Ann Coulter channels Men’s Rightsers in her latest attack on single women
All you single ladies get off my lawn!
While single herself, the always belligerent Ann Coulter seems to have a bit of a grudge against other single women — single mothers in particular. In a recent appearance on Fox and Friends, Coulter complained that the Democrats — and the media — were paying too much attention to what women think, and suggested that Romney could win the election without appealing to women — or at least to single women.
Ronald Reagan managed to win two landslides without winning the women’s vote, but it is as you say, it’s striking, it’s not the women’s vote generically, it is the single women’s vote. And that’s because single women look to the government to be their husbands and give them, you know, prenatal care, and preschool care, and kindergarten care, and school lunches.
Huh. Well, this might answer the central question in that National Review piece we discussed yesterday — why Romney isn’t getting 100% support from women, even though he’s the sort of rich guy alpha that evolutionary psychologists suggest is inherently appealing to “hypergamous” (i.e., golddigging) women. Turns out these women are already married to Obama!
The notion of government as a “substitute husband” is, of course, an old Men’s Rights trope. Warren Farrell devoted roughly a third of his Myth of Male Power — the 1993 tome from which the Men’sRights movement still gets most of its talking points — to explicating this particular theme. And it’s one that MRAs today return to again and again and again and again. (The notion of the “husband state” also, not coincidentally, played a role in the sprawling manifesto of mass killer Anders Breivik.)
As for Coulter, this isn’t the first time she’s singled out the single ladies. In a recent appearance on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox, Coulter went after Obama and the Democrats for focusing on what she called the “stupid single women” vote. “And I would just say to stupid single women voters,” she added,
your husband will not be able to pay you child support. If Obamacare goes through and Obama is re-elected, you are talking about the total destruction of wealth in America. It is the end of America as we know it. …
Great, you will get free contraception; you won’t have to pay a $10 co-pay, but it will be the end of America. Think about that!
Coulter is so miffed that single women don’t like Republicans that she’d be willing to give up her own right to vote if it means these “stupid … women” wouldn’t be allowed to vote either. As she once famously explained,
If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women. It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and ‘We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?’
Here’s a much more appealing take on single women. Well, honestly, it’s as terrifying as it is entertaining:
Posted on August 24, 2012, in $MONEY$, alpha males, antifeminism, antifeminst women, armageddon, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, reactionary bullshit, woman's suffrage and tagged ann coulter, anti-feminism, antifeminst women, feminism, misogyny, obama, single mothers, sinle women, women’s suffrage. Bookmark the permalink. 547 Comments.
@jumbofisch
So you’re telling me that you can’t differentiate between someone saying there is too much of a need for something versus someone saying let them starve?
Kinda want to split it and get back to whole numbers (6:18).
Again, I am not against these services provided now; I am against there not being a plan in the long term to (1) help get people off these programs and (2) to reduce the societal need for these programs.
Why are you here telling us this like we’re going to disagree? Go tell it to the people in charge.
Wow. First things first:
Seconded! I mean, WTF Reynardine?!?!
I’d split it, the half wank in your stats is kind of starting to bother me.
If its fine then why did you tell bionicmommy her getting assistance was bad for society without knowing if she got off those programs or not. Are you saying you assumed stuff about her now Mr.don’t assume stuff about me!
So, basically, Tmason, you entered the conversation with an intentionally vague and unhelpful comment, got defensive and whiny when people called you out on the most obvious reading, and are now baffled that we couldn’t immediately discern your positions without you stating them.
Why the fuck are you even arguing with us? Do you just get a kick out of being dense?
Hey, katz, what do the numbers mean? Are they are predicted time until troll meltdown?
Or, rather, that their own wealth is more important than human rights, because I can’t see how the last 12 years of presidents have shown Republicans to be good at managing other people’s money.
It’s the ratio of how many comments he’s made that actually say anything versus how many comments he’s made complaining about how we’re totally misrepresenting him and stuff.
Currently 6:19.
@TMason
And what, pray tell, do you think this long-term plan should be?
The poor shall you always have with you.
Standard righty rhetoric about social programs. One of your presuppositions is that social programs damage an individual’s ability to care for hirself. (If it isn’t, your argument implies that it is, so I’d suggest you find a different argument.)
And I see you moving the goal posts about school lunches. I’m sure you are all in favor of students eating lunch. It’s free lunch programs you went off on, claiming that “what’s good for the individual is not necessarily good for society” and don’t try to pretend you didn’t.
@thebionicmommy
That’s how you read it; the true takeaway should be that we should reduce your need for that program. That doesn’t mean that a child should starve. What it does mean is that if you are married and as such both you and your partner cannot provide for your child then that is bad for society as a whole, if you are representative of most married couples.
Thats not my point dude. I was answering you asserting you never said school lunch should not be provided when you said yourself it should not be with your own words.
katz, please promise me you will never collect or share stats on my ratio of substantive comments to OT derails/animal videos. :-)
But then that means you, to an extent. agree with Ann Coulter then. That’s her underlying point.
Cloudiah, I live for OT animal videos.
So what are you saying? That single mothers should be forced to wed? Or are you okay with providing free birth control and abortion on demand? Or are you saying pregnant, unmarried women should be imprisoned? What about the men who get them pregnant?
I’ve read and read reams of crap from dudes like you on this ignorant “single motherhood should be stopped!” as if it were happening in a vacuum with no male participation. Because every single one of these single mothers? has a single father in the equation, and like as not he’s the reason she’s still single.
But in any case, the result is the same: so-called “concerned about society” ignorant blabbermouths who are just so sure that if those pesky wimmen would stop not being married then we wouldn’t have any problems. Because all men are dependable and loving and not abusive at all and all are willing to help raise the babies.
tl;dr: you’re a man, I doubt you’ve even touched a woman except that one time you got sprayed with mace, and in any case you’re not any kind of authority on what women should do. By the way, all this screaming and whining about tax dollars being used for things you don’t approve of end, I am sure, at your own well-being. Those roads better stay paved, right?
Except I never said that.
I am going to call her an ugly he-woman exactly because she has the gall to gender-police real women, in her goose-honking voice. I don’t care what the Hell she has between her legs, but her stentorian hypocrisy makes me want to kick her in it.
Both of those were borderline, but I’m calling it 6:21. And now it’s time to go home.
By the way, even though I ate school lunches as a kid, amazingly enough I still learned to prepare my own meals myself if needed. How do you figure that?
Reynardine, shut up and go away.
Dammit, 6:22. Can’t keep up!
Are you suggesting we massage the price of food? ‘Cause the options are: set up social programs to feed poor children; give the poor children’s parents more money; make food cost less.
And I don’t see how we’re going to make food cost less if the price of producing the food is dependent on the price for oil, which is not going down.
Oh, I know, your solution is to give The Willard Mechanism a tax cut, like that’ll mean he re-invests in Murrka rather than squirrel it away in his Swiss bank account.
You know what helped encourage the rich to plow back into America? Taxing their profits. If your choices are spend money to expand your business, or pay tax money, which would you choose?
Evening all.
SHE IS A REAL WOMAN YOU DIPSHIT EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WITH HER. RIGHT NOW YOU ARE GENDER POLICING A REAL FUCKING WOMAN. You have a really immature idea about what feminism is if you think its about helping only women you agree with.
Hey, Reynardine, fuck you and your transphobic gender-policing bullshit.
Look up the stats on your school district and you can see what percentage of students need free or reduced lunches. You would surprised how high the number is. And if you actually do care about how these problems, you need to understand the underlying issues, which are a lack of affordable, quality childcare, lack of support for parents, and a societal obsession with “bootstraps” instead of a better approach of “it takes a village”.
Now we have a discussion. If we are to reduce single motherhood we need to ensure that people are responsible for their actions. In the case of men, I don’t believe in simply visitation and a check every month; their should be complete shared parenting responsibilities.
On the other side of that coin, we do have to look at several issues:
(1) What makes men run away from responsibility?
(2) Are we, as a society, making it harder for men to commit?
(3) How do we build better partnerships between couples such that there is far less of a trend of people breaking up?
And on and on.
I can’t respond to the projections you are making here…
Already with the love-life diagnosis?
I’m intrigued, “the twisted spinster”, tell me more.
Gender policing is bad, so now I get to gender-police the gender police! Grr gender policing.
Mc manly here decides when the discussion starts.
Oh yeah, and enrolling in a program when you need it is a way to provide for your child. Again, you’re oh so concerned about tiny programs like school lunches but fail to see that it is the rich tax dodgers that are the real drain on society.
The Democratic Party is the party of women? Huh? What about all the male Democrats? Or the female Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents? Why stereotype women as belonging only to one political party? And BTW, if all men would take responsibility for their offspring, we’d have less government dependence.
Reynardine, shut the fuck up, don’t double down on your stupid shit. I’ve thought you borderline troll before, thanks for proving it.
Is this fellow a manosphere troll? So far he’s just seeming like a randroid to me.
Hushhhh don’t make assumptions aworldanon! XD
Reynardine, can we focus on what’s important here? If Ann Coulter looked like Salma Hayek she would still be a pathetic excuse for a human being, and her views would still be offensive. Part of her schtick is to try to goad liberals and leftists into engaging in policing of women’s looks as if that had something to do with their value as people and right to have opinions, and you’re playing right into it.
Oh great, Ruby’s here. This thread just got 50% more ignorant.
Tmason–sorry you don’t believe in single mothers or whatever, please take your awesome mansplaination powers away from here.
I’d split it, the half wank in your stats is kind of starting to bother me.
Tmason really is just like half a wank isn’t he? They’re both one of the most irritating things that can happen to some poor innocent woman. :p
Shorter Tmason: This blog dedicated to mocking misogyny is subject to my twelve-point agenda, as I have outlined from pages six to nine in the packet you received at your workstations. And please, everyone, no making inferences from my vague statements; just because I’m shit at communicating doesn’t mean I don’t decide what constitutes valid discussion in this space.
Tmason: Show us where she includes any substance to her snark. If she did that we’d rebut it.
But she’s not making an argument from logos, nor one from ethos this is pure pathos.
Which merits nothing more than snark. She reaps what she sows.
What’s good for the individual is not necessarily good for society.
So you have no actual rebuttal to the argument and are engaging in snark.
Nice to see such consistence in your methods, as to your complaints.
Name-calling came out quick there. Let’s try an actual argument.
Gladly, care to make one?
Far more options than that.How about we enable the parents to prepare their food instead of being more and more dependent on less healthy options?
Regardless of the time in history it is always cheaper to prepare your food versus buying it pre-made.
Everyone can read other’s thoughts via the comments. Interesting.
With this question you just disproved the point you were making; if my choices are to expand versus pay taxes I’d expand.
Perhaps a better question would be how to convince companies that paying taxes is worth their while. In this manner they would be less resistant to the idea. AKA what can they purchase with bonds to help improve America?
@tulgey
That sums it up perfectly. :P
Isn’t it “amusing” how these little Serena Joys will stab their own gender in the back for attention and power? We all know that they’ll hate it if their side will ever gets their way and the rules apply to them.
What’s good for the individual is not necessarily good for society.
That’s obvious! Even our awesome commentariat couldn’t give every troll in society the spanking you’re individually begging for.
Everyone can read other’s thoughts via the comments. Interesting.
Yes. It’s kind of the purpose of the written word.
Dude you assumed that yourself for the last 2 pages…
The school lunches just happened to be discussed and that is one example, but we need to step back and take a tally of all of the programs. Truth be told if we tax the rich 95-100% we still be far in the whole.
They are a problem, but not the only ones.
Is tmason the same person as steele, or is semicolon abuse just a Pretentious Troll Thing?
Please, enlighten us on how we can encourage deadbeat parents to come back. Even in the “good old days”, parents would run away from their families and leave the other person with all of the work and cost of raising the children. That was when the laws were all written strictly for the benefit of men, and women had very few legal protections against abuse and abandonment.
We’ve been changing laws to help single parents get financial support from the noncustodial parent, and we have social services (which are sadly underfunded) to help their children receive the basic level of care, which is food, shelter, and medical care. Things are not perfect by a long shot, but they’re much better than what we used to have.
So what solutions do you propose to try to force people into your 50’s sitcom fantasy of the nuclear family?
They are a problem, but not the only ones.
The problem is rich old men, but also small children. Mostly the small children. Little fuckers asking for food like it’s a goddamn right or something.
He’s as boring as Steele, but so far he hasn’t displayed any of Mikey’s, um, idiosyncratic use of rhetoric.
How, specifically, should women and men be held responsible for their actions?
As a general rule, I am in support of shared parenting responsibilities. But what if the man is abusive to the mother or the child(ren)? What if there are irreconcilable differences between the mother and father, and it would cause massive disruption for the children to try to force 50/50 shared custody?
How do you, TMason, answer those questions?
Oh fuck you. You’re another one of those “what about the poor menz, how are we discouraging them from committing” MRA bullshitters. We’re “discouraging” men to be adults by telling them they’re entitled to a compliant sex-slave wife-mother who will always be thin and ready for sex and will stay in the kitchen while the adult manbaby is busy with the “important” work of pontificating on the internet in between bouts of texting “tits or GTFO” to women players on World of Warcraft. You make all sorts of assumptions about people you don’t know but bristle when it’s done to you. Swallow your medicine, you big fucking baby.
This Ad Hominem™ Attack has been brought to you by Twisted Spinster, Ltd., a subsidiary of the Fuck Off And Die MRA Clowns Company.
Hasn’t steele said tsk tsk before too….
If we had a proper society, the young would just eat their way out of their mother’s carcass and then forage for themselves in the streets.
@Bagelsan
Yes, even deeply held beliefs and political positions that were never mentioned.
Not always, but nice sweeping generalization. Ever hear of food deserts? Ever notice that fresh produce and definitely organic is more expensive? You going to give these single slatterns the means to pay for these nutritious homemade lunches?
I know, you just want these women at home not working, taking jobs away from the manly men.
@jumbofisch
He hasn’t said anything about presumptions yet though. ;D
I’m looking at you, bionicmommy. Why haven’t you let your children eat your withered husk yet? Animal species do it all the time! Animals don’t get free lunches!
Tmason, I’m interested in your answers to cloudiah’s questions here: http://manboobz.com/2012/08/24/ann-coulter-channels-mens-rightsers-in-her-latest-attack-on-single-women/comment-page-3/#comment-197147
What do you think the solutions are to the problem of single motherhood? Specifically?
Just FYI, trolldude, you realize that you made it clear that this was where you were going a couple of pages back, right?
I wish it was harder to figure out what tired arguments trolls were gearing up to trot out, because it would make reading their shit more interesting, but sadly they’re rather predictable.
@aworld anon
Don’t ruin my conspiracy!! >_>
(There is a slight similarity I don’t think I would pull out the steele sock card yet. Obviously its not above him to sockpuppet as we have learned. XD)
Yes, even deeply held beliefs and political positions that were never mentioned.
Yup. Let’s just say that when your mommy told you you were unique, she was lying.
Yep. My grandfather ran away from my grandmother, abandoning not just her but their three daughters, during the Depression. Speaking of the Depression, I’ll bet if tmason were alive then he’d be against soup kitchens. “Why should we be feeding those people? Let them find jobs!”
My current theory is less “sockpuppet” and more “trolls have run out of ways to be stupid.”
@pecunium
Her underlying point was that single women are voting for sustenance via the government. It isn’t false.
I don’t have a problem with that; what I do have a problem with is the idea that we should never try to move people away from that. To say that we should always give everyone what they need but not enable people to provide for themselves I believe is wrong.
I don’t think Steele would sock, he’s probably still in a sulk from when he outed himself and blamed us for it.
shorter tmason: Deadbeat dads abandon their kids. How can women learn to be less useless and terrible?