Here is the podcast I did with the Libertarian Republic earlier today.
Tags: #WomenAgainstFeminism, Jessica Valenti, The Libertarian Republic
The Left itself certainly thinks so — isn’t that the whole subtext to the “Julia” campaign? And isn’t that the crux of Sandra Fluke’s “argument”? Daddy owes me contraception?
I think you forgot to add the link.
I am not seeing a link either.
Duh! Will fix.
Hey I don’t usually comment, but when I do it’s because this blog is amazing. I found out about you through Richard’s blog freetheanimal.com, keep doing what you do!
Feminists like Big Government because it will give them free stuff. Socialism for women at men’s expense. This can only go so far. While I can’t cite the reference, it has been attributed to Harriet Harman that she had a vision of men clogging up all the airports with their one way tickets in hand.
You expressed yourself clearly and eloquently as always. What an excellent point you made about the person committed to staying in the marriage getting to stay in the home and keep the kids if there’s a divorce! Except, of course, in cases of abusive or adultery, in which case the injured spouse may have to do a bit if undercover work, such as videotaping, in order to provide documentation for the court.
As far as the big government vs. small government debate, I’m all for trusting in the overwhelming goodness of human beings and generally having a live-and-let-live approach to life. We don’t need a law to dictate every aspect of human relations.
At the same time, I’m aware that American slave holders were whining about wanting big government to stay the hell out of their lives at the same time as they were relying on their state governments to back them as they intruded into the lives of their fellow human beings and used them for financial gain.
I don’t like the way that a totally hands off, “no big government” ideology tends to overemphasize the power of the individual, especially when it comes to protecting and promoting the concerns of underprivileged groups like African and Native Americans.
So I guess I’ll always embrace a hodgepodge of liberal and libertarian ideology. I think there’s a place for big government, but I’m still glad about all the safeguards in the U.S. Constitution.
In the eyes of a single female voter, government is the daddy she never knew and the husband she’ll never have.
I support the men on strike. If women wish to vote for big government, let them also pay for it.
Hopefully it doesnt get any worse, because if it does you think women are complaining now about men not wanting to get married. All men need to ban together thats the only way we can come out even. Ive seen too many court cases relating to family law. If your a man in the court system you are doomed .
Unfortunately I doubt they ever will. They can force men to pay taxes for entitlements that go strictly or almost entirely to women.
Of course. But with the current climate concerning education of boys, and the percentage of women in colleges you might soon see that even though they force men to pay taxes, those taxes won’t amount to much.
If this trend keeps going it will be women who will have to pay for other women, the men will be working low paying manual labor jobs. (This of course is the far extreme, but it’s a thought.)
First of all. I do not understad why you Americans say “big government” instead of “big State”. The government is just the team which administrates the State.
The left wing loves the big State, the right wing loves the big State. Maggie Thatcher increased the taxes in UK, the conservatives did it in Spain, the gaullist did it in France, and I am afraid (not sure) that the Republicans do it in States every time they are at command.
Because they exactly mean “The government is just the team which administrates the State”. They are speaking about team being to big and to corrupt, and to heavy to maintain.
For example: in contract between employer and employee there is no need of government. But if we add:
– pension payed by employer, then we need team who will care of this issue
– contraceptives by employer, then we need more people who will take care of that
And so on. In this cases the government does things instead of you, like your father does when you are small. But actually there is no point in that because all this things you can get with your wage.
According to libertarian point of view only thing government is needed is to protect people from other governments and to defend there most basic rights, like right to pursue happiness(buying pension plans and contraceptives), but not forcing people to handle it to me(obliging people to give me pension and contraceptives)
Not sure if this is what you meant, but she was asked about whether she could be prime minister:
“It wouldn’t be possible because there aren’t enough airports for all the men who’d want to flee the country.”
“But actually there is no point in that because all this things you can get with your wage.”
Well, it kind of depends on what your wage is. As far as contraception, I think the more medicalized varieties can be pretty expensive, I looked up the cost of the Mirena IUD, and Planned Parenthood just says that it ranges from 0 to $1,000 “up front” and lasts for about a 12-year time period. I didn’t see anything about the costs that weren’t “up front.” It seems fairly reasonable to divide $1000 over a 12-year period — that’s less than $100 a year and well under $10 a month — but since I don’t know what the additional costs are beyond the “up front” one, it’s hard to calculate — plus not everyone can come up with a huge payment up front.
Condoms seem fairly affordable for the average couple. It looks like, for couples wanting to have sex every day, they’d be paying about $54 a month in U.S. dollars for condoms — so if that was too expensive, they could do it a little less, I guess. It’s still cheaper than the average monthly cost of raising a child…
And there are websites online where you can order free condoms.
As far as basic medical needs, not everyone’s wage stretches enough to cover those. Many conservatives in the U.S. are very upset about the Affordable Care Act — but if we could reach the place of having universal healthcare like they do in Canada and many European countries, maybe this would make things easier on employers.
I know JB mentioned in another post that she may be adopting a young relative so that this young person come to Canada and get medical treatment that’s not covered in the U.S., so maybe libertarianism looks different in Canada than it does in the U.S. I think most libertarians in the U.S. are opposed to taxation, which would include taxation for the purpose of making healthcare accessible to everyone.
The sad ignorance of your ilk, that views politics through a distorted lens no more advanced than that which children see team sports, is much of what has gone wrong in the US.
The right has been happy to invite government into our lives whenever that has suited its political agenda (read Griswold v Connecticut for the SC decision that finally evicted right wing government from the business of supervising our contraceptive choices). From the inane, destructive War on Drugs starting especially in the postwar era with Rockefeller (R) drug laws, to assaults on free speech, the right to privacy, gay rights, and on and on, your enemy isn’t the left, it’s any part of the political spectrum that seeks to use an invasive government to further its agenda irrespective of Constitutional protections.
To be sure it’s only been with the advent of feminism linked to government that the left has been even close to as guilty as the right in using ever larger government to abridge and deny rights.
I think Jack Donovan touched on an interesting premise in his one podcast when he said that women evolved differently from men, and as such, their goals and motivations will be different. Every guy out there has heard a woman talk about “feeling safe” and how much it means to them. As a guy, I’ve never said such a thing and really don’t think too much about safety because I actively make myself safe. Men have been making themselves safe for eons. It’s our natural state because of how we evolved.
Women, otoh, were evolving at the same time, but the majority of their experience was in the village tending to hearth and family. Long conversations with other women, teaching the children, etc, were perfectly okay. And one of the big things for women…. was knowing that they were safe. While they were doing all that they did in the camp, the men were “out there” patrolling the area, hunting for food, and all those other things. Again, no big deal. The two groups were doing what they were designed to do, and that they could do well. Relying on each other to hold up their end of the deal.
Fast-forward a few hundred centuries, though, and women are still operating on their hard-wiring. Feeling safe and being protected is very important to them. This is okay until they start voting for things that appear good, but are very damaging over the long-term.
Ever notice how everyone talks about a woman’s right to “cheap” birth control, and how the government/insurance/employer should pay for the majority of the cost? Nobody ever talks about abstinence, though. The cheapest, easiest form of birth control, and the one happily foisted on the majority of men, yet women’s groups seem to think that it’s a woman’s right to have all the sex she wants without any of the responsibility that goes with it. You want to have all kinds of sex, you pay for your birth control.
Of course, the first thing women say is that “it’s not fair that men get to run around having all the sex they want….” But this ignores the fact that men aren’t running around getting laid at the drop of a hat. It’s a false construct meant to justify a woman’s lack of responsibility for her actions.
Don’t want to get pregnant…. don’t have sex.
Wouldn’t we all laugh if someone, anyone, demanded that their employer pay half for an employee’s car? After all, just as you have the right to have all the sex you want, you also have the right to decent transportation. You should be able to traverse this great nation any time you want. And it’s in the employer’s best interest because a new car would mean you’ll be on time for your shift. Yet poor little ladies are forced to pay for the whole car, the whole fuel bill, the whole insurance premium….. OMG!
It’s no wonder that big government helps women, or that women vote for big government. They are hand-in-glove because big government makes them “feel safe”, and the politicians will do anything to keep themselves in power.
Men, otoh, are much less trusting of large groups of men with weapons because men are the ones that have historically had to fight those large groups of armed guys.
Not a great article, as it’s hardly only feminists who adore big government. Reagan loved big government when he could subvert its functions to protecting big banks, big defense, Wall St.,…. The right liked big government when it could use it to oppress people of color. The left liked big government when it could use it to enact and enforce the Civil Rights Act.
Any solid article on the subject necessarily links the desire for intrusive government to all parts of the political spectrum. To pin it on the left, right, middle, etc., is to turn politics into team sports, a destructive attitude indeed.
As a small government progressive I get the feeling there are very few people left in the US who are willing to forgo advantages for the sake of principal, and with the understanding that government does indeed do some things well, and does some things no other entity can, but also with the understanding that unrestrained government creates significant dangers.
Um, did you never hear of the Soviet Union? Hardly a bunch of civil libertarians. And many western leftists (Sarte comes to mind) openly defended their atrocities while attacking the evil capitalist west. Of course in the US Wilson and later FDR sought to take control of vast sectors of the economy to determine prices (usually, ironically, to keep prices high, at the expense of the poor, in a futile effort to combat inflation). Mandatory union membership, and, oh yeah, sending hundreds of thousands of Japanese to concentration camps.
The worst tyrant is the one who purports to exercise their tyranny in the interests of those they oppress. Leftist utopians have never been champions of individual freedom. “Revolution is not a dinner party” indeed.
As far as I have seen, there are very few people, not even among conservative Republicans, who intend to repeal the ACA an just leave off with it. The intention is to replace it with an alternative, such as giving tax credits with which to purchase insurance instead of having the exchanges, as on example. The idea behind that rather than having the state provide the service (which the debacle of the exchanges showed is often inefficient at providing services, and costly considering rising deductibles), the state should merely finacne the purchase of insurance from the private market, to preserve competition among providers and keep costs low.
I would also say that there are parts of the ACA that are undeniably bad and should be done away with. For example, the minimum loss ratio, which is basically a price control on insurance selling, limiting the number of policies insurers can sell, effectively helping to cause the very problem the law is supposed to solve (thanks Al Franken). And they also should have gotten rid of useless regulations inhibiting the sale of insurance across state lines, that would also help drive down costs. But the zeal to punish ‘the evil corporations’ ultimately overrode the consideration of the interests of those who purchased services from said corporations.
Some countries have model systems, and should be studied for them. Germany comes to mind, but Germany is the only country in the world that has both cheaper healthcare and lower waiting times than the US. France, on the other hand, not so much, as their system is bankrupting their country. Call me a callous right winger, but I reject any system that has my tax money paying for homeopathic remedies, spa treatment, an brand name drugs when the generics are just as good (as is so in France).
” You want to have all kinds of sex, you pay for your birth control.”
Don’t most men who want to have sex outside of a committed relationship use condoms? Even if the woman says she’s using birth control — because birth control doesn’t protect from disease?
A condom is something I think any promiscuous guy would be happy to pay for — for the future of his own sexual health.
“From the inane, destructive War on Drugs starting especially in the postwar era with Rockefeller (R) drug laws, to assaults on free speech, the right to privacy, gay rights, and on and on, your enemy isn’t the left, it’s any part of the political spectrum that seeks to use an invasive government to further its agenda irrespective of Constitutional protections. ”
These are all great points. I’m not sure what the best solution is ultimately — but of course, I still feel like basic and necessary healthcare costs are beyond the ability of many Americans to cover by themselves. At least insurance premiums are now more affordable for many Americans who didn’t earn enough to even be able to pay for their share of the insurance that was available through their jobs.
With the extreme libertarian approach, I suppose there’d be no sliding scale for insurance based on income. And healthcare is simply something that you really need when you need it — and maybe my concern about this is just because I evolved to prefer feeling safe and protected, but I think it’s ridiculous for people to have to bear the stress of medical bills that they have no hope of ever being able to pay in their lifetimes.
Reblogged this on Honor Dads and commented:
Yes. Next question…
I would say that a woman who wants to have ‘all kinds of sex’ but doesn’t want to pay for her birth control should simply demand that her male partners pay for her birth control or some share of it. If it’s worth it to them to pay for it to get laid, then they will. Simple economic solution, though technically it may be considered prostitution.
In any case, if a woman feels her birth control is too expensive, she should require her partners to share the cost because they benefit from her using birth control (by getting to have sex with her), not the taxpayers at large, most of whom do not benefit from her birth control as they do not get to have sex with her. That’s the economical solution I think at least.
That sounds fair to me. By the way, I know I’ve already mentioned this in another post — but isn’t it pretty much standard practice now to use a condom when having casual sex, whether or not the woman is using some other form of birth control? I’d think any man who really wanted to have sex with a woman would be willing to buy a condom — plus he’d want to, so as not to become a venereal disease carrier, right? It’s much cheaper and more convenient that getting treated after the fact — and some viruses never go away, they just stay in your system forever. I was kind of puzzled when I read an article at ROK about ways for a promiscuous man to lower his risks, and nothing was even said about disease prevention.
That’s a false construct, Susan. Even assuming that men are running around getting laid all the time, which they aren’t, most men do pay 100% of their own birth control costs.
Sadly, as Judgy has noted in other articles, men must also pay a significant portion of a woman’s birth control through government programs and laws that their taxes go towards.
What we’re seeing is that women want the fun, the sex, the great feelings, the orgasms, but the don’t want the responsibility that comes with their decisions. Their out-of-pocket expenses are as minimal as they can make it, from insisting guys pay for the dates and jump through dozens of hoops, to getting the employer/government to cover half the cost of BC pills and/or abortions.
A man cannot legally opt out of paying for a child that the woman decides to keep. Even if he runs, he’ll still be publicly attacked as a “dead beat” dad. No matter where he goes, there’s a court order waiting on him for that past-due child support.
Women, otoh, can opt out and get a morning-after pill or an abortion. All the sex and none of the repercussions.
The woman wants to have sex, she should pay 100% for all of her personal birth control needs. It’s that simple. Trying to muddy the waters with extraneous trains of thought isn’t going to work because, ultimately, women can always simply keep their legs closed.
I agree with you on one point — that a man should have the option of opting out of parenthood — but I feel this is only true if he opts out in a timely manner. For any woman to be able to collect child support, she should be able to present some form of proof that she informed her child’s biological father of the pregnancy soon after learning that she was pregnant — such as a record that a notarized, certified letter was delivered to her child’s biological father.
Upon receiving such a letter, any man should have the option of signing away all parental rights and responsibilities. He should, of course, present the court with his own notarized letter indicating that he is opting out of participating in this child’s life in any way, including financially, and of course provide proof that he informed the child’s mother of his decision within, say, one week of having been informed of the pregnancy (this proof could also be the record of the delivery of a certified letter). One week may seem like too short of a time, but it’s for the purpose of allowing her ample time to abort in the first trimester, if that’s what she decides to do.
If the mother can provide proof that the child’s bio dad was informed of the pregnancy early on, but the bio dad can’t provide proof that he opted out in a timely manner, then and only then should he be obligated to pay any child support.
But frankly, I don’t see how talk of condoms is “muddying the waters.” If what you’re saying about most men providing 100% of their own birth control is true (and the only male contraceptive I know of is condoms), then pregnancies resulting from promiscuous sex should be very rare, because condoms that are used effectively are 98% effective in preventing pregnancy (see link below).
In this case, the only women really needing to think about other forms of contraceptives would be those in committed relationships who no longer need to worry about contracting diseases and would therefore rather not use any kind of a barrier, but at the same time want to prevent pregnancy at times when they and her partner don’t want to conceive a child. In those cases, contraception costs should obviously be a joint responsibility.
P.S. About the certified letter stuff, I was talking about unmarried couples. When a child is conceived in a marriage, both parents automatically have equal parental rights and responsibilities.
Susan, men pay for their condoms. Condoms are the only male contraceptive. Whether or not men are using condoms is irrelevant. All that matters is that they are paying 100% of the cost for those condoms.
Women are not paying 100% for their birth control. That’s the point. Women are claiming all kinds of reasons why other people should pay for their birth control.
By doing so, women are saying that they want to have the fun of sex without the responsibility. This is no different than a woman demanding her employer or the government pay 50% for her car or her rent.
Contrary to popular opinion, women can go their entire lives without sex. Men do it all the time. But if you listen to the WRM’s, they’ll try to claim that it’s a woman’s right to have all kinds of sex, because men have all kinds of sex.
As for opting out of parenthood, it’s curious to note that you say a guy should have to jump through legal hoops, getting notarized statements and presenting information to the courts. Women don’t have to do any of that.
A woman gets pregnant and she can run down to the abortion clinic and get the fetus destroyed. Or she can put it up for adoption. Or she can abandon it at a police station.
All of those options come with zero responsibility and no legal hoops to jump through.
But you want a guy to get a notarized letter and talk to a judge? That doesn’t sound very egalitarian.
Using a man’s logic, if I was capable of getting pregnant, you’d better believe that I would be taking all manner of precautions to prevent it. I wouldn’t need anyone to tell me to keep my legs shut.
“As for opting out of parenthood, it’s curious to note that you say a guy should have to jump through legal hoops, getting notarized statements and presenting information to the courts. Women don’t have to do any of that…But you want a guy to get a notarized letter and talk to a judge? That doesn’t sound very egalitarian.”
Maybe you missed part of what I was saying; I was recommending a change in the current laws. I said that for a woman to be able to draw child support, she should be required to provide proof that she’d informed the biological father of the pregnancy in a timely manner. This would entail her jumping through some legal hoops, too.
In this scenario, the only men required to pay child support would be those who were informed of the pregnancy and DID NOT take the opportunity to respond in a timely manner stating that they had no intention of participating in the child’s life in any way, including financially.
This seems like very few hoops for a man to jump through, in comparison to the current situation in which a woman can collect child support irregardless of whether she even informed the bio-dad that she was pregnant with his child, and irregardless of whether he made it clear that he had no intent of being a father to said child.
You really think I’m going overboard in saying that a man should at least be required to RESPOND regarding his intent towards his gestating baby? Please note that I’m saying that BOTH mother and father should be able to provide legal proof regarding their communications about the pregnancy — and this is not to weigh everyone down with paperwork, but to avoid a “he said-she said” scenario in court. Personally, I think too highly of the majority of men to really believe a simple response is beyond their capabilities.
“Using a man’s logic, if I was capable of getting pregnant, you’d better believe that I would be taking all manner of precautions to prevent it. I wouldn’t need anyone to tell me to keep my legs shut.”
I hear you. You’d like to return to the good old days when any girl dumb enough to open her legs to a man who didn’t care about her got what was coming to her. You’re fine with the traditional idea that since babies gestate inside their mothers, it’s the mothers who (if single) should bear 100% of the responsibility and enjoy 100% of the rights of parenthood.
You don’t like it that society is currently hovering in the unequal situation in which most single or divorced fathers bear a disproportionately high degree of financial responsibility, while enjoying few to no rights, and I agree with you that it’s a really crappy state of affairs — not just for fathers but for children, too.
But the thing is, whereas you’d like to go back to the days of “girls, keep your legs together or pay the price alone,” and of zero rights or responsibilities for bio-dads who don’t marry the mother, I think most men here are eager to move not back, but forward. They certainly want the freedom to be able to sign away their parental rights and responsibilities prior to the birth of any child whom they don’t want to be a parent to, just as mothers can currently do by aborting or, if they decide to carry the baby to term, by giving the child up for adoption — but most men also want the right to BE a parent if they so choose, regardless of what happens between them and their child’s mother.
An excellent example of assuming facts not in evidence, Susan. While you can freely attack me for things I didn’t say, it’s not going to bolster your position any!
A woman is going to face a huge physical, emotional and financial change in her life if she gets pregnant. While the father of the child might be in for some interesting times, he’s not going to gain 50 pounds and have to give birth. As such, there is a serious burden on the woman to protect herself from repercussions of having sex. You don’t have to like it for it to be there!
Young women today are looking for ways to get the pleasure of sex without the burdens that come with it. That’s why there’s all this talk about paying for their birth control and such. They want the sex, but don’t want to pay for 100% for their own birth control. That’s the problem, and until women get out of this mentality that they are “owed” birth control and abortions and child support…. nothing is going to change.
The laws won’t change any time soon, but we can work on the way women think. Do feminists and women in general have “daddy issues” when it comes to big government, as the OP asks? Yes.
That’s why feminists and WiG demand that they be allowed to act however they like, get abortions and have the employer pay half of the birth control.
I couldn’t find any meaning for the acronym “WiG,” but maybe it stands for “Women in Government?” But I will say that I personally have never believed in having sex with anyone without being fully willing to take responsibility for any child that might result from that sex. My husband has never believed in doing that, either — he didn’t believe in casual sex even during his single days.
Even when I identified as feminist, I didn’t really see how abortion was seen as so central to women’s rights. It made sense to me to just wait until I was in a position where I felt safe doing something that could possibly get me pregnant. Birth control (other than permanent sterilization) can greatly lower the likelihood of pregnancy but each kind still has a tiny failure rate, and abortion would be out of the question for me personally, so that’s the kind of choice I made, and, as I’ve already mentioned, it’s the kind of choice my husband made, too.
While I get your point that a woman’s life is going to change more after a pregnancy, I think the average caring man’s life is going to be turned upside down, too. So, yeah, young women should act more responsibly — but since many of them aren’t, and since we live in a society that doesn’t find it acceptable to allow children to languish in hunger and poverty, we’re simply not going to do away with the programs that can make life a lot more livable for children in single parent homes, and, therefore, I think there will continue to be taxpayers who find it more economical to pay to prevent or terminate unwanted pregnancies than to help support those children for 18 years.
[…] Do Feminists Like Big Government Because They Have Daddy Issues? […]
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 5,087 other followers
Janet Bloomfield on FaceBook