Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Astro Cat]

Menstrual products. They're often overlooked with charitable giving, they're nearly universally needed, there are more costs associated with menstruation than most people think (painkillers, soiled clothing, other complications [e.g. acne medication for some women]). It costs women thousands of dollars a year during fertile years.

Imagine having $6,000ish taken off of your salary (after taxes!) if you want to keep functioning in society and not have to burrow at home.

I can't edit my post but I wanted to correct this because my brain is tired. The $6,000 figure is a fertile lifetime figure, not a yearly figure. I also shouldn't have said "thousands of dollars a year." As I said, brain tired.

[Pattern-chaser]

Menstrual products. They're often overlooked with charitable giving, they're nearly universally needed, there are more costs associated with menstruation than most people think (painkillers, soiled clothing, other complications [e.g. acne medication for some women]). It costs women thousands of dollars a year during fertile years.

Imagine having $6,000ish taken off of your salary (after taxes!) if you want to keep functioning in society and not have to burrow at home.

I have always agreed that, if men had babies, then sanitary products would be universally available, and free. 'Maternity' leave would be mandatory. Any negative effects on career progression, due to time off to raise children, would also be forbidden. And so on. Male supremacy has a lot to answer for, just as all 'supremacies' do, IMO.

[Astro Cat]

I have always agreed that, if men had babies, then sanitary products would be universally available, and free. 'Maternity' leave would be mandatory. Any negative effects on career progression, due to time off to raise children, would also be forbidden. And so on. Male supremacy has a lot to answer for, just as all 'supremacies' do, IMO.

Amen.

I will say I'm really proud of my job for giving paternity leave to a couple of coworkers for a full month (speaking of). That's really good in the US. I think paternity leave is really important for men, too.

[LuckyR]

Menstrual products. They're often overlooked with charitable giving, they're nearly universally needed, there are more costs associated with menstruation than most people think (painkillers, soiled clothing, other complications [e.g. acne medication for some women]). It costs women thousands of dollars a year during fertile years.

Imagine having $6,000ish taken off of your salary (after taxes!) if you want to keep functioning in society and not have to burrow at home.

True, though it's cheaper than pregnancy...

[Astro Cat]

True, though it's cheaper than pregnancy...

Yes, but while we’re at it here, women are often expected to take the brunt of birth control costs (financial costs and — well I don’t know what to call it, cost to our bodies with side effects of things like the pill, complications with IUDs, etc.)

Then there’s the scary direction the USA is taking to attack our reproductive choices: some Republicans have already been signaling some kinds of birth control are on the chopping block. I guess that’s a different issue, though. Scary times to live in

[Pattern-chaser]

True, though it's cheaper than pregnancy...

Yes, but while we’re at it here, women are often expected to take the brunt of birth control costs (financial costs and — well I don’t know what to call it, cost to our bodies with side effects of things like the pill, complications with IUDs, etc.)

I read recently that the risks to a woman having a baby are comparable to those taken by a soldier on a tour in a war-torn country. Not only comparable, but many of the risks are the same risks, with the same degree of severity: death, serious (maybe permanent) injury or disability, PTSD, and so on. At first, I thought this was exaggeration for effect, which is so common. But it turns out it isn't.

[GE Morton]

I read recently that the risks to a woman having a baby are comparable to those taken by a soldier on a tour in a war-torn country. Not only comparable, but many of the risks are the same risks, with the same degree of severity: death, serious (maybe permanent) injury or disability, PTSD, and so on. At first, I thought this was exaggeration for effect, which is so common. But it turns out it isn't.

I was skeptical of that, so looked it up. The fatality rate among US soldiers in WWII was 860 combat deaths per 100,000 soldiers serving in combat theaters. The current (2020) maternal fatality rate in the US is 23.8 per 100,000 pregnancies.

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/stude ... ry-numbers

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/ma ... s-2020.htm

It is true that deaths in some combat theaters was much lower. In Iraq and Afghanistan, to date, the combat death rate is 0.27%, compared to 1.8% in WWII.

https://www.military.com/memorial-day/h ... n-war.html

But even that is much higher than the maternal death rate (0.02%).

[LuckyR]

True, though it's cheaper than pregnancy...

Yes, but while we’re at it here, women are often expected to take the brunt of birth control costs (financial costs and — well I don’t know what to call it, cost to our bodies with side effects of things like the pill, complications with IUDs, etc.)

Then there’s the scary direction the USA is taking to attack our reproductive choices: some Republicans have already been signaling some kinds of birth control are on the chopping block. I guess that’s a different issue, though. Scary times to live in

Women aren't "expected" to take the responsibility of BC, they want (and should want) to take that responsibility. Imagine a couple hook up, and she says hey put on this condom and he says, nah don't worry I'm on the man Pill, you won't get pregnant.

Besides it is easier (and thus better) to control one egg a month than 1500 sperm per second.

[LuckyR]

True, though it's cheaper than pregnancy...

Yes, but while we’re at it here, women are often expected to take the brunt of birth control costs (financial costs and — well I don’t know what to call it, cost to our bodies with side effects of things like the pill, complications with IUDs, etc.)

I read recently that the risks to a woman having a baby are comparable to those taken by a soldier on a tour in a war-torn country. Not only comparable, but many of the risks are the same risks, with the same degree of severity: death, serious (maybe permanent) injury or disability, PTSD, and so on. At first, I thought this was exaggeration for effect, which is so common. But it turns out it isn't.

That's why the most dangerous form of Birth Control is the rhythm method.

[Pattern-chaser]

I read recently that the risks to a woman having a baby are comparable to those taken by a soldier on a tour in a war-torn country. Not only comparable, but many of the risks are the same risks, with the same degree of severity: death, serious (maybe permanent) injury or disability, PTSD, and so on. At first, I thought this was exaggeration for effect, which is so common. But it turns out it isn't.

I was skeptical of that, so looked it up. The fatality rate among US soldiers in WWII was 860 combat deaths per 100,000 soldiers serving in combat theaters. The current (2020) maternal fatality rate in the US is 23.8 per 100,000 pregnancies.

Apologies. I heard it from a reasonably OK source, but can't find it again to check. Also, the claim I remember was that the risks were comparable to a solider doing a single tour, not a whole war.

Nevertheless, the risks to women having babies is still significantly higher than many of us thought. That point still stands, I think.

[Pattern-chaser]

Also, the claim I remember was that the risks were comparable to a solider doing a single tour, not a whole war.

"solider" -> "soldier"

[Astro Cat]

Women aren't "expected" to take the responsibility of BC, they want (and should want) to take that responsibility. Imagine a couple hook up, and she says hey put on this condom and he says, nah don't worry I'm on the man Pill, you won't get pregnant.

Besides it is easier (and thus better) to control one egg a month than 1500 sperm per second.

We are, though. A pack of bc costs like $25-$30, sometimes ~$50 for the uninsured. It’s not really common practice for men to offer to split that cost. An IUD can cost upwards of $1,000. It’s also pretty common for women to buy condoms, too, because of a lot of men that try to get away without using them.

I’m talking in broad social strokes, of course. There are plenty of couples that are smart and equitable about sex.

[AverageBozo]

if you could make something in society not so expensive, what would it be? What would be the ups and downs to doing this? Is there a way to combat the consequences like we are combating the lack of residency worldwide? Share let us know why you would think this needs to be accessible to all of society.

Food, housing and college tuition where applicable.

Food and housing are basic human needs and should be affordable for everyone. On the plus side, the population of humans would be adequately sheltered and sufficiently fed, making individuals secure and perhaps better motivated to succeed at achieving goals for their benefit and perhaps for society at large. On the down side, security of basic needs may lead to widespread laziness.

Education is state-supported in many nations already, but should also be cheap or funded by taxes in those places where it is not readily affordable now. A caveat, though—cheaper education may lead to lower salaries for educators, which in turn may contribute to lower quality teachers and a watering-down of the benefits of education.

[GE Morton]

This is a silly question. What sense of "should" is this? Does it mean, "It would be nice if . . ."? Or, "I wish X was less expensive"? Or, "Everyone has some (moral) duty to make X less expensive"?

Obviously it would be nice if, and everyone wishes that, EVERYTHING was less expensive, indeed, that everything was "free." But that will never be the case with anything, except perhaps air. Everything else has some innate cost, in effort, energy, time, to produce; how much of each depending on the technology available. The only way to reduce those is via improved technology. But there are also some extrinsic costs, largely due to impediments and burdens imposed by governments, including the costs imposed by politicians on producers of goods to pay for "free' stuff for their various constituencies.

[Pattern-chaser]

Education is state-supported in many nations already, but should also be cheap or funded by taxes in those places where it is not readily affordable now. A caveat, though—cheaper education may lead to lower salaries for educators, which in turn may contribute to lower quality teachers and a watering-down of the benefits of education.

I was lucky enough to have my education state-funded; no loans. I was appalled when loans were introduced. Education benefits all; put the knowledge into the community and let it spread! All education should be funded by the state, which is to say, the tax-payer. IMO.