It has nothing to do with matriarchy and a lot to do with actuarial science.
It's a sexist double standard. Where actuarial science favors women (like in car or life insurance) it can be used. Where it favors men (like with health insurance) it's not allowed and men and women have to be charged the same.
Are vasectomies not covered?
Not in the same way (no copay) the female sterilizations are.
I agree that they should be. On the other hand, OTC birth control such as condoms is not covered and does not need to be covered.
I do not see why not. If not completely free, then discounted. After all, condoms do not just prevent pregnancy (albeit less reliably than hormonal methods) but also STIs which is definitely desirable from a medical standpoint.
If your argument is that there should be more and better birth control options for men, I agree and so does every woman I know. Why have not men, who have been the ones who have been guiding, funding and carrying out most of the research not done a better job of finding better options for men?
Perhaps because it is medically not feasible? Women have their monthly cycle, i.e. they have a built in fertile/not-fertile periods which can be manipulated relatively simply with hormones. Men are always fertile and don't have a natural fertile/not-fertile cycle that can be exploited. They also do not have a uterus where you can put a foreign body (IUD) to prevent pregnancy.
In fact, it is not matriarchy but an artifact of patriarchy which prevented women from enlisting in the military in the past,
As you said, in the past. But men only having to register for selective service (and be drafted if it were ever reinstated) is very much current law. Expanding women's rights while not expanding their responsibilities is very much a hallmark of modern feminism. See also where women can and do work outside the home yet feminists support courts putting the responsibility on the man to financially support his ex-wife forever.
and continues to limit the roles in which women may serve.
The only role where a woman may not serve are afaik submarines where very close quarters would exacerbate the risk of sexual assaults as well as certain elite units where the number of qualified women would be small even if they were allowed in because of relative physical prowess (compare women playing American Football with the men - very rare and mostly limited to less physical positions like kickers).
And also, btw, contributes to the shameful number of sexual assaults on both women and men in the military.
Legalizing prostitution and allowing soldiers to frequent them would do a lot to prevent that. Of course, most feminists are opposed to legalizing prostitution as well. In fact, the only state with legalized prostitution has a Republican governor and Republican majority legislature - and the Democratic Senator from NV (Harry Reid) in
on record wanting to make it illegal.
I oppose the draft and mandatory registration for selective service. And war.
With you on the first two except in case of dire need but then all people should be subject to the draft and assigned roles based on their individual aptitude. As far as war, it is sometimes necessary.
When no corroborating evidence is required to convict a man of rape that is matriarchy.
No, that is fantasy.
No, there have indeed been convictions in he said-she said situations which is a travesty. Of course, feminists want to go even further and require man to prove his innocence.
Progress that you now recognize that it is not 'never' but actually happens. Perhaps you need to acquaint yourself with why such prosecutions are not as plentiful as you would like.
False rape accusers rarely get prosecuted (neither Duke false accuser Crystal Magnum nor Brian Banks false accuser Wanetta Gibson were ever prosecuted for example) and many feminists do not want them prosecuted ever.
I am unaware that men cannot defend themselves against rape charges. Or that being unable to scrutinize every aspect of a woman's sex life is a necessary and appropriate way to mount a defense against rape charges.
Often a woman's sexual history is relevant to the case. In the case of a Culumbia student, exculpatory emails between him and the false accuser were excluded due to rape shield laws. He spent 20 months in prison where he was attacked before being eventually freed on appeal.
You are not familiar with Donglegate?
When I witnessed a co-worker attempt to force another female coworker's head to his crotch, I did not think that was patriarchy. I thought it was sexual assault, sexism and illegal. It was not 'patriarchy' that was responsible for supervisors making detailed, inappropriate inquiries into my sex life, attempting to kiss me, pull me onto laps, threaten me if I wasn't 'nice,' attempt to insist I wear my skirts shorter or punish me for refusing the advances of customers in a family restaurant setting. It was sexism. And at the time some of these things happened, it was not illegal.
Must have been long time ago because I have seen men (and it's always men) fired for very trivial things. Things were bad a long time ago but they are just as bad now, in the opposite - hypersensitive - direction.
No, it isn't. Whether it is good public policy or not is open for debate but universities have a legal responsibility to ensure a safe environment for students and workers.
Safe environment is not ensured by expelling innocent male students because federal government mandates lowest level of proof and limits ability of the accused to defend himself. That increases the likelihood of false positives and actually creates an unsafe environment for students in danger of being falsely accused. The UND case (where a male student was expelled even though his false accuser was actually charged by the police for making a false accusation) and the Vassar case (where a girl said that she "had a great time" when they had sex but decided to cry rape a year later and get him expelled) are just two examples of innocent men getting expelled under the Orwellian "Dear Colleague" policy of the Obama administration. And yes, in the second case the male student wasn't allowed to use her message as exculpatory evidence.
Just because you don't like an outcome, it doesn't mean that it is matriarchy. It might be a symptom of an obsession, though.
The fact is that Jackie Coakley made up a rape accusation. Another fact is that UVA didn't punish her for it. That is not an obsession, it's merely exposing a sexist double standard. Men accused of rape get expelled based on very weak evidence. Female false accusers do not get expelled even when their guilt is very clear.
Citing these examples without providing any context may be symptomatic of sexism and misogyny.
One man was asleep and his wife shot him in the back with a shotgun, cut phone lines (so he could not call for help in case he survived) took the kids and fled the state. She ended up serving only 60 days - a slap on the wrist.
In the other case a woman followed her boyfriend to another woman's house and shot him in the back. She was acquitted.
How is any of these cases justice?
No it's not. But tell me, did you ever stop to think why it is that Lorena Bobbitt became such an icon?
Because
feminists love her.
Oh, and who made a lot of jokes at the expense of her victim? A lot of MALE comedians and late night talk show hosts. Was this matriarchy forcing them to do this?
A lot of left-wing men call themselves feminists.
Is it patriarchy when women are routinely discriminated against in divorce courts and family court?
If they were it would be. But they are not, so it's not.
A judgment which favors one person over another (in the view of any party not involved in the suit) is not necessarily the result of sexism, much less patriarchy or matriarchy but simply a result of: sometimes a judgment isn't viewed as 'fair' by everyone, especially if one is being told to do something s/he doesn't wish to do.
A pattern of judgments that routinely favors women at the expense of men however is very much the result of sexism.
Um, those laws were established by men and enforced by men. Please cite for me how often alimony is now awarded? Is alimony ever awarded to men? Do men ever get custody of minor children? Do they ever get child support? Of course they do.
It is feminists like Wendy Murphy who argue in favor of lifelong alimony specifically because it favors women. And men very rarely (3-4%) get alimony even though women outearn men 1/3 of the time. Men also rarely get child support even when the children live with them.
Men are also recipients of scholarships available only to men---and not just athletic scholarships.
Very rare compared to female only scholarships. And I have seen no government grants (such as NSF) that were only open to men.
Scholarships are often awarded to underrepresented groups in order to encourage individuals to explore non-traditional (for their group) areas of study or career paths.
Name me one NSF grant that is only open to men.
Thank you.