- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -


MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.
MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Tue 21st February 2017

Pharmac Called Upon to Subsidize Feminine Products

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 11:13 pm

The claim is that schoolgirls are missing school because women can’t afford tampons so Pharmac is being asked to subsidize them and other ‘feminine hygiene products’. Pharmac seems to be taking the request seriously and checking to see if its role could include this. Will the National govt court the female vote again for this year’s election by throwing money at this demand as they did for Herceptin?

Our internet search found no research or statistics to support the claim that girls are missing school in significant numbers because they can’t afford tampons. The claim seems a cheap attempt to justify yet another demand for special treatment of females.

Feminine hygiene products are claimed to be basic essentials, and they include deodorants. No statistics are provided to show the level of educational or health problems resulting from a lack of deodorant.

Exercise is important for health so perhaps Pharmac should buy us all sports clothes and equipment. Toilet paper and soap are quite important to health and if neither are used this will probably impact on school attendance, so perhaps Pharmac should subsidize those. Shoes are a reasonably fundamental need and without them we are susceptible to foot injuries, so free shoes all round courtesy of Pharmac? The problem is that all these health essentials apply equally to males so that would be no fun at all.

The femaleists calling for Pharmac money for tampons dismiss any special need for boys such as hygiene products or shaving gear, even though boys are not allowed to attend most schools if they don’t shave.

Food is a pretty fundamental need for health so perhaps Pharmac should buy us all food. Or maybe just free food for women; now there’s a good idea. AND YOU HAD BETTER NOT DISAGREE BECAUSE THEN YOU WILL BE MISOGYNIST.

15 Responses to “Pharmac Called Upon to Subsidize Feminine Products”

  1. too tired says:

    I actually agree with this policy, but they could remove some of the tax. Or make em cheaper.

    I Like the Big Bang Theory episode where Sheldon talks to Penny about buying in bulk! because there are significant savings and it’s a product that doesn’t spoil.

    But they buy really small packs for huge prices and you know who’s paying in the end, weather you’re a dad or the bread winner.

  2. Jerry says:

    I had to think about this one. Having raised girls, I have shouldered the cost, and in fact paid again just tonight. So would it be a “Pay either way” equation? National want to revive the TPPA with other countries. If successful and it remained as the last agreement was, then any PHARMAC mission to source economical bulk supplies might meet an obstacle. But if it is that I pay directly, or through tax, then I prefer the status Quo if only because I would not be subsidising the gender prejudiced man-haters. They can buy their own.

  3. Buster says:

    Ha ha ha I agree with your sentiment

  4. Jack says:

    Bloody difficult issue to deal with for sure. Someone will be pulling strings to get the issue out there I think. Pharmac need to plug up the holes as best they can before they lay bleeding on the ground. Douchebags will be putting their ore in for shure but it will be typical for the some of the bad boys to be stuffing it up. You can’t really pussy around with an issue like this without eventually finding a messy solution and some poor girl with her knickers in a twist.

  5. Man X Norton says:

    Jack @4: Very punny.

  6. DJ Ward says:

    The hatred of men by feminists is absolute.
    What a suprise.
    A man came up with an idea that may be a part solution to a problem women have.
    (Mens)tration.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/well-good/89801695/A-man-has-created-a-feminine-lipstick-as-an-alternative-to-pads-tampons-and-cups

    “And the best part? It was designed by a man.”
    Yes the rest of the article is bound to be condescending.

    “Introducing “Feminine Lipstick” by Mensez, a glue designed to stop your menstrual flow. (Yep. I’ll give you a moment to process that before we look at the finer details.)”
    How sad.
    Wasn’t called Femez.
    Probably due to women not having Femstrations.

    “Jokes aside – and there truly are many – what do the experts think? New York gynaecologist Alyssa Dweck, who wrote The Complete A To Z For Your V: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Your
    Vagina, told Hello Giggles that she had never “seen anything like it”.”
    That’s because it’s an invention.
    You dumb arse.

    “Sealing the labia shut certainly is going to keep the period blood inside,” she explained, “but I would hope people urinate frequently enough that the blood doesn’t back up or create some sort of a pressure.”
    All the other product do the same thing.
    They stop the blood exiting the body.
    They need regular attention just as this product would.
    Tampons never cause infections?

    “Blood is a really good bacterial medium,” Dweck says. “So if blood is just in there for hours on end I would be concerned about the increased risk of infection.”

    Summary.
    Sounds like a possible alternative for some people.
    But it’s not ok!
    It was invented by a man.

    Despite no men having periods.
    Billions of women having periods.
    No women could come up with a possible solution.
    But a man did.

    Feminists just hate the truth.
    Men are extremely inventive.
    Women? I’ll let some feminist try and explain that one.

    Wonder if this article was sponsored by a tampon manufacturer.
    Who polute the environment.
    And charge a fortune.

  7. Jerry says:

    When I saw this item, my blood boiled. Feminists want to exploit us, BUT it seems every person born as a biological male is a violent child abuser.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/parenting/family-life/89779262/Why-I-won-t-let-any-male-babysit-my-children
    Or just maybe the author of the item and the publisher are very mentally sick. So many groups are acting all precious because they are OFFENDED. Well its my turn to be offended – but because of the demographic I find myself in for no fault of my own – no-body listens. If only the problem was orientation, religion, race or defect, I would be in the taking-offence queue, but simply because my mum bore me male – I don’t count.

  8. Man X Norton says:

    Jerry@7: Stuff NZ deserves to face action for publishing this hate speech article. Would Stuff NZ publish somebody’s article with the title ‘Why I won’t shop anywhere that lets Maoris in’ with justifying statistics about the much higher rate of criminality, street violence and gang activity among Maori? Or an article with the title ‘Why I would never have anything to do with Muslims’ with justifying statistics about terrorist acts? Or ‘Why I would never let my child go to a school that includes intellectually disabled people’ with statistics about the violence propensity of those people? No, of course not because hate speech that incites discrimination isn’t allowed for any other group except males.

  9. brent says:

    Jerry

    Couldn’t agree more!

    This is the media manipulating left leaning agenda to make all men as bad ass people. Don’t worry though as at the end of the day they still need something between their hairy legs!

  10. DJ Ward says:

    #7 Jerry
    Let’s examine how things are presented in the article.

    “According to the Australian Institute of Family Studies the prevalence of child sexual abuse is 1.4-8 per cent for penetrative abuse and 5.7-16 per cent for non-penetrative abuse for boys and 4-12 per cent for penetrative abuse and 13.9-36 per cent for non-penetrative abuse for girls.”
    This study says.
    Mamun et al. (2007)
    M: 10.5% (non-penetrative), M: 7.5% (penetrative)
    F: 20.6% (non-penetrative), F: 7.9% (penetrative)
    This study says
    Dunne, Purdie, Cook, Boyle, & Najman (2003)
    M: 15.9% (non-penetrative), M: 4% (penetrative)
    F: 33.6% (non-penetrative), F: 12% (penetrative)
    Why the difference?
    The first is a longitudinal study.
    The second is an electoral role study.
    All the electoral studies show high female and low male victimisation.
    The longitudinal studies show the opposite.
    Duniden study ring a bell.

    Then a stroke of pure genius happens.
    “To put those figures into context, the “best case” scenario is that 1 in 20 boys are sexually abused. The worst case is that 1 in three girls are.”
    Or using her figures one could also say.
    To put those figures in context, the “best case” scenario is that 1 in 8 girls are sexually abused. The worst case is that 1 in six boys are.

    Who said women aren’t expert bullshitters.

    It gets better.

    “A tiny 0.8 per cent of cases were perpetrated by mothers and stepmothers, and 0.9 per cent of child sexual abuse was perpetrated by a female relative.”
    This is reported abuse.
    Not rates of abuse.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11797406
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11793860
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11782808
    This one debunks above statement.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11765471

  11. Jerry says:

    Stuff today keeps my blood boiling: Just in case we can forget from day to day that being born male makes us criminals – http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/life/89852186/rape-prevention-tips-going-viral-for-all-the-right-reasons

  12. Man X Norton says:

    Jerry @11: Thanks for drawing out attention to this article. A friend sent the following reply which she asked me to publish here because there is every chance that Stuff NZ won’t publish it (proving the main point made):

    Hate speech seems to be fine when men are the targets but not in any other case. How about a list of tips to stop Maori from getting drunk and assaulting people (which is statistically more frequent than rape)? And a list to stop Muslims from terrorist attacks? Just imagine the outrage at such stereotyping and discrimination! News media would not even dare to publish stories about lists like that, but when it comes to men they are just fair game for any mistreatment huh? As for ‘rape culture’, it’s a feminist invention for propaganda purposes, a ridiculous concept in a country that punishes rape more harshly than almost every other offence and that has special police teams to investigate and prosecute. As for ‘victim blaming’, what about the signs we frequently such as ‘lock your car’, ‘don’t leave valuables in your car’, ‘thieves operate here’, ‘watch your speed because other drivers make mistakes’ and ‘don’t make life easy for burglars’? All victim blaming I guess and such signs should be roundly condemned.

  13. DJ Ward says:

    From the introduction, top of page.

    “Feminine hygiene products are claimed to be basic essentials, and they include deodorants. No statistics are provided to show the level of educational or health problems resulting from a lack of deodorant.”

    There is some education needed.
    There is some health problems.
    With another essential.
    Hair spay.

    So if this deformity was happening to girls.
    Would the product be banned?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4281634/Birth-defect-boys-caused-hairspray.html

  14. Jerry says:

    What is PHARMAC’s purpose – my understanding is its there to make healing medicines available as affordably as possible. To be medicines, there needs to be some illness/defect to be treated. In the case of the female period, where is the ILLNESS? Haven’t females coped with periods for at least one Hundred thousand years without commercial feminine hygiene products and deodorants?

  15. DJ Ward says:

    Will pharmac be called on to provide masculine products.
    They are required.
    If you don’t have them.
    That’s if you are even legally allowed to purchase them.
    You can’t go too school.
    Even if you do have and use the products.
    The male will be subject to.
    Descriminating and degrading treatment.

    To a 12 year old!

    All good we know schools are hotbeds of feminist ideology.
    Clearly the teachers don’t want males to look like men.
    They want them to look like boys forever.
    Suspicious?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/14/school-forces-14-year-old-boy-shave-every-day-says-policy-children/

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

Since May 2019 this site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

« »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar