I never thought I’d see this, but Amanda Marcotte, card-carrying feminist working for Slate XX, has just advocated ending the welfare state.
Amanda “examines” (ie. mocks with snark devoid of intellectual substance, as is typical of these kinds of publications) the idea that not having enough people of working age to support those who don’t work is a problem.
But near the end of her post, she veers way the hell off the reservation:
What really galls me about Last’s piece (and most like it) is the underlying assumption that human beings exist to serve society and not the other way around. Oh, sure, Last mentions a few conservative-friendly policy ideas to help people afford kids—such as reducing the number of kids who go to college, attacking Social Security, and pushing people to move to the suburbs—but if reducing day care costs doesn’t do it, there’s no reason to think these tweaks will either. The reader is left with the feeling that the only solution to save capitalism is to clip the wings of half of the population so they can spend more time laying eggs.
I’d argue instead that if the system is set up so that it fails if women don’t start popping out more kids, then it’s a broken system and should be reworked to account for the reality of America today. If women don’t want to have more children, then instead of abandoning women’s equality as a goal, we should rework our economic system so it doesn’t rely on a steadily growing population to function. After all, the point of society is to serve the people in it, not to reduce us to cogs in a machine that serves no one at all.
This reads like libertarian propaganda. You could put this up at Reason to hearty cheers of comradery and brotherhood (all voluntary of course).
First, she argues that human beings do no exist to serve society, rather the opposite. The individualism expressed here would do Rand proud.
I can’t wait until she gets specific and starts decrying forcing individual to pay taxes to feed the machine.
Then she argues that if the current system requires pumping out children to sustain itself, we should reform the system. She is arguing for the end of both SS and Medicare.
If this is the new direction of feminism I approve.
****
Now, I honestly think it’s unlikely that Amanda Marcotte is going to be voting for Gary Johnson next election. I highly doubt she has carefully examined her views and decided that individual freedom was the goal of politics. Rather this is probably just a case Amanda replaces thought with wish.
She probably just saw someone pointing out one of the logical outcomes of one of her life choices and reflexively through out whatever she came to her so she could avoid having to acknowledge that actions (or nonactions in this particular case) have consequences.
It probably never even occurred to her that SS and Medicare depend on an ever-growing population to remain sustainable. It probably never even occurred to her that her desire for “free” stuff (like child care and contraception) from the government forces other people to serve society.
It is almost sad that non-thought like this can be published by a somewhat “respectable” operation.
****
It seems Judgy Bitch found this article as well and posted on it before me. Check it out, it’s a gooder.
“I’d argue instead that if the system is set up so that it fails if women don’t start popping out more kids, then it’s a broken system and should be reworked to account for the reality of America today.”
I don’t think I’ve ever read a more insane sentence. Does she realize that the “system” she’s decrying that will fail if women stop having kids is actually the human race (well, the white portion of it)? She rather see extinction than give up feminism?
I hate to say it, but it’s a ripple in the pond.
But at least it’s a start.
Well, I’m frankly not surprised. These kinds of people are under the delusion that if they wish hard enough for something to happen, reality and natural law will bend to their desires. Unfortunately, thousands of children wishing for Santa to be real cause him to exist; I doubt the belief of far fewer feminists will prevent reality from catching up with them whether they like it or not.
Must be the manjaw conflicting with the hamster.
Marcotte never thinks before she speaks (or writes). She simply sees the need for more babies as another burden for women that will limit their choices and options and she stands against anything she perceives as bad for women. What she really means by “reworking” the system is taxing men at a much higher rate so that women’s choices can be fullfilled.
“Marcotte never thinks before she speaks (or writes). She simply sees the need for more babies as another burden for women that will limit their choices and options and she stands against anything she perceives as bad for women. What she really means by “reworking” the system is taxing men at a much higher rate so that women’s choices can be fullfilled.”
Exactly.
@Steve Johnson
Its possible that shes actually talking about the fact that our society is set up in a fashion that it requires population growth in order to continue to function as intended. That system isnt necessarily synonymous with “the human race”. The human race can continue as long as people reproduce at replacement levels, however our society actually requires growth. Social security and medicare are part of this, but our economy works this way too – its configured for growth or collapse. Theres probably a middle ground there that could be achieved, and which probably does need to be achieved. Given the Earths limited resources continueing to grow Humanities population unabated could lead to the same outcome as shrinking it.
Of course I wouldnt completely rule out the possibility that your interpretation could be correct too. Its not like it would be a new thing for her to come up with theories that are completely counter to reality.
@free northener
It would certainly seem that way, but I have a feeling that if pressed to provide a way forward, Amandas way would NOT involve cutting SS or Medicare. At least to women. If anything, Id imagine her solution would probably involve men “doing more” (putting more into the system and getting less out). Even though thats unlikely to be sustainable. She probably just hasnt properly thought through the longer term consequences of her ideas. Shocker, right?
TDOM and The Observer have it right: She’s not demanding that “the system” be fixed to take reality into account; she’s demanding that “the system” be “fixed” to eliminate the effects of reality. Somehow. She’s not sure how, and she doesn’t care to be bothered with that. That’s men’s job.
It’s a feminist’s job to command that pi be made equal to 3.0; it’s up to “society” (read, men) to figure out how and make it so.
If a libertarian said what she said, he’d probably be poorly expressing a desire to see a more libertarian economy. But Marcotte isn’t a libertarian. She’s an irrational, obsessive statist. Even if she cared about reality, she would never consider a libertarian solution to the problem she identifies, because she is not, never has been, and never will be a libertarian.