ams511
Contributor
I remember early feminism as a movement that was as actively suppressed and reviled as the movement against racial discrimination. It was usually the same kind of people who opposed both movements- political Neanderthals, not to put too fine a point on it.
Bra-burning was a very limited activity, something engaged in by a tiny number of people, mostly for publicity. It was about as common as anti-war vets throwing their medals on the steps of the Pentagon. I was an anti-war vet, but I still have all my stuff. Describing bra burners as typical feminists is simple ignorance, the kind encouraged by the media of the day. Pure stupidity.
Sex has never been freer than it is now. Spending as much time on college campuses as I do, I can absolutely assure you of that. Anyone who thinks early feminists were free love advocates just was not around back then.
That some people live longer than others should not affect social security. Blacks have a lower life expectancy than whites. Should they get full benefits earlier?
Should health benefits for people with conditions like diabetes be restricted or made more expensive? Insurance company executives might agree, but certainly no civilized human.
Women have children This fact of nature and biology creates its own health vulnerabilities. Should the men who impregnate these health care expensive women share the higher rates you suggest? Men cannot get pregnant (yet) but they are an indispensable part of that expensive process (so far). Little kids, especially preemies, have high health costs. High education costs, too. I suppose single men with vasectomies should have special tax exemptions. Gay men too, now that HIV is no longer a mostly gay men's disease.
Men are immune from the tendency to hire other men? Really?
Think before you touch a single finger to your keyboard.
I do think before I touch the keyboard but unlike you I use my brain not a bleeding heart. Your logic in not internally consistent.
I agree with you that men who impregnate women should share in higher rates, however this is not what is being done. What is being done is men are being forced to pay for the higher cost of female healthcare. If a man is neither married to the woman nor impregnated her then why should he pay for her healthcare? If woman live longer then why are we spending all this money on women's health issues? Shouldn't we be spending the money on men's health issues because men don't live as long? Where is the movement to try to equalize life expectancy among the genders?
At 51, I don't expect to pay the same for health or life insurance as a 21 year old. This makes no sense because statistically I have more of a chance becoming ill or dying than someone 30 years younger. It is also a fact of nature that the old are more vulnerable. Why should this person need to subsidize my health insurance? Especially being I probably make more than he does. You can vilify insurance executives but their job is to make sure that a plan has money available to pay claims when they are due. In order to do this they need to make sure the calculations are statistically sound not politically correct.
As far as African-Americans having a lower life expectancy, I know of no study controlling for all factors related to life expectancy that indicates race makes a difference. However, it is a universal fact that woman live longer than men even when controlling for differences.
When I worked in industry I never once saw an incidence of gender discrimination. My employers were only to happy to find a competent, conscientious, employee regardless of gender (or race). In education, I do see discrimination against men.
Judging from your responses I don't think you are a feminist but rather a socialist.