Sigh. Another day, another borderline-nonsensical tirade from Amanda Marcotte. Seriously, this woman could have her own tab on the top of our site. That’s how much strange and twisted logic her Twitter feed cranks out.
Today, she’s hitting the ceiling over the idea that religious employers might object to paying for contraception. Somewhere in the recesses of her mind, she thinks that not being provided with free contraception will eventually lead us down the slippery slope to a world where fanatical employers can dictate how you spend your salary. That, and everyone who disagrees with her is a misogynist, but we knew that already.
We know you have a confused look on your face right now, but don’t worry. We look like that every time we read Amanda’s tweets.
http://t.co/FBsTM6LJAD Republicans always take the time to try to stick it to women, even during a manufactured shutdown crisis.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
@acornfreedom1 How is demanding that employers pay you your fair compensation sticking it to the working person?
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
@JGrayWebcomic Once they get the right to tell you how to use your benefits, your salary is definitely next.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
@instapundit Yes, it costs an employer money to pay their employees. The alternative, to not pay their compensation, is beyond vile.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
@Crommunist Yeah, I realize that's the loophole that allows them to define giving your boss control over your life as "freedom".
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
@Crommunist Yeah, that's the same argument they use against the minimum wage. Freedom isn't freedom if people aren't actually free, though.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
@Crommunist Also, they are clearly laying the groundwork to argue that your boss should have control over how you spend your paycheck.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
@Crommunist Yeah, just trying to highlight how the libertarian definition of "freedom" is functionally neo-feudalism.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
@instapundit I believe women should be allowed to use their own insurance to pay for contraception without employer permission, yes.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
@BrantHadaway So, you believe because an employer gives you a job, they should force you to live by their religious rules? Interesting.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
@Frank_Turk Insurance premiums paid by your employer are part of your compensation package, yes. Why is this so hard to understand?
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
@LauraBxd So your argument is because your employer pays your wages, he can dictate how you spend them? Interesting.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
And there we have it. RT @BrantHadaway You know that consequence-free sex is a human right. #LiberalLogic
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
@Frank_Turk Irrelevant to the question of whether or not your employer should control your wages because he "paid" them.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
@Frank_Turk There are tax sheltered retirement funds. Do you believe that means an employer should control how you spend your retirement?
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
Man, the pretzels that conservatives twist themselves into trying to justify why your employer should withhold your compensation cuz sex.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
@Frank_Turk Pretzel logic. So we should only be able to control our wages if they're taxed? That's a big leap to justify misogyny
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
I honestly have a misogynist trying to argue that because of taxes employers get a vote in how you use your health benefits cuz REASONS.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
@LauraBxd It's not free. The employee earned it by working, just as with all her other wages and benefits.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
@Frank_Turk Okay. I don't actually give a fuck. The argument was whether or not your employer should control how you use your compensation.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
@Frank_Turk Because you're trying to throw up smoke to hide what's really going on—woman-hating—but you knew that. #badfaithconservative
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
@MrBreeze9999 I'm perfectly happy with the system conservatives hate, where women work and are paid in part with health insurance.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
@Frank_Turk Nope. I am crystal clear. Sex is good. Women are good. Having your employer butt out of your sex life is good.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
@Frank_Turk Dumbest attempt at a smokescreen ever. Your employer's right to control your compensation has nothing to do with taxes.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
@Frank_Turk Wait, you just argued that a woman's health benefits are not compensation, but in fact simply work supplies. Weird.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) September 30, 2013
Wow. Just … wow.
(Note that she never really did address the point that the U.S. tax code encourages employer-based health insurance.)
