If you're going to argue that women are being discriminated against because they don't get birth control for free ...
I don't recall making such an argument, nor implying one. I have only recognized a biological fact and a social prominence.
... how will making men exclusively pay for it make things any better?
Men end up, with rare exception, paying for the end product of sexual encounters for many years. If I were to argue as you claim, it would be to reduce the financial burden of men. Even if the men didn't want the children, they must still pay for them. Birth control is much cheaper than children.
In fact, how is it discrimination in the first place if both genders have to pay for it?
First, I haven't said that there is discrimination. Second, if we are comparing the cost of condoms versus the birth control pill, condoms are far cheaper, no doubt. Vasectomies are quicker, easier and cheaper than tubal ligations, as well. Is the higher cost to women a form of discrimination? Yes. But discrimination has a negative connotation in colloquial speech. If the cost to provide a service is higher, shouldn't the price paid also be higher? If so, that is justifiable discrimination (notice how we must modify the word discrimination to obtain a different meaning due to its historically charged negative connotation?).
As for your "women get pregnant so women should have access to it for free" argument, that's still a bad argument. Not all men are irresponsible, just like not all women are responsible. Making something available for free for one specific gender is discrimination against the other.
This is not about whether men are irresponsible
or whether women are responsible
. We have an overriding biological fact to deal with: women have uteruses, men don't. That kind of discrimination starts at conception and there is nothing we can do about it. Unless and until men start growing uteruses, there will be a discrimination of one sort or another. Men and women both have breasts and nipples, but men don't have the volume and can proudly display theirs in public. Women have the volume and we require women to keep theirs covered up. Discrimination? Yes. Justifiable? No. Where's the outcry against that? We have successfully ingrained into women that they cannot show their breasts in public -- we even make laws about it. However, when it comes to her uterus, we are telling her that it is solely her
problem because she was born with it? So, she can't show her chest in public or be arrested and she can't get assistance in birth control? If you want to talk about discrimination, that's one helluva way to do it. However, my only discussion here is to point out obvious biological differences and costs, and how we deal with them. If men in our society, by something like 95%, leave it up to women to engage in birth control, then why shouldn't we assist with the cost? It seems only fair.
Even if we were to ignore that, what about male homosexuals who want to have sex? Why don't they get condoms, which are the only worthwhile protection (that I know of) against STD's? Is that not discrimination?
Unless there are budget cuts in place, condoms are available to anyone at county health clinics across America. Typically you pay a small contribution, something like $5-10 (people on public assistance get waivers), agree to sit through a program about sex, sexual health, sexually transmitted infections (a more common term than STDs nowadays) and how to use various methods of birth control, then you get access to condoms for free or for nearly free, perhaps a token cost of $1 for 10. So, yeah, if gays want condoms, they can have them. Many of the AIDS activists groups will distribute condoms for free in addition to whatever the local health department offers.
In addition, I'd like to see your statistics for "men often don't like to use condoms", as well as the corollary "women often like to use birth control".
My statistics? I don't have particular statistics. Ask the ladies of the forum how often their men use condoms. Jynnan's already chimed in. Others?
Go into any typical standalone pharmacy in America: CVS, RiteAid, Walgreens, etc., and see the amount of shelf space dedicated to condoms. Then, go to the section where you find men's shaving products. Compare the shelf space of each. Either American men aren't getting much sex or there are a lot of metrosexuals demanding 1000 choices in shavers, blades, creams, powders, after-shaves, etc., and if they are that
worried about their shaving products they either aren't getting sex or know that their women have already taken care of the contraception issue (and can focus instead on that sexy smooth face, which even in a time when facial hair is yet again stylish they still manage to buy a lot of shaving products).
Also, look at the site ARHP.org and examine all of the different types of birth control out there. How many are for men, and how many are for women? Women have lots of choices. Men? Men can have condoms.