We’ve had this debate on “feminism” before — I even invited in representatives of many of the big feminist blogs to make their cases — and I’m sad to say McCain is wrong here: to be classically liberal is to be a feminist, and this is not some sort of “me-too” feminism, but rather actual feminism, of the first wave variety. Belief in equality of opportunity — and an equality between the sexes with respect to the law — is a hallmark of the ideology. No fungibility or sameness of the sexes is required.
What McCain is talking about when he critiques Feminism is what I termed “establishment feminism” — mostly a ramped-up version of the second-wave or “Women’s Movement” variety — that has laid claim to the feminist narrative. But allowing them to determine who is a “feminist” and who is an “anti-feminist” is absurd: doing so cedes the ground of feminism to those who are perpetually aggrieved and who are looking for special dispensation for women — a sign that they believe woman need help from Big Brother to compete on a “level” playing field.
First wave feminists and post-feminists make up the majority of what are actually feminists, in the most direct sense; and these are precisely the people Establishment feminists wish to bracket from adopting the feminist label so as to own “feminism” (and to own it in a way that they would most certainly rail against were it men, or first-wave feminists, or post-feminists trying to define them into oblivion).
Control of the narrative of feminism should be the other way round. And we should work to make it so, because the term feminism — while we all realize how it’s come to be polluted by radicals and those who consider the goals of feminism to be perpetual (that is, feminism as an advocacy process, not as a definable goal) — still carries with it the idea of equality. And that is not a label those of us who advocate for true equality before the law should surrender so quickly.
The goals of feminism have largely been reached — a fact that chafes today’s establishment feminists. And so they must always create new grievances to rail against, and new “enemies” to label “anti-feminist” — be those enemies successful women who don’t share their beliefs on abortion (because hey, some of those fetuses may have turned into actual women!), or women who believe feminism as a movement has met its goals, or even the designers of laundry baskets.
****
See also, from some time back, Cathy Young
update: In a comment over at RSM’s place, Andrew makes a point that I believe is important here with respect to Schlafly’s argument:
I think the problem is not with the statement that unmarried woman vote for Obama, but that they “kicked their husbands out” and want a government handout.
Men sometime abuse their spouses, woman have marriages that don’t work out, and woman live longer than men and therefore there are lots of unmarried woman, who did not kick out their husbands.
I doubt that woman choose to leave their abusive or otherwise unacceptable husbands or do not remmarry because then they can rely on government aid.
There are lots of reasons why a woman may be unmarried other than her love of the nanny state.
This is precisely correct. And the way Schlafly states the problem suggests that single-mother / single-woman homes are a result of some sort of whim on the part of a capricious wife or man-hating woman.
While I’ve no doubt this is sometimes the case, I have no doubt, too, that often times women divorce (or don’t marry to begin with) for reasons most of those who call themselves “conservative” would still find quite legitimate.
Yes, the Democrats are cynically rushing to use Schlafly’s formulation for political purposes; and yes, their outrage is largely feigned. Still, their poor behavior doesn’t excuse ours — and while defending Schlafly isn’t poor behavior (because I think her larger point about Democrats looking to build a client state is spot on), it doesn’t hurt to acknowledge that, at least in part, her argument deployed an unfortunate trope about single mothers, one that most of us don’t happen to believe.
“Classical liberal”, first wave feminists, post-feminists, perhaps “classical feminists”.
More of the messes to be cleaned up in the wake of the progressive-left’s long march through the language with dog shit covered shoes.
Gotta love this bit in that McCain article:
There’s an old adage:
“American political movements begin as a CAUSE, evolve into a BUSINESS and end up a RACKET”
This perfectly captures the perversion that 2nd wave feminsim has done to what originally was the drive for legal equality that fueled the woman’s movement. It has morphed into man-hate, grievance mongering & a fund-raising scheme to empower the progressive agenda.
In a larger sense, it must strike the millions of oppressed, second-class women in the 3rd world as ironic that the females in the nation with the most advanced lifestyle, the most domestic conveniences and the most developed services industries felt so ‘oppressed’ that they felt the need organize and protest their “plight”.
– Yes, that LaundryBasketGate thing was a hoot.
Since “Classic feminism” has essentially matured and reached most of its goals, so called 2nd wave feminazi’s are just another Lefturd supremist group, seeking advantage, not equality, through grievance politics, and subterfuge. Misfits self-defining an artificial nonexistent niche in society to fit into, then using that to game a system they cannot hope to nominally compete in successfully.
– In that, they are similar to the Aryan Nation or KKK, differing only in terms and gender, but not in substance, apartheid, and goals.
If the goals of feminism have (or had) been reached in some measure, large or small, under a functional implementation of classical liberalism, those successes yet stand to be reduced as a function of individual liberty where classical liberalism is displaced by statism of whatever sort. So a backward they would go, though suffering under some new, more modern scheme of entrapment by powers outside their control. The various threats to liberty never sleep.
Good point Jeff.
“An unattached female is like a fish in the desert” (notes from the Asylum)
Of course. Yet as with race policy under and within the welfare state, single parenting leveraged home via the State’s special courts is highly motivated by its program’s many trimmings. Eventually and certainly these programs and benefits develop their own motivations and from there, their own essential justifications and moralities. What begins as a safety net becomes a progressive tool of State to mold society.
As always, establishing a federal social program, making it a state-level policy, and empowering it with financial motive and protections — all typically under the guise of equality covered with the same unimpeachable rationale that powers the sanctity of progressive “social justice” — creates real victims to exchange for the perceived victims on the privileged side of the policy.
I think the question should be twofold: Considering the nature of these two classes of victims, which is the lesser evil, the natural or the manufactured. Then, which of the two hews to classical liberalism’s emphasis on individual rights and liberties. We’ll always have hardship. Making that hardship a means to empower a progressive system that transfers that hardship to large numbers of others, and in the process remodels the relationship between State and citizen is what I object to. I don’t think that’s too far from Schlafly’s position.
I agree. But that point can be made simply by making that point; it needn’t be made by casting ALL single/divorced women as villains.
– As a single parent myself, one who raised his youngest to manhood, I can tell you from personal experience that there is at least one factor at play that would definitely fuel the tendencies to seek advantage in single woman, parent or not, albeit I am male.
– A truth I quickly ran into is a surprising aggressiveness and tendency to not be helpful towards singles by people in positions of authority. It is not just a fairytale. It does in fact very much exist.
– I saw it manifest on many occasions, and I was not in any position of dependency, quite independent, and still I experienced it. I found it to be true even just in the normal day to day social settings and services, so I know its not just a “feeling” engendered by disadvantage.
– Why that should be, that there should be some hidden social stigma that comes with “singleness” I can’t say. What I can tell you is that it is a fact.
Of course, JG. I always appreciate your holding the right’s rhetorical feet to the fire — this controversy is a valid case in point. Words have meaning.
I can’t speak for Schlafly. I think it’s fair to say she points to a variety of concrete things when she makes that assertion. Nearly 90% of divorces with children in primary/visitation custodies favor moms, and mom initiates about two-thirds of those divorces. For whatever reason and by whatever means, the State has become parent.
Grist to the mill, BBH. Tools and cogs don’t engender respect.
I’ll second JHo’s thoughts with my own.
How much of this should be attribute to actual caprice, and how much to the current ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ concept of marriage? How many times have each of us seen or heard of a woman who chose ‘no more husband’ over ‘less than perfect husband?’
Schlafly can best explain what she meant, but I am less interested in blaming any particular individuals specific behavior as I am in noting that people make choices based upon their available options. Reducing the pain of divorce may have certain societal advantages, but when single parenthood becomes perceived as less burdensome than maintaining or improving a marriage then the writing is on the wall.
Most, if not all marriages require work and conscious effort. I am not in favor of raising the bar for divorce, but I do believe we have moved too far away from supporting, celebrating and rewarding the successful marriage.
And I think it perfectly fair to point to these figures, and even to extrapolate from them certain tendencies. What I have trouble with is the way Schlafly framed her point, which would have been much stronger without the demagoguing, in my opinion.
Plenty of feminists — like Hoff Sommers and Cathy Young — are on record as being concerned with the state’s war on men; but to fight that, we need to fight the state and the Establishment Feminism that guides it, not the women who, whether they agree or not, participate in the system that we have.
Again, I agree. But believing this doesn’t mean we need to suggest that most women who divorce do so because they are looking for a handout.
Some do. Hell, for all I know a majority do. But many don’t — and if you are a supporter of individualism, you recognize the harm in grouping “divorced women” as a kind of homogeneous ideological group.
Schlafly’s larger points were correct, I believe; in fact, I’ve argued them myself. But just as we rail against those who believe all conservatives are the same — and think the same — we should rail against those who think all women who wind up in a particular relationship with the state have come to that point out of the same motives.
– That would seemingly be the case JHo.
– An interesting irony is I am in fact not actually divorced. My ex and I simply separated for the past 16 years for reasons of practicality.
– But as a single parent I quickly discovered the playable rules in dealing with social services require simplicity to the maximum.
– You learn fast not to provide a government slug worker bee any more information than absolutely necessary, and zero “extenuating circumstances”, or your chances of success quickly devolve into total chaos.
A hoochie like Schlafly what so obviously understands that marriage makes a stronger more secure economic unit still won’t let homos marry. She’ll more readily let a woman what spurned God’s holy gift of marriage remarry like a kajillion times before she would let a homo do the same.
plus her name is stupid hard to spell
Not going to re-open the same sex marriage debate here, happy. Except to say once again that “marriage” itself would need to change what it is to allow same-sex “marriages.” And there’s no reason that that need happen when the same type situation can take place without same-sex partnerings having to usurp the label of “marriage”.
ok I understand I just thought it should be pointed out that there is a dissonance here what might could be a little cognitive
here is my question: have the goals of anti-feminism largely been reached as well?
I structured that wrong cause I spilled the french press… but the McCain feller is a for reals anti by anyone’s definition…. he’s one of those help meet weirdos.
– Not to spin off into that discussion, as you say Jeff, but the Ghey community has only one real motive for seeking to add the label of “marraige” to its same sex unions.
– They think it will give them a huge step up in respectability and much greater acceptance by society at large.
– As you say, there is absolutely no reason for religious based groups to allow such a thing.
– Even a 12 year old would know that if the Ghey’s believed wholly in what they are doing, as they profess too, they would not only not seek approbation from a group they largely disagree with, they would actively avoid it.
I want to change the topic of the post. Look at me! Look at meeee!
He’s a curmudgeon with his own bete noires, feets, they don’t coincide with yours that all.
*sigh*
I hate to see Jeff, of all people, taking the early branch of the logic tree that leads to the abuses he otherwise decries.
People generalize. We have to. None of us has but a limited number of brain cells, and that means a limited (though large) number of possible close acquaintances with “things”. Life is too short, and our brains too small, to personally acquaint ourselves with and appreciate the unique characteristics of every tree, let alone every leaf — and anyway it doesn’t matter much when one leaps out of the ditch and smashes your car. Equally, we have to (no choices) group “people”. None of us has the mental equipment to do otherwise. Beyond a very small circle of limited acquaintances, we have to generalize.
It is foolish not to realize that exceptions occur, and from a philosophical point of view it’s important to realize that if you dig deep enough all of us are “exceptions” in some way — but if we can’t think in groups and generalizations, we can’t think. In this case, the very existence of the word “woman” illustrates that point. Hell, the existence of words illustrates the point!
It is one of the instances, a deeply important one, of the double bind you find yourself in when you accept leftoid concepts as basic. On the one hand, we are to treat each individual as unique; on the other hand, we have groups united in (often enforced) behavior. Black people are “inauthentic” if they don’t exhibit a certain set of behaviors; on the other hand, citing that set of behaviors as pertaining to black people is “racist”.
In the case at hand: Down here among the proles (as Half Sigma would have it, the behaviors have become so ingrained that they don’t arouse comment any more. My friend Chris is 32; he’s been married for twelve years and remains so — which makes him almost unique among his contemporaries. Girls having babies at sixteen, with no one meeting the definition of “father” in sight, is perfectly ordinary. It is taken for granted that when divorce occurs the woman takes everything in sight, and men take active measures to keep as much stuff out of sight as possible.
Schafly is quite right, to an appallingly close first approximation. She is incorrect only if you assume that she’s applied the qualification “all” to “women”, and I don’t see that. You did, reading the article — and that’s stepping into the leftoid double bind.
Regards,
Ric
HTML fail. Please to insert a </a> after the capitalized “Half Sigma”.
*sigh*
Regards,
Ric
you’re right of course Mr. smiley
[…] . . by actually parsing out something said by the unfortunate Phyllis Schlafly, and by actually reading something written by Stacy McCain that contains the word feminism. […]
– I agree with your assertion’s about our logic processes Ric, but I think that for reasons of practicality its unavoidable.
– The Leftoids avoid the flaw of double bind by simply refusing to think about consequences, instead accepting a religious belief in some imaginary Utopian ideal, whatever the issue.
– If society in general didn’t generalize at some point in the tree, nothing would ever get accomplished, right or wrong. We’d all be perpetually caught in an “over-thinking it loop” for every problem, endlessly.
but I think that feminism has a lot lost its usefulness as a foil for people what just want to say hey we should do more better about ordering our little country around cultivating an ethos of personal responsibility. And Team R shouldn’t counter the depredations of what they call feminisms with snide proscriptiveness like Schafly does with her kicking out the husband bullshit. Especially when I think she just wants to talk about the welfare. Which, we need to talk about that.
But she’s doing it wrong I think.
‘feets opines:
BBH observes:
There’s a big difference between a mouthy opinion in the usual vein, ‘feets, and a direct observation about typical progg intent, ways, and means. How about you reconcile those two statements?
These days marriage is a means to a legal status more than anything else, and that status is an important tool for left-statism. There are entirely valid reasons to oppose gay marriage and I don’t think ‘feets can legitimately claim they’re bigotry.
I’d fully support gay marriage as a way to hasten the inevitable demise of the state’s involvement in marriage but I’m a cynic. IIRC, in his book Taken Into Custody, Baskerville notes that the old USSR abandoned a family law system decades ago that we have yet to reject today. They eliminated it because of its cost to the family.
I’m not going to let you derail this thread with a gay marriage discussion Mr. JHo.
Phyllis Schafly notes a universal biological fact: a child’s provider (in most of the Animal Kingdom that’s usually the female of the species) first looks to secure her nest and adequately provide for her child. If there isn’t a responsible malemate, for whatever reason, she will look to a surrogate; another male(s) or, if that particular animal’s biology is society-structured, then that animal’s extended community. I think Phyllis simply notes that it’s a damned shame many of these women disdain traditional methodologies and seek to foist off on society – community the traditional responsibilities, first, before attempting to ‘make it work for the sake of the child’. That’s why the numbers voting for BHO amongst these single-parent females are as they are: he represents the simple surrogate father-substitute figure they hope to turn to, first, to secure the proper nest. But, doesn’t matter that Obama was chosen: Hillary would’ve sufficed, had she been nominated in his place. McCain? Not so much a surrogate for anything I don’t think.
‘feets, why are you trying to bring fisting into this ? That’s no way to raise a child.
That’s fine, ‘feets, and so I won’t. It’d be nice if you’d drop the intentionalism and give Schlafly just a little credit.
Rick:
Exactly. Policy becomes motive becomes behavior becomes morality.
Opposing such bad policy earns you vehement denial and opposition simply because, well, we can’t have the status quo not be the status quo. I don’t know what kind of technical argument that is but it’s clearly part of the usual preemptive striking the proggressive mindset sorts into the quiver with its instinctual racialism and intentionalism.
The root causes become so dimly defined and the truly liberal ethics so smeared that all that’s left are these hysterical appeals to this assumed liberalism. It’s fascism by rote.
that was rude – quick response Mr. JHo… gay marriages are inherently more apt to be built on a for reals partnership model than a help meet in Christ model and I think that’s why religious kooks hate them so much…
that’s different from why Mr. G and many here oppose them.
but the point I mostest want to make is that I think Schlaffles would have a lot more credibilitah if she also denouncered child tax credits and adoption tax credits and the EITC what is scaled to how much reproducin’ you done and the credit for mortgage interest what does so much to conspire to place people in situations where they have extra bedrooms.
In short, I would like to see old biddies like Schlaffles display a little more confidence in the salutary ancillary benefits what a successful pursuit of limited government can be counted on to engender. So lets pursue that as opposed to pronouncing judgment on all the single ladies all the single ladies cause he had his turn and now he’s gonna learn.
*let’s*
– Yeh. Pretty obvious why the Ghey’s would be down on child credits. Not something they would aspire too very often.
– Maybe we should seek a “fisting credit” for them.
– Only fair…..and for the bunnies
Oh for crying out loud — why don’t you look into the VAWA, Title IV-D, and the welfare state and see if they don’t individually qualify as a conspiracy against the home, ‘feets. Or run exactly counter to limited government.
PS has said more against government’s profoundly negative impact on the home and family than any general conservative writer there is.
The right protests entirely too little about two things. Schlafly protests one of those two more than anyone I’ve read.
well good for her she’s had a *tremendous* impact from what I can tell with her approach but I think she could have an even more greater impact if she wasn’t such a bitch
Well then. Having learned his lesson, the post-American is relieved at his good fortune.
– Question feets.
– Will you be this zealous in defending Uncles that want to marry their nieces when that inevitably becomes the next “cause”?
Another thread derailed. My work here is done, but that won’t stop me from continuing it.
Probably nothing a nice cupcake wouldn’t cure, ‘feets. I mean, look at the evidence of the benefits of a good cupcake.
You miss the point, BBH. Start with the cynical “no generalization is worth a damn, including this one”.
Any essay, Hell, any sentence, that employs generalizations comes with the automatic subtext “exceptions exist, numbers TBD.” It is a typical leftoid ploy to read anything they disagree with as being absolutist, and to argue against it on that basis. Are the Tea Parties racist? Well, it is possible to find racist elements (especially using the expanded leftoid definition), therefore they are: QED.
Jeff, in his zeal to dissociate himself with the “intolerance” of anti-feminism (or is it anti-anti-feminism? I lose track of the signs; it’s why I don’t use a slide rule any more) reads Schlafly’s essay as absolutist, and points out that he is aware that exceptions, perhaps many of them, occur. This maligns Schalfly by assuming that she is not aware that women not exhibiting those behaviors exist; more important, it diverts attention from Schalfly’s thesis and onto an examination of her motives, which is what the leftoids employ the double blind to accomplish.
Again, on the specific point: Schlafly has at minimum an arguable thesis if you take it as a first approximation. For her to attempt to recite that yes, there are cases that don’t match the thesis, would make the essay much longer — as well as weaker, since the argument gets lost in the hemms and haws. If her allies and fellow travelers rush to jump into the leftoid double bind in an attempt to establish their own virtue, they end up flailing helplessly as the leftoids smile.
Regards,
Ric
– Actually that’s a “real” choice feets has, not whether a thread will tow the line on any particular issue.
– Simply whether or not he intends to share his hoard of cupcakes.
‘feets, for you to use the word ‘rude’ to another poster should cause the Irony Bell to asplode in your head. You cumslut, you.
Not so. And mine wasn’t a critique on generalizing to make a point; it was a critique on the flavor of the generalization, which I believe was wrongheaded, in that it suggests that the vast majority of divorced women boot their husbands out so that they can have the freedom of single-womanhood and the money that comes from alimony and child support.
I think such a generalization is wrong, and so I’m not averse to generalizations per se, I’m averse to that particular generalization, insofar as I think it overstates the case by a wide, wide margin. And even if it doesn’t, it makes more sense rhetorically to single out those women who DO such a thing than to suggest that such a thing is done as a matter of course by most women seeking divorce.
I meant what *I* said was rude by dismissing JHo’s comment as off-topic.
– We’re all cynics to one degree or another, by virtue of genetic disposition.
– Were we not, we’d never survive as a species.
– I didn’t miss your real point Ric. Was just making lame excuses for why we humans behave in certain patterns.
So how should the state tax illegitimate births?
illegitimate berfs have an inherent opportunity cost what needs no extra taxings
or, we should order things such that this is so
Ridiculous. I’ve already stated that I agree with Schlafly’s larger points and have argued them myself. And I certainly have no “zeal” to “dissociate” myself with “intolerance,” of which I don’t think this is an example, so much as it is an example of using cliches to poor effect. Again, arguing generalities is one thing; picking bad generalities is another, and I think the same point could have been made without making out that most women ask for divorce to get on the dole.
This has nothing to do with decrying “intolerance”; it has to do with critiquing the way a point was made. Any “maligning” of Schlafly I’m engaging is is a maligning of her rhetorical choices in this particular instance.
Life has an inherent opportunity cost what needs no extra taxings. You progg.
Again, silly, To make the case without the demagoguing, all she had to do was point to the numbers. Adding that these women’s motives, as a general rule, is to get on the dole by “kicking out” perfectly good husbands actually both lengthens AND weakens the argument by taking the focus off of what is an otherwise valid statistical point from which to extrapolate: these women support statists because of the position they find themselves in as a result of their single status. What their individual motives are for getting there is really not important; what’s important is that we incentivize that situation.
– I don’t know Jeff. The gov has spent the better part of 60 years honing that very message, particularly to minority women.
– While I don’t personally know the real statistics to set it at “ALL”, and in any case would doubt that, I wouldn’t be surprised at this point to find it was a sizable percentage.
Fine.
I’m no progg I’m staunch staunch staunch. Government shouldn’t be in the this is a proper family this is not a proper family business at all at all at all. Especially our skeezy rat-fucked piece of shit dirty socialist government.
It’s about dismantling infrastructure to where government can only have the most indirect influence on families whatsoever. Cause our government is faggots and whores or have you not been paying attention?
sdferr, we are the ones who pay those taxes, to support our vast extended community.
Well, sure.
You race your goalposts around too much for me, ‘feets. Sorry.
So y’all believe Schlafly is only being thorough when she quotes Reagan, intending only to apply the first part of his statement “if you subsidize something you’re going to get more of it. . .” and includes the second half “if you tax it, you’re going to get less of it” merely because it completes his and not her thought on the subject? Which is fine with me.
We could tax illegitimate births, but the women who have them mostly are indigent, for the most part. I’m never in favor of symbolic gestures.
Nearly ten years writing here, and it’s clear I haven’t been able to get a single point about what I believe across in a way that resonates.
Feel free to generalize away. Most black women? Welfare queens with baby daddies. Most Jews? Stingy and well-connected at the World Bank and in Hollywood. Most Arabs? Stink of cumin and adore sandals.
I surrender. There’s a reason what I say doesn’t resonate: most conservatives don’t really believe it. Which explains quite a bit, actually.
If she had intended to reduce the number of illegitimate births through some form of taxation, whether direct or indirect, her intention would hardly be under those terms “symbolic”, I think. On the other hand, if she has no such intention, it would be a good thing to make it plain.
And from where I sit, it looks like a plurality if not a majority. Women in my circle discuss it openly; men don’t, other than the occasional bitterly cynical remark or joke, but engage in all kinds of behaviors that accept it as fact, from hiding assets (or trying to) when they do get married to simply refusing to get married in the first place. All too many men resort to violence, rhetorical or actual, when the threat of split arises.
Women, too, modify their behavior. The three most-genuinely “married” couples I know have never said vows before a preacher, let alone a magistrate, and partnerships without benefit of formalities are becoming the norm, rather than the exception. The rule seems to be that vows are irrelevant — they either stay or don’t regardless of previous promises. Essentially, the system has reverted to what it was before there was much in the way of State recognition of “marriage’; couples set up housekeeping with one another, the ones who mean it stay and the ones who don’t leave, and “weddings” become a sort of potlatch. Having the State standing ready to act in loco uxoris exacerbates the situation.
Regards,
Ric
Mr. Jeff I think at heart what Schlaffles does is frame her polemic to where she’s insisting that those people are not like us. But classically liberal governings should be about us writ large, no? Obama’s government is all about those people where those people are the rich and the productive and the employed. The one Schlaffles wants is no less about those people they’re just different people.
I weary.
– Jeff, since I was agreeing with you in kind if not degree, I’d respond in this manner.
– Take the first case you site. Somewhere, somewhen I saw a statistic that said something like 30-ish percent of black families have a identifiable father in the home.
– Not wishing to quibble, but that’s not a “conservative belief”, its a reality if those figures are accurate.
Then by all means, wander around pointing out that most black women are welfare queens, BBH. You can tell people that you have every right to generalize, because without it you wouldn’t be able to think. You can also tell them that you are stating a “fact” — irrespective of the “fact” that the label “welfare queens” wouldn’t really apply to many of the women in the same situation about which you’ve chosen to generalize.
I’d draw you a venn diagram, but my hands are shaking too much from my zealousness to avoid being called “intolerant.” Which everyone knows is very much me. I’m all about the go-along to get-along.
“well good for her she’s had a *tremendous* impact from what I can tell with her approach but I think she could have an even more greater impact if she wasn’t such a bitch”
And this is why you have such a hard time persuading anyone here.
– Hmm. I’d be the last person to wander around telling anyone anything. I was simply citing some figures. I did not arrive at My age by telling others how to think.
Of course, you could just point to the actual welfare queens as being welfare queens, and avoid the need to generalize.
But that might make your essay longer, and it’s unfair to ask for precision when the whole world knows that had you wanted to be more precise you really could have — and by criticizing your for not being precise, I’m actually unfairly maligning you!
– Oh. And just for the record I’ve never used the term “welfare queens”.
– And absolutely true that the simple absence of a father does not automatically mean the woman of the house is on welfare.
For the record, Schlafly can make her point any way she likes. If it turns out her argument gets us talking about these issues, maybe that’s what she was going for — and so she intended such provocation. In which case, on that front, she succeeded.
I don’t happen to believe that’s what she was doing, however — and instead got lazy and threw out some red meat to those who are always ready to seize upon the “feminazis.”
And my point is that by doing so she needlessly alienates actual feminists who might otherwise agree with her argument by treating a situation as if it is reached in most cases by appeals to a single, cynical, malevolent motive. And I care about this only because it makes a mockery out of appeals to individualism.
And with that, I’m out.
proximity to a good community college or vo-tech program is an even more better bootstrapping tool than a husband I would think though one can a lot complement the other… women what don’t plan on the husband guy not being there forever are chumps and they look really silly when they end up single and unskilled.
Silly and kind of needy.
You know, Jeff, one of the bitches of the thing is that in the popular progg environment geese and ganders are utterly unalike. They generalize for the religious truth generalizations permit (and incite), you eternal flaming racist you.
You generalize because you’re exactly what they just generalized you as being. You flaming racist/sexist/Nazi. Obviously this is a common realization, and one that draws us to pw.
It’s the asymmetry of politics. Which follows from the asymmetry inherent in truth, principle, liberty, et al. Thieves and liars and arsonists we have with us always. And they always make the rules insofar that we need rules to restrain them.
I feel for you (us?) as you try to stem the tide, phrase by phrase. At some point, as the man said, there comes a time to hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats.
For someone celebrating a 25th (silver) anniversary in a couple weeks, it’s a lot harder than it looks from the cheap seats. I’m not one to malign anyone who’s looking for a way to raise a kid as a proper human without the required two parents, but I will be the first to point out that ‘my way’ is the best: with dual parentage, without government subsidy. If one can’t seem to get it right, for whatever reason, I won’t judge. But I reserve the right to point and laugh.
I know a site where you can do just that, JHo.
Let me know how the game turns out. Which team wins, D or R, is really really important to me. How they get there? Not so much. I’m just in it for the pom-poms.
it was a campaign fund raiser:
link
– Jeff, in that last paragraph you nicely encapsulated the entire self-serving goal of any out of control government, the very thing our founding fathers worked so hard to avoid for our future.
– The crushing of individuality is the whole reson de terre of instilling dependency, and when that becomes the norm instead of the exception, we’ve very much crossed a line.
And of course all “conservatives” enjoy a good “feminazi” generalization, newrouter. Because we all think the same.
— Unless the left accuses us of such. In which case we SHRIEK with OUTRAGE!
All of which is true, and none of which need tie back to the idea that the vast majority of divorces are prompted by lazy, greedy women kicking perfectly fit husbands out of the house for fun and profit.
“…the vast majority of divorces are prompting by greedy women”
– I never took that assertion seriously. Was I supposed to?
Ask Ms Schlafly. She seems to be making that argument.
Calmly, Jeff. Nobody believes me, either, and you have a lots taller pupit.
One of the difficult problems here is that most, perhaps all, of us have ended up accepting leftoid definitions, and employ them without thinking about first principles. That happens because leftoid thought starts out with the correct observations, but then goes off on tangents or (most often) too far. An E. F. Russell character observed, “You can break any system. Just turn the handle the way it goes, only more so.”
Yes, going off on tangents about “welfare queens” is nastiness; lots of single women, black or otherwise, support themselves in other ways. It remains that if you select a black woman at random, chances are high that she’s single and receiving some form of State assistance, and the same is not true of whites — at least the incidence is lower. A correct (as far as it goes) generalization of black women is that they’re on welfare, and the existence of Juliette Ochieng (sp?) doesn’t change that.
It’s the assumption that this must necessarily be so (whether from left or right viewpoint) that’s damaging, not the generalization, which is valid. The leftoid assumes it must be so because that’s a good thing (subsidiary reasons appended); the right-racist assumes it must be so because black women can’t exist otherwise. Both are denigratory (!) toward the individuals.
Similarly, “women who divorce get both the lion’s share of the mutual assets and State assistance during and after the fact” is a perfectly valid generalization. Whether or not that’s the motive for the divorce probably shouldn’t be generalized, but if you add together seeing that as motive and as enabler the generalization is good from where I sit, especially when composing a viewing-with-alarm polemic.
Enough. This ain’t gettin’ my lawn mower fixed. (Why do they call it a lawn mower when its job is to make the lawn less?)
Regards,
Ric
– I wouldn’t be prompted to even bother. Its a gross generalization, silly on the face of it.
Honestly, what do we do with this, then JG?
that was cute about the mower … after I got it
– There are 8 million stories in the naked city.
– Even Salomon would be hard put to assign a single motive to everyone’s actions.
well put some goddamn clothes on people
If that’s what these women are doing, single out the women who do this.
– I’m beginning to enjoy Jeff and Ric’s trebochet’s even mower.
Leftoid double bind, classic case.
If only Schlafly had been more temperate and moderate in her remarks, she could have avoided offending people… who are automatically offended by her name alone? Come down, please.
No, partisan polemic isn’t pretty, but picking it apart when it’s going your way is not only bringing a butter knife to Global Thermonuclear War, it’s using it in the wrong backs.
Regards,
Ric
Indeed.
And while we do so — all this being as asymmetrical as I’m sure you’ve realized for years — we’ll never so much as honestly and completely approach the problem of the system’s inciting such destructive behavior over such a long period of time.
Which behavior goes on to become the new norm and define the State’s shiny new religion. Then the closed loop of cause and effect that results is exploited daily. Entire political careers are made by that single conscious realization.
But question them? You son of a bitch racist.
If I have a point in all this it’s not that the divorce and custody industry is what it is. It’s that the lay of the progg land prevents exposing underlying reality itself objectively: We never get to review the blatant harm the State brings to bear on a very real victim group because it’s not fucking allowed.
That’s where the blag flags and throats come in. At some point you say fuck it, I’m going to push back and generalize as my rhetorical tool. Does such ever achieve the desired effect of rocking a liar back on their heels? Doubtful. But there we stand.
blag – black
Not sure why we’re talking about marriage here. The women with children who use the state for a substitute husband were never married. They get pregnant by accident and figure that raising the child (which often becomes children) by themselves is a perfectly viable option because of the state assistance.
Which is a much less messy and much less emotionally difficult option than abortion or adoption.
And so that’s what happens.
if you can’t feed your baby then don’t have a baby and don’t think maybe if you can’t feed your baby
you’ll be always tryin stop that child from cryin – hustlin stealin lyin
now baby’s slowly dyin
Ouch.
No. If only Schlafly had been more accurate in her remarks, her larger point wouldn’t suffer from the caricatures surrounding it.
Different thing entirely — though I can tell how you really want to hoist me by my own petard, so much so that you keep pretending I’m not talking about a specific BAD generalization.
I do it all the time — and I often manage to do so without pretending that the majority of women who divorce do so to collect a lottery check.
Mostly because I don’t think the latter is true. If Schlafly does — and most conservatives do — I believe most conservatives are wrong in that respect, though I don’t think they are wrong about the effects of incentivizing. As I’ve long argued myself.
— Without having to turn the majority of divorcees — women divorcees only, incidentally — into stock villains.
But now I’m just bragging.
Because that’s how Schlafly framed it. Not in the way you did, which is different — and has the added bonuses of better making the point, and not reducing oftentimes very difficult decisions into cynical gambits for cash and prizes at the expense of poor, hard working men.
Forgot that Schlafly had said “And this is because, when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have Big Brother government to be your provider….”
However, the fact that the social safety net is available might make it easier for some to decide on divorce, because then your only other option isn’t destitution.
I’m too much aware of flutter-headed women who kick perfectly good men out of their house because they hold them in contempt for not being “exciting” or manly enough or whatever. Don’t know if they end up on welfare, though.
Don’t know why Phyllis saw state assistance as a large enough factor in divorce to mention it like that. She may be just as much a fossil as the old-school feminists who, like the Japanese soldiers on remote islands, are so hunkered down in their academic bunkers that they’re not aware the war had ended.
Of course this is the case. Which is why it makes sense to point directly to those who do so.
I think “motive” is putting it too strongly, dicentra. It’s more that there’s no downside.
Regards,
Ric
While I’ve no doubt this is sometimes the case, I have no doubt, too, that often times women divorce (or don’t marry to begin with) for reasons most of those who call themselves “conservative” would still find quite legitimate.
Which is mostly the flip side of the same coin. Those who are un/married and/or childless will mostly end up without that huge level of support, economic and otherwise, that traditionals get from their children and intermediate family; and a good percentage of said wind up seeking the difference from the govmint. I.E., the rest of us.
It is the other side who remind us that we’re all inter-related, and consequential towards/from everyone else.
Apologies if someone else has already brought this up; I just tuned in and haven’t read through 11o comments yet.
Stupid mark-up open…
Quote ends after first paragraph.
You’re right: her aim was too broad. She does assert that women routinely get rid of husbands to replace him with the state.
This isn’t a case of her words being re-signified to mean something other than what she meant, nor is it a case of being too unpleasantly blunt: she was operating from assumptions that weren’t exactly accurate.
Yes, but the rest of the pop political spectrum refuses to, including all The Right Right Bloggers, to whom some of RS McCain’s remarks are aimed and with which I think you’d agree.
In short, for me to say what I’ve said about the topic paints me, as meya routinely insists, as a blinkered, malcontented piece of work.
it was a campaign event and red meat rhetoric is to be expect. grayson goes to the floor of the house and says “republicans want you to die” and what crickets to that generalization.
Then Schlafly should be your new idol, hf.
it’s not that simple
Sure it is.
‘feets opines:
God bless Troll Hammer™. Would that more people used it.
mickey rooney should be pezdent cuz he was married 8 times or something/ or elizabeth taylor..
plus mickey rooney could form a band and put on a show so his fundraising capabilities are limitless
and once he’s elected he could put liza minneli in as spokesman/person/outlaw/press speaker
cuz i’ve never seen a press speaker fall over and pass out when getting asked hard/soft/inane questions
and if she died or had a seizure u could bury her in the white{oppressor!) house garden and sing life is a caberet old chum every spring for good luck for the plants
hey/ fantasies come tru sometimes..
oh/ and they/someone probably has a kid or two and u can have a wedding or something
i will shutup now cuz i’m off on a tangent
but will return after i freshen this drink
“but will return after i freshen this drink”
– Someone alert the press…..
– Ah yes Sarah
– Le object du trist’ for cupcakefeets
– Kind of woman you’d have to chain to the bed post to get a good grip on her
– My kinda gal
– Sometimes you have to be brave little trooper
She is getting to be quite an old broad, and circumspection is the first thing to go, I hear.
Tweaking dicentra:
As adjusted, the statement would be correct. While it certainly isn’t universal, it undoubtedly exists. Perhaps the view changes once you’ve been in the barrel, and I pray that you never find yourself there. But I can tell you this: It. Happens. A. Lot. There’s a money machine turning and it’s grinding out a lot of family sausage. Schlafly is tuned into it, and that surely informs her opinions. Plus, she’s old.
Ric nails it here:
Shit. “Bleed” was supposed to replace “replace.”
Oh, and because there are lots of awesome single Moms who don’t deserve the leech label, here’s one I just found out about and fell in love with.
It is most definitely not all Moms, but it is a big and growing industry. And it’s killing us.
Virtue with other people’s money is not virtue, it’s theft. And of course this so called virtue often rewards poor behavior and lack of responsibility. Encouraging more of the same.
Here’s another one.
well she says precisely 30% are super awesome
I’m very late coming to this, I know. Fossilized thinking is probably at the heart of the way Schlafly expressed her ideas here. She’s from a generation (broadly speaking -heh) that just didn’t have children out-of-wedlock, and that stigmatized divorce to a greater extent than today.
Also, I think it’s worth considering the possibility that a woman could figuratively, kick her husband (or husbands even!) out before they were ever married, knowing that big-brother government was their to be her provider. Yeah, probably it’s too much of a stretch. But I guess I don’t have a problem with what Schlafly said or how she said it, while also acknowledging Jeff’s point. Suffragettes are cool, feminists aren’t, feministas are skanks, and femi-nazis are for bullbaiting.
Raising kids is dead easy compared with being a husband. Being married is hard work. Especially if you’re married to my wife.
You know, I just think that Schlafly’s just getting old and sloppy, rhetorically speaking. I won’t damn her for what she said, but she could have made her point much more clearly by leaving out the demagoguery.
I know it was a partisan event, and maybe this was her tossin’ out the red meat; I don’t know for sure and won’t pretend to know her actual intent.
But, as JeffG suggested, she could have simply let the statistic stand on their own; they;re pretty compelling as they are. And really, all those women aren’t getting divorced to simply go on the dole; it’s just not that simple. Citing the statistics wouldn’t change the state-provided incentives that undermine the family, but Schlafly’s “creative flourish” might have undermined her argument and the effectiveness of her political support for candidates.
People who are politically conservative have to realize, a priori, that the MFM will pounce on any liberties they take, rhetorically, or any gaff, and as usual give liberals a pass; all of Obama’s public palaver is proof of that. And while that’s fundamentally unfair, it’s a reality, so they’d better say what they mean clearly, choose their words carefully, and be prepared to back them up.
I think it’s possible Schlaffles may have said what she really believes.
That’s some nice class warfare you got going on there Phyllis.
This will end well.
Well happyfeet, while all unmarried moms are single women, not all single women are unmarried moms; and I know that seems obvious. This is a subtle refinement of her earlier statement, even if you think it is class warfare.
I have no doubt that the progressives, and Democrats, would like to increase the percentage of individuals who rely on government largesse, becuase those people, whether low information voters or otherwise, will most likely support candidates that are all about expanding the size, scope, and reach of government; or at least they will most certainly be easily swayed to vote against those who are talking about reducing the money that government doles out. And while the left would choose to characterize this as “voting in thier economic interests”, it is really voting against “the economic interests” of the nation at a time when we desperately need to be reducing the level of spending.
The founders of our nation built a system that relied on both legislators and citizens being “disinterested”, in the classical sense of meaning not taking a self serving point of view. But the growth of the welfare state, under the Great Society as well as medicare “D”, makes such “disinterest” nearly impossible for a large segment of society.
This is what Sclafly may have meant to articulate; but I won’t pretend to be able to read her mind. Still, I see the statement from your link to be a refining of her statement; more along the lines of what she should have said in the first place.
You can characterize it as class warfare if you like; if that’s what you believe. But I don’t see it that way. I think it’s an inconvenient truth brought to us by the proponents of the welfare state; by creating this tension they have created the conditions for class warfare. After all, that’s one of the cornerstones of communist politics from waaaaaaayyyy back.
I think that, whether you recognize it or not, your distaste for Schlafly has as much to do with her stance on gay marriage and pro-life issues as it has to do with any statements she’s made lately.
But she has a long history of folks hating her.
say it sister sarah
My Page Name
Oh, we should definitely not talk about where billions of dollars in government handouts of other people’s money goes. People might get offended. We need to keep our message laser focused on the important topic: the spendings.
All welfare goes to unmarried moms.
is not a refinement it is simply a lie.
no Pablo you can talk about the spendings without making single moms synonymous with welfare I think cause they’re not
Isn’t that what I said? Welfare mothers have absolutely nothing to do with the spendings, and you’d have to be insane to think that they do. Also, they make better lovers, so they’ve got that going for them.
Very true. Lots of it goes to their kids.
Perhaps you’re right happyfeet,
She should have said most instead of all; again, imprecise on her part. How many old folks do you know that sometimes say things in a different manner than what they meant?
Spending can’t be seriously addressed without talking about the amount of money spent on the programs of the welfare state. That’s not class warfare, is it?
And it depends on what state you live in, and their local rules, but what Clinton replaced welfare with, Temporary Aid to Needy Families, largely goes to unwed mothers who, for whatever reason, don’t work.
happyfeet,
Your comment at #17 shows that you had a “beef” with Schlafly before this latest incident. Do you at least recognize that it colors your judgements of her?
Bush mis-spoke on occasion. Did you rhetorically keel-haul him as well?
I think that she’s elderly and didn’t make her point as clearly as she needed to, especially considering that she had to know the MFM would be all over whatever she said. She needed to say precisely what she meant, instead of “editorializing by generalizing”.
Yes you are right about TANF here are the demographics…
so Schlaffles is just wrong about the throwing out the husband nonsense. But the biggest welfare program in America is the EITC and even single guys can get that now even without kids.
To answer, indirectly, a question asked upthread:
1. Cocaine is bad for you, so we will send armed goons to make sure you don’t get any.
2. Greasy hamburgers are bad for you, so we will send armed goons to make sure you don’t get any.
There is no philosophical or ethical difference between the two statements. Trying to establish one gets immediately to one or another form of “the stuff I don’t like is vile and dangerous, and the stuff you don’t like is innocuous or beneficial, because my {morals|ethics|knowledge|science|penis length|vaginal lubrication} is superior to yours.”
The important part of the numbered statements is the bit about the armed goons. Armed goons with the power to prevent you from having [X] are equally capable of preventing you from having [Y] or [Z]. That’s because power is a tool, and has neither moral, ethical, or scientific dimensions. If your {morals|ethics|knowledge|science|penis length|vaginal lubrication} is called into question by a challenger, it becomes trivial to appeal to the goons to suppress the challenge; at that point, the “debate” descends by degrees to end up, ultimately, as “my goons are bigger, badder, and scarier than your goons.”
It is an observable fact of human nature that prohibitions, in general, create opposition from people who want the thing prohibited. Those people need a way to counter the prohibitionists’ goon squad(s), and this naturally and inevitably leads to their creation of goon squads of their own; and that reduces the issue to armed clashes between (or among) goon squads of the various factions. Whether you call them “invading and defending armies”, “Feds and rum-runners”, or DEA and druggies” is immaterial. They’re all goon squads.
Goon squads are inevitably necessary at some level; a group that won’t defend itself soon disappears from predation. The pacifists’ ideal is a good one: no goon squads at all. p << 1 on that one, for reasons beyond the scope of this comment. The goal, though, is to minimize the number and scope of the goon squads, which maximizes Liberty and allows the community to flourish. Prohibitions and restrictions enforced by goon squads are unnecessary for good Government because they don't meet the "minimalist" test -- and, as a result, inevitably have pernicious by-effects that, as we observe in the evolution of human societies, almost inevitably evolve into primary effects without losing one iota of their perniciousness. If you are genuinely an advocate of limited Government, you will seek to minimize the use of goon squads -- and every Law, no matter how phrased, says "we'll send armed goons to suppress [X]." That Government that governs best, governs least. Regards, Ric
How do I want to put this? Nobody’s tried to deprive Ms. Schlafly of her words –yet. Nevertheless it seems to me that a very fine line is being walked here. I’d hate to see a certain DDA laughing his ass off over this.
But most welfare recipients are unwed mothers, correct? Regardless of how they got that way.
But she was completely wrong about “divorce to get on the welfare rolls” unnecessary embellishment. As Jeff said, she should have cited the statistics and let them speak for themselves.
But admit it happyfeet, Schlafley was on your “Hoochie! and Cumslut!” list before she ever spoke these words.
I don’t think #17 shows I had a prior beef with P-Schlaf.
Good point about the goon squad Ric, and I generally agree with your hypothesis regarding the “classic liberal double-bind”.
However, I don’t believe it applies in this instance; it’s not a double-bind simply because people react with knee-jerk opposition to anything Schlafley says.
Bob there is a contradiction in wanting secure economic units for straight womens but not gay womens… Buddy made this point at #106…
make sense?
I mean because she opposes gay marriage happyfeet. And when I say, “beef”, I mean you disagree with her like and react like you sometimes do when Palin speaks on a topic or following the Tebow pro-life commercial.
That’s all, no slam on you intended.
no that’s fair Bob sometimes I say things what are intemperate
OK, BBL gang, I have to get ready for a very long trip deep into “flyover country” that I didn’t think I’d have to be taking anytime soon.
Enjoy your Sunday!
happy Sunday Bob
Which is why the generalization was a bad one.
I’m criticizing Schlafly for being wrong and making a bad generalization. That is, I’m not saying she should have spoken the truth more “moderately” or “temporately”; I’m saying she should have stuck to the truth and left out the false assertion, because the larger points she made are crucial and true.
With respect to my prior criticisms of a certain DDA, we’re talking about apples and oranges here.
I think it’s fair to question the wisdom of a Team R what has the idea to lead with shredding the welfare safety net during a heinously high-unemployment recession in an election year… I think if you want to cut welfares the big money is the EITC, which most of Team R supports. Cause of they are whores. The dirty socialists use welfare policy to game the electorate. Bad dirty socialists. Bad. But sounds for all the world like P-Schlaf wants to change welfare policies to game the electorate in Team R’s favor.
I don’t trust her.
I see your point, ‘feets, and also agree with Jeff that Schlafly, shall we say, homogenized the argument.
As for Team R: If the winning (and overwhelmingly necessary) argument in the current election cycle is “the spendings” then there is no way to get around the fact that entitlements have to be cut and/or frozen. Simple math. the key to presenting the this absolute necessity is to take the Christie/NJ approach and spread the pain across all departments, even defense.The problem is getting the average suit from Team R to take the Christie approach and stand tall against the inevitable howling and wailing from the usual pimpers of misery. Don’t be cruel or sneering but be strong and repeat that “there are no viable alternatives, spending must be frozen or cut.”
The more I think about it, the more I’m inclined to focus on Team R candidates that remind me of Chris Christie’s face up and deal approach in NJ. That particular acumen is not as common as I’d like it to be.
i think the compellingness of simple math is often underrated
The out-of-control-spending isn’t the problem, it’s the symptom of the problem.
Yes, Ernst, and that in itself is a problem.
Those in power hanging on to the ever widening purse strings are stuck in their endless merry-go-round of paying off the voters of their districts for the sake of re-election. Thus in addition to finding politicians willing to stand up and tell the plain truth about our addiction to entitlement spending (pause for barking laughter) those very same politicians have to be able to convince the besotted voters that the spewing earmark pipeline is going to cause a national and global economic meltdown and that their individual liberties are being eroded even as the lucre pipe flows.
I know, a very hefty challenge considering the years of of pocket stuffings. The biggest challenge is in simply finding both candidates and political machines that are less concerned with getting (re) elected and more interested in dealing with the problem head on and without a hint of apology.
Again, See Christie, Chris, NJ.