Sorry, Camille Paglia: Feminism Is the Best Thing That Ever Happened to Men

Men today are what feminism has always pined for and worked toward—and the happy surprise is that men wouldn't want to go back either

  • Share
  • Read Later
Getty Images

Camille Paglia’s perennial skewering of feminism is now so near tradition it deserves its own greeting card. This year, in her article entitled, “It’s a man’s world and it always will be,” Paglia argues that men have and always will be the shapers of society while women have and always will play only a supporting role. She even claims men are responsible for women’s liberation—assigning them near full credit because they invented “labor-saving devices” that “liberated women from daily drudgery.” While bestowing this honor, she makes no peep about the likes of Margaret Sanger or the well-known “women’s movement” and their role in saving women from the daily drudgery of, say, unintended pregnancy. While neither is delightful, when wagering on which women needed more freedom from—unchecked pregnancy or manual dish cleaning—my money is on Sanger.

(MOREIt’s a Man’s World, and It Always Will Be)

Paglia claims that feminism is set on “stereotyping, belittling or demonizing men.” Yet the research on men suggest their lives have improved immeasurably as a result of feminism. By all appearances, feminism has been the lead designer of the modern man who is not only the product of feminism but arguably the greatest beneficiary of it, too.

Women’s ascent into the workplace has not diminished men but has freed up space in the family for a more involved father—a position more fulfilling than any at the office. A two-decade length study conducted by the University of Michigan found that children’s time with their fathers increased significantly only in families in which the mother works outside the home. With women sharing a larger stake in providing economically for the family, men have stepped up their investment in nurturing. Generation X and millennial Dads are the most involved generations of fathers in history and they report being much happier as a result of it.

(MOREFlawless: 5 Lessons in Modern Feminism From Beyoncé)

Studies show that if offered a promotion or more flextime to spend with the family, most men chose family. A study of more than 1,110 working fathers revealed that the desire for more “family time” is widespread, with 82% of full-time working men saying they would choose this. With women’s near-equal presence in the workplace today, men no longer have to shoulder the full economic burden of supporting the family. As a result, they have more career freedom and can pursue dreams and leave stifling work environments.

Today, men relish having wives, women colleagues, women friends and daughters who are true intellectual equals. They are less concerned with surrounding themselves with women who are “projecting sexual allure and even glamor,” areas Paglia suggests women should focus their energies on to get ahead. Indeed, ambition, success and earning power seem to be the most alluring features men look for in women today. A recent study found a whopping 76 percent of men said having a partner without a job was out of the question, while 45 percent said they wanted a woman who earned a serious amount of money. This is a quantified phenomenon too; the Brookings Institution discovered marriage rates are rising for top female earners and declining for women in lower earning brackets.

Success, equality, ambition and independence are the qualities men find most attractive in women these days. Men’s choices fly in the face of Paglia’s trippy predictions like this one: “After the next inevitable apocalypse, men will be desperately needed again! Oh, sure, there will be the odd gun-toting Amazonian survivalist gal, who can rustle game out of the bush and feed her flock, but most women and children will be expecting men to scrounge for food and water and to defend the home turf.” Men today want to marry, breed with, hire and raise that Amazonian survivalist gal—suggesting she’s not that odd at all.

(MORELet’s Face It: Michelle Obama Is a Feminist Cop Out)

And last, but certainly not least, one of the most transformative freedoms we can thank women for is sex without unwanted consequences. The modern man enjoys an active sex life with multiple partners before marriage and after. Marriage is not determined by unintended pregnancy or the rush to have sex as it most often was in the ’50s. Men embark on a much more leisurely path to marriage; settling in with a more thoughtfully chosen partner much later in life as a result of the campaigns women have waged and won. Sex in marriage is also more fun, fulfilling and less fraught with life-altering risks. It’s also worth mentioning that family planning is a cornerstone of the critical work of stabilizing nations in the developing world. So, thank you to women for coming up with a solution for that, too.

Paglia wants the reader to accept that men and women are different and that men have skills more practical for the past, our present and the future; they are the construction workers, the road builders. Basically, her argument is that they can lift heavy things. It seems this is the most demeaning of characterizations. Feminism has long been charged with pitting women against men, a verse Paglia seems to sing today as a solo. In fact, it’s she—most exemplified in her piece—who stokes the coals of resentment between the sexes. But the facts, and our daily lives, prove that men’s and women’s freedom is intertwined. Our differences are less pronounced and more compatible than in the days in which women were indentured servants and men were strangers acting as authoritarians when home. Men today are what feminism has always pined for and worked toward—and the happy surprise is that men wouldn’t want to go back either.

MOREPantene Is a Voice for Women? Hardly
Cristina Page is author of How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex.


I read once that because so many African-Americans moved to the northern big cities after WWII that the civil rights movement had a lot of its power & that it made the conditions for what followed in the 60's.  Economic conditions affect social conditions.  Feminism is not a moral mandate sent from heaven that we MUST FOLLOW because it is right.  It is a historical occurrence that has precedents.  Industrialism is the NUMBER ONE reason women are treated equally today.  I am not saying this is good or bad or that we should love men for making it so.  It is just a fact.  Peglia has a point.  We shouldn't be so quick to dismiss her as a hater.  We stole this country from the Native Americans to become the most powerful nation on Earth.  I don't know if that's good or bad; it's history; it's done.  Does me saying that make me a hater?  Sentimentality over how RIGHT it is that women are equal to men does not replace facts.  Peglia is showing a different angle from which to look at things.  Besides, in so many ways power is still with Rich White Men so really cares about "women's lib", it has nothing to do with the distribution of wealth in the world.  Nothing has really changed.  Feminism is an important victory; but is it possible that they gave it to us so they could NOT give us the far more important victory over inequality?


There is a difference between feminism, as a concept, and feminist, the people who claim to side with the concept. Firstly, like any concept in the world, different people have different interpretations of it. There are those who believe feminism is to pave way for women's progress, while there are those who believe feminism is anti-male. Assuming that everyone who supports the concept, have exact same interpretation is the reason why most debates on this topic don't go anywhere.

I personally believe that feminism means I have the opportunity to make my own choices/decisions in my life; regardless of whether I want to be a housewife or a working woman. To me, feminism is not about being equal (yes I'm serious) because perfect equality is not a goal but, at best, a vision. Plus, I admit the differences between both sexes, does not allow for a true equality. The differences are there so that both sexes can compliment each other.

I don't agree with all the points by the author, but I do agree with one point. Men, now prefer intellectually equal partners. This is because a woman's role is not just to cook and clean after her family. She is supposed to be the life-long companion, both sexually and intellectually. And because I believe this, I don't agree with her point on how its a good thing that men can now sleep with many before and AFTER marriage. It is demeaning to women and the concept of marriage.

So to sum up feminism(to me) is women having the choice to decide what she wants AND the taking up the responsibility of the choice made. I do not want my boyfriend/husband to pay for me all the time, because that makes be dependent on another human being. A treat once in awhile is nice (and I do appreciate those gentlemen gestures), but I would want to be able to do the same back too, eg propose to my boyfriend instead of waiting for him to propose(and not seem desperate).


@SukanthyM  (This is not intended as an argument, just a slight contrast where I share a similar viewpoint. My opinion only, as no facts are stated below.)

I think good feminism embraces all good relationships as partnerships, forged by both parties with equal consideration. This is why good feminism has embraced gay marriage. Gay marriage gives both women and men more options, it challenges sexist views and gender roles.

I also wanted to add my viewpoint on your first note. There is feminism as an ideal, ideals are simple but often lack the nuance and consideration to be realistically applied. For example the equality ideal might be that all humans are equal, but what does that mean, does that mean they all should receive equal treatment, or opportunity, and what does that mean when resources are limited. Then there are movements, a movement is an ideal applied through its proclaimed membership. Just as great members can champion a movement, bad members (especially unchecked) can harm it (just think of the catholic churches pedophille priests). There is a PR element to any movement, and ignoring that is like ignoring human nature.

As far as relationship expectations, they should not be a result of ones sex, but instead an expression of one's humanity and ability, with a self-less but reciprocated consideration of one's partners well being (assuming they are in a capable state). 


Wasn't Margaret Sanger and the women's movement the voice of dissent in their time?  Aren't they examples of why dissent is so valuable?  I agree with feminism and what it seeks to promote but attempting to silence critics like Camille Paglia, especially by misrepresenting her writings, smacks of the same right wing, lock step thinking that has led the Republican party down the rabbit hole.  


@CharlesClaudioOakley  They never liked Camille because she tells it like it is, instead of beating around the bush with pro-choice rhetoric like "clumps of cells", instead of calling it murder, which Camille does; though she is pro-abortion (she hates "pro-choice" and thinks its a cop-out term). Camille sides with Catholics and tries to understand their beliefs instead of vilifying them for simply being religious; even she ultimately disagrees. That is something the Left can't do... be tolerant of those with opposing views. I should know.... of the times I have dared mention to some liberal/lefties that I was pro-life because it was more consistent with Left values of protecting the defenseless, the poor and marginalized... I was silenced. I soon realized that the Left is just as intolerant as some of those on the Right. 


@ChristopherJoseph @CharlesClaudioOakley Is Camille a conservative, or a moderate? I ask because it seems dividing completely (blue vs red, left vs right) is a silly dichotomy. What do we call a person who is pro tax cuts, and pro abortion? There are many points between -1 and 1, including 0. Also extremists on both sides can end up significantly misrepresenting the majority of either party. 


If men are so much happier, then why is suicide for middle aged men skyrocketing and vastly outnumbering women? This is a rose colored glasses look at the bleak landscape of gender relations. Women coming into the workforce created the two income economy, so of course men prefer women to work. Its a requirement in most cases for a decent standard of living. And the reward you get for working around the clock to support a woman at home is losing your kids and your money when she decides on a whim to divorce. Paglia got it right the first time.


Kudos to Camille Paglia for having the courage and intellectual honesty to address the countervailing forces that simply undermine the complementarity and harmony of the sexes, and only serve to weaken our social fabric. We will surely be much more successful in tackling the daunting problems that we face as a society, by 'attacking' the root causes of those problems, rather than attacking each other. Let us challenge the ideologues to expend constructive energy advancing the real needs of our nation. (And less time on how feminists are trying to remake the nature of themselves and men.)


sounds like men just want rich wives so they can enjoy their money

best scenario is to have a rich wife who is also like you say "projecting sexual allure"

and the rest is undesirable except for more sex and you dont need feminists for that


Thank you, Cristina Page, for a much-needed response to Camille Paglia. I was frankly appalled by Paglia's incoherent article filled with obsolete arguments and shallow convictions concerning the status of women. I would highly encourage anyone to actually take the time to look up a dictionary definition of feminism. Since many will scoff at the slightest mentioning of this term, I'll include it here, as defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: 

"The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes; organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests." 

Feminism is not limited to women. Feminism is not a passing concept of revenge thought up by 5-year-olds trying to get back at their male classmates who claim girls have 'cooties.' Feminism, sorry to hurt the egos disillusioned by myths born out of male insecurity that go back thousands of years ago, is a movement to disentangle and break down these out-dated notions based on... Well, based on nothing of fact, evidence, or reality. 

As a college student, though I am sincerely disturbed by articles such as Paglia's and widespread ignorance that continues to pervade global society, I can assure any dissenters that examples of such abuse only drive my conviction in the inherent legitimacy of feminism. 

Not to simplify this complex and controversial topic, but why shouldn't women stick up for themselves? Why shouldn't men stick up for their mothers, sisters, wives, daughters, and friends? Yes, competitiveness is a part of being human, but humanity should not be a competition. And humanity simply cannot exist without a pretty fundamental population: Females. (Yes, they are humans too). They are also 51% of the population. And they are going to have a say in this world. 


In this article, a woman purports to speak for men and what men want without feeling any sense of irony. Rarely does one see such tone deafness. Feminism being the greatest divider of the sexes is not only denied, but actually put forth as unifying ideology. Perhaps Page is not aware of the world outside White, suburban hipster boys, so let me educate. Most men do not desire to be "equal". Not to you, not to each other, not to anybody. We want to be the best, judged within social circles big and small. Even the most domesticated white guys still have a sliver of competitive nature in them, however much they suppress and deny it. 

Now onto the dissection.

What is meant by family time is time off, any form of which is preferable to work. What is meant by a high income partner is more money to spend, or perhaps harsh economic circumstances. Does this translate to men preferring a competitor who cares more about "equality" than what is good for the family unit?


So how the author arrive at such a conclusion? Does she truly take everything at face value, or was it simply a faulty, but intentional misrepresentation of statistics in order to back up a pre-existing belief?

What Paglia said about masculinity after wars or during hard times has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout history. Scarcity produces actual men, while comfort produces overgrown children who care more about feelings than results. Example: 90% of young white guys I've met. The fact that Page seems to believe modern, high income women are equals to men is a stunning lack of understanding about men.

Also, a minor correction. Family planning and most forms of contraception were started or invented by men. Please do not misappropriate credit.


This is COMPLETELY delusional.  Men's satisfaction and happiness is at an all time low!  For the 2% of men that women lust after (2-3 days a month when ovulating) things are going swimmingly. For the 98% of men who just want a loyal and loving wife and a family feminism has been an unmitigated disaster that is going to destroy this society and indeed all of Western civilization.  Sow---Reap ladies.  Learn it.


This is dimwitted left wing fantasy.  Feminism has been horrific for women as traditional marriage has collapsed and the family ideal lies in tatters.  This is liberal nonsense at it's most desperate.  The deranged, depraved "feminism" of the 70's is dead and will never return, anywhere.  It was based on the hatred of men by a tiny few.  Paglia is correct.


Paglia in the "feminist defense of the masculine virtues" says America is on the brink of disaster because of feminism.
The way I see it, men need more dicipline, accountability, structure and enough with the excuses and coddling! We need less Adam Lanza's and knockout game players and the "boys will be boys" mentality. Parents all over the globe let these males rule the roost because of male preference. I would never let my son sit in his room for months playing violent video games. I would bust that damn door down and throw him out.

The fall of the military is a good thing. Paglia has that wrong too. We don't need that violence. Men need to stop trying to take over other peoples countries and steal and sexually assault the women, and fix the messes you made in your own countries. Put your guns down when one of your leaders demands war. Refuse to fight. If the German men did that one little thing, their innocent women and children wouldn't have been raped by the psycho Russians. They didn't care. They wanted that war. Drones strikes and Obama's approach have really improved things. Ordinary men fighting ground wars are silly obsolete anyway and a relic of the past.

In my family I could get away with much more than my sisters every single time. That was a mistake. Paglia has it all wrong. Young males need more civilizing, not more lord of the flies machismo masculinity run amok. Parents and schools are the problem. Males need more discipline in the classroom.  Paglia wants less. So many of us boys in class were running wild it was ridiculous. We needed more discipline. That is why there are so many males out of control. My buddy got robbed at gunpoint just a month ago. We are sick of being the victim of these punks. There are so many young feral boys out of control and they are raised entitled, and arrogant, and that is the problem. This is regression instead of progress.

Then she points to the machismo countries like France, Spain. She says they are thriving because young males are allowed to do what they want. Men in these "MANLY" latin countries and eurpoean countries are immature, lazy and don't want to work. Many are alcoholics. Russia has 85% male alcoholics. Men do whatever they want and no accountability. The place is an absolute disaster. Many of these European countries aren't far behind and America is catching up. In these countries the men want to live off the government. The men are leading the charge. They still live at home with their mothers. This is the result of lord of the flies, masculinity, and machismo run amok.

Females are held to a higher stander and the males in the family get away with bloody murder. "boys will be boys", "affluenza", lord of the flies, coddling, excuses, and zero accountability.  Enough is enough. It's time Paglia and Limbaugh stop trying to sweep the glaring problems under the rug and stop looking for scapegoats (women/feminism) Some right wing columnist wanted to blame sandy hook on feminized schools. Unbelievable! She left out the most obvious reason why sandy hook happened. It was a feral entitled male that caused the whole thing in the first place. She didn't mention the most important fact.



Aggression is profit

Being nice just makes you a victim

Discipline isn't being feminine and pretending not to compete

Left wing is just weakness who won't admit they are weak. My sons will eat your sons for snacks and all you'll be able to do is call me mean


@TroyAndrews  Ha! I wish I remembered the suffragette who said that if women were to take over, it wouldn't be a kinder, gentler world. Women can be just as evil and violent as men. 


Paglia claimed that Revenge of the Sith is the greatest contemporary work of art. That's all you need to know right there.
Paglia critiques of art history are absolutely bizarre. I've taken a lot of art history classes. This woman, Camille Paglia, has zero credibility.


"Feminism" has become a farcical, utterly hypocritical JOKE. You haven't stopped demanding to be taken care of, you simply demand the government be your sugar-daddy instead of your male partners.

Paglia is a REAL feminist--the kind who believes she doesn't need a man to pay her way, protect her or take care of her. That she can take care of herself. She is a libertarian who supports limited government because of this. Because she actually walks the walk.

TODAY's so-called "feminists", in stark contrast, have simply replaced men taking care of them by demanding GOVERNMENT take care of them. Which means, you guessed it, taxing men to take care of women.

For example: I'm a gay man, I will NEVER have children and NEVER have sex with a woman. Yet so-called "feminists" have now demanded, and succeeded in getting ME and every other man to subsidize YOUR contraceptive pills, abortafacients and abortions because you refuse to pay your own way--like men ALWAYS have--like I do--like a REAL feminist would. In all the history of the world, contraception has been a PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY...until FAUX feminists like Sandra Fluke came along. 

I AM NOT YOUR BABY DADDY! Pay your own way! 

You want to be a single mother? FINE! But accept the responsibility that comes with it! Quit demanding government tax ME to subsidize your decision to BE a single mother.

You think men should share in the cost of childbirth? Sure! ASK THE FATHER!! I'M NOT YOUR BABY DADDY! Government isn't your baby daddy. You want to be a REAL feminist? You want to be ACTUALLY equal to men? Do what ever it takes to provide for your OWN damn family! BY YOURSELF!  Quit demanding that the "village" help you raise your child. MAN UP and provide for your family yourself. Otherwise you are nothing but a hypocritical farce, play-acting at equality.

A REAL feminist who wanted to have sex without consequences, would pay for the pill herself--like men always have-- or get her partner to chip in. But just as studies show women are far less likely to ask for a raise at work, so-called "feminists" are apparently too chicken to tell their partners that if they want to play, they have to share the they get men to subsidize them INDIRECTLY, through taxation and Obamacare mandates. 

That's not paying your own way, that's not providing for your families, and it's certainly not equal to men -- men never did any such thing. Men do what they have to do, even if it means taking hard, dirty work, in order to provide for their families BY THEMSELVES.

Women cant and wont do the same. They are simply playing a part. And demanding that someone else assume the risk in case they fail, or decide they dont want to do it anymore.

Likewise, I am forced to pay for insurance that covers YOUR childbirth, YOUR pre-natal care, YOUR children's pediatric care, YOUR hysterectomies (by the way, vasectomies are NOT covered by Obamacare, they are still considered elective and thus a personal responsibility AS THEY SHOULD BE)--these are ALL things that it is biologically and sexually IMPOSSIBLE for me to EVER need coverage for, but I am being forced to pay for them because "feminists" refuse to pay their own way as men do.

Today's pathetic excuses for "feminists" haven't stood up on their own two feet and paid their own way, let alone paid for their families, like men would. They demand government program after government program after government program to take care of them and their children.

The Obama administration proudly ran a campaign about "Julia" whom the federal government fed, clothed, pampered, paid for school, and taken care of from cradle to grave. THAT is modern "feminism" -- men STILL providing for women by paying taxes to run programs that pay for women's personal responsibilities, so that women can falsely PRETEND they are doing what men have done. All of the perks with NONE of the risk or personal responsibility.

And Paglia at least has the intellectual honesty and self-awareness to realize there are things that women simply cannot do and WONT do. All the dirty, hard work, that society depends on to, sanitation, transportation, energy production, military protection, farming, etc well as jobs that women are simply overwhelmingly not interested, math, hard sciences, computer sciences, etc...all studies show women are grossly underrepresented in these fields because they  want jobs that make them FEEL personally fulfilled. 

Men dont have this luxury because they're too busy either directly providing for their families or indirectly providing for women through taxation and ever expanding daddy government that women demand.

(News just broke this week that the Military is having, once again, to dumb-down physical requirements because HALF of the small number of women applying couldn't even do three pull ups. But the fact that women are weaker than men and are physically incapable of much of the work required by the military hurts feminists delusional feelings... so instead of coming to grips with reality, the military is forced to lower the bar, yet again, so that women can have a FALSE sense of equality. ) Paglia pointed out that when war and disaster come, and they will, women will not be rescuing society. This offends your delusions and your inferiority complexes. She is realistic, you are pathologically deluding yourself.

And Margaret Sanger liberated women??? PUHLEASE!! Margaret Sanger provided women with a way to kill their own children to AVOID PRESONAL RESPONSIBILITY for their own actions and choices by saying it was okay for them to kill their children rather than be sexually responsible. Men, on the other hand, are STILL held personally accountable by our laws for the children they produce. They dont get to avoid responsibility by killing the child they knowingly, wiflfully took the risk of creating, AND they go to jail as "deadbeat dads" if they dont provide for those children. So-called "feminists" demand they NOT be held to the same standard, because apparently "feminists" think women are unable to make responsible adult choices when a seductive man gets their hormones flowing! An abject admission that feminists are incapable of adult responsibility.

The truth is that modern "feminists" want the APPEARANCE of equality, without any of that messy personal responsibility and RISK that goes along with it. They want to PRETEND to be paying their own way, while demanding government tax everyone else to subsidize them! They want to work outside the home, but they only want work that makes them feel personally fulfilled...they still refuse, as ever, to do the hard, dirty work that keeps society running, and they demand that government take all the risk out of life for them -- which is destroying the male competitive nature which is what built up a society rich enough that so-called "feminists"  could demand a government that lets them pretend to be just as risk-taking, just as personally responsible, and accountable as men, when in reality, they are just making men subsidize them indirectly via government instead of directly.

Today's feminists, unlike real feminist Paglia, are nothing but little girls playing "office".


@RealityyCHECK The insurance companies all want to cover birth control AND abortion in the free marketplace because it is a HUGE money saver for insurance. It is religious fanatics like Rush Limbaugh and Ted Cruz who want to interfere with the free market. Many states have BANNED insurance companies from covering what these private insurance companies want to cover.

The religious fanatics, like Catholics, want welfare to increase so that women "choose life" over abortion. Go blame them. Religious fanatics are pushing this idea that women should have as many babies as possible and "the west" needs to keep reproducing, even if you can't afford it! They are constantly pushing this life at any cost mentality. These "crisis pregnancy centers" point women to all the government BENNIES they are entitled to and they help them sign up.

The more free and easy birth control is, the more success there has been in preventing unwanted pregnancies. this is proven fact. Other strategies don't work.  America still has the most unplanned pregnancies compared to European countries because of religious fanaticism run amok.

Many medical issues are cause by personal choices for which everyone else subsidizes. you only want to discriminate against women. If that's the case, insurance should NOT cover injuries from sports. Sports injuries are inevitable and a CHOICE. Mostly men partake, and should take personal responsibility. Sports are high risk. Injuries are inevitable AND foreseeable. Sports really bust up the human body and causes massive, sometimes permanent damage. Those not involved should NOT be subsidizing all these injuries. It should be paid out of pocket for sports related injuries. I have more examples. I could be here all day. There are many injuries which are caused by negligence too . Why should insurance pay?

As far as women in the military, only insane people would fight these unjust wars. This goes to prove how crazy men have gotten. Men need to stop causing wars and trying to steal from other countries and rape their women. This is why they sign up so they can steal women. You're not entitled to that! Men are ground zero. Start at the root of the problem, to fix the problem. The best thing that ever happened to humanity are NUKES. It stopped all these out of control men from invading other countries to rape women.



1) When the government dictates that you MUST buy something, that is not "the free marketplace", that is fascism.

2) NO ONE has banned any insurance company from covering anything.  At the VERY MOST they may have banned insurance companies from not allowing people the choice to buy plans without contraceptive/abortion coverage--HUGE difference--but I dont believe for a second that anyone has even done that. Please provide proof, with link, of ANY state that has banned contraceptive/coverage outright or retract your claim.

3) Yes, of COURSE any company would love government to force people to buy a product from them. So what? Irrelevant (and stupid) argument. The fact remains that many people, including people who arent religious, dont WANT to pay for contraceptive coverage because, unlike you, they understand economics and know that it only makes their plans more expensive.

4) NO ONE, including Catholics, or "religious fanatics", is arguing that any woman should have any more children than she wants to have. You're simply pulling this bull out of your ass. Sure, there are people who are arguing that we would be better off if Western Civilization, which is declining in numbers, were having more babies, but that is NOT the same thing by any means as saying women should have babies against their will. Do you have NO CONCEPT of the meaning of "personal responsibility"? Have as few or as many children as you want! Just dont ask anyone else to pay for it! You're SUPPOSEDLY an adult--although being a liberal, that's highly questionable. If you dont want children, then be RESPONSIBLE and do what you need to do to make sure you dont. you can A) stop having sex B) get your tubes tied C) buy your own damn contraceptives which are available at any drugstore, supermarket or minimart in the nation. 

5) Birth control isnt FREE. Someone has to pay for it. And it should be YOU, paying for your own damn birth control, not ME, not taxpayers. Cant afford a baby? Dont have sex! Im not your baby daddy! Government is not your baby daddy. GROW UP! ...but thank you for proving my point about how feminists/liberals want government to take care of them!

6) NO, medical issues are NOT subsidized by everyone else. The VAST majority of Americans pay their own medical costs. That's what people are DOING when they buy insurance...paying for medical problems even before they have them. And even people who are stupid enough to not have insurance are still responsible for paying their own medical bills until and unless they go bankrupt because they were so stupid as to not insure themselves. The ONLY people whose medical issues are subsidized are people whom the government pays for. Holy cow, you are economically ignorant.

7) Nobody is discriminating against women. Quite the contrary, women are demanding to be subsidized in ways that no one else is. Women do not need coverage for testicular cancer, for example, and they are not paying for it. Men DO pay for their sports injuries. And no, they arent subsidized. 

8) Why should insurance pay? Are you really this stupid? Insurance pays for what the consumer wants covered. It does not pay for anything the consumer does not pay for coverage for. If a consumer wants (because they are economically ignorant) their insurance to pay for their contraception even though it would be MUCH cheaper to pay for it out of pocket.

9) Men sign up for the military so they can rape and steal women? I hope your insurance covers mental health, because you are clearly insane.




Insurance always covered contraceptives. This is nothing new. It's a cost benefit for insurance companies. the insurance companies save money compared to giving birth.

Contraceptives should be included in insurance because it is medical and requires office visit $$$ and prescription authorization. If it were OTC I might agree with you, but it isn't. .its prescription medication. some women need these pills for medical reasons too, so no discrimination or singling out this prescription.

almost 15 RED states, maybe more now, banned private insurance companies from covering abortion before obamacare and with obamacare......even though companies want to include it in plans. you look it up.

Insurance isn't a la carte. That means a bunch of people pay for coverage for medical conditions they will never get!  I can't believe the insurance industry was able to get away with it for this long by discriminating against women. especially since all religious fanatics want women to have babies and place such a high value on this act and believe this is what women should be doing. This is why women choose abortion. Women bear all the costs of baby making. The costs are astonishing and the hospitals want their money. no surprise women are choosing abortion. Women can't afford it.

people are not paying for sports injuries or anything else out of pocket....their insurance picks up the tab. That means the insurance pool pays. Most people will get coverage for almost any disease or malady. testicular cancer isn't excluded from any coverage ever heard of......that's a LIE.  the sick or injured are being subsidized by someone else who didn't get injured/sick or takes part in high risk sports (healthy responsible people). maternity is an inevitable medical problem which society places high value on and should be included along with all other medical problems.


@TroyAndrews @RealityyCHECKNo, insurance companies have not always covered prescriptions or there would be no mandate. It should be up to individuals whether they want insurance for things or not. If you are getting your insurance through your employer, and they dont cover contraception, talk to your employer, dont vote for Big Brother to force Nuns, infertile women, post-menopausal women, gay men, celibate men, men who've had vasectomies, and anyone else who doesnt want to pay higher costs to cover something they dont want or need pay for something you want by law.

Why do liberals have to FORCE everyone to do what they want? Why do liberals HATE CHOICE?


@TroyAndrews @RealityyCHECKYou seem to forget all about this thing called INDIVIDUAL insurance. And yes, you bet women who have individual insurance dont pay for coverage for problems that only men can have. 

You also dont seem to understand how insurance works in the first place. Whether your employer chooses your plan, or you choose your plan--the more the plan covers the more expensive it is! That's one of the many reasons insurance prices have climbed through the roof, is that government, employers, and individuals make them cover more and more things -- entirely predictable things, like routine check ups. Now the reason some employers offer more comprehensive coverage is to attract better employees, while other, smaller businesses, and individuals cant afford the extra costs. 

And that, in turn, is one of the major reasons for escalating costs of health CARE -- because few individual consumers see the price anymore. Hospitals charge $20 an aspirin to make up for the profits lost by medicare and medicaid patients and people who dont pay at all. If people SAW the prices before hand, they would make very different decisions, and look for better alternatives. 

The purpose of insurance is to insure you against things you CANT forsee or plan for. You can forsee needing the pill, and thus budget for it. You can forsee a routine check up and thus budget for it, and then you end up saving money on them, because the insurance company isnt adding it's costs on top. 

Again, I repeat -- you know how the rich save money on health insurance? THEY DONT BUY ANY because they have enough money that they can pay for anything out of pocket, even emergencies, even catastrophic illness, and this saves them huge amounts of money in the long run. 

The LESS you have your insurance cover, the MORE you will save. 

Your solution to the healthcare cost crisis is to INCREASE everything that's causing costs to skyrocket in the first place. Mandatory coverage for everyone for everything! Which is the cause of skyrocketing costs!

The ONLY place where healthcare costs are actually coming down is for things that people have to pay for out of pocket because they AREN'T COVERED by insurance. Lasic Eye surgery is a fantastic example. It's elective, it's not covered by most insurance. Yet the number of lasic eye surgery clinics is exploding, and the prices are coming down, as doctors compete to offer the best lasic eye surgery at the lowest cost! 

That's what competition does! It doesnt JUST bring down price, but it raises quality at the same time as companies compete to offer the best quality product at the lowest cost to consumers. You lower your prices by cutting quality, and someone else will put you out of business by meeting your low price WITHOUT cutting quality.

And one last point....liberals TOTALLY understood that increasing regulation would drive up the cost and decrease the availabilty of healthcare when TEXAS demanded that abortion clinics meet the exact same standards that any other free standing, outpatient medical procedure clinic must meet. ...and they protested against it for exactly that reason! Because it would limit their choices and drive up their costs!

Yet out of sheer stupidity or total hypocrisy pretend the same rules dont apply to increasing regulation on everything else. 

Face it, liberals and feminists dont GET economics, they just want OTHER people to pay their bills!!


@RealityyCHECK  And don't forget that at least Paglia admits abortion is killing the defenseless; even if she is pro-abortion (she doesn't skirt around the issues and hates the "pro-choice term of cowardly liberals and feminists). I admire her honesty. If the Left admitted that abortion truly is killing but a necessary evil, then maybe the Right might be able to take them seriously! And what irks me the most, is the point you brought up: if a woman gets pregnant and decides she is not ready to be a mother, she is "pro-choice"; yet if a man gets a woman pregnant and decides he doesn't want to be a father, he is a deadbeat dad (as classified by feminists). What a double standard. I say if feminists want to keep abortion legal, and if they truly do care about men, as Miss Page claims, then they should make it so men are on TRUE equal footing with women: Men that don't want children should be able to legally claim economic hardship, mental anguish and personal choice; just as it is applied to women seeking abortions and not have to be forced to be a parent. I am still surprised this is not an issue that has gotten more media and legal traction. Men need to stand up and say enough! If women want to claim an pro-choice status after pregnancy, then so should men!! And FYI, I am also gay and love women. I just hate the hypocrisy of most feminism.