Self-styled “feminists” have been stumbling over one another to get to a media outlet to confirm just how existentially and intellectually bankrupt their movement is. The Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case has raised the specter – expressed in Justice Ginsburg’s dissent – that allowing a closely-held corporation to refuse to abide by a government mandate it regards as violative of its religious views, might entitle a corporation to “opt out of any law” it considers to be “incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.” The fear that liberty might break out in the world must give collectivists many a sleepless night!
In the 1960’s, the language of feminists spoke of the importance of “liberation,” of individuals freeing themselves from legal and institutionalized thinking that kept them subservient to the expectations of others. “Why have I allowed myself to become this way?”, was a common theme. But to insist upon being in control of one’s life carries with it the burden of being responsible for one’s actions. As it is part of our nature to want to enjoy benefits while avoiding the costs of providing them, feminist thinking quickly shifted from inner-directed efforts of “liberation,” to externalized demands for “entitlements.” Among the numerous demands upon the lives and property interests of others was the insistence that others (e.g., taxpayers, employers) pay the costs of providing women with birth-control products. The underlying premise of such thinking is that women are so helpless, so ineffectual at making decisions for themselves, as to be unable to make the economic choice of purchasing condoms, IUDs, or birth-control pills unless some big-daddy figure includes the funding for same in their monthly allowance!
So many feminists have turned themselves into whining teen-agers over what, among free and responsible people, is a non-issue. If, as these make-believe “liberated” souls contend, enjoyment of such birth-control products is so “crucial” to the well-being of women that employers ought to be required to provide them, what about other goods and services as well? Are food, mortgage or rental payments, and costs of transportation not equally – if not more so – “crucial” to women’s lives to justify forcing employers to pay for these as well? If such relatively inexpensive birth-control products are of such importance to the well-being of women, why don’t feminist groups – which like to pretend they genuinely care about helping their clientele – collect donations from those who share their concerns and provide these products?
The answer to this question is that feminist groups have no sincere interest in benefitting the lives of women. Their purpose, rather, is to mobilize the energies of others on behalf of the accumulation of political power. Political systems depend upon the generation of conflicts among people, which state systems can then enrich and empower themselves to resolve. The reaction to the Hobby Lobby decision is just a reminder of the necessity of thinking that it’s a world of “men” against “women,” of “employers” against “employees.” The divisiveness surrounding this case was revealed in the babblings of one feminist who pointed out that, in this 5-4 Supreme Court decision, the 5 justices who made up the majority were all men. That the 3 women on the court all dissented was not, of course, mentioned. Nor did another woman seem aware of the contradiction in her complaint that the court’s decision allowed “employers to impose their beliefs on employees.”
Perhaps Justice Ginsburg is sensing what those of us outside the political power structure have become aware, namely, that increasing millions of men and women have grown weary of the violent, destructive, thieving, and tyrannical nature of what America has become. As labor unions, civil rights and feminist organizations, and other special-interest groups continue to promote the kind of “workers’ paradise” seen in the dying French economy, rational and decent minds see the entire system as a racket out of control. Perhaps Atlas is shrugging. Along with the bursting of the housing bubble, the emerging bursting of the education bubble, and the bursting of the war-system bubble, the laws of causation may bring about the bursting of the dependency bubble. As the decline and fall of the entitlement lobby continues apace, prepare to hear unending choruses of the song “I want what I want when I want it.”12:19 pm on July 2, 2014 Email Butler Shaffer