Misogynists aka Woman Haters

Have y'all noticed that things are looking a little more ho-fessional around these parts? {And, no, I cannot resist using Ludacris's made up words every chance I get.}  That would be thanks to Becca at Jumping Jax Designs.  She's so popular I had to wait almost 4 weeks to get my blog makeover.  But alas, good things are worth waiting for.  Thanks, Becca, for the bloggy beautification.

Now, I'm about to break one of the big rules in the Blogger Rulebook.  I actually don't own a Blogger Rulebook, but if I did, I bet it would have a big, fat, bolded, rule like this:

For the love of all things Holy, don't blog about politics, you imbecile!  What are you trying to do?  Lose readers, be divisive, and start a comment war on your blog?!?!

Well, maybe I am trying to lose readers, be divisive, and start a comment war.  Or perhaps I think this issue is important enough that I should take a public stand.  Yeah, let's go with the latter.

The issue I'm about to discuss is Rush Limbaugh's misogynistic rant.  If you aren't up to speed on it yet, here's the quick and dirty.  Sandra Fluke, a law student from Georgetown testified to Congress regarding to new health regulation around free contraceptives.  You can read exactly what she said here.

Rush Limbaugh's response:  

"What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her?"

"It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute."

"She wants to be paid to have sex," Limbaugh continued on his radio program. "She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception."  {source}

In my opinion, Rush is a bigot, a racist, and a misogynist and he says inflammatory things on purpose to get a rise out of people.  I certainly wouldn't take on the challenge of fighting crazy with logic.  In fact, I honestly didn't think that real people out there bought into this hyper-exaggerated craziness.  However, it was brought to my attention today, by another blogger, that there are people who are at least willing to entertain Rush's argument.

I was already planning on writing some version of this post, but now I'd like to take a step back and give a hypothetical rebuttal.

Argument #1: She is asking for someone to pay for her to have sex.  So that is considered a form of prostitution.

My response: No, she's not asking for money to have sex.  In fact, she doesn't mention anything about her own sex life.  Nor is she receiving any money through this legislation.  She is appreciative of the fact that her health insurance plan will now pay for a prescription medication prescribed by her doctor.  *Gasp* Asking for health insurance to cover a medication that she and her doctor have decided she needs?  Sounds pretty reasonable to me.  

My health insurance pays for my birth control.  Does that make me a prostitute?  Apparently, according to Rush.  I'm a married woman, who has sex with my husband, but isn't yet ready for children.  Might as well put me on a street corner.  

To add insult to injury, it was another woman who was debating this side of the argument.  Why we as women are so willing to call another woman a slut, I will never understand.  If we left birth control up to men, we'd all really be in trouble.  What I see when I watch the video of Sandra Fluke is a video of a young, conscientious woman who has seen the detrimental effects of a health insurance plan that doesn't offer contraceptives.  

Argument #2: These students attended a university that doesn't believe in contraception.  How can you ask them to fund something they don't believe in?

My response: Religious belief should not be a consideration at the provider level.  If a woman and her doctor believe this medication is needed, the provider should cover it.  Sandra Fluke gives an example of a woman who was taking birth control for ovarian cysts.  Without the coverage, she ended up in the Emergency Room {which is a visit, I might add, that the insurance company had to pay for.}  So where do you draw the line?  Is birth control okay for some women and not for others?  What if a sexually promiscuous man gets an STD and has to take steroids for treatment?  Will this religious university's health care cover that?  

To me, that line of thinking is the equivalent of the following hypothetical.  A guy gets angry and punches a wall.  He breaks his hand and goes to the doctor.  The insurance company {provided by a religious institution that doesn't condone violence} won't pay for it.  "We don't believe in violence," they say, "so you'll have to suffer with a broken hand or pay for it yourself."  It's like trying to fight the effect instead of the cause.  

So you don't want women having sex unless it's for the purpose of bearing children?  Okay, fair enough.  I might not agree with that, but to each his own.  Educate the students all you want on the benefits of only having sex for child bearing.  But to refuse health insurance coverage for contraceptives only makes it worse.  I haven't heard any church come forward and say that they support the premise of having children that you don't want, when you aren't ready {within or outside of wedlock.}  Yet, that is the end-game of these policies.  

Argument #3: They can purchase insurance from another source if they want contraceptives to be covered.

My response: If we didn't have a f*#&'ed up insurance system in the United States that won't offer insurance to people for a battery of reasons including pre-existing conditions, then fair enough.  However, getting insurance through your university is a low cost, best access approach.  It's the same reason that 90% of us get insurance through our employers.  We get the best rates and we aren't turned away.  To make this argument is to say that it's okay for someone to have to pay literally hundreds of dollars extra each month for contraceptives.  It makes no sense.  We're talking about college students for one, and secondly, many birth controls are generic and wouldn't even cost that much to pay for in full.  

I'd prefer it if our country didn't get to a point where we are selecting insurance plans based on religious beliefs.  "Um, yes, hi, I'll take the Scientology insurance plan please.  I don't have any children with autism--thank goodness-since they don't believe in that...so I'm all set.  Whenever my engrams are out of whack, I know my insurance will pay to hook me up to an E-meter for some auditing."

At any rate, I contacted ProFlowers, who advertises with Rush Limbaugh.  Hit 'em where it hurts, right?

Today, ProFlowers announced that they are suspending their advertising program with the Rush Limbaugh show.  {I'm not sure if suspending is the same thing as completely dropping him, but it's a step in the right direction.}

If you stuck with me through this entire post, you're a rockstar and I love you.  And if your next move is to click "unfollow", then I take it all back.  I keed, I keed.  Ultimately, this blog is a reflection of my thoughts and beliefs, of who I am.  And you can ask my husband, I've been known to get pretty worked up and outspoken over these types of things.  

Whether you agree or disagree....let me hear it!  We all benefit from the free exchange of ideas.