Unethical Tweet(s) Of The Month And Ethics Dunce, Res Ipsa Loquitur Division: Jessica Valenti

What more needs to be said about a) a woman who would tweet this ethically-deranged nonsense, and b) a society in which substantial numbers of people think she’s worth paying attention to?

Jessica Valenti is a crusading feminist, pundit and best-selling author, and the author of that offal above. Despite the evidence of an ethical vacuum, she was called “one of the most successful and visible feminists of her generation.” by The Washington Post,  and one of the Top 100 Inspiring Women in the world, which is sad news for women generally: I would conclude that the category is…thin.

Her now-defunct blog “Feministing” was declared by the Columbia Journalism Review to be “head and shoulders above almost any writing on women’s issues in mainstream media.” Again…not a very good sign for writing on women’s issues in mainstream media. Naturally, she only honors Leftist mouthpieces with her wisdom, like The New York Times, The Atlantic, the Guardian, the Post, Salon, Bitch, Ms. Magazine and The Toast. Her website claims she is a widely-sought after speaker, by which I conclude that a remarkable number of people will pay to be made stupid. I’m shocked…shocked!…that she  has a Masters degree in Gender Studies from Rutgers University.

She really is advocating an economic, legal and political system in which “need” justifies theft. This is a hoary socialist conceit that has never made sense and is obviously impossible, but unscrupulous ideologues like Valenti continue to spout it, thus providing aspiring thieves with moral cover and rationalizations to spare. This isn’t a Right vs. Left issue, it’s an irresponsible rhetoric and intellectual dishonesty issue…or maybe in today’s culture of Leftist Big Lies, that IS a Right vs Left issue.

No, Jessica, nobody wants to “force women into childbirth,” though many of us want to place limits on women killing nascent human beings of their own creation.How exactly would you frame a law that allowed only women to steal only diapers based on “need,” but not men, and not other items, like food and medicine? Why would companies manufacture or offer for sale items that could be snatched off shelves with nothing more than a declaration of “need”? Is this really the kind of logic they teach at Rutgers, or are you just posturing for the rubes?

13 thoughts on “Unethical Tweet(s) Of The Month And Ethics Dunce, Res Ipsa Loquitur Division: Jessica Valenti

  1. I saw a bunch of people on twitter roasting her about this subject a few weeks ago. Didn’t even make my top ten of stupid things I heard that week.

    I just, don’t know what to do about people anymore. Even in the church, people seem to care less and less about kindness, forgiveness, helping each other, or even doing the right thing. No wonder people are more and more depressed around Christmas. Its now antithetical to who were becoming.

  2. She wants bobbleheads going up and down, claiming, “That a good idea” like one of my former co-workers when I mentioned an article that advocated paying people not to commit crimes.

    Does Jessica not know about roving bands of shoplifters in major cities grabbing whatever they want off the shelves of high-end stores and Walgreens alike? Does she think everything that’s grabbed in these free-for-alls is a Need?

    Of course, she does! After all, if you question the choice of what is stolen, you will get more of the same pseudo-logic. Men can take diapers because men are birthing people, too, and shouldn’t have to let their kids sit in filth. And, of course, stolen items can be sold to purchase items of need (the looting argument from Hurricane Katrina rears its ugly head). Let’s not forget the changing goalposts about what is a need. How dare we decree what another person needs or doesn’t need! That is, until the day when the Socialist Paradise is upon us and we have our benevolent dictator to tell us what we need.

    I stopped falling for this line when an online acquaintance spent an excessive amount of time lamenting about how Americans can’t go to the doctor when they want and should be able to do so. How they would be able to get their medical needs addressed if only they had free health care.

    No sooner did Pres. Obama sign the ACA into law and we learned of its limitations, the guy started explaining how Americans go to the doctor too much and need to learn how to handle discomfort better.

    • Your comment reminds me of a very funny but outrageously politically incorrect stand-up routine I stumbled across yesterday on the radio, where the comic was presenting a hypothetical conversation between a parent and a developmentally challenged child after the parent had tried to convince the child with a ridiculous explanation for something. In his best “retarded” voice, the comic artfully dissected what was absurd about what the parent had claimed, finishing with, “Just how retarded do you think I am???

      • In this case, people like Jessica must think all of us are significantly so.

        I wish there weren’t so many rushing to prove her right.

    • “How they would be able to get their medical needs addressed if only they had free health care.”

      The thing is with free medical care is the lot longer waiting lists. If I need a hip replacement I would have to wait months or even years for my turn to go to a public hospital only to find it will be delayed because someone broke their hip in an accident. It is why I have private health insurance so I can go to a private hospital and get it done quickly. There I only need to pay the first $NZ5000 and the rest is taken care of.

  3. Let’s see. What is the relationship between “forcing” women into childbirth and locking up diapers? I would think even a casual observer would infer that people have been stealing diapers (yes, that is a thing), and that by keeping those diapers under a lock, that ensures diapers are available for the people who need them.

    We managed to wean our one-year-old off of formula this past September, as the formula shortage was raging hot, but just prior to that we visited the Wal Mart at the Steelyard Commons in Cleveland looking for formula. Lo and behold, the formula was in a locked display, and we had to hunt down a Wal Mart employee to unlock the display and let us take our one allowed tub of formula. It was a pain, yes, especially since we’d been accustomed to formula openly displayed and easily removed from the shelves without assistance. But as we waited at Customer Service, we inquired of the employee waiting with us for someone with a key to show up (not all employees had access to the formula), and she replied that with so much formula stealing going on, they were forced to keep the formula behind a locked display.

    So, let’s think about this for just one moment. Suppose we didn’t lock up the diapers, and we let people take the diapers as they desired. The liberal expectation would be people take diapers as they need, paying what they could for them, and everything is sunshine and daisies. In the real world, free necessities tend to be plundered off the shelf in short order which in this case leads to… no diapers at all on the shelves, behind a lock or not. That’s the world we live in: a fallen place where if people can get away with paying nothing for everything, they will gravitate towards that.

    But, what about all those businesses, you might ask, that exist entirely upon voluntary contributions? Why can’t everyone work that way? The ones I know about that are successful are businesses like broadcast (radio, television, podcast, blog) in which a commodity is essentially available for infinite consumption. Every person in the world can listen to a podcast episode, and that will not deplete the availability of the episode (though that many people trying to access it all at once will cause an inadvertent denial-of-service attack). There’s a fixed cost to generate the product, and relatively little overhead for an increasing number of consumers. But when we consider items like food, clothing, and diapers, there is a fixed cost for the generation of each item, and each item in general is consumed by a single customer. In order to satisfy more customers, more items have to be made available. That means increasing customers increases the overall cost of production.

    By placing a cost on items that all consumers have to pay, that limits people from walking away with an entire shelf’s worth of goods. This is basic supply and demand principles. If the price of an item goes up, the demand goes down. If a commodity is free, then the demand will skyrocket, because even people who wouldn’t necessarily desire the commodity might be tempted simply because it is free. But the unscrupulous know that if something is free (or even price-capped!) they can scoop up as much as they can and then resell at a higher cost to those who are desperate for the commodity. In this I’m looking at how various groups have worked these past couple of years to buy up every Playstation 5 on the market so they can resell it for $150-$400 more than the Sony retail price.

    So, no, Jessica, we don’t make the diapers free. Making them free would ensure they are not there when your kid’s butt is rashing out. Charging for them helps make sure they stay on the shelf for when you come looking. And, if people are ignoring the price tag (maybe because you live in a place where stealing low-dollar items is no longer prosecuted?), keeping the diapers behind lock and key ensures people who want them actually pay to get them, which, as we have learned, also ensures they will be available to you when you need them.

    • The writer also fails to consider the black market for diapers that emerges when thieves deplete the stock and then drive the price up on the street because of the contrived shortage. When she starts giving her talks or products for free then she can demand others to do so.

  4. Slightly off topic, but associated with stupid and unethical tweets:

    Here’s a fun twitter poll being conducted –

    Even if you don’t vote, it’s a compendium of really bad tweets.

  5. Ms. Valenti might reconsider her beliefs if she’s the one that owns the diapers that she paid for with her money and then some members of one of those roving gangs comes along and takes them from her. Stealing never matters much to liberals when it’s other people’s stuff that gets stolen.

    Notice I said “might”. I hold out little hope with words more definite than that.

  6. I was unaware that NYC was an epicenter in the drive to force women into childbirth. Who knew?
    In any case, it’s my understanding that if you encounter a flea market booth stocked with mundane personal care items like shampoo, OTC meds, diapers, etc., it’s almost certainly sourced by shoplifting, so there may well be roving gangs after such items, especially in jurisdictions where there’s little risk of arrest or prosecution.

  7. She really is advocating an economic, legal and political system in which “need” justifies theft. This is a hoary socialist conceit that has never made sense and is obviously impossible …

    Actually, there are indeed situations in which that does work out, though not from those facts and logic in and of themselves. It’s just that another set of facts and logic can enter and carry the weight, e.g. Irish landlords were wrong to pray the sanctity of property in aid against barn burnings by restive tenants when their whole claim to that property rested on their own prior theft of it from those who were trying to destroy their quiet enjoyment of their ill gotten gains. In that case, it is a lot clearer, but it may be an unstated and unexamined back story in other cases, e.g. the original Robin Hood story. When that sort of thing happens, a justification for theft does arise – just not from the mere fact of need in and of itself. But the mere fact of need may be the last link in a chain of evidence showing that there must have been prior expropriation from the now needy (or they wouldn’t be needy now – if the other steps in the reasoning apply). In scenarios like this, the issue of theft choking off supply by the owners does not arise, or only arises transitionally, because the supply came directly or indirectly from the dispossessed*. Of course, we should not presume that any particular case does or does not meet those further conditions, including the cases under consideration here; we should consider each case on its merits – all its merits.

    * Some may seek to rebut this by accurately pointing out that, say, most material progress under the Palestinian Mandate was directly carried out by Zionist settlers who ran newspapers, trucking services, etc. and not much by local Christians or Muslims, and then suggesting that that proves that those and only those suppliers could have done that in that time and place (if using that as an example disturbs you, substitute another like the French in North Africa – and be honest with yourself as to whether the disturbing thing is the risk of learning something you don’t like). Think it through, avoid circular reasoning like resting on the fact that a free market would never distort outcomes and inferring from that that the outcomes can’t have been distorted, see if there were any special reasons for the natives’ low starting point like the aftermath of wars generations earlier, and consider why things worked out differently in Egypt, Syria and the Lebanon at about the same time. You know, see if there are ever any confounding factors. The same goes for other rebuttals of that sort, like claims that Korea needed the Japanese a century ago (plus and minus a couple of decades or so), or the basis of modern Korean industry would never have been set up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.