Libertarians have typically been known as standing for freedom of expression, but that is going to change if Elizabeth Nolan Brown has her way. The sex-positive Reason contributor, who co-founded Feminists For Liberty with the vehemently anti-libertarian Cathy Reisenwitz, is bringing social justice warrior-style thought policing into the libertarian movement. And for what reason? Because her little feelings were hurt over a silly joke.
This whining Feminazi, with stereotypically dyed hair and all, started a pathetic Twitter crusade on Saturday because a Young Americans for Liberty activist made a harmless joke on Twitter about women making sandwiches. Her goal was to create an Internet lynch mob of other soft-skinned, attention-starved women and their sorry beta male enablers to make it so the young man couldn’t get hired in the libertarian community (or anywhere else for that matter). Brown is under the employ of Reason Magazine, where she writes about riveting topics such as “gender anarchy” and the virtues of women who sell their bodies for cash. A relatively obscure blogger, she has to leverage her social media following to have any power in life–and she uses that unearned and undeserved power to try and ruin a kid’s life due to her enormous panties being in a twist. Is this what female empowerment looks like? If so, yikes!
Few understand that the Koch brothers, the “low-tax liberals” who bankroll Reason Magazine, like to hire people like this talentless harpy Brown because tokens look good for the purpose of corporate public relations. The Kochs deliberately poison the libertarian movement by giving harbor to pro-degeneracy creeps who alienate middle America, craven gutless weaklings who would sit idly by and let barbarians rape and pillage their civilization, and delusional pink-haired victim cultists such as Brown to help their own bottom-line. This “diversity” has not strengthened the movement, but rather completely poisoned it. There is a reason why close to 100 percent of the success of libertarianism has come from the work of Ron Paul, and not the Koch brothers. Ron appeals directly to the masses and speaks to concerns that impact everyday Americans while Koch libertarianism appeals to the elites and is more concerned with the whims of oligarchical paymasters than promoting actual liberty.
Unfortunately for her, this wretched hag’s public shaming campaign backfired and the vast majority of commenters on Twitter were piling on her shameful and vicious campaign against freedom of expression. Here are some of the highlights:
“Congratulations. Now you’ve demonstrated that libertarian women can as boring, lame and fascist as liberal women. Way to Reason,” wrote Kurt Schlichter, senior columnist at Town Hall, in a Tweet.
“So man makes a joke and you want to deny him a living? How progressive of you. How many times have you dissed men & laughed?” artist Catherine Nichols asked in a Tweet.
Even her feminist allies saw the error in this petty, pathetic woman’s judgment. “Please don’t do this, Elizabeth. I deeply respect you and you’re going down a dark path with tweets like this,” aspiring sex worker Tina Russell wrote in a Tweet.
Russell issued a couple more Tweets to explain her thoughts, “When you try to ruin [someone’s] life over a dumb tweet, you’re a shade away from the [people] who set fire to Berkeley [because] they didn’t like a speaker. I’ve seen it dozens of times before, watching in horror as my warm, compassionate, liberal friends turned one by one into cold hate-zombies.”
Tom Chambers got himself in trouble when he said that men got paid more because they had to “pay for their wives and children”. He was pointing to a very important underlying mechanism – the transfer of resources from men to women and far from being silenced this should be part of the debate.
In the past, men were paid more than women because it was recognised that they might be supporting a wife and children. And among the middle classes even working wives are still supported by their well-paid husbands – not because of the gender pay gap, but because, women do so much more spending than men.
Let’s look at the facts. We know that women don’t earn as much money as men. This is reflected in the fact that men pay around 70 per cent of the tax.
Yet despite overall earning less than men for reasons which we have reiterated hereand here and here, women are responsible for the vast majority of spending that goes on. A recent article in Forbes tells us:
“Women drive 70-80 per cent of all consumer purchasing, through a combination of their buying power and influence. Influence means that even when a woman isn’t paying for something herself, she is often the influence or veto vote behind someone else’s purchase.
And that “the name on the credit card doesn’t tell the whole story. The person who makes a sales transaction isn’t necessarily the decision maker. Even if a woman does not earn a paycheck, she is likely the gatekeeper to her household’s expenditures.”
Women may not earn most of the money but they control most of the money that is earned.
That is what Tom Chambers means when he says that “men have to pay for wives and children”.
The worst thing about this story is not that it happens. Prior to feminism, male provisioning was an effective way of ensuring that children were looked after. Even until recently women (only non-feminist ones I am sure!) have been more likely to go without for the benefit of their children. Prior to feminism, I suspect the majority of women respected their husband’s hard work and were themselves prepared to work hard in return.
The problem is that it only happens among the better off. If you look at the gender pay gap, the differences between men’s and women’s earnings decrease the further down the employment scale you go. Men make up the vast majority of those working in the gig economy and are increasingly present in other poorly paid sectors. The mothers of their children are much less likely to be cohabiting with or married to them because the State is the better provider. The poor are poor because the gender pay gap has gone into reverse.
The disastrous results of the decline in male earnings was laid bare in a recent report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies. The report explains how over the last 20 years the growth in earnings of working fathers has grown extremely slowly at 0.3 per cent on average while mothers’ earnings shave grown at more than 2 per cent a year. As a result, while the incomes of two earner families are 10 per cent higher than in 2002-2003, the incomes of one earner families have not changed in that period. The slump in male earnings leads to poverty where the mother does not work.
This means mothers of even the very young are under significant pressure to be in employment. This spells a huge burden of deprivation of love and care for our future generations. Endless evidence shows that women really want to be involved in the direct care of their children. And that children benefit from this. Fathers do too, and I think they should have the opportunity to do so, but you will have a hard time convincing me that the majority of men would prefer to spend more time with infants than out at work. By contrast, mothers prefer to spend time with their babies. So the traditional arrangement, given flexibility, actually works out well.
While this is still possible for the wives of well-paid men it is not possible for less advantaged women. Our feminist-driven policies have been so intent on promoting the position of women we have completely and utterly neglected the employment of men.
However, the way we live has been built on male providing and to ignore it and deny it is going to leave us all a lot worse off. Men earned money and gained status (patriarchy) because women demanded it.
Those who were successful were able to mate and reproduce. Men’s earnings rise both when they get married and when children are born. Men with partners are much more likely to be working than men without partners. This is particularly important for men whose work gives them little intrinsic motivation for doing the job. (further evidence for these arguments is available here, here )
Men used to earn because they wanted to look after their families. Women earn because they think it gives them more status, makes them more ‘equal’ and because they like spending money. Feminism has made women feel entitled to be ‘takers’ so men are turning away from them. As men lose their interest in supporting families, they are freed up to find more creative, enjoyable and interesting ways to spend their time.
They will be less motivated to earn money. This will help to solve the pay gap. It also threatens the future of our culture by undermining our reproductive relations – love and interdependence between women and men.