"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."

27 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.
Thank You for the link. I had to re-read some of it because I am slow to pick up on some jargon and slang that New York Times writers use as shorthand for larger concepts.
There is also (as boatbuilder points out) a serious strawman problem where one makes up a extreme statement supposedly made by the opposition and then argue against that. The headline quote Althouse chose is like that.
The general idea is that femininization of whatever institution (colleges or courts or corporate) can lead to abuses and problems that are identifiable by gender. That you can call wokeness a 'women's problem', or you can call the current Government shutdown a "man's pissing contest'.
I agree men and women are different, but I'm not sure that the problems in an institution can be gendered and labeled as male of female problems.
Good read. thanks again.
So I think I now know what strikes me as wrong in the positions presented. (It might be a god of the copybook headings.) There are more variations within a single group, than there are variations between groups.
So yes we can say things like: A Women makes a better manager of a team because she is more concerned with relationships and cooperation and nurturing team members to all grow and flourish. You can also say things like: A Man makes a better manager because he is more data driven and goal oriented and focused on achieving the KPIs and targets set for the team.
But both statements are false. Yes Men and Women are different--but men can be great at relationships and caring, and women can be aggressive and assertive.
All three NYT participants in the talk all seem to be trapped in the idea that 'Pink is for girls and Blue is for boys'. (which is NOT a god of the copybook headings.)
"Are there a lot of conservatives arguing that poor unmarried women with children shouldn't get SNAP benefits because they aren't married?"
Isn't that what Gospace argues on this thread?
Your casual dismissal of this claim shows how little you actually read what people on your side are actually saying.
Hospice would like these people to starve
Gospace autocorrected to hospice in a funny way therd
Yeah, Mark. Most conservatives would agree with Daniel Patrick Moynihan (and, apparently, Michael Jackson!) that having a child out of wedlock is a poor lifestyle choice which in an ideal world should not be promoted by government policies.
I also think that all able-bodied 15-year olds should be required to get a job or lose their allowance.
I am not aware of any politician currently proposing to deny SNAP benefits to unwed mothers. Gospace notwithstanding.
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."
There are no doubt some people somewhere making that argument. That's the great thing about making arguments using unattributed sources. Someone somewhere has made all the dumb arguments.
She could also just used protection or contained her involvement to oral or anal sex.
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.