The move follows an effort by state Rep. Melissa Sargent, D-Madison, to require all publicly funded school and state buildings to supply those products on the state’s tab. After circulating the measure for co-sponsorship, Sargent said the bill has been turned in with only Democratic support. Though Sargent is not hopeful the bill will pass this session, she sees the debate that it has stirred as a success.What do men get in bathrooms? What are we talking about here?
“It has started a wave of conversation of why is it that women and girls don’t have all their basic public health needs in bathrooms in the same way that men do,” Sargent said.
“There are a number of bills being produced now in regards to who uses what bathroom,” she said. “If people are concerned about bathroom equity, they should also back this.”Since we're talking about bathrooms for one reason, let's try to come up with all the other bathroom-related ideas for spending tax money and driving a partisan wedge into the citizenry.
“I strongly support it and I haven’t heard any opposition,” said Carousel Bayrd, the board’s first vice-chair....So Carousel Bayrd has not heard any opposition. This is an occasion to analyze the meaning of silence. If you haven't heard anything, what does it really mean?
People fighting for their places just get in my way....
ADDED: What about the environment? Should we be subsidizing the use of disposables?
AND: Speaking of starting "a wave of conversation" made me think about the wave that is the red tide of menstruation, so let's listen to this Laurie Anderson performance of "Beautiful Red Dress":
Well, they say women shouldn't be the presidentThe government needs to buy us all a red dress of freedom.
Cause we go crazy from time to time
Well, push my button, baby
Here I come
Yeah, look out, baby
I'm at high tide
I've got a beautiful red dress and you'd look really good standing beside it...
पोस्ट्स
१६७ टिप्पण्या:
Tank supports supplying women with toilet paper!
"Hello darkness my old friend..."
Big Oil... Big Tobacco... Big MaxiPad...
Allan Clarke and The Hollies ... my favorite 60's group.
Now, what were you talking about? Oh yeah, free tampons. Sorry, I'd rather play Hollies songs in my head.
The enviro nuts are bragging about giving up toilet paper.
In a HuffPost Live discussion, bloggers Angela Davis, Kathleen Quiring and Makala Earley explain why they've decided to go paperless, revealing that it's not as messy or unhygienic as it may sound.
'It is definitely possible,' insists Mikala, who says she and her husband stopped using toilet paper about a year ago. 'It is almost seen as a necessity [and] it doesn't have to be, and it's been a lot of fun to learn how to do it this way.'
Democrat tactic.
"Support my bill to assist xxx."
Reasoned response: "Under our jurisdiction we have no authority to act on that topic."
"THEY HATE THE DISABLED [or ____________ (fill in the blank)]."
The toilet paper in most public places is like sandpaper. ACME tampons don't sound any better
Concerns about bathroom equity shouldn't distract people from worrying about flying boulders.
158 google results, including some real estate listings: "Brand new carpeting in upp. lev and lower level 3/4 bathroom. Equity ..." The 3/4 bathroom comes with 3/4th of a tampon.
“It has started a wave of conversation of why is it that women and girls don’t have all their basic public health needs in bathrooms in the same way that men do,” Sargent said.
What do men get in bathrooms? What are we talking about here?"
No idea. Unless there is no toilet paper, hand soap, or a method to dry hands in the women's bathroom.
Next thing you know somebody is going to push for stocking public restrooms with free baby diapers.
Close-minded Democrats at it again. The program is just intended for women. What about trans men, which for you regressives out there are women who identify as men. Are they to be abandoned by the left???
The county program would begin in 2016 in eight locations where low-income women would most benefit from access to free tampons and pads, said Sup. Heidi Wegleitner, of Madison, the resolution’s sponsor.
By not requiring a few cents to be inserted in the tampon machine this measure is likely to result in those products being less available on a consistent basis in women's public rest rooms by virtue of the fact that women will stock-up for later off-site use, particularly among the less affluent. Unless the proponents want to require people to ask a bureaucrat to actually hand them them a sanity product each time, which I suspect would be a micro aggression itself.
Classic "tragedy of the commons" issue in economics.
The tragedy of the commons is a term... to denote a situation where individuals acting independently and rationally according to each's self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole group by depleting some common resource. The concept was based upon an essay written in 1833 by Lloyd, the Victorian economist, on the effects of unregulated grazing on common land and made widely-known by an article written by Hardin in 1968. "Commons" in this sense has come to mean such resources as atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks, an office refrigerator, energy or any other shared resource which is not formally regulated, not common land in its agricultural sense.
I think it is a good idea. Women cannot be given the responsibility of tending to their personal hygiene. The very idea is a form of rape.
have all their basic public health needs in bathrooms in the same way that men do,
So they are giving out free condoms in public restrooms? Who knew?
Thereby confirming my opinion that democrats have no fucking idea where stuff comes from.
Everyone knows women don't poop, it isn't ladylike. Ergo, those rolls of toilet paper supplied by public authorities are solely to benefit men's public health needs.
It's sponging off the public.
Government-issued tampons and tourniquets, available soon on a wall near you- To stop the bleeding!
Tampons in womens' bathrooms is the next "Republicans are anti-women" fabrication of the Left. This is their latest gimmick to prove how much Republicans hate women. Nothing more.
Menstrual sea sponge.
What do men get in bathrooms? What are we talking about here?
I haven't a clue, and neither do they.
cyrus83,
Next thing you know somebody is going to push for stocking public restrooms with free baby diapers.
Hey, why limit it to babies? Free adult diapers as well. For those who (a) actually need them, or (b) self-identify as infants. I should think there are a lot of those in Dane County.
EDH,
By not requiring a few cents to be inserted in the tampon machine this measure is likely to result in those products being less available on a consistent basis in women's public rest rooms by virtue of the fact that women will stock-up for later off-site use, particularly among the less affluent.
I hadn't thought of this, but you're quite right. "Free" = inexhaustible, but someone still has to make the rounds and keep the dispensers full.
And where's the love for maxi-pad users? Do only tampon fans get the freebies?
What about the environment? Should we be subsidizing the use of disposables?
When it comes to reusables vs. disposables in grocery bags and diapers, it seems the jury is still out, but reusable tampons, condoms and toilet paper may be another story. I read they're now reusing toilet water as drinking water on the Space Station, so who knows?
It is more expensive to have a female body.
The argument for government to make up the difference is not going to die.
Remember that we are dependent on women to contribute their bodies to the greater good of producing the next generation. Convincing women to take care of our own needs in a highly individualistic style would, if taken absolutely seriously, end civilization as we know it. Handing out tampons is next to nothing compared to the burden civilization expects women to carry. You're getting female services super cheap. Value it while it's still available.
Remember that we are dependent on women to contribute their bodies to the greater good of producing the next generation.
Is this a valid enough reason to subsidized the women who don't?
Along the same lines, what about special dispensations for men who risk their lives in combat and then get shafted by their government?
"The government needs to buy us all a red dress of freedom."
I see what you did there. Very subtle allusion to the absurdity of being bribed by government giving us, using our own money, something we already had.
I expect the feminist dream of a Male Tax will come true in Hillary!'s administration.
Oh, I agree with the argument. I agree. I'm not as conservative as I may seem to be.
Do we carry our own toilet paper around? No. Just something basic in the stalls.
@Michael
Right. That's why we shouldn't have toilet paper in bathrooms either. It is a form of anal rape.
And having paper towels in bathrooms is a form of digital rape.
And having soap is infantilizing and intended to make us dependant on the state to keep us clean.
Dont get me started on the degredation and disempowerment represented by sinks and faucets in pulic bathrooms. What a waste of taxpayer dollats.
As is the idea that men need two kinds of toilets because they are two primitive to learn one is part of the cpnspiracy to make men feel socially redundant in this feminist world (as the urinal is redundant).
Id I misunderstood the tone if your sarcasm I apologize for my snarkiness.
In a different note, I used to fly in and out of Philly a lot and there were feminine products in the airport bathrooms...It sure made me feel affection for the city that loves you back! Smart PR move for instantly generate goodwill from half their customers.(though I dont know if it was the airport or the attendants that supplied them).
If women are doing their job for society, they won't need tampons.
Irish twins should rule.
Or the argument for public bathrooms would be NO toilet paper or paper towels, everyone would just purchase it off site and carry it with them.
"It is more expensive to have a female body. The argument for government to make up the difference is not going to die"
Fine. Let's have the argument. Right now women live about 5 years longer on average and as a result consume more social spending as well. Estimating the value of one year of life conservatively at $100K and one year of social benefits at $20K, that means we should find a way to transfer about $600K to each man from women before we proceed.
The government needs to buy us all a red dress of freedom.
I'd rather they just redress our freedoms.
Ann,
It is more expensive to have a female body.
True. (Well, somewhat true; I think if you add up all the totally unnecessary cosmetics the average woman uses in a lifetime, the disparity might be somewhat redressed. Also, most men shave, another cost that adds up.) OTOH, as you are getting several years more life out of it on average than the typical man, maybe we can consider accounts settled? How much are you willing to pay, after all, for the extra six years of life expectancy?
Of course, some of the difference has to do with men working, oh, all the most dangerous jobs and stuff. And killing themselves at five times the female rate, for that matter.
"Handing out tampons is next to nothing compared to the burden civilization expects women to carry. You're getting female services super cheap. Value it while it's still available."
What of the women who volutarily remain childless, hence refusing their obligation to civilization? Could those be spayed instead?
MaxiPadIndustrialComplex. Ike warned us about this.
Remember: Men and women are the same; except women are better and smarter and we need to take care of their needs because patriarchy.
There. That's my doctoral dissertation.
Just need a fancy title: Heteronormative Suppression of Women's Sanitary Needs in the Age of Trump.
That'll do.
It is more expensive to have a female body.
The argument for government to make up the difference is not going to die.
Heresy! Men and women are the same...burn her!
Oh..we're talking about treating women better than men again? We're going to give women more free stuff?
Never mind.
Why do the Democrats assume that women (or pick any minority group) are too incompetent to deal with daily living? That's a rhetorical question.
Convincing women to take care of our own needs in a highly individualistic style would, if taken absolutely seriously, end civilization as we know it
This is the best explanation of the goals and strategy of the feminist movement I've seen yet.
How much longer until women demand that the break rooms be stocked with free chocolate?
Buy your own tampons, ladies. You are not worthless creatures incapable of purchasing things.
Back in the day women aspired to a room of their own. And now, its GIVE ME SHIT.
No, buy it yourself.
"Thereby confirming my opinion that democrats have no fucking idea where stuff comes from."
Chinese child laborers.
I am not Laslo.
Here's a link to tampons:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004L59BLE?keywords=tampons&qid=1448816472&ref_=sr_1_2&s=hpc&sr=1-2
96 count.20.97 (buy through Althouse's portal). I don't want to have to pay for your tampon use. Is this really what govt should be spending tax dollars on?
Seriously?
What about the homeless? what about global warming? What about all the other things the dems say we need to spend money on or we are hateful racists.
Drip, drip, drip.
I remain in awe of the fact that women living in close proximity rapidly but unconsciously coordinate their periods. I learned that from my powerfully female and sadly departed wife Sally, whose female power eventually killed her. Too much estrogen. Too many tumors. RIP Sally.
What do men get in bathrooms? What are we talking about here?
Truck stop restrooms have vending machines for condoms.
What about the environment? Should we be subsidizing the use of disposables?
Condoms are disposable, and definitely impact the environment. However they are not free and IMHO neither should female hygiene products be free.
'It has started a wave of conversation of why is it that women and girls don’t have all their basic public health needs in bathrooms in the same way that men do,”
Um...what?
In a bathroom I have acess to soap, paper towels and toilet paper. And MAYBE a hand dryer. And I assume women have access to the same thing. Many ladies bathrooms also have a counch for some reason.
Where's my couch, bitch? All mens rooms need to have couches! On the state's dime.
And I want tampons in the mens room too. Because what about all the transgendered that want to use the mens room, but might need tampons? And couches.
Althouse said,
"It is more expensive to have a female body. The argument for government to make up the difference is not going to die"
Not if you don't quit whining about it.
I haven't yet read the comments yet, I'm sure they are funny and smart. But, on a serious note. This is exactly why we can't raise taxes. Ever. Really.
For democrats there will forever be something else to spend other peoples money on. Always
"Well, they say women shouldn't be the president
Cause we go crazy from time to time
Well, push my button, baby
Here I come
Yeah, look out, baby
I'm at high tide
I've got a beautiful red dress and you'd look really good standing beside it..."
I don't know who THEY is, in the song. But if this woman is representative of how woman think, I might agree with THEY.
2015: the year that America lost its collective mind.
"...So Carousel Bayrd has not heard any opposition...."
Because men hate and despise discussing feminine hygiene products. It makes them very uncomfortable. That could be part of the silence, along with the hope that if they ignore the subject it'll just go away. There's a fair amount of mystery to being a woman, and men prefer it that way. Mostly.
Ok, Ann's comment. Women are invaluable.
That means they need protected. By us, the men. Society, men, shall determine what is right, what exactly women need protected from. Determine what jobs they can have, (no combat roles, geesh, who would be stupid enough to risk such a high value asset in combat?) etc.
Anyway good to know Ann understands the importance of procreation, and the govt use of tax incentives to promote that. Like Inheritence tax exemption for females because we keep them out of the work force to rear children, of course Homosexuals don't have that, so no need. Ditto SS sharing, and down the line with govt incentives for rearing families, By those that can procreate.
It's a waste of energy to demand feminine hygiene products in public bathrooms. Instead women should consider focusing their attention on allowing women to obtain legal health services without risk of terrorist attack. How about concentrating on pushing back the political efforts of denying women a legal service by those on the right who unfortunately are in the position of making laws that do so. Let's concentrate our efforts on what truly matters, not waste it on frivolous nonsense such as tampons in public bathrooms.
Well, then in the men's room they should have free condoms and lube.
Geeze, how dumb and needlessly controversial can we get?
Is someone in government really looking for a bribe from the supply company that gets to provide this "bathroom need"? I can imagine that would be an inducement to develop a sudden passion for bathroom-needs-rights.
I hope Hillary co opts this for her campaign platform.......
This is beyond stupid but it is a lot like drugs. Obviously there is demand. Women should be ashamed that this is done in their name.
Women are making the argument that the 19th amendment was a mistake.
If you menstruate but identify as a man, and use the men's bathroom?
Meade said...
Big Oil... Big Tobacco... Big MaxiPad...
------
Yes..that would be one helluva contract. Any estimates?
Can we get Sandra Fluke to chime in?
Regarding silence...we know that ain't "consent".
Remember pre-act 10 when the big issue of public sector workers was coverage for Viagra?
Ah..them were the days.
"Remember that we are dependent on women to contribute their bodies to the greater good of producing the next generation."
Yeah, right.
Except a menstruating woman is NOT contributing her body to the greater good...yada yada. If pregnant, she wouldn't be menstruating.
Also, Althouse, please explain why, if "we are dependent on women, etc. etc," then why are "we" using tax dollars to support abortion of the same babies that would have made up that generation?
Makes me think of this Althouse Post..
Point of Pride to run a Marathon without one, and Point of Necessity to Provide them Free.
From that previous post:
"Here's the story of a 27-year-old model named Lauren Wasser, who nearly died from TSS and ended up with one leg amputated. She went to bed feeling sick, as if she had the flu and was later discovered "facedown on the bedroom floor with a fever of 107 degrees."
So when the first woman from Dane County gets TSS from state-provided tampons how much will she sue for?
I am Laslo.
Some men may also benefit..
"It has also been claimed that some menophiles also enjoy licking used sanitary towels and/or sucking on used tampons. For these individuals, there are some clear overlaps between mysophilia (sexual pleasure from filth and unclean items such as soiled knickers) and sexual vampirism. There was also a case of a man who was both a menophile and a coprophile (i.e., sexually aroused by faeces). He was allegedly caught tampering with public toilets as a way of collecting excreted waste products from female users to fuel his sexual desires..."
People like this guy benefit, too..
I am Laslo.
And of course, this. "After a particularly "rough" night of sex (i.e. partner had a large member) a former gay cowoirker claimed that he had trouble keeping his fecal matter in, and needed a tampon to prevent anal leakage.".
I am Laslo.
It is more expensive to have a female body.
The argument for government to make up the difference is not going to die.
Remember that we are dependent on women to contribute their bodies to the greater good of producing the next generation. Convincing women to take care of our own needs in a highly individualistic style would, if taken absolutely seriously, end civilization as we know it. Handing out tampons is next to nothing compared to the burden civilization expects women to carry. You're getting female services super cheap. Value it while it's still available.
Female entitled narcissism personified. It's what feminism has become. "Give me free shit because I have a vagina." Is the argument of a child.
The notion that specific men's health needs are met in ways not provided to women in public rest rooms is such bullshit.
" Value it while it's still available."
It isn't going anywhere. If anything it's getting cheaper and more abundant.
@EDH,
Unless the proponents want to require people to ask a bureaucrat to actually hand them them a sanity product each time....
As Freudian slips go, EDH, that's one of the best of all time!
The original argument was based on a principle stated in The Constitution: promote the general welfare. The principle requires discovery of the greatest common denominator reconciled with the moral principle of individual dignity.
That said, either the origin of consciousness is a mystery, it is, or biological imperatives are a negotiable fact of nature and evolutionary fitness, which a significant minority seem to believe.
Do women lend their bodies to serve posterity as a social construct?
As for the sanitary pad dispenser, the original solution was derived from the premise of a man and woman sharing costs in a relationship, and women carrying purses rather than wallets. This changed with the promotion of quasi-polygamist arrangements and the equivalence or congruence movement following the feminist revolution.
Also, around that time, the social construct was reconfigured and Planned Parenthood was born in order to recycle and redistribute unwanted or inconvenient masses of tissues, organs, etc. from socially deconstructed babies.
Renee said...
Or the argument for public bathrooms would be NO toilet paper or paper towels, everyone would just purchase it off site and carry it with them.
---
Well..in some European countries, entry into some public toilets are paid. You could make an argument for purchase of supplies..the "offsite" bit is a jump.
But while going there...some prefer maxipads..or menstrual cups.
Free breastfeeding supplies, diapers as well? Anything else?
But really..to fully test the logic here, why limit it to public buildings?
Ann - you aren't going to win this one. Your most vocal commenters tend to be male, who mostly don't buy into treating women extra special because they might, maybe, spend a couple years out of their longer lives having kids. Indeed, if you multiply 9 months (.75 years) per birth times the average number of births per woman, and subtract from the extra years that women live statistically, women are still ahead.
Now, of course, this is not aimed at average women, but rather low income women, who in this day and time tend to be on welfare, have more than the 2.1 (or so) children, and do so often without a father living in the household. In short, precisely the women we don't want to be having more kids, or, indeed, getting more free stuff (which incentivizes them to have more kids). Esp more boy children, who are much more likely statistically to end up in prison (as their sisters have the next generation out of wedlock).
Which is to say that the progressive tendency is to give away other people's money in response to one sob story after another, ignoring that the unintended consequences of their largess with our money has, essentially, devastated lower income communities around the country, and esp lower income black communities. And, yes, that is why so many black males die violently every year, and we have the BLM controversy.
"You're getting female services super cheap. Value it while it's still available."
Brave New World had something to say about that. Don't make them too expensive.
Women want to be on a pedestal. 95% of workplace deaths happen to men. I don't see women stepping up to do these jobs. Instead, women like to dominate cushy sectors like HR and whine about men.
In most public bathrooms in NYC, the facilities for men use two ply tissue. It's very gentle and absorbent. It's like having a young fawn lick you clean. It's too expensive to be sold on the open market and can only be found in public men's rooms. There's also a wide varieties of toiletries available if you want to freshen up. I like the Lauren line myself, but Chanel produces some fine products for men that are only available in public men's rooms. There are signs everywhere saying DONT TALK ABOUT THIS, but obviously someone's been gabbing.
@Althouse, you hang around with a lot of liberal university professors. For all of their education why can't they grasp that what EDH wrote up thread is the almost certain result? (I am taking for granted that you see it.)
I haven’t heard any opposition,” said Carousel Bayrd, the board’s first vice-chair.
Good to know that we have our very own Pauline Kael on the Dane County Board.
"The government needs to buy us all a red dress of freedom."
The government needs to buy us everything. I have so many needs, I can hardly begin to list them.
I must take a stand regarding doors.
There was a male bathroom in the music floor of UW Madison's that was always missing stall doors. That seemed like a micro-aggression or unsafe space or something...
Women have to accept the fact that due to their need for tampons, and their rudeness and slovenly behavior our environment has suffered tremendously. Because they keep flushing tampons down the toilet.
http://jezebel.com/time-to-accept-reality-and-stop-flushing-tampons-down-t-1566737300
STOP FLUSHING TAMPONS DOWN THE TOILET! Think of the polar bears. If we have free tampons in all bathrooms, isn't that just going to increase the number of tampons flushed down the toilet? If they didnt' have the tampon there, they probably wouldn't use it there. Ergo, making tampons freely available will only increase the number of tampons that aren't biodegrading in land fills.
The argument is not going away. Because women are children? What I really like about this demand and others like it is the unintended consequences of the demand being met. One will be the marginalization of women by men which is what the SJW's are fighting against. It's a fact. The more you ask for free stuff, the less the givers think of you.
"@Althouse, you hang around with a lot of liberal university professors. For all of their education why can't they grasp that what EDH wrote up thread is the almost certain result? (I am taking for granted that you see it.)"
See what? The inside of nongrasping heads?
I agree that some people might take a whole bunch of tampons for off-site use. Others would be squicked out at the idea of putting a tampon that's been sitting out in a public bathroom into their vaginas. There's a reason for vending machines!
First they should make it a law that bathrooms in Wisconsin are properly cleaned......
I've been in some nice hotels where the women's bathrooms have free tampons. I remember thinking it was nice... but only the context of a really nice bathroom. Now that I'm thinking about the subject, I'm wondering why I'm willing to use the toilet paper in a public bathroom. Maybe we should bring our own.
"'Remember that we are dependent on women to contribute their bodies to the greater good of producing the next generation.' Is this a valid enough reason to subsidized the women who don't?"
Do you know the first thing about childbirth?
Remember, it was Republicans that have been proposing making birth control an over-the-counter product. Access to products and personal responsibility is the way to increase freedom not giving free s&^* away.
So what companies make tampons in Wisconsin?
@Rusty I deleted your comment because you put in a lot of extra line breaks. That's not an acceptable way to draw attention to your comment. Everyone needs to stop that. See my new comments message.
"Others would be squicked out at the idea of putting a tampon that's been sitting out in a public bathroom into their vaginas."
Uh..I think these would be packaged in a err..sanitary manner. Maybe with a PSA or "brought to you by..".
Bruce Hayden:
Actually, this proposal may merit consideration if this society acknowledged intrinsic value. Otherwise, it is promoted with ulterior motives, which is a recipe for corruption.
It makes sense for businesses and governments to supply these in bathrooms. How easy it is for one's period to suddenly show up! I don't remember to carry supplies on me at all times. I'm so glad the government building I work on has them for such emergencies! Easier for me to get back to work for sure!
If men had to give be pregnant and give birth, we would see an abortion clinic on every corner, sort of like Wallgreens. It's pretty evident that there are men that don't appreciate women for their contribution to perpetuating the species.
"'Remember that we are dependent on women to contribute their bodies to the greater good of producing the next generation."
And here I thought that women had babies because they got horny and fucked. I had no idea that women in Madison were having babies as a public good. I have read that the Nazis incentivized German women to have babies to provide soldiers for the Vaterland. And Wisconsin has large German population, so maybe women in that part of the world are like Lady Hillingdon: "When I hear his steps outside my door I lie down on my bed, open my legs and think of England.".
"OTOH, as you are getting several years more life out of it on average than the typical man, maybe we can consider accounts settled? How much are you willing to pay, after all, for the extra six years of life expectancy?"
It's expensive living those extra years. Dying younger is cheaper. How much do you need to save for retirement?
And the expense I am talking about isn't for makeup and clothes. I am referring to the cost associated with the reproductive system, including pregnancy and childbirth. Just the money spent.
As far as the physical burdens and risks of pregnancy and childbirth, these are iimpossible to put a number on, but we should all be grateful for the women who have stepped up to what is quite rightly a matter of choice.... especially our own mothers.
Clinical abortion and cannibalism. Reduce. Reuse. Recycle.
I suppose the immigration and refugee crises are designed to compensate for millions of women served and corrupted under selective-child and planning policies.
The debasement of human life with a pretense of good intentions.
I wonder if the sanitary pad dispenser was conceived with the motive of improving the fiscal return on female commodities.
Somebody mentioned that the tampon would be in some sort of wrapper, as if that overcomes my sense that these things left in the public bathroom are not clean enough to be put up inside yor body, against your internal membranes, for hours. It's not as though I pictured them unwrapped. I'd like to see the proposed wrapper. It will have to be something much tougher and more waterproof than a regular Tampax right out of the box. And you have to touch the wrapper to unwrap it. No, I am not picturing anything a woman should be willing to use, and even to come close would require something that would be less environmentally friendly than what you'd buy for yourself.
This is becoming a bit surreal. Is the value and significance of human life merely a social construct to be redefined for leverage?
It seems that corruption and dysfunction arise from constructing a paradox where moral principles are simultaneously rejected and demanded, and natural imperatives are negotiated for opportunistic causes.
Is that the extent of human "evolution"? Truly chaotic.
Jesus, girl. Give it a rest. Let's talk about prostates for awhile.
"It's expensive living those extra years. Dying younger is cheaper."
Those lucky males, huh? My heart bleeds for you poor wymmynz.
"It's expensive living those extra years."
Social Security, Medicare, add it up and make women prepay the extra cost.
"Dying younger is cheaper."
Indeed, men are saving society money and leaving more for their surviving spouses. Let's settle accounts now. It's the feminist thing to do, making the sexes equal and everything.
Ann,
Oh, so living longer is expensive. Why don't we take everyone out back and shoot them once they hit 60? Or 40, for that matter, because "dying younger is cheaper."
Seriously, how much would you pay for those extra years? I'm assuming it's nonzero.
And old people are actually not expensive. I realize that in some climes the idea is that everyone over 60 has an incredibly expensive, chronic, incurable disease. It's 90% nonsense.
I know you weren't talking about makeup and clothes (which latter I didn't actually mention; here the clothes budget is 95% my husband, actually). You were talking about reproduction. Does it occur to you that the expense of reproduction is mainly male? Childbirth is female, but there are the ensuing 18 years to consider (and beyond, as men are being forced into paying college expenses when divorced that they wouldn't owe while married).
Yes, I'm grateful to my mother -- the more so as I'm childless myself.
No, I am not picturing anything a woman should be willing to use, and even to come close would require something that would be less environmentally friendly than what you'd buy for yourself.
But that's the point. You aren't buying it for yourself.
There's a reason for vending machines!
Yep. And that alone blows this whole discussion out of the water.
Althouse retorts: Do you know the first thing about childbirth?
Utter non sequitur. Care to elaborate on labor?
I always carry a spare maxipad on the bicycle, in case the one in the helmet needs replacing.
Women should have the same foresight.
Forehanded is forearmed.
Somebody mentioned that the tampon would be in some sort of wrapper
Vulva means wrapper in Latin.
If men had to be pregnant and give birth, we would see an abortion clinic on every corner, sort of like Wallgreens. It's pretty evident that there are men that don't appreciate women for their contribution to perpetuating the species.
Let's invent a counterfactual, imagine how it would play out, then use it as evidence for our own point of view! Who knew it was that easy?
@Georgie: men that don't appreciate women for their contribution to perpetuating the species.
There are lots of us out here who would pay women NOT to perpetuate the species and so as NOT to contribute to pollution, the extermination of the planet's flora and fauna, and shortages of energy and water, but we aren't given the chance.
Haven't we long since passed the point where providing for the general welfare implies putting contraceptives in the world's drinking water supply?
The move follows an effort by state Rep. Melissa Sargent, D-Madison, to require all publicly funded school and state buildings to supply those products on the state’s tab. After circulating the measure for co-sponsorship, Sargent said the bill has been turned in with only Democratic support. Though Sargent is not hopeful the bill will pass this session, she sees the debate that it has stirred as a success.
“It has started a wave of conversation of why is it that women and girls don’t have all their basic public health needs in bathrooms in the same way that men do,” Sargent said."
Governor Walker and the Republican legislature ought to propose a tax on all registered Democrats and on all state and local workers to fund this.
...all their basic public health needs in bathrooms in the same way that men do.
Are there women who don't know what's in men's bathrooms? Do men's bathrooms in Wisconsin have amenities I'm unaccustomed to? This kind of soft headed argument puzzles even someone who has come to expect soft headedness from nearly every quarter.
And the expense I am talking about isn't for makeup and clothes. I am referring to the cost associated with the reproductive system, including pregnancy and childbirth. Just the money spent.
As far as the physical burdens and risks of pregnancy and childbirth, these are iimpossible to put a number on, but we should all be grateful for the women who have stepped up to what is quite rightly a matter of choice.... especially our own mothers.
11/29/15, 2:45 PM"
Lets abolish abortion then if woman are doing this for the team or lets sterilize all woman who don't explicitly volunteer to become mothers and are willing to accept the risks and the costs.
" I am referring to the cost associated with the reproductive system, including pregnancy and childbirth. Just the money spent."
This is a cost just to women? Certainly sometimes but I seem to remember paying the out of pocket cost of the birth of four children (one birth not insured) and the insurance for the other three.
The physical cost is another matter. Men die in wars. Women die in childbirth. Fortunately neither you nor I had that misfortune. Lucky us. I guess I was luckier since I never fought in a war, let alone died. Apart from wars most of the earlier mortality of males results from biologically driven personal choice. We could decide not to have a few beers and then take a spin on the motorcycle, but where's the fun in that?
The sanitation issue with the tampons can be solved by a vending machine that does not require payment. Or put them in a big foil package. That seems to work with condoms. (Insert smaller package joke here.)
And what the hell. Make them free in government bathrooms in Madison. Our productive government workers surely deserve this. (Just make sure it comes out of the local property tax not the state income and sales taxes.)
Local option for free tampons! Hail diversity. Once we are done hailing, how about those school test score results for the black kids? Maybe free cookies would make that better. Oreos?
I'm pretty glad to be a man for lots of reasons. The easier time on the reproductive stuff is just a small part of it. I've been there for childbirth. Four times. My wife and I had issues we could not resolve but she was a world champ in doing that.
Ann, I've known of tampons ever since I bought one at The Juilliard School as a kid, because it said "sanitary napkin" and I was expecting something like those little alcohol-laced thingies you get at Chinese restaurants. Instead I got something that looked like a white caterpillar. I told this to my mom and she laughed herself sick.
So, you aren't picturing anything a woman should be willing to use, and yet you're OK with the plan? Or aren't you? And where does this leave ordinary vending-machine tampons? Are they also insufficiently secure? (As for "less environmentally friendly," I doubt that low-income women are much worrying about that. Just sayin'.)
I have always been grateful for the dispensers when in need, and the cost is always nominal (and I have given and been given a coin when in need). However, when tampons are not available, I just use toilet paper until I can obtain my item of choice.
Ann, I always unroll a few top layers of toilet paper and then use the next layers for myself in public bathrooms. Not a perfect standard, but better than none.
Within the very narrow field of public bathrooms, it seems very obvious that men leave a much smaller carbon footprint. Just for one thing, men don't have to use toilet paper when taking a leak. Not even a single sheet. Beyond this, far less water is used to flush a urinal than a toilet. If all this water could be sent to the Middle East that benighted region would flourish. I have nothng bad to say about menstruating women. They add color and vivid drama to the drab lives of many men, but, nonetheless, it's only fair that they should pay their own way when it comes to tampons.
'If men had to give [sic] be pregnant...'
Georgie: When your argument is premised on an impossibility, then the rest of your argument is likely as fatuous.
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes-Benz...
Ann,
wouldn't it be the same as you get out of a box?
That is, wrapped in paper, or in the case of a pad, in a box?
Do you worry about buying an individual tampon in a ladies room? Why would the free tampon/pad be any different?
As for toilet paper in the mens, fine with me if they take it out. I never use it anyway. I always carry wetwipes in my car, suitcase, briefcase. Makes a much better buttwipe than the cheap stuff in most men's rooms.
John Henry
Most men's rooms I use in public places (such as airports, bars, restaurants) have piss on the toilet, no toilet paper, and no hand towels. Not sure what the fine representative thinks we have in there, but she's welcome to use the bathrooms I use. Or, maybe we should just buy these things for everyone. Hell- why stop at $15/hour minimum wage and free tampons? Ask for what you really want, up front. Would all of you on the left just tell us what the fuck you want in the end, so we can add it all up, see how many more years we all have to work to pay for you, then let us get on with our fucking lives?
Back in the 80's I did some work with an Ecuadoran who, with his wife, had spent 4 years in engineering school in Romania. This was under Ceauscau and tampons and condoms were illegal.
He and his wife went somewhere for a weekend and brought back tampons and condoms hidden in a larger box of something for some friends. My guy told the husband that there were some birth control devices inside.
My guy said that a couple days later his friend thanked him but found that sex with the birth control devices was almost impossible and very uncomfortable.
The woman was so unfamiliar with tampons that she had no idea what they were for.
John Henry
Am I mistaken or once upon a time did feminine hygiene products merit an addition to the "possible tax deduction if you add it up, meet that percentage, then what's over that percentage" medical deduction? Or something. Perhaps something in the tax code - because we can't have it be simple or anything...
I support giving out tampons, no strings attached.
In many parts of the world, including Japan and Europe, you have to pay to use the toilet facilities, public or private. Americans expect toilets to be free. Why should the US be an exception to what's common in so many other countries? Bring pay toilets to the US, then provide women with tampons as an included service at no extra charge.
“I strongly support it and I haven’t heard any opposition,” said Carousel Bayrd, the board’s first vice-chair.
Hmm.
I suspect Ms. Bayrd would interpret the observed bullet holes on returning bombers in WWII -- the fewest bullet holes were on the engines, the most in the fuselage -- incorrectly and she would place all the bullet-proofing on the fuselage. Disaster would ensue.
To put it another way: It's very hard to hear anything in an echo chamber.
"This is a cost just to women? Certainly sometimes but I seem to remember paying the out of pocket cost of the birth of four children (one birth not insured) and the insurance for the other three."
My reference is to the expense, not to who pays it. Could be her, could be her husband, could be taxpayers. Irrelevant to my point. The expense is incurred by the female body, and the expense is greater than for the male body, and civilization needs enough women to take the options that are most expensive.
"Except a menstruating woman is NOT contributing her body to the greater good...yada yada. If pregnant, she wouldn't be menstruating."
I repeat: do you know the first thing about childbirth?
Hint to the slow or ignorant: after a woman gives birth, does she bleed? For how long? How many pads or tampons will she need? Compare that to what she'd need if she had not been pregnant. If this is something you don't know or have never thought about, I am glad to have helped you get a glimpse of reality.
The expense is incurred by the female body, and the expense is greater than for the male body, and civilization needs enough women to take the options that are most expensive.
Boo Hoo buttercup. Modern women need to suck it up and soldier on. The number one cause of death for women used to be childbirth. It has never been safer, more pain free, or easier, for women to have children then it is today.
Women aren't exactly squatting down in the middle of the field to give birth before finishing the days work anymore Althouse.
Hell- why stop at $15/hour minimum wage and free tampons? Ask for what you really want, up front. Would all of you on the left just tell us what the fuck you want in the end, so we can add it all up, see how many more years we all have to work to pay for you, then let us get on with our fucking lives?
Answer:
More, always more.
I agree that some people might take a whole bunch of tampons for off-site use. [emphasis mine]
@Althouse, if the plan is to start in poor neighborhoods, turn "some" into nearly everybody. My question was, do you understand "the tragedy of the commons"? Do you grasp that poor people do things differently from the way you and other middle class people do? I have seen poor people take "free" things that they have no expectation of using, merely to throw them into the trash later so no one else can have them. That's the reality. Do you comprehend it? Do any of your colleagues?
The "free" Tampons should be coated with water activated "Gorilla Glue". That would have the fringe benefit of reducing unwanted pregnancies.
John Henry,
Sounds like that was really effective birth control.
Ann Althouse said...Remember that we are dependent on women to contribute their bodies to the greater good of producing the next generation. Convincing women to take care of our own needs in a highly individualistic style would, if taken absolutely seriously, end civilization as we know it. Handing out tampons is next to nothing compared to the burden civilization expects women to carry. You're getting female services super cheap. Value it while it's still available.
The hell we do; Western societies have low & declining birth rates--we're depending on importing people to do our procreating. By your own standard (creating the next generation) women in our societies are letting us down! Do you really think the reason is because they aren't getting free tampons?
Your assumption is that women leading their lives in "highly individualistic style[s]" would mean they wouldn't have kids. I could argue that that's rubbish in that plenty of women WANT to have kids, and in fact are willing to have kids without being married (or even in long term monogamous relationships)but I'm going to take the opposite tack and assume you've embraced thinking at the margin. Good! So your argument in that case is that slightly decreasing the cost of "having a woman's body" will encourage women, at the margin, to have more children. The first thing to ask about that, and it's a bit rude I admit, is how you think that effect will be distributed w/r/t the class/income level of the women in question. Now maybe that doesn't matter, but we should be up front in admitting that if this had the effect of marginally increasing the propensity of the beneficiary women to have kids (or have more kids) then it'll be the among lower-income women where you'll see that increase (or see it more strongly). Since women in that bracket are less likely to be married (and thus less likely to form the "backbone of society") it's worth asking if that's a good goal. If you don't care about where the extra kids come from (or for the challenges of providing for them, their home lives, etc) then that's not a concern. The biggest argument against the idea, though, is probably that it's unlikely to be the most cost-effective means of actually promoting more childbirth--if that's your goal (and if making it be cheaper to be a woman is your avenue) then your money would probably be better spent in another way.
Ann Althouse said...You're getting female services super cheap. Value it while it's still available.
Ann Althouse said...And the expense I am talking about isn't for makeup and clothes. I am referring to the cost associated with the reproductive system, including pregnancy and childbirth. Just the money spent.
As far as the physical burdens and risks of pregnancy and childbirth, these are iimpossible to put a number on, but we should all be grateful for the women who have stepped up to what is quite rightly a matter of choice.... especially our own mothers.
I mean, I'd love to argue that you're not taking into account any number of monetary and non-monetary expenses of having a male body, but that'd be mansplaining, probably. There's some cost involved with fighting wars, fighting off attackers, giving up seats on the lifeboat, paying for the courtship, that sort of thing. "Super cheap" seems calculated to elicit a response so I'll avoid it beyond that. Anyway we had a pretty solid system going, one that went a long way towards ensuring that the woman's costs were covered in a way that supported and encouraged child rearing. It wasn't a perfect system, of course, but it was pretty successfully killed off for much of society, and many feminists view that as a signature victory--so to hear complaints now that we aren't doing enough to support women's costs is a bit rich.
Being the sole (or at a minimum primary) provider wasn't ever a lot of fun, I imagine, what with the physical labor, real risk of injury, stress of having dependents, etc, but men took on that burden for most of our history. Prior to the 1960s domestic work wasn't easy, of course, but it was easier than the type of labor most men had to do to provide for their families. That bargain, imperfect as it was, did a pretty good job of providing the kinds of incentives necessary to produce relatively stable families and birth rates capable of growing the population. All of that's over now, of course, and I'm not arguing we should (or could) "go back." It would be healthy, though, to at least admit that the problem you're trying to solve is at least in part caused by the (your?) solution to an earlier problem--one that might have been in unintended consequence to some feminists but was a rather explicit goal of others.
"It is more expensive to have a female body."
Especially for drinkers, a large part of America and of course Wisconsin, this may not be true.
Even non-drinking men eat more than women, which takes more money all else equal.
Hint to the slow or ignorant: after a woman gives birth, does she bleed? For how long? How many pads or tampons will she need? Compare that to what she'd need if she had not been pregnant. If this is something you don't know or have never thought about, I am glad to have helped you get a glimpse of reality.
Not sure how you get to "give me free stuff because I'm a girl" from there.
Actually, i have changed my mind...chocolate won't be next, make up will. At the very least it will be made tax deductible if they can't find a justification for the government to provide it.
Then it will be free chocolate in the break room.
And a special break room for women that men can't enter as a safe space.
I'll go with Hoodlum Doodlum. Being a traditional sort (and marrying in the mid 1960's) the money that paid for the "higher expenses of a female body" was provided--for the bulk of our 50 year marriage--through the work I did to support the family. In a "Cleaver family style" marriage, the woman does pay a heck of a price in terms of advancement in any career she might want to pursue outside the home. I'm keenly aware of that. There are costs for both the husband and the wife. But we produced two daughters who have been educated and started successful careers, and marriages.
It's the choice we made--and the price(s) that we paid. And we wouldn't have it any other way.
The expense is incurred by the female body
The female body was made to menstruate and give birth. It is no extraordinary burden on her body.
Girls may need help with purchasing sanitary supplies -- from her parents. Women are adults and can take care of their own hygiene. They don't need Uncle Sugar to treat them like helpless children or state owned pets.
Can't afford pads - use rags the way it used to be done.
Men's rooms used to have condom dispensers, but I don't think they were free.
On the point of extra expense of the female reproductive system, society already covers a fair amount of this extra expense by making everyone pay the same health insurance premium in a community rating, even though any actuary could tell you flat out that women cost more to insure than men do.
This whole business of trying to add up costs and try to compare them to someone else's and cry "unfair" reminds me of something. A teenager counting up how many things one sibling got and throwing a temper tantrum if they felt they were on the short end of the stick. Yes, it's true ladies need to spend more than the men on average because of biology. But that can apply to a lot of classes of people - the elderly, diabetics, people with various birth defects, the mentally unwell, those who need lots of medications, the obese. Life isn't fair with its various costs and ill turns.
Public subsidies should focus on things that by their nature are impractical for the individual to provide or take care of themselves. Hence public restrooms and a sewage system, and other things like roads, schools, defense and the like. While I understand that tampons are a great invention and convenience for women, they are not so prohibitively expensive that a general mass subsidy is required.
I would also note that if tampons had to be provided, they would probably not be of the quality of currently available commercial products in most places. Like toilet paper in most public restrooms, they would most likely be cheap, coarse, barely adequate versions of the product.
Btw, women may be more vulnerable while pregnant, but men's health also becomes affected in that there is more pressure and stress to make sure he keeps his job or doesn't die, now that there is another mouth to feed and kept clothed.
Most men provide their women with a higher standard of living. And better quality sanitary products if she stays home to raise the children.
From http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6009a5.htm--
During 2007--2008, on average, men consumed 2,504 kilocalories daily, and women consumed 1,771 kilocalories daily. Men had a significantly higher intake of kilocalories than women in each of the three age groups: 20--39 years, 40--59 years, and ≥60 years. Men aged ≥60 years consumed fewer kilocalories than younger men, and women aged ≥60 years consumed fewer kilocalories than younger women.
Source: Wright JD, Wang CY. Trends in intake of energy and macronutrients in adults from 1999--2000 through 2007--2008. NCHS Data Brief no. 49. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db49.htm.
So 733 calories per day for 40 years = 10,701,800 extra calories consumed by the average male American vs. female aged 20-60.
This whole post by Ms. Althouse is sarcastic. She clues us in with the last line; women demanding the government by them a freedom dress.
There is an oxymoronic quality about that statement that I cannot believe she didn't intend.
The rest was gibberish and double-speak poking fun at their arguments.
Ann Althouse said...
"This is a cost just to women? Certainly sometimes but I seem to remember paying the out of pocket cost of the birth of four children (one birth not insured) and the insurance for the other three."
My reference is to the expense, not to who pays it. Could be her, could be her husband, could be taxpayers. Irrelevant to my point. The expense is incurred by the female body, and the expense is greater than for the male body, and civilization needs enough women to take the options that are most expensive.
11/29/15, 6:47 PM "
You should take your beef to God or Mother Nature. They are the guilty party for woman's affliction. Your position is somewhat strange, unless woman have a secret (to men) ability to have children via parthenogenesis there is no pregnancy without a man. So they aren't exactly doing this for civilization all on their own. Woman also have the ability to not engage in sex, that is a surefire method of avoiding pregnancy or absent that using more than one for of contraception. Most woman must be crazy since they have a least one child and many are utterly nuts by having several. At least that is how you seem to sound.
I'm envisioning a black market created for tampons. The tampons are going to be setup in the bathroom. Someone will go in there, remove all the tampons, and then sell them on the street as loosies, just like Eric Garner sold cigarettes.
And so many will be sold illegally thst the mayor will demand the cops crack down on illegal tampon sellers.
And then one day someone might get arrested, and when being dragged down by cops has a heart attack. Then the cops are going to be accused of targeting him because he was black. (Assuming he is so for this example) All because ladies wanted free tampons.
Thanks ladies.
black lives matter, don't you know? How many have to die so you can have "free" tampons?
Condom machines used to be tagged "State trooper uniforms," in the highway men's rooms at least. That was a more literate time.
I'd guess the ladies' tampax machines went untagged.
Because if you don't marry me, your dreams of touching the lives of millions with the written word are dead. Bob is gonna fire you the second I'm gone. Guaranteed. That means you're out on the street alone looking for a job. That means all the time that we spent together, all the lattes, all the canceled dates, all the midnight Tampax runs, were all for nothing and all your dreams of being an editor are gone. But don't worry, after the required allotment of time, we'll get a quickie divorce and you'll be done with me. But until then, like it or not, your wagon is hitched to mine. OK?
- The Proposal, Sandra Bullock
SGT Ted said... "'Hint to the slow or ignorant: after a woman gives birth, does she bleed? For how long? How many pads or tampons will she need? Compare that to what she'd need if she had not been pregnant. If this is something you don't know or have never thought about, I am glad to have helped you get a glimpse of reality.' Not sure how you get to "give me free stuff because I'm a girl" from there."
I'm not sure how you got to "Althouse supports free tampons in bathrooms" from there.
Unlike a lot of people — most people? — I don't marshall a bunch of arguments for one side and lock into persuasion mode. I make different observations, some of which don't support the policy position I would take.
My policy position is that the govt should NOT put free tampons out in public bathrooms. My main reasons are: 1. The product must be kept sanitary, and it's not guaranteed to be clean enough for health purposes, 2. The presumption should be against spending tax money money on more things, 3. At least some people will swipe more than they need on for immediate use, 4. It's not a strategic way to get a needed product to the people who are actually in need, 5. It's environmentally unsound, increasing the waste associate with sanitary products because of the additional packaging that will be needed and the likelihood that people will take extras and use them with reduced frugality (or notice lots of extra uses for this free stuff).
Nevertheless, I chose to correct the people who were smugly making an argument (responding to something else I said) that the women who step up to the burden of pregnancy are the very ones who don't need sanitary products, because one doesn't bleed while pregnant. There was some ignorance there and I wanted to correct.
The something else I said I felt was important, aside from my disapproval of the policy of free tampons: Women have an argument to make, which we will continue to hear and cannot expect to go away, that we bear special burdens, including optional burdens that are crucial to the continuation of life as we know it, and those burdens will motivate demands and provide a foundation for those demands. Whether you or I agree with the particular demands or not, we are foolish if we think this is frivolous nonsense that will or should go away. It will not. In fact, it will probably get worse as more women, including many of the most competent women, chose to forego the burdens of pregnancy, childbirth, lactation, and child-rearing. I may support some of these policies. For example, I probably would support the government paying for all birth control. I think I'd support school nurses handing out tampons and sanitary napkins one at a time to any student who asked.
By the way, some of you are trying to balance out the burdens on men and women: Men may be expected to do heavier work and more of the military service and to earn more of the money for families. But this isn't a burden that comes from the body. This is a burden imposed from the outside because the body is stronger (in at least some important ways) and the body carries virtually NONE of the burdens of reproduction. And women are, more and more, taking on those exterior responsibilities as they go into the workplace and the military and undertake childrearing without the partnership of the father.
Yes, there's that terrible limitation, death, and death comes sooner (on average) for men. But we are talking about the burdens on the living bodies of men and women, and death is the end of those burdens. Yes, death is also the end of your joys and pleasures in this world, but the subject has not been who gets more benefit. The topic has been burden and what government should do about the unequal burdens in life. But I agree it is sad to die too soon, and I support govt-funded research and other research that will extend life, including the causes that disproportionately affect men.
I also agree that society consumes its male bodies in work and war. Men can be regarded as expendable, precisely because they don't serve in the long burdensome bodily work of reproduction. Women are favored and supported in many ways and that support will continue in one form or another, especially if we remain a free society where pregnancy is regarded as a matter of individual choice. We need women to step up to reproductive service, and we must pay attention to the incentives.
" . . . especially if we remain a free society where pregnancy is regarded as a matter of individual choice.
It's only a choice for 50% of the population for a segment of their lives. The segment when they are the most economically productive. The capitalists figured that out quick.
Anyone, of course, can rear a child.
"The topic has been burden and what government should do about the unequal burdens in life."
Why should the government do anything about the unequal burdens in life? Your friends and family, maybe, but complete strangers? Cuz the government loves you and cares about you?
What kind of price is this equalizing government going to demand for doing what it is basically shitty at?
Why should I, a man, be expected to pay for products I will never need in my life? Women are equal. You can cover your own needs just fine.
What do men get in bathrooms? What are we talking about here?
Men getting stall doors is spotty at best. Women don't want men's rest rooms.
The argument for government to make up the difference is not going to die.
"Give me free shit" is always a popular argument.
You're getting female services super cheap.
Divorced men and college boys would disagree. Vehemently.
I was in a men's bathroom at a private golf club that seemed to have available every cologne known to man. That was cool, but it took me an hour to sniff them all.
I prefer the old days when a woman was exiled for a few days to a hut in the village. I guess we call that home now.
I'm told women who work together synch up their bodily rhythms after a time, I think this will be a problem in keeping the dispenser full. Not to mentions the obvious flushing issue.
"The topic has been burden and what government should do about the unequal burdens in life."
Why didn't you define the topic succinctly to begin with. The appropriate response is, of course, "nothing." The government should do nothing. "Nothing" has worked for almost all of humanity's existence, and "nothing" will work for the rest of its existence. Those females of the species who need a special incentive from the government to reproduce should be barred from the gene pool, anyway, and should they bar themselves voluntarily, then all the better. Moreover, if the fraction of the female population eschewing childbirth eventually grows to encompass all females, then the pool, itself, should be allowed to dry up. A species that requires outside incentives to sustain its existence has already existed for too long and needs to be exterminated, even if for no other reason than to get rid planet of the lawyers.
Feminism (and just about everything else) is a means to power for a self-selected group of people. Don't look for justice when someone has already decided that her money has somehow got in your pocket.
Women: They can join the army, fight in combat, become firemen, policemen, and astronauts.
But they cannot buy their own birth control or their own tampons.
"Men can be regarded as expendable, precisely because they don't serve in the long burdensome bodily work of reproduction. Women are favored and supported in many ways and that support will continue in one form or another, especially if we remain a free society where pregnancy is regarded as a matter of individual choice. We need women to step up to reproductive service, and we must pay attention to the incentives."- Ms. Althouse
This is the most revealing statement I've ever read on this blog. This may be Ms. Althouse's core perspective on existence.
""The topic has been burden and what government should do about the unequal burdens in life." Why should the government do anything about the unequal burdens in life?"
I didn't say they should. I said that was the topic under discussion. There are many answers to the question though. Here are some:
1. Because it's a democracy and the democratic processes led to a decision that it's good policy.
2. Because the government is responsible for some inequities.
3. Because it may be causally connected to the general welfare.
"Because it's a democracy and the democratic processes led to a decision that it's good policy."
Why the passive voice?
"Because the government is responsible for some inequities."
And the government will decide what to do about it, unquestionably producing more inequities along the way. Now I understand the passive voice in point #1.
"Because it may be causally connected to the general welfare."
Then the general welfare clause is meaningless, since anything may be causally connected to the general welfare.
Well Ann,
1: If we're worried about "unequal burdens in life": as a male I'm far more likely to be accused of rape. What's the gov't doing to release me from this burden?
For that matter, as a male I can't have kids, I have to rely on a woman. How are you addressing that harsh, unequal, burden?
As for your answers: 1: It's a democracy, and the majority thinks this is a stupid idea. Therefore it is a stupid idea, right?
2: How did gov't create the "problem" of women menstruating?
3: Everything is "connected to the general welfare" if you look hard enough. Why should this particular issue be worth our time and money?
Ann Althouse said...Men may be expected to do heavier work and more of the military service and to earn more of the money for families. But this isn't a burden that comes from the body. This is a burden imposed from the outside because the body is stronger (in at least some important ways) and the body carries virtually NONE of the burdens of reproduction.
Again with the focus on "bodies," you guys can't get away from it.
It'll be news to the men with heart disease, with PTSD, with ulcers, with stomach cancer, with heart attacks, etc, that those burdens don't come from their bodies. Stress-related diseases, you know, those are caused by external forces, and act on men's bodies--that stress is caused by the different type of work those men do, but apparently that doesn't count since it's of an external origin. Not like reproduction, mind you, since that happens within a woman's body with no external influence of any kind. Spontaneous stoogery, I guess.
Anyway working your joints to the point where you have not cartilage left, that's external, that's not from within the body. Noted.
I'm not trying to balance anything btw men and women. I'm saying you have to look at both sides of the ledger or you're not doing a full analysis. There are extra costs to being a woman (having a woman's body, sorry). There are also benefits. If you look only at the costs you're not doing good analysis.
But look, let's get serious. Give me a number, a percentage. You're almost certainly correct that the issue of our government having to pay in some way to cover women's costs isn't going away. You're in favor of our government paying more to women, directly or indirectly, since it's expensive to have a woman's body. OK, that means you want and expect a redistribution of some kind from people who don't have women's bodies to people who do.
Very well. I don't have a woman's body, I'm a man. What's my charge? 2% surtax? Can we first agree on exactly what should be covered? 4% extra each year? Can we means-test this, so that really poor men aren't subsidizing really rich woman-body-owners, or does that not factor into it? Will this be in addition to the extra charge I'll have to pay (eventually) to make Ta Nehisi Coates release me from my debt as a white person, or are those related since some of that money will go to nonwhite women?
Give me a number, let's stop fucking around about it. For the life of me I can't understand why it's always just assumed that any inequalities or inequities must be public good problems that can only be solved by (coerced) government action (and presumably national government action at that) but at this point I understand I've lost that argument already. Obviously 1. there's a problem so 2. the problem must be solved by the government and 3. it's my job as a man to pay the bill, so let's just get real and give me some rough figures.
The implicit assertion here seems to be that if we don't do X we risk not having the next generation/dying off as a species.
I'll pass by the point that the Left is usually hectoring us to decrease the # of people on the planet and just point out that since X in this case is some new government program/redistribution that hasn't existed in the past, the fact that we haven't gone extinct in all this time without having that program is pretty good evidence that X hasn't been necessary for our survival as a species up to this point in our history. If you're arguing that X is only now vital to our continued survival I think you'll need to work to prove or demonstrate that, and not just assume it's true.
Professor, since you don't seem to value freedom except as the ability to violate toilet training, you favor dealing with such concerns on a utilitarian basis. Women should be paid for, I suppose, carrying around these irreplaceable wombs.
However, if it's all about what's good for the state, ultimately you have a situation as in the Soviet Union where a woman could be told to give birth or not to give birth or to have sex or not to have sex, because her beloved body belongs to the state, not to her. As I believe was said by President Reagan, a government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take it all away.
Ann Althouse said... Women have an argument to make, which we will continue to hear and cannot expect to go away, that we bear special burdens, including optional burdens that are crucial to the continuation of life as we know it, and those burdens will motivate demands and provide a foundation for those demands. Whether you or I agree with the particular demands or not, we are foolish if we think this is frivolous nonsense that will or should go away. It will not. In fact, it will probably get worse as more women, including many of the most competent women, chose to forego the burdens of pregnancy, childbirth, lactation, and child-rearing. I may support some of these policies. For example, I probably would support the government paying for all birth control. I think I'd support school nurses handing out tampons and sanitary napkins one at a time to any student who asked.
But if you strip away the appeal to our love of women/innate desire to protect and provide for women, that's just special pleading, Professor. No one wants to bear the costs of their decisions, to pay for the consequences of their choices--that's not something special to women, that's universal! Structuring our society around making sure people don't bear the costs for their decisions is what's dragging us down, and you're seemingly aruguing that what we need is more of it.
Childbearing is costly. It always has been! In the past we dealt with that cost in a number of ways, chief among them by structuring our society in such a way that stable families were created and supported, and those family units helped bear the cost of things like childbearing (and of course raising children, providing for elders, etc). That social structure involved very real tradeoffs, and about half a century ago we decided it wasn't acceptable to us anymore. We as a society changed, and one of the results of those changes is that there's not a good structure in place (for a lot of people) to support childbearing. But that's just a cost--an entirely predictable cost--of doing away with that prior social structure. It's silly to say now "hey, I want to be independent, do my own thing, make my own choices, not be hampered by that old social structure, be truly equal and do it all for myself" and then turn around and also say "oh but by the way, since childbearing is costly I expect someone else to step in and bear some of that cost for me."
A consequence of not favoring stable, married family creation is that women have to bear more of the direct expenses of childbearing without help from a father or family unit. Saying "it's not fair" doesn't make that cost go away. We changed the structure, and women have more freedom, more independence, more choices, and are expected to take on more responsibility. That's good, everyone likes that! Another consequence is that women who don't go the "having children within a long term marriage" route won't automatically have a spouse we all expect to help her pay her costs. That's bad, we all agree that's a shame! It's a logical consequence, though, it follows.
From that set of facts I'm still not clear on why it's my job, my duty, now to step in and bear some of the burden for this woman. It used to be she was her family's responsibility, and her husband's. Why is it suddenly mine? Did I get a vote on that? Shouldn't I?
Look, we all mocked the Life of Julia stuff, but it sure sounds like you're arguing that not only will that POV (with the government/society collectively funding and underwriting women's choices all throughout their lives) continue to gain traction, but that I as a man have a duty to support that social structure on account of my not having a woman's body. W
We overthrew the patriarchy, hooray! Hey, somebody better step up and give us some money to help pay for everything our patriarchal oppressors use to pay for, this stuff's expensive!
Do you WANT a socialist state populated by helpless dependents all fighting for a slice of that sweet government pie? 'Cause that's how you get it. The politics of free stuff is frightening to me, and when it's embraced by the Left and Right alike in the name of helping women it's all the more worrisome.
It's a man's body he has to take to a job he hates in order to make the money it takes to provide for his family, but that's external.
It's a man's body he wears out doing the kind of difficult, unpleasant physical labor that allows him to earn slightly more so he'll have money to give to his children, but that's external. Not a lot of feminists pushing for equality in the #s of each gender working those kinds of jobs, I notice, but since those problems are external I guess it's not a big deal.
It's a man's body that he has to keep employed to continue earning whatever former wage he earned when the divorce judge decreed the amount of alimony & child support he has to keep paying, no matter if that's a reasonable amount given his current circumstances or not. It's also his body that gets thrown in jail if he can't pay, of course, but jail's external and with any luck it's only things like jail food and jail water that'll be going into his body wile he's there, so that's also obviously no big deal.
Internal, immutable differences caused by physical morphology and/or genetics: important, threats against must be taken seriously, costs of must be underwritten by everyone. This conversation isn't going away.
External, modifiable differences caused by social structures/expectations (even when they lead to actual bodily harm): unimportant, suck it up whiners, if you're not the backbone of our society why should we care? This conversation isn't starting, and we'll mock you if you try to have it.
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
"Except a menstruating woman is NOT contributing her body to the greater good...yada yada. If pregnant, she wouldn't be menstruating."
I repeat: do you know the first thing about childbirth?
***********
and I repeat:
Althouse, please explain why, if "we are dependent on women, etc. etc," then why are "we" using tax dollars to support abortion of the same babies that would have made up that generation?
It's telling that you left that part out. You corrected me on a trivial point [I ask, what woman who has recently given birth would be out and about w/o her OWN tampon supply?), while ignoring the crucial one.
Why should taxpayers fund the destruction of that next generation you speak of?
I'm thinking that "feminist" harpies such as Althousesecretly regret that human females don't bite off the heads of males they copulate with, as praying mantises do.
Oh wait! I've discovered an error in my comment about abortion that the Perfesser will jump on: after an abortion, a woman bleeds and needs.....tampons!
Of course, in a "selfish gene" sense I shouldn't want to use my resources to help care for children to whom I'm not biologically related, so maybe this whole thing is moot. It's not like very many kids are being raised to support the kind of values and societal structure I prefer, anyway--most of the women I'm being told to underwrite will have kids who'll be my ideological opponents.
It's a funny world where I'm supposed to pay for birth control to prevent 'em, fund women's lives/material needs to encourage women to have 'em, pay for benefits so they can raise 'em, and then of course foot the bill for two decades of school to teach 'em to dislike me and the things I believe in...but to not do that is to be at war with women, so you'd better get back in line, comrade. Ooh, I almost forgot, make sure to pay for the health care expenses they incur growing up, and if they don't turn out to be good ones, well, we'll just send you the bill to incarcerate 'em, don't you worry.
Good thing the wallet's not considered a part of the body, otherwise I might have a case!
Freedom's just another word for makin' someone else pay for your stuff.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा