Posted under: American history, Gender, jobs, the body, wankers, women's history
Nothing, and I mean nothing, is more reassuring to a woman with an unwanted pregnancy than hearing two men debate whether or not to pay women to carry their pregnancies to term. Who better to make these important policy decisions? Don’t miss the part in which Steven Waldman of Beliefnet suggests to Will “Is it Wrong to Murder an Abortionist?” Saletan that they pay pregnant women a whole one thousand dollars to deliver the baby, and then in the next minute wonders if that would set up “perverse incentives” that would encourage women to get pregnant just to collect that whole one thousand dollars!
Man–what I wouldn’t do for a whole one thousand dollars! I think I’ll go get myself pregnant tonight! Being pregnant for 9 months, dealing with the homicidal hunger, exhaustion, and nausea of early pregnancy, then the swelling, heartburn, and exhaustion of later pregnancy (not to mention the risks of gestational diabetes, months of bed rest, high blood pressure, or other much more dangerous conditions) is soooo much easier than teaching a summer class or reviewing a couple of book manuscripts. Because I really am a completely brainless idiot who will do anything for money, and there’s absolutely no larger social or political context for my pregnancy that needs to be considered.
Did you notice that they didn’t invite any pro-choice people or XX chromosome types to this “debate?” I wonder why! Insulting “debates” like this one completely miss the point that pregnancy is work, and debating which trivial sum to offer women is hardly a recgonition of that fact. How about if we assume that people in this country are free either to accept a job, or not, and are free at any point to walk away if they don’t like the terms and conditions? This is why I’ve always thought that pro-choicers made a huge mistake in not basing their constitutional arguments on the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Barb on 01 Jul 2009 at 8:54 am #
Not to mention that these debates completely ignore what happens *after* the child is born! Who is going to raise it, and are they going to subsidize that? We seem to have eliminated adoption as a choice, and if I hear one more idiot claim that if a girl is old enough to get pregnant, she’s old enough to take the consequences and raise the kid, I’ll scream! Why don’t we just take all this money these guys are throwing around and use it to teach sex ed? Oh, wait – I remember: that’s what makes kids want sex in the first place, right? ARRGH!
Jen S. on 01 Jul 2009 at 9:31 am #
When Jon Stewart had Mike Huckabee on a week or so ago to talk about abortion (after an earlier conversation between them about gay marriage), Stewart had a great line about how he and Huckabee — two white straight men — kept getting together to talk about things — gay marriage, abortion — that they would never experience. It didn’t phase Huckabee from his insistence that he knew what was best for women, though.
Susan on 01 Jul 2009 at 10:00 am #
Well, this is all in the context of encouraging women to carry babies to term SO THEY CAN GIVE THEM UP FOR ADOPTION. But there is no discussion about how you get the “right” babies for adoption: there is a huge market for white babies, but not so much for those that are a bit “darker”. So the whole context of race and class are out of the discussion. Oh, and all the concern about not creating “perverse” incentives, so lots of women go out and get pregnant just to get $1000!
Spare me.
Janice on 01 Jul 2009 at 10:12 am #
You know how this gets back to the idea that women are just some kind of slot machine for the things men want: sex, home-cooking, babies, you know?
*headdesk*
anon on 01 Jul 2009 at 11:17 am #
This is the funniest/scariest thing I’ve heard in a long time. I wonder where they came up with the sum of $1000. I have to say, that’s the part I find most offensive in the whole “debate” (and that’s saying a lot!). I’m not sure what’s more misogynist – the idea that $1000 is all a pregnancy is “worth” (I guess we now know not only the value of women’s labor but ALSO the worth of the life of a child to these guys!) or that they think women are dumb enough to go for that. I sure am envious of their wives.
bluelyon on 01 Jul 2009 at 2:51 pm #
$1,000 wouldn’t even cover her medical expenses. What a couple of idjits.
Historiann on 01 Jul 2009 at 4:34 pm #
Now–there you go again, Susan and bluelyon, thinking that there is a larger social and political context for unwanted pregnancies and abortions! Of course, Lord Saletan and High Priest Waldman haven’t considered the fact that prenatal care and a way to cover delivery just might be a major worry for a woman who’s already unexpectedly pregnant, and that single-payer (as opposed to our current system of every person for herself) might make it more possible for some women to go ahead with their pregnancies. Just think what a boon to the pro-life movement single-payer health care would be!
And Susan, how morally irresponsible to point out that babies aren’t born equal into the adoption “market.” (But, hey–sorry, baby. That’s why we call it a market: some will win, and some will lose, and it’s designed to work that way.) Oh well Jen and Barb–isn’t it great that Huck has all the answers? I wonder how many kids he has adopted from poor, desperate girls? Whatever the number, it can never be enough.
And Janice and anon–yeah, I really feel sorry for Waldman’s and Saletan’s slot machines and purity vessels–uh, I mean their wives and daughters.
Molly on 01 Jul 2009 at 6:44 pm #
First of all, that’s the most hideous effing baby I’ve ever seen. Thanks for that.
Secondly, I wrote a blog entry about this very topic not too long ago. I grew up in Arkansas and have met Huckleberry a few times. He went to college in my hometown and is friends with my brother, actually. Can I just say all Arkansans aren’t like him? I’d just like to point that out.
I like your blog, by the way.
Lance on 01 Jul 2009 at 7:12 pm #
Hah! Perhaps they (the men) figured that they’d get to keep the $1K themselves, roughly the cost of a flat screen, for some Sunday football? My XY brothers are stoopid/smart. The simplest/dumbest/most perverse explanation might the the right one.
Z on 01 Jul 2009 at 9:11 pm #
13th amendment, d*** straight.
Sisyphus on 02 Jul 2009 at 12:11 am #
One.Thousand.Dollars! OMG! That’s almost a whole month’s rent for me! Why am I trying to find a *job* right now when I could just get knocked up and given a grand to keep the baby! Yeah!!!!!
Uh, do I have to actually squeeze the baby out a little hole during labor? For hours and hours? Hmm… maybe I could donate the fetus and have it implanted in Waldman or Saletan for a thousand bucks and have one of *them* give birth to it if they love them so much!
Historiann on 02 Jul 2009 at 7:09 am #
I like your plan, Sis–see if those chumps will offer up their bodies for one large. I’m quite sure that (for example) SJP and Matthew Broderick paid a hell of a lot more for their twin daughters just recently born.
Molly–I don’t see Huck as representative of Arkansas so much as representative of a certain kind of white, protestant man who really has the plan for all of us. He’s the guy for the Dems to watch, now that these other Red State prettyboys have gone down in adulterous flames. Huck is a likeable guy–that’s his big advantage over Romney–who can put all kinds of atrocious policy ideas over because people don’t perceive him as someone who would intentionally hurt them.
And, Lance–yes, maybe the simplest explanation is the best in this case. (And thanks Z for the suppored on the 13th!)
j on 02 Jul 2009 at 9:36 am #
no doubt the thousand dollars would be considered taxable income …
Tim Lacy on 02 Jul 2009 at 2:47 pm #
It’s a symptom of pseudo-intellectual Milton Friedmanism that Saletan, and the rest of the welfare-mom-with-9-kids crowd, could truly believe that $1000 birth incentive will create an Ehrlich-esque population bomb fallout of a million little poor kids. Wow. Otherwise, ditto to several of the comments above. …Sorry to be another man chirping on the issue. At least I’m a father who appreciates how $1000 undervalues the child-bearing experience—unless, that is, you live in extremely poor area of northern Arkansas where the money would get you a nice car to put on cinder blocks for additional yard ornamentation. – TL