Is Mitt Romney The Biggest Feminist In Congress??

This world just keeps on getting weirder! Today, I found myself sobbing with relief over a bill introduced by the man I voted against in 2012.

Shed A Tear

Why should I trust you, tho??

Saagar Enjeti over at The Hill explains how Mitt Romney’s Child Allowance PlanWould almost single-handedly cut child poverty to the lowest level in decades.” 

He also reminds us that the United States is facing a real fertility crisis  – My generation is not having enough kids to replace ourselves. It seems many Americans don’t understand why this is important.

When I praised this publicly, I was hit with unsurprisingly skeptical takes around, ‘Why do we even need more kids…? Doesn’t this discriminate against people who don’t have kids?”

The answer to the last question is, Yes. Frankly, I’m OK with that.” It’s really weird to hear a self-described conservative say something so refreshing

That’s probably why I’ve never been for a Universal Basic Income and have always favored policies like this … ‘What exactly makes you conservative, Saagar?’ You’re lookin’ at it right here.

But when Saagar is talking about kids, I hear mothers – The women who will almost inevitably be caring for those kids. And while I firmly believe if you don’t want kids, you shouldn’t have any, no mainstream source is saying otherwise.

But what if you do? Why did I have to give up everything else just to be a decent mom? And why is creating the next generation seen as inherently conservative?? 

I don’t think government policy or our culture should be centered around maximizing individual liberty and choice. I think it should be centered around making it easy as possible to fulfill the most basic task of a civilization – Which is replacing itself and producing prosperity for the current and future generation.

I admit this had never occurred to me – UBI would be a fantastic development for women, but this shift in emphasis is eye-opening. Those in love with Free Market Capitalism claim this as their goal, too. And yet, Saagar eloquently describes the situation where we actually find ourselves:

Fuse Box

This damn thing is so out of date! How am I ever gonna get it fired up again??

Nothing about our consumerist culture is maximizing these goals. It is the opposite of conservative when your supposedly free trade and market have created a culture where it’s cheaper to eat crappy food, buy plastic stuff and watch TV every day, rather than have children and get married.

Saagar is using a definition of conservative I disagree with. I stick with the first definition, ‘Averse to change or innovation, holding traditional values.

Saagar is using the second, ‘Favoring free enterprise, private ownership and socially traditional ideas.

For one thing, I disagree that Marriage&Family still qualifies as our tradition in this country. Eating crap food, buying junk and watching TV is the new tradition. My parents’ generation seems to know little else.

Divorce has been common for 50 years. Working moms, 40. Single, working moms, 30. It’s been at least a generation since single-income families were the norm, Mom waiting with snacks after school. Arguably, two. 

We may not see ourselves this way, but numbers don’t lie like TV does. America seems to finally be in the mood for a good, hard look in the mirror.

People don’t even want to watch TV all day, or just buy stuff. They’re simply responding to the incentives within the economic system … Surveys of Americans show that … people want more kids but aren’t having them. Clearly, it’s too hard to have kids.

That’s right – Millennials don’t actually want to be cultural hitmen. We want the same things every other generation did, but we are collateral damage of the broken system we live in.

Waist Deep

Is it cold out here, or is it me?

What’s the barrier to kids in our culture? It’s money. It’s healthcare. All the externalities. Having to leave your job, stuff like that. So, the solution is simple – Make it more economically viable to have children! It’s the simplest solution on the planet, that many on the Reformist Right have identified for nearly a decade.

This is also new to me – What in the world is the Reformist Right?? Wouldn’t that make them… Progressive??

And yet, somehow, the guy whose terrible defeat and policy ideas in 2012 who sparked this movement is the person who seems to have embraced it.

I laughed bitterly at this. In 2012, Mitt Romney looked like an off-brand animatronic JFK, except Republican. And Mormon.

Most leftist thought was still preoccupied with Barack Obama, the disillusionment of his 2nd term and the fallout of that still in the future. Would Romney have fixed these problems eight years ago? Maybe not, but he’s proven himself to be a man of principle where so many in his party just chase power. It’s been quite a learning experience to watch.

Saagar shoots down arguments against Romney’s plan with satisfying enthusiasm. “…They say that it would encourage government dependency and unemployment which would, conversely, encourage a retreat from marriage and the labor force in poorer communities. It’s not an unreasonable concern.

But … it may be moot. Romney’s plan only phases out at the highest income threshold, meaning there isn’t a so-called ‘work disincentive’ as there were in previous iterations of American welfare.

This system would involve almost every family in the country, almost all of us would qualify for the income supplements. It wouldn’t just be helping those people over there.

And … we don’t really have time to quibble with these fights from 1996.” YES!!! I’ve been watching politics since 1992, and the lack of progress has been truly devastating. Let them take their absolutist Boomer nonsense with them when they go!

We are literally in a massive fertility crisis, which is only going to get worse after the Coronavirus depression, the social isolation, and the immense disruption to our lives … Demographics is destiny in only one way – When your population declines, your country gets worse.

Wuthering Hts

I remember when all this was a mall!

You think the system is broken now? Imagine after the tax base dries up!

Somehow, [Democrats] have memed themselves into becoming deficit hawk Republicans. The Democratic plan would actually diminish the size of the benefit for Americans making more than $75,000 … By making it more targeted, you, of course, open yourself up to political attack in the future.

This brings me back to who and what qualifies as ‘conservative.‘ In the US, the so-called conservative party are the ones who use Jesus for war propaganda and racism to stay popular. They are almost as likely to be secretly gay as fiscally corrupt. Even the truly conservative – Those who adhere to the old values of Sexism, Racism, Homophobia and Xenophobia – have about given up on them.

As for the ‘liberals,’ I have covered them pretty extensively several times. That monicker is more ironic these days.

By phasing this in and out based on income, [it would] become more politically vulnerable to attack than a Mitt Romney universal plan … Do you want this to be … targeted as welfare?

It’s almost as if they don’t really want to solve anything. As if keeping things tangled up and Americans afraid and back-biting helps them get away with shit…

Too Much Going On

OK hon, you got that fire extinguisher??

…And if you don’t think things are confused, the 2nd definition of ‘liberal’ is, ‘a political and social policy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

Not too far-removed from ‘conservative’s’ ‘free enterprise, private ownership and socially traditional ideas.

Individual rights, civil liberties and democracy are literally the tradition the United States is founded in. With definitions like these, is it any wonder we can’t keep anything straight?

We have so many labels, but I’m finding them more and more meaningless. A society that’s good for mothers would be good for all women, and even most men. 

Romney’s plan amounts to paying me for mothering, a for-real dream come true! It’s my full-time job, on-call 24/7, 365. I cried today because I had given up on official recognition of this. 

Mitt Romney being the biggest feminist in Congress makes me dizzy.

 

Take My Breasts, Please! Young Women’s Crisis of Identity

It’s time to talk about breasts.

Specifically, mastectomies – The surgical removal of breast tissue. According to the Mayo Clinic, this procedure is intended for those suffering from breast cancer, or those at high risk of same.

But, like so many other things, this procedure is being used in what can only be called an “off-label” way, to treat transgender people. Transmen (that’s self-loathing women, for those keeping score) are starting to tell their stories of undergoing this procedure without understanding its ramifications. They describe a streamlined pipeline, wherein chopping off titties is treated as just the next step to fulfilling your dreams.

Nightmare

Don’t worry, honey – We can cure the nightmare of Womanhood with crowdfunding!

I bring this up now for two reasons:

  1. The media tends to focus on transwomen, the Laverne Coxes and Caitlyn Jenners of the world. But in the younger set, transmen (girls) far outnumber them. Some measures put this number at 4:1.
  2. We are reaching critical mass.

Listen to the Doctors

The UK appears to be Ground Zero for this modern social contagion. The Tavistock Centre is the only “gender development” (a phrase which should give us pause) clinic in Britain.

The past three years have seen upwards of 30 resignations from Tavistock. It appears not everyone is on board with the Brave New World.

Now, one of them has taken the institution to court.

Susan Evans was a psychiatric nurse at Tavistock. The 62-year-old conscience-bearer has brought suit with the High Court against the Trust that runs the Centre, and the National Health Service itself. She is joined by a woman called “Mrs. A.”, a mother concerned for her 15-year-old daughter who wants to be a boy, and Keira Bell, a desisted transman.

We Don’t Want to Be Girls (read: Sub-Human)

Keira is the one making headlines. She has taken over the role of lead plaintiff, telling interviewers, “The treatment urgently needs to change so that it does not put young people, like me, on a torturous and unnecessary path that is permanent and life-changing.”

Young Widow

Can’t you see I have my own shit I’m dealing with??

Keira is 23 now. She has a better understanding of herself than when she started treatment at 16. She had her breasts removed at 20, after years of hiding them. Hiding from them.

“Hormone-changing drugs and surgery doesn’t work for everyone and it certainly should not be offered to someone under the age of 18 when they are emotionally and mentally vulnerable.”

My heart breaks for Keira and girls like her. If I were 15 years younger, I would be lining up for my testosterone. I went through what is apparently an all-too-common phase back when none of this literature or infrastructure existed.

The Personal Can Make You Political

I intuitively understood that any kind of transition would really just be trading one set of problems for another. Practically speaking, I’m 5’4″ with 40″ hips; No one is ever going to mistake me for a man.

I hacked my way through a jungle of internalized misogyny, born of being an underachieving “gifted” kid who perverts assume is a nympho (Thanks, pop culture stereotypes!) And I did it mostly alone. I spent some time in queer spaces throughout my 20s but never really felt at home there.

I was 27 before I understood radical acceptance. Before I really saw that I identified with male characters because they were the ones doing interesting things. That tampons are $5 a box but condoms are free and plentiful.

Kids

Let kids be kids!

Etc., etc., ad nauseum.  In a world where violent porn is standard, I do not blame these droves of young women for opting out of being a sex object. I get it.

We Must Support Young Women in Defining Themselves

Fast-tracking them onto puberty blockers that reduce bone density is not a good idea. Most will never come off the Trans track once set on it.

Most gender non-conforming children – You remember us, the Tomboys and Sissies of yesteryear – eventually find a way to accept ourselves as we are. This was considered the best possible outcome until recently. How exactly are drugs and surgery better?

Many of us grow up to be homosexual. Gay erasure, converting little potential homos into the opposite sex, is a frightening implication of all this. I’m not a lesbian myself, maybe bi-leaning at this point. I am married with children, for all intents and purposes a straight, white lady.

But I’m far from normal in other ways.

Growing up is learning to accept and even love our difficult pieces. Doctors intervening in the fights we have with ourselves to sell us ammunition is wrong. It denies young people the opportunity to grow up, mentally and emotionally, as well as physically blocking puberty.

Bless Your Heart

You might as well try them out before you throw them away!

It also sterilizes them for life. Which I’m strongly against.

It’s not complicated – If you don’t go through puberty properly, your reproductive system doesn’t develop fully.

And the scores of young women being sold “top surgery” (On Instagram, for fuck’s sake!) as the answer to their pesky problem of wanting to be seen as people are amputating sexual organs before they even have a chance to use them for anything. Which is also wrong. As well as downright unscientific.

This will not be the last lawsuit. It may be cathartic to see these clinics brought to task, but the culture that allowed this to happen has to b

e our focus.

How have we failed young women to the extent they are completely disconnected from their bodies?