"Well, you chose to have this baby while you were poor, and everyone knows you could have chosen differently — when that could entail not having sex or killing the baby in the womb after sex has been had. So there is this sense that the base-line person does not have someone to depend on in this way. I think pregnancy is the starkest example, and it’s the gendered example, but the sense that the fundamental nature of the human person is someone who isn’t constrained by someone else’s need isn’t just a problem for women — it’s a problem for all of us. Each of us has people who depend on us, even if we go through our whole lives childless...."
Said Leah Libresco Sargeant, in an interview in the NYT with the provocative title "Did Liberal Feminism Ruin the Workplace? And if so, can conservative feminism fix it?" That's a free-access link to the transcript of the new episode of Ross Douthat's podcast. Also in the interview is Helen Andrews. As Douthat puts it, the guests are "both conservative writers, both critics of feminism, but they have very different views of what a right-wing politics of gender should look like."

20 comments:
"Did Liberal Feminism Ruin the Workplace? And if so, can conservative feminism fix it?"
Therefore Feminism is the cause of and the solution to, at least one of life’s problems.
One Choice is to terminate a life deemed unworthy of life. The other choice is to mitigate progressive corruption and dysfunction endemic to redistributive change schemes.
Feminism is a class-disordered ideology a la racism. Liberalism is a philosophy of divergence. The purpose of liberal femininism is to keep women affordable, available, reusable, and taxable to compensate for and justify liberal fiscal schemes including SNAP that Democrats have suddenly refused to fund.
The purpose of planned parenthood a.k.a the wicked solution a.k.a human rites performed for social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress, and to sequester the "burden" of evidence in sanctuary states, where demos-cracy dies in darkness.
The politics of sex should be gender (e.g. breast size) neutral and meritocratic.
And what of women replaced with feminine simulants?
Are there a lot of conservatives arguing that poor unmarried women with children shouldn't get SNAP benefits because they aren't married?
I think there are arguments that SNAP benefits should be eliminated entirely, or are abused, but I am not aware of anyone making this argument. A straw man, if you will.
Not really now those who are not eligible are another matter
Ross Doughnut Conservatives haven't conserved anything, except for the power of the liberal/left.
With all the problems in the USA, I think giving unmarried women SNAP benefits is way, way, down the list.
Rational, empathetic, sympathetic persons do not oppose welfare, let alone charity, but rather uncontrolled, even liberal incentives with collateral damage, and cover-ups of causes and forcings.
THe interview starts off poorly with a lot of blather about "Wokeness" without ever defining what it is. Its get better as it goes along and starts talking about the female impact of the workplace and professions.
Its douthat so of course he'll miss the point
boatbuilder said...
Are there a lot of conservatives arguing that poor unmarried women with children shouldn't get SNAP benefits because they aren't married?
Used to be Aid for Widows and Orphans. Democrats decreed a single unmarried woman was exactly the same as a widow... and DEMOCRAT Senator Moynihan warned them what would happen. And it did.
Poor unmarried woman shouldn't receive welfare of any kind. With or without children. And that applies to single men. Work or starve.
I think that train has sailed, Gospace.
No, conservatives are not opposing SNAP to mothers and kids.
Conservatives want to take SNAP back to 2008 before Obama expanded it to childless able-bodied adults who refused to work.
Hipsters on food stamps: an old classic
https://www.salon.com/2010/03/16/hipsters_food_stamps_pinched/
HIPPIES ON FOOD STAMPS!!! I did not even go to your link, I have not stopped swallowing my tongue yet. HIPPIES on FUCKING FOOD STAMPS! That is the simplest hypothesis on social conditions I have seen discussed.
Hipsters on food stamps: an old classic
From the link:
"Mak, 31, grew up in Westchester, graduated from the University of Chicago and toiled in publishing in New York during his 20s before moving to Baltimore last year with a meager part-time blogging job and prospects for little else."
"Go to college", they said. "You'll make lots of money", they said.
boatbuilder said...
Are there a lot of conservatives arguing that poor unmarried women with children shouldn't get SNAP benefits because they aren't married?
I think there are arguments that SNAP benefits should be eliminated entirely, or are abused, but I am not aware of anyone making this argument. A straw man, if you will.
---------
If you can't feed your baby, then don't have a baby.
Don't have a baby, if you can't feed your baby...
Someone's always lying
got my baby cryin'
Hustling stealing lying...
Saying you just wanna be startin something...
Mamasaymamasamamagusa
Mama say mama sa mama gusa...
Sing it! ~Michael Jackson from decades ago...
They're not keen on listening to current tunes in that demographic. Decades behind the beat. Silly boomers.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.