If they break the engagement, it's a stigma on the woman who is now "used.
She should keep the ring, she "earned" it.

So, they decide to break off the engagement, and she's "earned" the ring? Really? What does he get then? I mean, it's about equality, right?

If they break the engagement, it's a stigma on the woman who is now "used.

I wonder if the angry e-mailer really believes that, or is just spouting off what she heard was the original intent of a man's bestowing an engagement gift upon his bride-to-be. I mean, a woman being considered used goods simply due to a broken engagement isn't something that happened in America even in the 50's.

One thing that always bothers me about the use of income disparity statistics is that the explanation is presumed to be society's pernicious discrimination is showing through in the numbers. But when you say, okay, let's assume that disparity evidences discrimination by society, and then look at other, even more dire situations rather than mere income.

What then should society do to address the fact that most prisoners (something like > 90% of prisoners, IIRC) are men? What then should society do to address the fact that over 90% of fatalities at work are men? What then should we do about the fact that men die so much younger than women? What then should we do about the fact that most violent criminals are men and so are most murder victims? Etc. Being a guy can really suck, relative to being a gal, if you look at those numbers, not just income.

After all, per the claims about income disparities, surely those more dire disparities are similarly caused by societal forces, not innate differences.

The response I typically got in grad school and beyond was one of the following (1) refusal to even address this allegedly "reductio ad absurdum" argument, (2) refusal to concede that any disparity on the other side evidences anything except, perhaps, patriarchy eating its own young, (3) those differences are explained by the vile hormone testosterone, whereas income differences are not.

In sum, the use of stats and the explanation that society is to blame (and therefore must radically alter itself) is only allowed to those on one side of the debate.

For some people, their sense of victimization is integral to their identity. This seems to be especially common among women of a certain age.

Norm,

Is it the sense of victimization, or the sense of entitlement? Or are they entitled to be a victim?

Like it or not, the liberal/feminist movement has a lot to do with this mentality. Do what you want, and there should never be consequences for your actions. And when there are, like not getting paid as much as the person who didn't take 6 months to a year off after having a child.

You want equal? Then let's share child bearing and have men be pregnant for 4.5 months!!!

What stupidity. Gee, let's wish for something impossible, and try to use it as an argument. You hate biology? Women carry and birth babies. That is not discrimination. It's nature.

Priceless. I love you Amy (figuratively of course; I'm happily married). You speak so much common sense, with class and wit.

"What are you, a man disguised as a woman? Give me a break!"

Why do they do this?

Shoot, the column the e-mailer's complaining about is well over a year old! Looking back through some older Advice Goddess columns a few weeks ago, I noticed that some of them had quite recent comments, well after the topic had played itself out with all the other commenters.

My question for Miss Alkon is, do you frequently receive e-mails about age-old stuff?

"She should keep the ring, she "earned" it."

Well, yeah - for "services rendered." Fnar har har.....

"What stupidity. Gee, let's wish for something impossible, and try to use it as an argument. You hate biology? Women carry and birth babies. That is not discrimination. It's nature."

It's the mark of a very sheltered upbringing to imagine that everything is artifical and man-made, and therefore subject to redesign and improvement. That may be true of much of the world they live it, but that's very sad.

"For some people, their sense of victimization is integral to their identity. This seems to be especially common among women of a certain age. "

Norm, that was deliciously bitchy. I like that in a man.

Not everyone negotiates for more money when offered a new job. I was contracting at a company and quite happy with my contracting firm, (10% raises 2 years in a row at the time, I hadn't seen that ever before,paid bench time, a lot of other perks) but The company really wanted me to "go native" and offered to buy my contract. I already made good money, had really good benefits, etc. I worked that angle a bit, and then asked for what I really wanted, more paid vacay. And got it. So yeah, women can negotiate too.

"Why do they do this"?

My take: Hate. Just that. The Internet provides a formidable tribune for hate speech. Anonymity. It's comparable to what you see in a riot: otherwise well-behaved and good people can lose all sense of civility and turn plain evil as the crowd grows along with their anonymity.

She should keep the ring, she "earned" it.

She earned the [recommended] 4-1/2 months' salary he spent on it?

I believe tradition has it that if she breaks it off, she returns the ring and if he breaks it off, she keeps it.

You want equal? Then let's share child bearing and have men be pregnant for 4.5 months!!!

OK. Figure out how to do this and we'll do it. Also be sure to figure out how to make it so that men accidentally get pregnant, which is a big way in which women make their lives harder.

This letter-writer has made your point for you, Amy: Men and women aren't the same.

Women have always shouldered the brunt of the physical burden of having babies. On the bright side, women also have control over the fetus that men don't: the option to abort.

It would be funny if there weren't so many people like that letter writer running around. I for one look back and would choose the stigma of being used and the broken engagement, lol!! If only that were life's biggest problem!!

I believe tradition has it that if she breaks it off, she returns the ring and if he breaks it off, she keeps it.

I've always understood it to be that she returns it no matter who ends it. It's a symbol of a promise, and that promise is no longer in place, so it goes back.

"I've always understood it to be that she returns it no matter who ends it. It's a symbol of a promise, and that promise is no longer in place, so it goes back."

It never made sense to me that anyone would want to keep a ring that symbolized something that was not going to happen. My brother had to take his former fiancee to court to get the ring back although it really wasn't about the ring. Our house burned down and she had a lot of his college awards, trophies, and things of sentimental value. When she refused to give those back, he took her to court. I'm just glad he dodged a bigger bullet which would have been a marriage to someone so small and petty. The judge awarded in my brother's favor and he got all of his things plus the ring.

I note that the letterwriter feels (1) men and women should be equal and (2) gals get to keep a ring upon a break up. Apparently, the ring is compensation for the lowered opinion that third parties may have of the gal after the break up.

Hmm. If third parties similarly view a guy differently after a break-up, does he, therefore, get to expect a get a ring from her upon engagment, and then get to keep it?

/crickets

This ring thing reminds me of the old Zsa Zsa quote: "I never hated a man so much that I gave his diamonds back."

The letter writer is hoping for "equality" - in quotes here because, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Was that Fezzik?

Sign up for the draft, lady. Lift the same pack your fellow soldiers must. Pay alimony when you misbehave and break up the marriage - or, forfeit it. Admit your gender's role in abusing children.

I'm not arguing for any position of superiority. I'm just pointing out that when life puts something on your plate, you have to eat it or you don't get any dessert.

It never made sense to me that anyone would want to keep a ring that symbolized something that was not going to happen.

It also cheapens the sentiment involved. It's trashy to think that the loss of a relationship that was intended to last a lifetime could be eased by a piece of jewelry.

The only exception to this I could see making is if the ring was in her family to begin with -- say, it was originally her grandmother's.

You must have never had a child!!!

So ... So THERE!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

"Men, in general, are probably more motivated to succeed and ascend in the workplace because their success in love/sex/relationships depends on it."

Dennis Prager touched on this in a recent column, "What Do Men Want?":

"So... it isn’t sex men most want from their woman. They want to be admired — and sex is one manifestation of a woman’s admiration for her man. When a man is regularly denied sex, in his eyes that means that his wife does not hold him in high esteem. Worse, he actually feels humiliated as a man. That, not the sex per se, is why regular denial devastates a man.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/255699/what-do-men-want-dennis-prager

Have you seen the study about lesbian women making more than straight women? While it doesn't conclude that lesbian women are more likely to ask for a raise, I think it makes the idea an interesting path for more research. (There is a link in the comments to the full research paper without the firewall, but I thought I should stick to one link in the comment.)

"What then should society do to address the fact that over 90% of fatalities at work are men?"

This is due to the fact that men are more likely to select more dangerous jobs, not that there's a sudden rash of male-only stapler accidents in the office. Your other points are valid though.

Shannon, you are missing the point. In the income disparity rates AND the workplace fatalities rates, the CHOICES of the workers are involved in producing the outcome.

In the former instance, though, the claim is that society is to blame for the choices by women who end up paid less. (That is, if the advocates will even own up to the fact that choices, not simply discrimination alone, is the explanation for the disparity.) In the latter, people say what you said: "Oh, men die more often? That is because men prefer...."

But that is exactly the point of the comparison I made! And women get paid less because they prefer....

When faced with the difference in statistical outcomes DUE TO GENDER-CORRELATED PREFERENCES, the same people who claim discrimination causes bad outcomes for gals will shrug and claim men have full agency when making choices that result in even worse outcomes for men.

This is due to the fact that men are more likely to select more dangerous jobs

Obviously, we need affirmative action to place more women in these high risk (but also better paying) jobs.

Yeah, I think Darth sees the problem: "Select" is an absolutely FREAKAZOID choice of words. As if all those guys in Appalachia selected careers in mining.

I agree that, generally, women get paid less than men as a group for the same reason men are more likely to work at dangerous jobs - it's about choices.

What annoys me, a bit, is when men make it sound as though, on average, men HAVE to take jobs that are both high-paying - and dangerous. Maybe a lot of the time, they need the money only because they made stupid choices in the past?

It reminds me of one of the late Quentin Crisp's performances, which was recorded on LP. (There are at least three different recordings - the last one he recorded, from the 1990s, is now on DVD.) I don't quite remember the details at that particular moment - it was near the end of one of the sides of one of the two records, but it was about the need to work - or not work. He said that the response he usually got from men on that subject was "oh, it's all right for YOU! You don't have a wife and kids!"

He said (not verbatim): "And they always say that as if having a family were some sort of unavoidable ACCIDENT!"

I love that.

It brings to mind one of my favorite subjects - men who supposedly want the right to be childfree - in the financial sense, at least - but who won't lift a finger to campaign for better male birth control.

Here's one of my favorite entries from Ampersand's "Alas, a Blog" (2002 - it's about abortion and child support):

..........What bothers Sacks and Thompson is that women have one choice men don’t – women can choose to have an abortion. This is unfair (although Sacks and Thompson don’t acknowledge the many ways in which this unfairness benefits men), but it’s an unfairness inherent in biology, not in law. So the question becomes, what can be done to remedy this unfairness? Well, according to Sacks and Thompson, the solution is giving unmarried men the right to walk away from all their parenting obligations. In other words, unmarried men shouldn’t pay child support unless they want to.

But their logic is shaky. According to Sacks and Thompson, “On average, every day 17 [U.S. workers] die – 16 of them male. Couldn’t men who work long hours or do hazardous jobs – and who suffer the concomitant physical ailments and injuries – argue that their bodies are on the line, too? Where is their choice?”

Well, unless they’re independently wealthy, they have no choice but to work. But although the news doesn’t seem to have reached Sacks and Thompson, nearly everyone in the US has to work. It’s not as if unmarried fathers are forced to work while childless or married men (or women for that matter) spend their days drinking brandy by the fire. Sacks and Thompson say that for unmarried fathers to need to work is a injustice, because it violates “my body, my choice” – but since when is it such a horrible violation of bodily integrity to have a job? And if it is a violation of bodily integrity for unmarried fathers, then why isn’t it a violation for all other workers, as well?

Sacks and Thompson are right that occupational injuries are too frequent – and too sex-biased – but workplace injuries aren’t caused by paying child support. It’s not as if 100% of mine shaft workers are unmarried men with children; nor is a mine worker magically safer on the job if he has no children. No feminist objects to protecting workers – but Sacks and Thompson seem to believe that workplace deaths are caused by inadequate father’s rights. The real problem is inadequate workplace safety – and the real solutions have nothing to do with eliminating child support payments for unmarried fathers.

Finally, although “16 deaths a day” sounds impressive, is this really a figure that tells us about the average working man’s life? Of the approximately 73 million American men who worked in 2000, 5,467 – which is to say, less than one-hundredth of one percent – died on the job. It’s tragic that they died, of course – but we can acknowledge that tragedy without pretending that men typically face such dangers in order to pay child support.

(snip)

"What annoys me, a bit, is when men make it sound as though, on average, men HAVE to take jobs that are both high-paying - and dangerous. Maybe a lot of the time, they need the money only because they made stupid choices in the past?"

What makes you so sure the majority of men have made stupid choices? Could it be that, as we've learned here in previous threads, women are hard-wired to seek men of means and status, and so men who want to have a chance of female companionship need to make some money? A guy on his own may be comfortable living a life of poverty, but few women will find that attractive.

"but who won't lift a finger to campaign for better male birth control."

Utter tripe foisted by the media. Most men want better birth control options, especially if they know how biased family courts are. Most women who support the current laws would have far less power over men so its in their best interests to but a kibosh on the idea. There are many women who support the old legal precedent that "any child born into a marriage is considered a product of the marriage" despite science giving us DNA tests.

I remember a NBC clip from a few years ago I saw on a new male BC pill/method being worked on in London. So the NBC reporter walked around London asking women what they thought of it.

The best line was from two women who said they wouldn't trust a man to remember to take the pill everyday. One gal said, "you can't trust them to remember to take out the garbage let alone a pill everyday." But men can trust women to do the same?

Since women have the right to abortion before birth, for equality's sake, men should have abortion rights after the fetus is born. For example, at the point it becomes obvious to the father that the fetus is somehow defective, such as it won't take out the trash or do its homework, the father should be able to take it down to a Planned Parenthood clinic and have it taken care of. IYKWIM. (actually the ancient Romans allowed this)

Man, your email writer sounds whiny, she makes it sound like being pregnant is some terrible fate that women must suffer. It happens my wife is 4 months pregnant, and I haven't heard one negative word from her, on the contrary she is appreciative and thankful that she is getting the life and children she dreamed of and that all is going well so far, and I'm appreciative and thankful that I have an appreciative and thankful wife, and not someone bitter and angry 'boo hoo woe is me' cry-baby who would whine about how unfair it is that I'm not sharing 4.5 months of this apparent curse (as you make it sound) of being pregnant (not that I would mind sharing being pregnant, because I'm also not whiny --- I have too many real, grown-up problems to deal with in life to worry about small things). Being pregnant with a healthy fetus is really something to be thankful for.

"If men were paid more for the same job, wouldn't everyone hire women? I mean, why pay more?"

Precisely! I mean what, email-writer thinks that business owners all get up in the morning and think, 'hey I know, I'll pay more for the same thing?' If there's one thing businesses are good at it's finding cost-efficient labor. The reality is not PC to say, but women get less pay because in general they are delivering lower productivity over the long-term course of their work (often because they're focusing on parenthood and motherhood issues ... it is literally impossible to be as focused on work when you're pregnant or becoming a parent).

"One gal said, "you can't trust them to remember to take out the garbage let alone a pill everyday.""

Oh the anti-male jokes about taking out the garbage just NEVER stop being funny even after the 400 millionth time. If my wife was one of those lame women who spouted that insulting crap, I also wouldn't want to take out the garbage for her.

"She should keep the ring, she "earned" it."

What does that even mean? That every day of the relationship was some kind of painful work that she was 'enduring' in exchange for something? (Doesn't that sound like slavery or prostitution?) Isn't the point of a relationship that BOTH people are happier in it, than out of it, while they're still on good terms? If not, what's the point?

By perceiving that a woman "earns" jewelry by being in a relationship either implies a twisted view of a relationship as being akin to prostitution, or it implies that the woman thinks that she is so amazing that she is doing the guy a huge favor just by gracing him with her presence, and that he should bow down and kiss her toes every day to say thank you.

Your email-writer makes me appreciate my wife even more :)

It seems like the LW's basic problem is that she doesn't like being a woman.

Radwaste made a Princess Bride reference. Thread win.

Lobster,

I agree. It makes me appreciate your wife even more as well. Just kidding. Makes me appreciate mine too.

@lenona who said "vWhat annoys me, a bit, is when men make it sound as though, on average, men HAVE to take jobs that are both high-paying - and dangerous."

Well, in point of fact we do. As evidenced by the fact that you dont see an equal number of women signing up for work on oil rigs and sky scrapers

Threads like these remind me of my favorite british television program 'Coupling' this clip in particular
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKGK2fplV_w

It takes a wile but it does get round to the point that men for all their flaws built civiliaztion all in an attempt to have sex with you ladies.

As Davenport's charecter says at the end of his rant "... frankly, girls, I'm not sure how insulted you really ought to be

Lobster, my DIL is about 4 months along right now too. Isn't it exciting? Best wishes to you and your wife.

Merry Christmas, Amy!

Merry Christmas everyone!

"What annoys me, a bit, is when men make it sound as though, on average, men HAVE to take jobs that are both high-paying - and dangerous. Maybe a lot of the time, they need the money only because they made stupid choices in the past?"

What makes you so sure the majority of men have made stupid choices? Could it be that, as we've learned here in previous threads, women are hard-wired to seek men of means and status, and so men who want to have a chance of female companionship need to make some money? A guy on his own may be comfortable living a life of poverty, but few women will find that attractive.

Posted by: Cousin Dave at December 23, 2010 1:34 PM

_____________________

Somehow, I doubt most men who risk life and limb on their jobs do it just to get laid - especially since so many men manage to make decent pay WITHOUT doing that, usually by doing well in school and/or becoming jacks-of-all-trades. However, if a man grows up in a very blue-collar town, I can imagine other men making fun of him for aspiring to a white- collar job.
______________________

"but who won't lift a finger to campaign for better male birth control."

Sio said:

Utter tripe foisted by the media.
_________________________

How do you know the media are lying?

And where in the media do you see men rushing to demand better MBC? Maury Povich, maybe? I doubt it, and that's not where you go to get taken seriously anyway.

As I've mentioned before in this blog, hothead columnists Marc Rudov and Bernard Chapin (look for them on Youtube, too) have made it clear they have NO serious interest in helping American men to get better MBC.

If men want Big Pharma to believe the market is profitable, there has to be a Visible Demand - on TV and the radio - before men can buy the methods.
_____________________

I remember a NBC clip from a few years ago I saw on a new male BC pill/method being worked on in London. So the NBC reporter walked around London asking women what they thought of it.

The best line was from two women who said they wouldn't trust a man to remember to take the pill everyday. One gal said, "you can't trust them to remember to take out the garbage let alone a pill everyday." But men can trust women to do the same?

Posted by: Sio at December 23, 2010 2:06 PM
_____________________________

And you don't think it's significant that women on the street NEVER seem to say anything like "men shouldn't have that much power"?

I.e., the fact that women say "I wouldn't trust him" pretty much proves that the average woman is far more worried about having too MANY babies than too few.
___________________________

@lenona who said "vWhat annoys me, a bit, is when men make it sound as though, on average, men HAVE to take jobs that are both high-paying - and dangerous."

Well, in point of fact we do. As evidenced by the fact that you dont see an equal number of women signing up for work on oil rigs and sky scrapers

Posted by: lujlp at December 24, 2010 1:24 AM
________________________

Of course those jobs need to be done. That doesn't mean most men are willing to DO them. Even now, there are many jobs - such as teaching - that suffer from a lack of qualified applicants because both men and women can't stand doing them - for good reason. (Why do you usually have to go to college for four years to be a qualified teacher, while a rotten six-year-old has to do little or nothing to avoid being expelled for bad behavior?)

Found Mr. Crisp's exact words, from the end of the first side of the LP "An Evening with Quentin Crisp":

(Just beforehand, he talks about the need to live alone - whether you're gay or straight - as the best way to preserve your individuality and why that's so important. The following is the last 60 seconds on the record's side, just after he says that what's worse than couples are those who join organizations of any kind.)

".....Never be seen tagging along at the tail end of a demonstration. Never be found hopping up and down on the fringe of a pop group. And above all, never, never strike!......

"Whenever I talk to men about strike action, they always say: 'It's all right for you! You don't have a wife and kids!' I can tell by the sound of their voices, men regard a family as suffering incurred by accident and bravely borne.

"Even so, you must never strike. There is danger in numbers. They may nudge you into performing an action which is beyond the limits of your chosen style. And in public! The striker makes demands on the dreary grounds that he is one of many, all of whom are alike. But the stylist asks for what he wants in the name of the fact that he is unique. And everything in the world is subject to the law of scarcity value, because deep down, there is only one of each of you. When the time for serious bargaining comes, you will win."

Lenona,

You certainly have a great deal to say. The one thing you aren't doing however is listening to what others are saying. Here are some examples of what I mean:

"Somehow, I doubt most men who risk life and limb on their jobs do it just to get laid"

"However, if a man grows up in a very blue-collar town, I can imagine other men making fun of him for aspiring to a white- collar job."

"If men want Big Pharma to believe the market is profitable, there has to be a Visible Demand"

"I can tell by the sound of their voices, men regard a family as suffering incurred by accident and bravely borne."

Notice how you are placing your own "doubts", "imagination", and your ability to "tell" what men are thinking above the actual words and experiences of those here talking to you.

Why exactly should your anecdotal "theories" about men trump the words of actual men on the same topics?

The reality is that you are factually wrong on most of these issues and until you are willing to listen to what the men here are saying, you will never be convinced otherwise. It is easy to be "right" when you stick your fingers in your ears.

In the hope that you will actually take a moment to hear me out on these issues I will start from the beginning.

Firstly, women have options when it comes to the labor market that men by and large do not have. In particular, women with few marketable skills have the ability to opt out of the labor market entirely and be a stay at home mother or a home maker. Men don't have this option because there is a scarcity of women willing to financially support a stay at home husband.

As a result, at the low end of the marketable skill spectrum we tend to have men working dangerous jobs supporting wives and children where generally the wife is a stay at home mother also with few marketable skills. Now in principle the father could stay home with the children in these situations while the mother went out into the coal mines, but realistically this is not going to happen. Women by and large avoid dangerous occupations which are the jobs most likely to provide suitable income for a family in this situation.

Men do not join these professions because they are going to be made fun of otherwise. They join these professions because they want families and with the skills they possess this is the only realistic option available for them. It isn't simply about "getting laid". It is about convincing a woman that you are capable of supporting a family.

As for your big pharma argument, history suggests you are wrong. I recommend that you dig deeper and discover where the funding for the female contraceptive pill came from. The very same arguments you are making now against MBC was made against FBC early on. Only *after* the pill came onto the market did it become obvious that it was profitable. Women weren't running through the streets yelling for big pharma to get going on the pill. It was primarily funded by grants entirely outside of the pharmaceutical industry made by planned parenthood.

As a result, the question you should be asking yourself isn't why more men aren't rallying in the streets for MBC, but rather why isn't planned parenthood providing external funding for MBC the same way it did for FBC?

Instead they provide substantial funding for plan b contraceptive methods. Seems kind of odd doesn't it? That so much funding would be available to help women get rid of an unwanted pregnancy but not one dime is available to help men avoid some of those pregnancies in the first place.

You can't will a 'male pill' into existence through sheer force of political will. There is a demand (fungibility of market alternatives notwithstanding, such as condoms), and 'big pharma' (urgh) IS working on the problem; the reason it doesn't exist yet is not because nobody is 'campaigning' for it, the reason is because it's a technically difficult problem to solve and finding, researching and developing new drugs and getting them tested and approved is an extremely time-consuming process. It's a slow and monumental task developing new drugs; "campaigning" doesn't make it go faster any more than wishing really really really hard that you can make a baby in less than nine months can make a baby take less than nine months to make. I remember reading articles about progress on the male pill in men's magazines a decade ago already, and plenty of men were clearly very interested even then. It's just a tough nut to crack, R&D-wise; it seems to be scientifically easier to block 1 egg than tens of millions of hyper-active spermies, and science does not bend to political will, never has, never will.

"The best line was from two women who said they wouldn't trust a man to remember to take the pill everyday"

Maybe not, but I do trust men every day to make sure planes stay in the air, that planes don't collide when coming in to land or taking off, to keep the borders of the nation safe, to run the nuclear and other power plants that power our society, to (so far) maintain the nuclear arsenal safely, to safely captain and navigate massive ships carrying thousands of passenger or tonnes of cargo, to build the cars we trust our lives to , to design, build and run the trains we ride in ... so while it's hilarious to claim that men cannot be trusted to remember to take a pill each day, it's so completely and ridiculously at utter odds with the obvious blatant reality of the society we live in that to make such claims requires some kind of mental deficiency. On the whole, men are extraordinarily reliable.

2 things to muse on about this tangent since we are on it.
1] Women's fertility is made to be turned off when they are pregnant. So? Trick their body into thinking it's preggers, and viola! no pregnancy. Or you can make it so that that one little egg can't implant and viola! no pregnancy.

Sadly, there is no natural condition where a man's body is rendered infertile. The only way to do it is to break his body.

This is why there has only been "promise" in finding some kind of male pill.

Which leads us to #2.

Isn't it kind of sexist to believe that a man wouldn't pay attention to taking a pill every day to stay infertile, when there is so much downside to his fertility? There are tons of reasons that guys don't necessarily watch over this aspect of fertility, just the same way that 50% of pregnancies are accidents.

Except, huh, it takes 2 to tango, no? how many of those women have oopsies? How many of them figure that getting preggers is a way to lock the guy into a relationship... etc. etc.

Essentially there are extremes on both sides, that just don't care. A drunk woman feeling you up in a bar, doesn't care if you are a stranger whose name she doesn't know, and the guy who figures he can get lucky with her also doesn't care. They are both being stupid. They are extremes. It's not just pregger roulette that they are playing. What're the odds that they might also have some sort of itch down there?

Guys who already practice safe sex will beat a path to your door if you had a safe way to turn off the sperm factory, and turn it back on when needed... JUST LIKE WOMEN who use the pill and various other devices. These guys already have to wear a damn wetsuit that's uncomefortable, and kills the moment when you put it on. Not to mention that such a barrier is ALSO a barrier to all the beneficial chemistry that our bodies release to each other.

It's just the basic fact that there isn't an easy way to turn off that factory, short of surgery. Having that cut says to any potential mate that you aren't interested in mating. For some women that's fine, but not for long term. Not for a "relationship".

So, what, are we supposed to riot in the streets? About how it's unfair that women have so many different ways for birth control be we have a grand total of 1? Unless you count a major surgery or just never having sex, of course. Will that really speed the wheels of progress, when there isn't any medical way to do it?

Oh, but guys are just irresponsible. Yeah and women who have oopsies every day of every year aren't? The real problem isn't if one gender or the other are irresponsible, it's when they find each other that it's a problem.

"Whenever I talk to men about strike action, they always say: 'It's all right for you! You don't have a wife and kids!' I can tell by the sound of their voices, men regard a family as suffering incurred by accident and bravely borne."

Lenona, I'm afraid you're projecting here. Most men do not see the building of a family as an "accident". They see it as part of their responsibility as men. The guys who do see it as an "accident" are mostly layabouts who don't work, so they're irrelevant to the point.

"The best line was from two women who said they wouldn't trust a man to remember to take the pill everyday"

I wouldn't trust a man to take a birth control pill everyday. I don't even trust myself to take a birth control pill every day, which is why I insist on using a condom as well every time. It amazes me how often guys will unquestionably accept that I'm on birth control without stopping to consider that I could be lying, I could be forgetful, I could be taking an antibiotic that unbeknownst to me decreases the effectiveness of the pill.

I think that most men my age (early 20s) take for granted that our interests are aligned-that I don't want to get pregnant either and that if I did, I'd have it "taken care of." And that's true, but they have no way of knowing that. For all they know I'm the poster child for the pro-life movement and it's my dream to get on MTV's "16 and Pregnant." (Obviously I'm talking about casual sex here, not long term relationships where you can be more confident about trusting your partner). It's crazy how many guys won't take that upfront responsibility of insisting on wearing a condom that they bring and put on themselves every single time.

Hey Shannon,

I agree with you that the whole "trust" argument is kind of a red herring. Even if we had MBC tomorrow it wouldn’t mean that women would stop taking their own contraception and have to suddenly “trust” men to take a pill in order to prevent pregnancy. All MBC would do is allow men/couples to have an additional tool to prevent pregnancy that is complimentary to FBC.

Two treatments are hardly mutually exclusive as you point out when it comes to condoms. As a matter of fact, the more preventative measures that are in use the probability of an unwanted pregnancy drops multiplicatively. Quite frankly, women who argue against MBC on the basis of trust do not have a leg to stand on as the existence of MBC doesn’t require women to stop doing whatever they are currently doing to avoid getting pregnant.

That being said, I do disagree with your assessment when it comes to young men as I don’t believe you have enough data to say the things you are saying. In particular:

“I think that most men my age (early 20s) take for granted that our interests are aligned”

And

“It's crazy how many guys won't take that upfront responsibility of insisting on wearing a condom that they bring and put on themselves every single time.”

How exactly are you able to generalize from your personal experience as a woman in her early 20’s about the thoughts of “most men” or even make a statement about how “crazy” it is that “many guys” won’t wear a condom?

I’m assuming of course that you do not have personal sexual experience with a representative sample of men in their early 20’s as that would require you to have slept with or surveyed thousands and thousands of men across many ethnicities and socioeconomic backgrounds.

My suspicion is that your opinion on this issue suffers from a severe case of selection bias and poor sampling. In addition, I suspect that the men who most frequently engage in one night stands are not representative of the general population of men which would also tend to include lots of guys who don’t get laid that frequently outside of long term relationships.

"Whenever I talk to men about strike action, they always say: 'It's all right for you! You don't have a wife and kids!' I can tell by the sound of their voices, men regard a family as suffering incurred by accident and bravely borne."

Lenona, I'm afraid you're projecting here.....

Posted by: Cousin Dave
_______________________

Can't you READ? That was a quote from the late Quentin Crisp!

And, as you might guess from his opposition to couplehood, he wasn't really in favor of people's having children either - but he was used to people's hostility, as an openly gay man in 1930s London (it nearly got him killed more than once) so he wasn't one to assume that anyone necessarily agreed or sympathized with his beliefs. Ergo, he didn't necessarily misinterpret the men in his stage audiences.

He did, however, mellow a bit as he approached 90 - I saw him less than a month before he died.

Lenona,

You certainly have a great deal to say. The one thing you aren't doing however is listening to what others are saying. Here are some examples of what I mean:

(snip)

"I can tell by the sound of their voices, men regard a family as suffering incurred by accident and bravely borne."
_______________________

You can't seem to read either. That wasn't my quote.
______________________

Notice how you are placing your own "doubts", "imagination", and your ability to "tell" what men are thinking above the actual words and experiences of those here talking to you.

Why exactly should your anecdotal "theories" about men trump the words of actual men on the same topics?

The reality is that you are factually wrong on most of these issues and until you are willing to listen to what the men here are saying,
_____________________________

I'm not interested in a half-dozen men's opinions. I'm interested in what male COLUMNISTS - who use their real names, BTW - are willing or not willing to do - or even write about. Not to mention what the majority of men in the whole country are openly talking about - or not. Oh, yes - and doctors, somehow, haven't stopped saying: "Men don't want their genitals messed with." Maybe they need to HEAR from their male patients, if that's not true?

See what I said above about Marc Rudov and Bernard Chapin. Here's a direct quote from Chapin, if you like:

"Hi Lenona, it's just not a subject that I'm interested in I'm afraid. Female birth control seems to be working just fine from what I can see with long term partners, and with short-term partners condoms work plenty well. Provided a girl isn't too slutty, condoms offer up a man plenty of feeling from what I've experienced. If drug companies want to offer a pill and guys use it I also see no problem. It sounds like a solution in search of a problem to me."

And this is a man who once wrote some long pieces about his good friend Robert, who had an accidental(?) son with his long-term girlfriend - only to get caught in The Custody Battle From Hell. (To find it, if you like, just search on Chapin's name plus "Robert" and "custody.") As I pointed out to Chapin after getting that email, it's likely this wouldn't have happened had Robert had access to some foolproof implant - and GOTTEN it. At the least, Robert would have been more likely to think twice about having it REMOVED while he was still with that particular woman. I got no response.

And how do you know that I'm wrong about men not ASKING for better male BC, outside of unscientific Internet gossip? Warren Farrell likes to claim that MBC will be more popular than Viagra (in fact, he made MBC one of his platform planks when he ran for governor of California in 2005) but I can't remember ANY man who said he would refuse to use Viagra, which is why Big Pharma knew ahead of time it would be profitable. You don't have to look that far to find men who will say they're not using any hormonal or chemical methods, at least.
________________________

Firstly, women have options when it comes to the labor market that men by and large do not have. In particular, women with few marketable skills have the ability to opt out of the labor market entirely and be a stay at home mother or a home maker.
_________________

IF the man is willing to support a SAHM...

More later.

Reality said: Men do not join these professions because they are going to be made fun of otherwise. They join these professions because they want families and with the skills they possess this is the only realistic option available for them. It isn't simply about "getting laid". It is about convincing a woman that you are capable of supporting a family.
__________________________

As I said, many men manage to avoid dangerous jobs by paying attention in school. Not that this can't be pretty hard if you're surrounded by "friends" who ostracize you for studying, but if you don't want to risk death every day as an adult, losing those school "friends" could well be your only choice.

Otherwise, OK, I'll admit it: I don't really understand why anyone wants a kid. I especially don't understand why anyone wants to risk life and limb to prove that "you are capable of supporting a family." And I REALLY can't imagine being willing to do that AND being willing to support a homemaker with no other skills who will be in a terrifying position should you become a quadriplegic.
_______________________

As for your big pharma argument, history suggests you are wrong. I recommend that you dig deeper and discover where the funding for the female contraceptive pill came from. The very same arguments you are making now against MBC was made against FBC early on. Only *after* the pill came onto the market did it become obvious that it was profitable. Women weren't running through the streets yelling for big pharma to get going on the pill.
________________________

Mainly because only a relatively small handful of women - such as Margaret Sanger's followers - were willing to go to JAIL for their efforts, maybe? (Sanger went to jail about eight times, as I remember, starting well before World War I. Not very ladylike, given the times.) So how is that proof that "the very same arguments you are making now against MBC was made against FBC early on"? I don't get it. (Women patients flocked to Sanger for FBC - who claims they didn't? Aside from Comstock, maybe?)

And, more importantly, where is the proof that 21st-century men would have to deal with even a quarter of the legal threats that Sanger did? All a man has to say, from what I can see, is "my wife and I can't afford more babies right now and she can't use the pill! We need more backups!"

What's the danger or controversy there?

But, as I said, it has to be on some serious TV or radio forum - not some gossipy site.

the reason it doesn't exist yet is not because nobody is 'campaigning' for it, the reason is because it's a technically difficult problem to solve and finding, researching and developing new drugs and getting them tested and approved is an extremely time-consuming process. It's a slow and monumental task developing new drugs; "campaigning" doesn't make it go faster any more than wishing really really really hard that you can make a baby in less than nine months can make a baby take less than nine months to make.

Posted by: Lobster at December 24, 2010 2:16 PM
_______________________________

No, but FUNDING just might.

RISUG and the IVD are non-hormonal methods. They can't be sold over and over, like pills, so that makes them much less profitable, clearly. However, those may well be the most popular types of BC for men in long-term relationships, so they need all the publicity and funding they can get. Last I heard, they were being tested in India and China.

Here's more on those methods, if you like, from 2004:

http://www.alternet.org/story/17432/

And, just a reminder:

Men in short term relationships are under a lot of pressure to use condoms, and sensible people don't want that pressure to stop until (ha ha) all STDS have been eradicated.

Men in long term relationships tend to trust the women they're with. (How many married men use condoms unless their wives ASK them to?)

So that's why Big Pharma et al aren't just going to assume that MBC will be anywhere the market size that Viagra is - outside of the celebrity/groupie world, maybe. (Groupies carry pins.)

I doubt anyone's reading anymore, but just in case.....

To clarify a few things, I'm saying: Whether you're male or female, if you don't WANT children, it's YOUR job to make sure they don't happen to you. (Something hothead columnist Marc Rudov doesn't agree with!!) If you're male and you don't like your contraceptive options, instead of wasting your energy over conspiracy theories, write a letter and send a few dollars to the organizations that are doing RESEARCH. (All you have to do is Google for them.) How many men do that?

And my final point is: Why do a handful of men act as though there HAS to be a feminist conspiracy, contrary to what doctors are saying about men being less eager for MBC than women are? (Sort of like the case of the man who won't go for his annual physical unles his wife drags him in.)

Not to mention the thousands upon thousands of men who refuse to talk about it at all. That looks a lot like the theory of "if they wanted it, they'd have it by now."

If they DO want it, what's stopping them from asking for it?

Oh, I forgot - there's another MBC method: Pro-Vas. It's a half-inch titanium clip. Though from what I've heard, there are doubts as to its reversability.

Leona, the thing about a handful of conspiracy theorists, is, it IS that, a handful of people.

It is entirely the flipside of the men will never do this or do that trope you seem interested in. Men go to docs when something is broken, because we look at docs as being a repair place. When I go into my doc, she nags me about various things, until I remind her to RTFM about me, and remember that my blood pressure has been PROVEN BY HER to be caused by the allergy medication I have to take... and then suddenly? "Oh, you're fine then." But you need to eat better... low fat/high carb. Even when I proved that one wrong too. Personally I think guys don't like doctors because they already have enough people nagging them.

Be that as it may, there is one thing you should think about in terms of getting RISUG here. [Personally I think it's the only thing somewhat comprable to the pill in it's capacity.]

It is doubtful that the PILL ever would have been approved by the FDA now. The hurdles to approving drugs by the FDA essentially meand that only drugs that have a HUGE return on investment will ever come to market. Given the prevailing ideas about female contraception at the time the Pill was approved, the market for it didn't seem very big. If that was the case today, nobody would even front the money.

This is a problem that doesn't have to do with conspiracy theories, or "if they wanted it, they'd have it by now." or any of that. It is simple economice, drizzled with a fine coating of squeamishness when it comes to talking about procreation, on both sides.

Essentially the condom is the only answer for casual sex, regardless, because it is the only one to keep diseases down [mostly]. Once you start talking longer term relationships, then the numbers just start falling off. You mentioned that the Pill is a money maker. But when you talk about "Big Pharma" as if they are bad guys or something, then you, yourself are engaging in conspiracy theory. To get approved by the FDA it takes something like $800 MILLION DOLARS. So even if that RISUG gets approved in India, and I think it will, it would STILL cost that much in the US. Do you think any company will pony up that much money?

Some years ago i donated to the activist groups, but to what point? The group of people who might use this is not that big. There are options for people in commited relationships that are easier and cheaper, and once you are done with kids, getting snipped is cheap, and it works better than a clip, which fail a lot.

Personally I would like to see it work, because of the problems with hormonal contraceptives in women, and the problems with condoms in both... I think it would lead to much healthier relationships... but unless Bill Gates leaves me his fortune, it's unlikely. This is just one of those things that doesn't solve enough problems to push it over the top. EVEN in a place like India where it is really needed because of the population.

I find the whole engagement ring tradition completely bizarre and agree with everything Amy expressed in her original column. I especially don’t understand angrymail’s take on this issue. If she doesn’t believe that women are property that should be bartered for with jewelry, why on earth does she think a woman has earned and engagement ring after an engagement ends? If you believe that women should legally be treated as equals to men (as I do) then you shouldn’t encourage people to continue the practices that appear to be based on the assumption that they are not legally equal to men. You can't change things by supporting the same system that you want to change.

Since it is the holiday season this also reminds me of the creepy jewelry commercials that always ramp up this time of year. Like the one where a couple is at a cabin and the man “protects” the woman from a clap of thunder by hanging and ugly, over-priced, necklace on her. That commercial seriously creeps me out. I don’t have a problem with being protected by a man. In fact, if a man were to protect me by, say, carrying me out of a burning building or fending off hordes of rampaging Vikings, that would be a serious turn on. If he tried to use jewelry to protect me from thunder I would have a hard time not throwing up a little in my mouth. Of course if I liked the guy and on other fronts we were compatible, I would do my best to graciously thank him for any gifts he gave to me (ugliness or absurd costliness aside). But back to the commercial, does this kind of advertising really work on people? Are there seriously people who buy into this image of what women want out of relationships? Oh, I guess maybe angrymail does???