I find this whole thing over Sandra Fluke amusing and informative. It seems Obama’s little war with the Catholic Church over contraception was possibly a deliberate attempt to stir things up and get the unmarried women off the couch and into the voting booths for Obama. And Fluke was no “babe in the woods” student; she’s a 30 year old activist who entered (nominally Catholic) Georgetown precisely to raise a ruckus over this issue. Why else is she testifying before Congress and working with a former Obama communications director? And it’s not like birth control is that expensive. I mean I have access to beer and wings and shoes and a whole bunch of other crap I have to pay for for myself. This has nothing to do with the alleged necessity of access.
This is the unmarried white women issue, the central issue of feminism, of which abortion is only a part. And the basic mission is sexual “autonomy,” which means sex without consequences, sex without children, sex without marriage, unlimited screwing by “respectable” women (with a comparatively smaller number of desirable men) until some beta provider gets lassoed into marriage after a decade or more of Eat, Pray, Love. This entire situation is unusual and unnatural; it’s not typical historically. The great many secret abortions that result are only a part of the landscape. The bigger picture is this idea that family must be delayed and the screwing of a lot of different partners that takes place throughout your twenties is somehow the right approach. God forbid you marry too young! The system has certain advantages for men if you have a little game and want to have fun. But it leaves a lot of guys waiting on the bench. And men, alpha or otherwise, were not expected to marry such women back in the day. And they’re not marrying such women now, much to the chagrin of the “man up” movement, which says, “How dare you notice that the traditional marriage you’re supposed to enter into does not involve a traditional honeymoon?” And most tragically of all, there is little any one person can do to upend this system. It’s like a huge collective action problem, particularly for women, whereby marriage and chastity have become debased by a combination of market conditions and the din of propaganda.
This is why the Rush Limbaugh “slut” remark is so salient. This is the real reason it’s pissed off so many people. Yes, it’s crude and kind of rude. But it also exposes the reality: the birth control issue is about “empowering” women to screw a bunch without having any kids to prove it, i.e., to prove their lack of marriage-material worth. It exposes the entire post-sexual-revolution system for what it is–an unsustainable and unsatisfying tragedy. A great many women have a lot at stake in this not happening. Limbaugh deployed the same shaming language feminists so often employ but directed it at their central “human type.”
Our current world is unsustainable. I don’t know what the next chapter looks like. The current system has its advantages in the short term, for both hyperogamous women and hedonistic men, but it is anti-civilization. People are having fewer children, more are born out of wedlock, and men are realizing it’s often a raw deal to get married, not least because of the lopsided divorce laws, but also because of the low quality of what is being offered in terms of SWPL possible wives. How dare Rush Limbaugh observe the obvious?
One of the great struggles of life is simply to describe reality as it is. When one does this in troubled times like ours, expect to reap the whirlwind.