Tom Purcell: What about the war on men?
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Saturday, Sept. 8, 2012, 5:05 p.m.
Lots of people are talking about the “war on women” these days, but what about the war on men?
The war on men? This is going to be good.
Look, if you ask me, this “war on women” thing is mostly just a difference of opinion. Some people think the government should pass more laws to give women special workplace rights or force faith-based employers to include coverage for contraception and other reproductive matters in their health insurance policies for employees.
OK, fair enough.
Well, just because other people don't want the government telling organizations what they must or must not do doesn't mean they are against women. It means they don't like the idea of government establishing more laws and mandates to right every wrong, perceived or otherwise.
So you're saying the “war on women” crowd thinks it is being victimized and wants the government to intervene, whereas the “leave us alone” crowd prefers individual freedom and wants the government to butt out. But what does this have to do with the supposed “war on women”?
Well, if we men adopted a victimization mindset, we could complain about lots of things. Here's one: During our bad economic spell, many states helped close their budget shortfalls with high taxes on beer! It's well-known that men consume way more beer than women, so aren't such taxes sexist?
Where is the ACLU when you need it?
And did you know Medicare no longer covers Viagra? That's going to have a terrible impact on my relationship with the wife during my retirement years.
If the wife knows I have a stash of those pills, she'll spend way more time at the mall, ensuring peace and quiet for both of us. But there are plenty of other areas where we men are victims.
Have you noticed that when you're out at an event, women go to the bathroom together, but men never do? I think it's because the women's rooms are bigger and, depending on the joint, have cushy lounge chairs or couches. The government should mandate equal bathroom rights for men.
You want the government to do that?
Sure. If we men had more space, we'd go to the bathroom together, too. We could talk about things, such as good prostate health, that will improve our well-being and decrease medical costs. The government should like that, now that it's running our health care.
As odd as it sounds, you make some sense.
But the biggest area where men are being targeted is by female state legislators. You wouldn't believe some of the anti-male laws they're trying to pass.
You are right about that. Angered by some state laws that require women to get various tests before they make reproductive decisions, such as abortion, some female politicians have been striking back. I read about it on BuzzFeed.com.
That's right. One Virginia state senator tried to pass an amendment to a bill that “would require men to undergo a rectal exam and cardiac stress test before being treated for erectile dysfunction.”
That doesn't sound very pleasant.
Look, my point isn't that complicated. Just because people want the government to butt out of their personal lives, it doesn't mean they're against women.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Besides, isn't it a little contradictory to demand that the government stay out of your private matters while also demanding that it make religious organizations pay for your contraception? Shouldn't people and religious organizations in America have the freedom to follow their own beliefs?
And the beer tax?
That's an egregious example of the never-ending war on men!
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Garden Q&A: Firecracker vine OK for trellis?
- Davis embraces new opportunity with Pirates
- NHL notebook: Bruins’ Lucic fined $5,000 for spearing
- Mail for IRS delivered to Squirrel Hill home
- NFL notebook: Pryor will be cut if he’s not traded
- Riverhounds squander 2-goal lead, settle for draw
- Instagram builds Oakmont barber’s rep for innovative cuts, ‘hair tattooing’
- State Police: People injured in Parkway crash resulting from police chase
- ‘Patriots’ back Nevada rancher; Reid labels them ‘domestic terrorists’
- Architecture photos show difference between drama, fact
- Frye: Commission discusses ‘second opening day effect’