by the University of Montreal, investigators found that women outperformed men on certain metrics of patient care.
Kluger suggests, ironically, that the difference may be due to some of the oldest stereotypes of the sexes.
It’s possible the female doctors were simply more willing to devote more time to their patients.
No fear, though, because no anti-male, sexist article can be complete with out a bit of ageism thrown in for good measure.
…there’s hope for improvement. The younger the doctors in their study were, the narrower the divide between the sexes, suggesting that hurry-up male doctors are aging out of the system, being replaced by a newer, gentler generation.
One need not wonder whether a similar story might have appeared in Time had the results been inverted. A quick search of the Time online archives reveals the following titles:
"Women at the Auto Repair Shop: Better at Haggling, Yet More Likely to Get Ripped Off" – a piece that celebrates women for being good at shopping, and then blames men for their failure to protect themselves from being ripped off.
"Do Women Make Better Traders than Men?"
"What Stereotype? Women Are Better Than Men at Parking, Study Finds"
"Why Women Are Better at Everything"
"Study: Women Better at Using Social Media to Keep in Touch"
"Survey: Women More Satisfied With the College Experience"
All of these titles return on the first page of results. The search criteria: men better than women!
Not surprisingly, there were no exact returns for that criteria.
Source: click here
More bullshit at Crime uh er Time Magazine. Watch them become irrelevant. The same irrelevancy that the New York Times was looking at. In fact it got so bad at the NYT that they had to actually print genuine news stories without the usual liberal bias. They were looking at their finances going into the red. The same will happen with Time Magazine: it's either sink or swim.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Let's tell CBS to rebroadcast "Men Don't Tell"
On March 14, 1993, CBS aired "Men Don't Tell", a TV movie about domestic violence in the home. After its initial broadcast, CBS came under pressure to never show the movie again, or allow for its release on VHS. Nor has any other movie of its type ever been made again.
WHY? The movie had a twist to it. Based on a true story, the main character, construction executive Ed MacAffrey, was being abused by his wife, Laura.
Starring Peter Strauss and Judith Light, the movie was the first of its kind to ever be made addressing the problems and issues of 40% of domestic violence victims, who happen to be male.
March is the 20th anniversary of the original broadcast. Join the effort to get CBS to rebroadcast the movie, and bring together the still surviving members of the original cast and the director, Harry Winer, for interviews of the making of the only movie ever made addressing the problems of male victims of domestic violence.
Source:click here to send email as well.
Let's break the feminist stranglehold on the old media and send in emails in support of rebroadcasting "Men Don't Tell". If the genders were reversed the feminists would demand this be broadcasted everynight but since it shines a light on something they don't like,that they abuse men too they don't want it shown. Too fucking bad,I don't care what they want they can go fuck themselves. I want this movie to be rebroadcasted and released on video and I don't want some fucked up bitches deciding what I can or cannot watch. That may have gone down when I was a child but now that I'm a grown man I'll make my own decisions and if someone has a problem with that fuck them. There is a lot email to write but I'm up for it,I'll do it. Are you on board?
Monday, October 29, 2012
Stop the sexism in the affordable health care act
From Howard Goldman,National Coalition of Men:
Now that men and women pay equally for healthcare, shouldn't men receive equal coverage when it comes to fully covered services? Shouldn't there finally be a government health office dealing with men's health? Men and women should sign this petition no matter if they agree with the Affordable Care Act or not. The Act is sexist and needs to be made unbiased should it remain in existence in its present state. (Since Change.org seems to have cropped my original top photo to remove all resemblence of what it was supposed to portray, the chart shows govt. funding for cancer by gender (millions of $) 2009. The first bar graph is for the National Institute of Health and the second bar graph is the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).)
On August 1, 2012 many more health care services became available to women without co-pays, deductibles, or out-of-pocket expenses. While this can be seen as a victory for women's health, there are many services that affect men in equal or similar ways that still require men to be able to afford those cost-sharing requirements. Why should all women receive these services (such as well-care visits) "free" while men still will be denied those services if they can not afford to pay for them? The Affordable Care Act will undoubtedly expand the gender life-expectancy gap even further due to men being denied these well-care visits. Black and Hispanic males will be hit hardest as studies have shown them to be less likely to afford those out-of-pocket expenses.
These are our fathers, our brothers and our sons that perhaps will be forced to go without those well-care visits to determine important screenings and services. It's great to have our mothers, sisters and daughters to not have to be concerned with financial obligations to receive those services. This act should not force some men to be denied those preventive care services just because of financial inability. It's time to rectify the imbalance and make this bill adhere to gender equality.
A look at what preventive services are deemed sexist can be found in the US Dept. of Health and Human Services list of such services and to whom they apply: http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2010/07/preventive-services-list.html#CoveredPreventiveServicesforAdults We ask President Obama to correct the following biased aspects of the Affordable Care Act:
FACT#1
WOMEN ARE PROVIDED WELL-CARE VISITS WITHOUT DEDUCTIBLES, CO-PAYS OR OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN RECOMMENDED PREVENTIVE SERVICES. MEN WILL BE DENIED THESE WELL-CARE VISITS UNLESS THEY CAN COME UP WITH THE REQUIRED EXTRA FUNDS. This will mean that many men will not go for well-care visits due to lack of affordability. This will lead to many men not being diagnosed until a disease has become more expensive to treat or until it is too late for treatment altogether. This will cost lives and add to the already burdensome cost of The Affordable Care Act.
FACT#2
BREAST CANCER SCREENINGS ARE FULLY COVERED WITHOUT DEDUCTIBLES, CO-PAYS OR OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS. PROSTATE CANCER SCREENINGS REQUIRE MEN TO FIND A WAY TO PAY THOSE EXTRA COSTS OR BE DENIED PREVENTIVE CARE. Prostate cancer affects 1 in 6 men and kills roughly 28,000 annually. Breast cancer affects 1 in 9 women and kills roughly 39,000 annually. Should this Act continue, no one should be turned away from these preventive cancer screenings.
FACT#3
ALL FDA APPROVED CONTRACEPTIVES AND STERILIZATION PROCEDURES ARE TO BE MADE AVAILABLE TO WOMEN WITH NO OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS, DEDUCTIBLES OR CO-PAYS. MEN WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS, DEDUCTIBLES OR CO-PAYS. This means a tubal ligation would be at no cost to women, but vasectomies would require co-pays or deductibles, perhaps rather hefty ones at that. Why should men have to pay if they choose not to bring a child into this world, but a woman does not?
FACT#4
ALL SEXUALLY ACTIVE WOMEN CAN BE SCREENED FOR HIV WITHOUT OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS, DEDUCTIBLES, OR CO-PAYS BUT ONLY HIGH RISK MEN CAN BE SCREENED WITHOUT THOSE COSTS. Why should sexually active men that wish to be tested for HIV be turned away if they can't afford it? This will cause more men to go without life-extending or life-saving treatments. This will also cause more women to be infected by partners who may not know they have HIV and weren't able to be tested due to financial constraints. This will affect black men and women most as they have the highest rates of HIV. High risk women over 30 also can receive DNA screenings for HPV at no extra cost, but high risk men would have to pay. Shouldn't high risk men also be tested so that they know they are carriers and can further prevent spread to others? The same can be said for Gonorrhea as high risk women screenings are covered in full while high risk men are not.
FACT#5
ALL WOMEN WILL BE SCREENED FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WITHOUT DEDUCTIBLES, CO-PAYS OR OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS. DESPITE MEN BEING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (DV) AT EQUAL RATES AS WOMEN, MEN ARE DENIED NO-COST SCREENINGS. Men make up 53% of the victims of physical violence in interpersonal relationships and 42% of the victims of the most severe domestic violence. This is blatant discrimination and needs to be rectified. The same CDC study the White House cites in their memos about DV proves the above figures: (Tables 4.1 and 4.2 (12 month figures) and tables 4.7 and 4.8). Men also make up the majority of psychological victims of DV (Tables 4.9 and 4.10). To ignore male victims of DV is sheer discrimination by our government. Due to embarrassment and risk of arrest, men are more inclined to not report DV and, thus, having medical personnel screen them may be the best way to help those victims.
(http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf)
FACT#6
COUNSELING- SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS PREVENTION COUNSELING IS FULLY COVERED FOR ALL SEXUALLY ACTIVE WOMEN BUT ONLY FOR HIGH RISK MEN. Wouldn't both men and women be safer from spreading stds if ALL sexually active people are counseled without having it be restricted to those men that can financially afford it? Fully covered HIV counseling is also only offered to women. Shouldn't men also be able to access counseling about this dreaded illness without financial constraints if women are?
FACT#7
THERE ARE NO FEDERAL HEALTH OFFICES DEALING WITH MALE-SPECIFIC HEALTH ISSUES. NONE FORTHCOMING EITHER. NONE. THERE ARE MANY WOMEN'S HEALTH OFFICES AND AGENCIES AND MANY MORE TO BE FORMED IN THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. Please have one of the agencies that are to be formed in the Affordable Care Act devoted to Men's Health. It is long, long overdue. This is one reason for miniscule funding for men's health compared to women's health in the federal government. (See petition photo showing recent funding for women's cancer and men's cancer.) No one is asking for 50/50, but how about at least one for now?
The Act has 134 references to women's health but just 2 for men's health and those are just in passing. The Act has a separate chapter for women's health, but none for men's health. The Act has an entire section devoted to breast cancer. No other cancer, including prostate cancer, has this. Prostate cancer is never even mentioned. It's time for the government to stop ignoring men's health issues.
To sign the petition go here
This sounds good to me and if you are an MRA you may like it too and the best way to get it implemented is to sign the petition. Protect your life by signing this petition. Do so right away.
Now that men and women pay equally for healthcare, shouldn't men receive equal coverage when it comes to fully covered services? Shouldn't there finally be a government health office dealing with men's health? Men and women should sign this petition no matter if they agree with the Affordable Care Act or not. The Act is sexist and needs to be made unbiased should it remain in existence in its present state. (Since Change.org seems to have cropped my original top photo to remove all resemblence of what it was supposed to portray, the chart shows govt. funding for cancer by gender (millions of $) 2009. The first bar graph is for the National Institute of Health and the second bar graph is the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).)
On August 1, 2012 many more health care services became available to women without co-pays, deductibles, or out-of-pocket expenses. While this can be seen as a victory for women's health, there are many services that affect men in equal or similar ways that still require men to be able to afford those cost-sharing requirements. Why should all women receive these services (such as well-care visits) "free" while men still will be denied those services if they can not afford to pay for them? The Affordable Care Act will undoubtedly expand the gender life-expectancy gap even further due to men being denied these well-care visits. Black and Hispanic males will be hit hardest as studies have shown them to be less likely to afford those out-of-pocket expenses.
These are our fathers, our brothers and our sons that perhaps will be forced to go without those well-care visits to determine important screenings and services. It's great to have our mothers, sisters and daughters to not have to be concerned with financial obligations to receive those services. This act should not force some men to be denied those preventive care services just because of financial inability. It's time to rectify the imbalance and make this bill adhere to gender equality.
A look at what preventive services are deemed sexist can be found in the US Dept. of Health and Human Services list of such services and to whom they apply: http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2010/07/preventive-services-list.html#CoveredPreventiveServicesforAdults We ask President Obama to correct the following biased aspects of the Affordable Care Act:
FACT#1
WOMEN ARE PROVIDED WELL-CARE VISITS WITHOUT DEDUCTIBLES, CO-PAYS OR OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN RECOMMENDED PREVENTIVE SERVICES. MEN WILL BE DENIED THESE WELL-CARE VISITS UNLESS THEY CAN COME UP WITH THE REQUIRED EXTRA FUNDS. This will mean that many men will not go for well-care visits due to lack of affordability. This will lead to many men not being diagnosed until a disease has become more expensive to treat or until it is too late for treatment altogether. This will cost lives and add to the already burdensome cost of The Affordable Care Act.
FACT#2
BREAST CANCER SCREENINGS ARE FULLY COVERED WITHOUT DEDUCTIBLES, CO-PAYS OR OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS. PROSTATE CANCER SCREENINGS REQUIRE MEN TO FIND A WAY TO PAY THOSE EXTRA COSTS OR BE DENIED PREVENTIVE CARE. Prostate cancer affects 1 in 6 men and kills roughly 28,000 annually. Breast cancer affects 1 in 9 women and kills roughly 39,000 annually. Should this Act continue, no one should be turned away from these preventive cancer screenings.
FACT#3
ALL FDA APPROVED CONTRACEPTIVES AND STERILIZATION PROCEDURES ARE TO BE MADE AVAILABLE TO WOMEN WITH NO OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS, DEDUCTIBLES OR CO-PAYS. MEN WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS, DEDUCTIBLES OR CO-PAYS. This means a tubal ligation would be at no cost to women, but vasectomies would require co-pays or deductibles, perhaps rather hefty ones at that. Why should men have to pay if they choose not to bring a child into this world, but a woman does not?
FACT#4
ALL SEXUALLY ACTIVE WOMEN CAN BE SCREENED FOR HIV WITHOUT OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS, DEDUCTIBLES, OR CO-PAYS BUT ONLY HIGH RISK MEN CAN BE SCREENED WITHOUT THOSE COSTS. Why should sexually active men that wish to be tested for HIV be turned away if they can't afford it? This will cause more men to go without life-extending or life-saving treatments. This will also cause more women to be infected by partners who may not know they have HIV and weren't able to be tested due to financial constraints. This will affect black men and women most as they have the highest rates of HIV. High risk women over 30 also can receive DNA screenings for HPV at no extra cost, but high risk men would have to pay. Shouldn't high risk men also be tested so that they know they are carriers and can further prevent spread to others? The same can be said for Gonorrhea as high risk women screenings are covered in full while high risk men are not.
FACT#5
ALL WOMEN WILL BE SCREENED FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WITHOUT DEDUCTIBLES, CO-PAYS OR OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS. DESPITE MEN BEING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (DV) AT EQUAL RATES AS WOMEN, MEN ARE DENIED NO-COST SCREENINGS. Men make up 53% of the victims of physical violence in interpersonal relationships and 42% of the victims of the most severe domestic violence. This is blatant discrimination and needs to be rectified. The same CDC study the White House cites in their memos about DV proves the above figures: (Tables 4.1 and 4.2 (12 month figures) and tables 4.7 and 4.8). Men also make up the majority of psychological victims of DV (Tables 4.9 and 4.10). To ignore male victims of DV is sheer discrimination by our government. Due to embarrassment and risk of arrest, men are more inclined to not report DV and, thus, having medical personnel screen them may be the best way to help those victims.
(http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf)
FACT#6
COUNSELING- SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS PREVENTION COUNSELING IS FULLY COVERED FOR ALL SEXUALLY ACTIVE WOMEN BUT ONLY FOR HIGH RISK MEN. Wouldn't both men and women be safer from spreading stds if ALL sexually active people are counseled without having it be restricted to those men that can financially afford it? Fully covered HIV counseling is also only offered to women. Shouldn't men also be able to access counseling about this dreaded illness without financial constraints if women are?
FACT#7
THERE ARE NO FEDERAL HEALTH OFFICES DEALING WITH MALE-SPECIFIC HEALTH ISSUES. NONE FORTHCOMING EITHER. NONE. THERE ARE MANY WOMEN'S HEALTH OFFICES AND AGENCIES AND MANY MORE TO BE FORMED IN THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. Please have one of the agencies that are to be formed in the Affordable Care Act devoted to Men's Health. It is long, long overdue. This is one reason for miniscule funding for men's health compared to women's health in the federal government. (See petition photo showing recent funding for women's cancer and men's cancer.) No one is asking for 50/50, but how about at least one for now?
The Act has 134 references to women's health but just 2 for men's health and those are just in passing. The Act has a separate chapter for women's health, but none for men's health. The Act has an entire section devoted to breast cancer. No other cancer, including prostate cancer, has this. Prostate cancer is never even mentioned. It's time for the government to stop ignoring men's health issues.
To sign the petition go here
This sounds good to me and if you are an MRA you may like it too and the best way to get it implemented is to sign the petition. Protect your life by signing this petition. Do so right away.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Commissioner bullies MRA attorney
Anti-feminist attorney Roy Den Hollander served a complaint today, Aug. 20, with the N.Y.C. Commission on Human Rights against the Commission’s Executive Director of Law Enforcement—Carlos Velez (212 306 7765) for discriminating against Den Hollander, in part, because he is a Euro-American. (Then again, maybe Velez discriminated against him for being an African-America. After all, everyone’s ancestors originated in Africa.)
Anyway, on July 27, 2012, Velez issued a Determination and Order that Den Hollander charges was motivated by Velez’s prejudice against Euro-Americans of protestant ancestry,divorced husbands who criticize their ex-wives, and men who choose not to meekly submit to feminist and political correctionalist totalitarianism by prosecuting anti-feminist lawsuits of which Den Hollander has done a few times.
“Totalitarianism!” That’s a little strong, or is it? “To exalt as an absolute is the mark of totalitarianism, and it is possible to have an atmosphere of totalitarianism in a society that has many of the attributes of democracy.” ~ Howard Zinn.
Believing that certain political beliefs are the only “correct” ones sounds absolute. Not good enough, how about a feminist and PCer “tyranny.”
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ~ James Madison, Federalist Paper 47.
So what ideology rules over the actions of most government officials—feminism and PC.
Velez’s Order dismissed Den Hollander’s age discrimination complaint against the nightclub Amnesia based on various extra-legal and bigoted reasons that expose a discriminatory intent by Velez in investigating, writing, and issuing the Order.
Amnesia refused to admit Den Hollander and his equally older attorney friend and former Democratic State Committeeman unless they bought a $350 bottle of watered down, brandless vodka. They declined. Den Hollander then filed a sex discrimination complaint with the State Human Rights Division. The State said no sex discrimination but looks like age discrimination. The State, however, lacks jurisdiction over nightclubs for age discrimination but NYC Human Rights has such jurisdiction, so off Den Hollander righteously went to complain.
At NYC Human Rights, Velez refused to accept Den Hollander’s complaint by communicating through another employee that there was no discrimination because had Den Hollander and his friend agreed to buy a $350 bottle, they could have entered. Duh, that can’t be right; otherwise years ago in the Deep South it would have been okay to require people with relatively darker skin color to enter a public bus so long as they sat in the back. The U.S. Supreme Court kicked that looney-tune reasoning out of the law in Browder v. Gayle, 352 U.S. 903 (1956).
A letter to the Commissioner forced Velez to accept the case but didn’t reign in the prejudice that colored his investigation, reasoning, and Order. Among the reasons for dismissing the age discrimination complaint Velez wrote:
Complainant [Den Hollander] is a self-professed advocate for men’s rights who identifies himself as an ‘anti-feminist lawyer’ on his website. He has filed a number of lawsuits against bars and clubs that have ‘Ladies Nights,’ and admits in several online publications that he is ‘bitter’ from an ex-wife who used him for his US citizenship and money. Complainant’s description of himself is consistent with his pattern of filing several gender discrimination suits.” Velez Determination and Order, Ex A. at p. Tres.
So what’s that got to do with an age-discrimination complaint? Sounds like the typical feminist and PC’er tactic of discrediting someone by pegging them as a member of a currently disfavored group. In Den Hollander’s case, a member of the last remaining 200 men in this country willing to fight for their constitutional rights against the feminists and PCers. Although some, such as Marc Rudov, think that number is too high.
“Discrimination itself, by perpetuating ‘archaic and stereotypic notions’ or by stigmatizing members of the disfavored group as ‘innately inferior’ and therefore as less worthy participants in the political community, … can cause serious noneconomic injuries to those persons who are personally denied equal treatment….” ~Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U.S. 728, 739-740 (1984).
Roy's complaint here
Source:click here
Give him hell,Roy. Roast his hide royally,bro. This Velez asshole looks like another UN twerp to me. Fuck you,Velez.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)