Supporting the government's healthcare reform efforts should be a no-brainer if you're a woman.

That's according to Marcia Greenberger, copresident of the National Women's Law Center, who testified at a Senate hearing last week that the health insurance industry is rife with "unfair and discriminatory practices... including gender rating, the exclusion of healthcare services that only women need, and pre-existing-condition denials."

Women get charged more, Greenberger tells me, because they see doctors more often than men do--at least before age 55.

"While some companies do charge men more from ages 55 to 65, at which point Medicare kicks in, others continue to charge women more or just give very small price breaks," she says.

The insurance industry, however, says it also supports fixing this problem.

Reproductive rights groups, like Planned Parenthood, have been launching offensives this week to ignite a little activism.

• 
  
• I certainly don’t agree with everything these guys say, how they say it.  There is a broad spectrum of expression in these areas.
• I don't excuse men for their dependency on government, their sins, or their mistreatment of women, nor do I excuse a man if he picks the wrong woman.  But I also do not blame a man for what a woman does.
• I like that women have real choices in their lives and do not think that ALL women should get married, stay home, make babies, and handle all domestic chores.
• If you're a guy who got married 40+ years ago and is still happily married (congrats to you), this stuff may be foreign to you or you might not relate to it.  But ask your sons, grandsons, nephews, younger male coworkers, or other young men about the women they are encountering, and the cultural environment when it comes to gender relations and gender politics.  Shifts in the law, economy, and culture in general, while they have made things much easier for guys who just want casual sex, have made it much more difficult for a man who wants a lasting, happy marriage to find the right woman to join him in that goal, and to stick to it.

Winfrey also asks Edwards, "Is it a day by day thing?" And Edwards says, "Neither one of us is out the door so I guess it's day by day, but maybe it's month by month."

One woman gets pregnant, there is a split, the other woman - who has paid for the reproductive medical treatments, perhaps donated the eggs, and wants the children - sues to block abortion. Currently, a wife can get an abortion even if her husband objects. Will "gay rights" trump abortion rights?

I do not believe that the voluntary association of a man and a woman is the same kind of voluntary association as two women or two men, and I do not see a moral or legal obligation for the state to treat all three as the same. I see a state interest in licensing and encouraging natural marriage that is not met in either of the other two kinds of unions. It is obvious to me that what keeps same-sex "marriage" and natural marriage from being equal has less to do with state licensing requirement and more to do with the nature of the sexes and the differences between them.

Fannie found a recent blog entry of mine worthy of comment on her blog.  Click here to read my previous blog entry in full.  It is very short.

You know, it's almost entertaining when I hear anti-feminist men spout the Feminists Are Ugly meme.

Well, maybe not all feminists.  But it is one of the Undeniable Truths of Life (#24) that "feminism was established as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."  And before you say it... yes, that can be true even if the man who said is has been divorced three times and has been addicted to prescription medication.

One, it reminds people that, unlike men, women are to be judged first and foremost by their attractiveness and appropriate availability to men.

If they are looking for approval or attention from men, then yes, this is the way life generally works.  This the way most men are hardwired biologically, and it is something supported by the actions of a majority of women.  Attractive women catch our eyes first and easiest – that is the initial introduction.  You might as well blame women for growing breasts.  Fortunately for female Uglo-Americans, this is not the sole criteria used in evaluating a woman.

His critique is not so much that the magazine exploits women, but more that the women who model for Playboy choose to exercise their sexuality beyond the acceptable scope of Wife Monogamously Married to Man.

I’m not quite sure what she, or other feminists – or, for that matter, what some Religious Right types – mean by "exploit" in this case.  I'm not convinced Playboy exploits women more than any other paid gig exploits a man or a woman.

I do believe that the ideal is sex within marriage only and public modesty – that goes for men and women.

By verbally depriving all feminists of their beauty, anti-feminist men attempt to deprive women of the most important value they think women have- their appeal to the male gaze.

I have not deprived any feminist of anything.  If they are ugly, that isn't my doing.

Once a woman has lost her beauty, she has lost her worth and no one is thus required to take her seriously.

Let me be clear (as our President would say) that I do not believe that a woman's only worth or even her most important attribute is her beauty.  But I do not deny that beauty is important.  Good looks help out men, too.  Life is easier for attractive people.  I've noticed I get treated differently when I am thinner than when I am packing on the fat.  But yes, the difference is more profound for women.  No amount of social engineering is going to stamp that out, but feminism has worked to try to mitigate it.

She is only saying those feminist things because she's ugly and can't get a man.

It may definitely be a factor.  Beautiful women (who are willing to entertain male attention) are often too busy enjoying dates or marriage or modeling (or working out or on their tan or shopping) to bother with being active feminists.

It is just one of the many caricatures of feminists that cause many women to begin sentences with that infamous phrase "I'm not a feminist or anything but [insert feminist statement]."

Maybe some women say that because homosexual behavior advocacy, legally-protected infanticide, and misandry have been so prominent in modern feminism and the speaker doesn’t want to be associated with one or more of those things?

Yet, what if we turned the mirror in the other direction and shone it on these fellows? We have a huge double-standard in which men, especially those who are political, do not have their looks scrutinized in the way that women do.

Are you kidding me?  Compare the looks of male politicians before and after women got the vote.  But women perpetuate a double-standard as well - they can allow a man to be unattractive as long as he is rich, and women have more to say about the appearance of female public figures than anyone else.  Who do you think is buying all of those magazines that are obsessed with the what a famous woman is wearing, her plastic surgery, and her weight loss or gain?  Are men to blame for making women feel some need to buy those magazines?  If so, are women ever reponsible for their own decisions?

Why is it that men, unattractive or not, feel that they can mock a woman's appearance while their own appearance is off-limits?

Our appearance is not off-limits - at least not mine.  But evidently, we can be balding and fat and have horrible skin, and as long as we have our name on the executive's door, or the large bank account, or the ballot, or the cinema marquee, or the pro team roster, or on the Billboard charts – we're very attractive to lots of women.  There are some really great guys out there with great ideas, manners, and a sense of humor that would make a great date (or a great friend to a lesbian), but the moment they pick up their mop to get back to work, they are dismissed by so many of those women.

I have been reading Walrus's blog off and on for a few months now, and I do remember him mentioning that he has a bit of a weight issue. Perhaps he has chosen his moniker because he really does resemble a large flippered sea mammmal?

I just might.

Seriously, attractiveness in women, from a male perspective, isn't all about looks.  Sometimes, it is a woman's attitude or behavior that makes her unattractive.  Such things can even overcome extreme physical beauty.  Conversely, a man can fall for a woman who didn't catch his eye at first if she has a winsome attitude and personality or is accomplished.  And I'm not just talking about social interaction – this can also apply to business, politics, entertainment, whatever.

It's time to start dealing with the content of the arguments that feminists are making rather just blanketly dismissing the Feminazi Fuglies that exist only in your dull imaginations.

We do address the arguments.  But sometimes, we speculate about the motivations for those arguments because, frankly, we wonder why arguments we find lacking are championed with such fervor.  Admittedly, motivation for advancing an argument does not prove or disprove the validity of the argument.

And to address one of her follow-up comments: Noticing that feminists are generally unattractive is not name-calling.

I caught some of the comments on the blog, and of course, those comments are NOT necessarily Fannie’s opinions.

"John" wrote:

It's sounds more like he's saying that conservative women are Barbie Dolls, to be dressed and undressed at the man's will.

That is not what I’m saying.  Women (and men) should maintain control over their own sexuality.  Once they choose to marry, however, they have an obligation to share themselves with each other.  What I am saying is that, in general, conservative women are more attractive.  Perhaps it is my "red" goggles at work?  I would imagine that a PETA member may no longer find a guy to be "hot" if she finds out he hunts.

"earlgreyrooibos" wrote:

So wait ... there are feminist/ugly women, conservative/attractive women, and ... Playboy models? So if feminists are "ugly" and conservative women are "attractive", where do Playboy models fit politically?

Considering their ages and what they are doing, most are probably somewhat Leftist.  Not all Leftists are feminists.

But as far as Playboy, I am fascinated by the dilemma Leftist feminists face when they claim to be free speech crusaders and claim that they are in favor of women having full freedom over their own sexuality and the right to choose, but they are still uncomfortable with Playboy and blast the women who choose to appear in there, or claim that they are being exploited.  When conservative critics call into question the virtue of such "models", it seems as if feminists believe it is okay for woman to behave a certain way, but not for someone else to apply a label to that behavior that implies disapproval - except perhaps feminists.  If so, then one of the tenents of that form of feminism seems to be that immodesty and fornication are okay.  It's like when I point out to a Leftist that pot smoking may contribute to global warming and the thought sends the poor guy into the fetal position.

I can support criticism and boycotting of things like Playboy, but since I do believe in limited government, I could not join with those on the Religious Right who would seek to outlaw the publication/associated ventures.  I know not all on the RR would call for that, but I get the idea that some would.  I have no problem with enjoying the thought that they are having financial problems because people have voluntarily cut back on purchasing their goods and services. For me, it isn't just for the imagery, but also the editorial philosophy.

What is a feminist, anyway?  It seems to be like the word "art" because it means different things to different people.  If you are straight, have never killed any of your offspring, enjoy looking and being feminine in a way that appeals to straight men, believe both men and women should be responsible for their own actions, are not paranoid that you’re missing out on something when men get together without women being around, and believe that there is nothing inherently wrong with masculinity in men and boys, there's a good chance you're not a feminist in the sense to which I was referring in my earlier blog entry.

Finally, I'd like to take this opportunity to call attention to this book: Feminists Say the Darndest Things.

The measure is designed to make it easier for workers to sue for decades-old discrimination. He said "this is a wonderful day."

The law effectively nullifies a 2007 Supreme Court decision that said workers had only 180 days to file a pay-discrimination lawsuit.

Ledbetter said she didn't become aware of a pay discrepancy until she neared the end of her 19-year career at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Gadsden, Ala.

Opponents contended the legislation would gut the statute of limitations, encourage lawsuits and be a boon to trial lawyers.

Their argument, in effect, was that the SYM is putting off traditional markers of adulthood - one wife, two kids, three bathrooms - not because he’s immature but because he’s angry.

He's angry because he thinks that young women are dishonest, self-involved, slutty, manipulative, shallow, controlling, and gold-digging.

He's angry because he thinks that the culture disses all things male.

He’s angry because he thinks that marriage these days is a raw deal for men.

You can find the same themes posted throughout websites like AmericanWomenSuck, NoMarriage, MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), and Eternal Bachelor ("Give modern women the husband they deserve. None").

SYMs of the postfeminist era are moving around in a Babel of miscues, cross-purposes, and half-conscious, contradictory female expectations that are alternately proudly egalitarian and coyly traditional.

Never before have men wooed women who are, at least theoretically, their equals—socially, professionally, and sexually.

The woman may be hoping for a hookup, but she may also be looking for a husband, a co-parent, a sperm donor, a relationship, a threesome, or a temporary place to live. She may want one thing in November and another by Christmas.

In her interviews with 100 unmarried, college-educated young men and women, Jillian Straus, author of Unhooked Generation, discovered that a lot of women had "personal scripts" - explicit ideas about how a guy should act, such as walking his date home or helping her on with her coat.

Not only have they become understandably wary of till-death-do-us-part promises; they frequently suspect that women are highway robbers out to relieve men of their earnings, children, and deepest affections.

As the disenchanted SYM sees it, then, resistance to settling down is a rational response to a dating environment designed and ruled by women with only their own interests in mind.

At the same time, evolutionary theory gives the former wuss permission to pursue massive amounts of sex with an endless assortment of women.

Forty years after they threw off the feminine mystique, women continue to prefer bigger, stronger, richer men, at least as husbands. They almost always marry men who are taller than they are, men who are several years older than they are (though the age difference has declined in recent decades), and men who earn more than they do (though that number, too, has declined a bit). Most of the women interviewed by Jillian Straus say that they’re looking for a man who can be the primary breadwinner.

And if the past is any guide, most of them, even the most masterly PUAs, will eventually find themselves coaching Little League on weekends.

However, it's also a good guess that a significant minority of SYMs are the sort you wouldn’t wish on your friends and relatives.

Author’s Note: Having broken one or more of the following rules in no way excuses a man from following them in the future.

A divorced friend of mine was complaining to me recently about the pool of women available to him here in the coastal Carolina region. His specific complaint was that too many (I think he said “all”) of the women were carrying too much baggage to have a successful relationship. I’m so tired of hearing “men” make this complaint that I’ve made it the subject of today’s column.

It is not entirely fair and accurate to say that most adult women are carrying a lot of “baggage” or have a lot of “issues.”

It is much more accurate to say that most adult women are profoundly wounded and scarred by the things that “men” have done to them when they were not really acting like men.

Real Men Do Not Go To Topless Bars.

Real Men Do Not View Pornography.

I asked whether he would ever want his daughter to star in a porn flick. He said “never.” When I reminded him that the porn star has parents, too, he vowed to reconsider his continued viewing of internet pornography.

Something that “men” who view pornography do not realize is that it trains the mind to be sexually stimulated by seeing images of many different people nude and engaged in certain acts.

Eventually, the viewer becomes unable to be stimulated by just one person.

Thus, a “man” who views pornography is much more likely to hurt his wife by engaging in adultery.

Real Men Do Not Have Sex With Women They Do Not Intend To Marry.

Men have it within their power to stop contaminating the future-wife pool. A little self-control can do a lot to strengthen a dying institution.

Real Men Do Not Engage In Post-Marital Sex. Saying “I used to be married” is a pretty lame excuse for engaging in post-marital sex.

And, if you have children, especially girls, there’s a really good reason to avoid it.

Put simply, if you have young girls and you start having sex after marriage your girls will find out about it from your ex-wife.

Real Men Never Relinquish the Role of Spiritual Head of the Household.

In a future installment, I will deal with the issue of “real women.” That installment will talk about the things women are doing to hurt other women.

A man whose girlfriend sat on a toilet for so long that the seat adhered to her body will spend six months on probation.

Kory McFarren pleaded no contest last month to a misdemeanor count of mistreatment of a dependent adult. A judge sentenced him Tuesday to six months in jail but granted the probation after the victim, Pam Babcock, asked for leniency.

"She didn't believe that her circumstances were his fault," Ness County Attorney Craig Crosswhite said.

Also Tuesday, McFarren was sentenced to six months in jail for an unrelated charge of lewd and lascivious behavior for exposing himself to a teenage neighbor in March.

I have been dating a woman in Phoenix -- where we both lived -- for the past three years. We were in an exclusive relationship, but not living together because I was going through a divorce when we met. Throughout our time together I have helped "Jackie" with rent and cash gifts.

I have since moved to California,

and Jackie would like to come and live with me.

I thought it would be nice, but a cohabitation agreement would be necessary because I have a lot of assets and she has very few.

After some discussion, she came up with an agreement, but I feel the benefits package she's asking for is too high. She's asking me to pay all living expenses, housing, food, health insurance, a new car with auto insurance and an allowance of $3,000 a month.

I balked on this "deal" because it seems more like a rental agreement rather than a loving relationship.

She maintains that she needs a "cushion" in case the relationship doesn't work out because she'll be leaving her job and friends behind.

If the relationship does not work out, the consequences would affect her financially for the rest of her life.

I had been out of the dating scene for a while, but finally found someone I really like and think would be a good match for me. We get along great and I get the sense there is mutual interest. I have kept matters on a friendly basis thus far because (and herein lies my dilemma) her longtime boyfriend committed suicide a couple of months ago.

I can tell there are some personal issues she is still working out because of it, and I don't want to push anything too soon.

Let things continue on a friendly basis and be whatever kind of friend she needs you to be -- which I suspect, for now, is a buddy to lean on.  When she is ready, I am guessing your relationship with this woman could blossom into the romance you desire.

I'm not sure how to start this, but my husband confuses me. We have been together for five years (married almost three), and in that time we've had the same argument over and over again about "fulfilling his needs."

I've never been a sex kitten and his libido always seems to be in overdrive.

When I give in to appease him, he complains that he's not interested in "mercy sex," but he's too impatient to wait until I'm in the mood.  He normally ends up frustrated and gives me the silent treatment, while I've just become annoyed at this point.

I love him dearly and enjoy his company, but sex just doesn't do much for me, not to mention I have a highly stressful job that leaves me exhausted most of the time.

My husband gets aggravated with romantic commercials on television -- the ones where men do sweet things for their wives, like putting jewelry on them while they sleep, or pulling out that special gift at the dinner table.

He says the commercials try to make men feel guilty because they aren't like the ones portrayed.

I have tried telling him that men are, indeed, this way, but I couldn't think of any examples other than my brother and my father, who are very romantic.

Don't most men know how to sweep a woman off her feet?

Gifts are not the only way to make someone special feel loved.

Commercials are created in order to manipulate the public into buying, and if the amount of consumer debt being carried by U.S. households is any indication, that strategy has been extremely successful.

While diamonds may be "a girl's best friend," most women know that a life partner who gives them attention, affection, praise and assistance when they need it is a jewel more precious than any stone could ever be.

"Brett" and I have been married for six years. We have no children, although I would dearly love to have one. Brett has a child from a previous relationship.

When I bring up the subject of having a child, he agrees, but when I tell him I am ovulating, he says he's too tired to try, or he makes up another excuse.

I have asked for a divorce several times, but Brett says he will not divorce me.

He knows I am taking prenatal pills and buying ovulation kits. I have also threatened to get artificially inseminated or to adopt. I feel as if I'm living in hell. What do I do?

Forget about artificial insemination or adopting without your husband's support, unless you are ready to raise a child by yourself.

Your husband has serious issues about becoming a father again, and it's time you found out what they are. Marriage counseling might help you get to the bottom of it.

That said, you do not need your husband's permission to end this marriage. If you have reached your limit, consult an attorney who specializes in family law. If you married Brett with the understanding that there would be children, you may qualify for an annulment.

A panel of law enforcement experts convened by Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton to examine the department's elite SWAT unit concluded in an undisclosed report that the rigorous testing to get into the unit should be changed to make it more open to women, called for tighter supervision and criticized officers for relying too heavily on force over negotiations.

Am I the only one who feels that last week's news events prove that the women's movement has failed?

Even worse, because Silda Wall Spitzer is accomplished and beautiful, the whole scene serves as a grim reminder that even amazing women become sexually disposable after a certain age.

Is this the world that feminism hath wrought?

Walk onto the trading floor of any of the hedge funds that crowd the Lever House building in Manhattan and hardly a female face will be seen who is not a secretary or an assistant. Enter the software shops of Silicon Valley, go to the rows of terminals where geeky computer programmers design cleverly crafted new media. They are mostly smart boys, playing with their toys. Everything that keeps our economy running is run by men.

For all the dynamic, visible women who are chief executives -- like the CEOs of Xerox and Kraft -- only 16% of corporate officers and 17% of large law firm partners are female.

Meanwhile, women still make 80 cents on the man's dollar. And, for whatever reason, women who do the exact same work but are also mothers make 10 cents less, according to Anne Alstott of Yale Law School.

It seems that the only industries in which women earn more than their male counterparts are pornography and prostitution.

My Sunday night summer viewing, which once consisted of the slumber-party gab of "Sex and the City," is now the lad-happy cool of "Entourage." I really do love that show, but most of the women -- girls -- in it cannot even kindly be called sex objects: They are simply sockets.

I appeared topless on the cover of one of my books, a decision I stand by still. I am proud that Naomi Wolf published a book called "Promiscuities" and that Katie Roiphe wrote a book called "The Morning After." I am really proud that Susan Faludi came out with the brilliant "Backlash." But I don't think the idea that you could own your own orgasm was ever intended to teach college coeds that it is a good idea to spend spring break in a shower with your roommate in a motel room in Daytona Beach having a lesbian encounter for the cameras of "Girls Gone Wild." That's not feminism!

But there's a countervailing tendency: the much-discussed opt-out revolution, which many upper-echelon women have chosen as a way of ruining their lives all by themselves, no assistance from men at all. This phenomenon has been both well chronicled and thoroughly debunked. But whether or not you believe it exists, professional women are having babies and deciding not to go back to work because motherhood is a cult, or homemaking is meaningful, or the hearth has heat -- or, really and truly, because being in an office 40-plus hours a week kind of sucks. A lot of men don't like their jobs either. But it's only women who have decided the hell with it -- and, truly, the hell with feminism.

Somewhere between childbirth and a no-fault divorce, a lot of smart women have chosen to engage in some risky behavior. Opting out is not a feminist choice. It's mostly just a bad idea.