That wasn't the point of my response. The point is that there aren't as many "laws" that "systemically and openly benefit women vs men" as Araysar thinks there are.
Oh so what you are acknowledging that there are laws that openly benefit women, and no laws that benefit men. Just that there isn't as many of them. BOY AM I GLAD WE CAN AGREE ON THAT.
I write enough fucking papers, thanks. This is an internet titty posting board.
Up until this year, there were laws that made it so men's "reproductive health issues" (aka penis pumps and boner pills) were covered by insurance but birth control was not.
So what you are saying is that there are no laws that specifically favor white males. But there are plenty of laws that specifically favor women and minorities.
A look at Medicare's 'grossly excessive' spending on ... penis pumps | PunditFact
I think you mean the new provisions of the ACA which require insurance plans to cover birth control methods at no out of pocket cost. Can you provide evidence to back up your claim that birth control was not covered by law prior to that?
Medicare?Do you even know what your'e talking about? Medicare is ONLY for people 65+. No women need birth control at 65.
So you attack the person who's trying (in vain) to help you prove your unsubstantiated point instead of actually furthering your claim with useful evidence.
I'm the cute Asian.Which one of these is Mist or Tanoomba?
That. Sounds. Awesome.
I'm not proving any points besides proving Araysar is an idiot, which is way more important.
