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:
Ahahaha! Vyvyan for the win!
Also, is it just me or does this sound like the beginning of a porno plot?
One problem that rarely is mentioned is the issue of mass society. Simply put, we have become too big to care about the problems facing everyone. I absolutely support projects for creating jobs, but remember that on the same token we have become much better and more efficient with manufacturing and construction; to name a few areas.
For example, how many jobs were lost with Netflix/Hulu/Youtube? All of those video stores and the jobs they employed gone not because either of those companies/subsidiaries outsourced those jobs but because quiet simply we don’t need those services anymore.
As a result? Even if we had initiatives we create work we would find that we wouldn’t need that work or that we could do it far more efficiently without said human capital. The end resultant is an increasing number of unemployable people whose services have become outdated.
Hence what I am saying with the need to decrease the utilization, over time, of government services. How can people care for one another if they don’t know the person needing care exists? We already see vast amounts of poverty and yet most people don’t bat an eye because the running assumption is that the government is taking care of them.
Tmason, what are your thoughts on gold, marriage, and video taping sex partners without their consent or knowledge?
@ Cassandrasays – Yuppers! Apparently, there are thousands – possibly millions – of disciplined male role models who could be providing a good example for the youth of today, but can’t until some bizarre scheme allows them to – nay, mandates that they must.
Also community gardens are nice, but they’re voluntary, and arable land is expensive.
False premise. Right now as it stands two people are barely enough to take care of a single child because the cost of the child plus their careers make it so.
If one major goal of the family is to take care of the child why is it that we must have both parents working? I support choice but as it stands there isn’t any choice. Both people must work or they cannot provide.
On top of that, they are toiling forever for the very things they could easily provide themselves. We talk about outsourcing in terms of companies; what about the outsourcing we are doing as families to other people to take care of our children?
So you are angry at others (in this case MRAs) and throwing that anger unto me. Got it.
Nah.. they are angry at you for being stupid enough to spout that shit (and it’s worse if you don’t believe it).
Extremely rare that it is cheaper to by it pre-made versus at in a restaurant.
And I am including places like bodegas/711/ and other corner stores. Those place’s stuff (and others like them) is marked up and unhealthy but it is still cheaper to buy food there and cook it versus going to a restaurant.
As mentioned before; it’s a catch 22. Hard to justify, as a business, going into a neighborhood and opening a fresh foods supermarket when people most likely won’t come there.
Tmason: Before we can find solutions to get deadbeat dads to come back we need to find out what makes them in the first place. That’s where I’d start.
So you have no answers. You seem willing, in the meanwhile, to implement a vast experiment; with people’s lives, because you think the present conditions aren’t conducive.
That’s fucked up dude.
I like the idea of a mandatory 2-4 years of rebuilding the community with a disciplined male role model. The boy scouts come to mind but I wouldn’t want kids to trek out of the city. Rather, I’d focus on keeping them inside the city/neighborhood and learning skills/trade/etc.
We could call it something cool, like Komsmosol.
Sir Bodsworth: I think that the 1980 film Flash Gordon was better than Star Wars.
I think Flesh Gordon was better than both.
🙂
Food deserts are a simple case of supply and demand. A catch 22 if you will.
There needs to be a demand for the produce for the companies to stock it; but people can’t drive up the demand based on much of what we are talking about.
With the underlying point, however, it is still cheaper to buy food in the store (healthy or not) and cook it yourself versus buying it pre-made.
Bullshit. I lived in a food desert. It was a three mile walk to the nearest grocery. There was some food at the bodegas, but I made that mistake once… It was a dollar each for the tomatoes and the onions.
So it was not cheaper to make the food myself.
If I didn’t have a car, then it was a two-hour walk, plus the shopping time, to get what I could carry on my back. There was a bus.. it ran once an hour, and it took thirty minutes. I couldn’t really carry any more food that way, because it was a 1/4 mile to the stop.
So, with a rucksack, and a strong back, I could carry three/four days worth of food. So I need to shop at least twice a week, that’s eight/nine hours of shopping time.
There were 20,000 people living in that food desert. You trying to say there wasn’t a demand?
Then, of course, there is the prep time to actually cook it. The Taco Bell was 10 minutes, and there was a KFC, and a McD’s, and all sorts of little taquerias. Which was the easier thing? Which was “cheaper”? What’s a person’s time worth? What’s my effort to haul thirty pounds of food three miles, twice a week costing me in wear and tear?
For example, how many jobs were lost with Netflix/Hulu/Youtube? All of those video stores and the jobs they employed gone not because either of those companies/subsidiaries outsourced those jobs but because quiet simply we don’t need those services anymore.
And the buggy whips, and the farriers.
What about the dudes who maintained steam engines, and the whistle-stop keepers.
SHIT! there used to be telegraph operators.
As mentioned before; it’s a catch 22. Hard to justify, as a business, going into a neighborhood and opening a fresh foods supermarket when people most likely won’t come there.
No, it’s not. When they finally (after a five year hiatus) opened a supermarket it throve. There was, however, a huge resistance to it, by the owners of the bodegas and the franchise fast food companies, because it was cheaper to eat at Taco Bell. For $2 I could get a tomato and an onion, or a couple of tacos.
Oh, I get it. Changes to technology are increasing unemployment, therefore we must cut off government services to the unemployed and, presumably, fire those government employees responsible for running them.
Wait, on second thoughts, no; I don’t get it.
Is this a secretary versus boss scenario?
In any case this idea that CEOs are evil and we need to tax them is just not looking at the whole picture.
(1) Are we going to put policies in place that dictate to private entities what they can and cannot pay their employees?
(2) If, say, we sidestep that and instead focus on raising taxes, what’s to stop companies from completely uprooting their headquarters and having their CEOs get paid and taking their capital elsewhere?
(3) If we then try a second sidestep and raise tariffs to prevent that, how will that affect international trade? Do we start tariff wars?
And, in all of that mix, how many jobs are lost when such a scenario plays out? What will that do to other companies when they see all of that capital just leave the country?
As for your predicament; I’d need to know the complete picture.
REALLY quick tally comes out to 12:35. He’s sticking pretty close to 1:3 or a bit below.
The very act of the parents splitting up and one person not being there on a day to day basis is extremely disruptive. You’re looking at it from the parents perspective; what the child sees is daddy not home anymore and some strange man being nice.
Why not?
@ clairedammit – Libertarian head explosion in 3… 2… 1…
HOW ABOUT A VYVYAN HEAD EXPLOSION?!!?
(Okay, so it doesn’t explode, but it’s even better.)
Meh, sure, I’ll give him 13:35.
Uh, as someone with parents who divorced when I was a child I saw it as my parents not arguing all the time anymore and it was a relief. But keep trying to creepily speak for all people people with divorced parents, that really helps your argument.
The phrase “catch 22” just called and asked you to stop abusing it.
How do you know people wouldn’t come there? Do you think poor people are stupid?
I fucking hate glibertarians.
Nothing being ignored; you provide for the short term with the goal of enabling independence in the long term.
As for single-motherhood; One person simply can’t provide all the care needed for a child, let alone children.
You like putting words in my mouth about the assistance bit.
You can never get to 100% committed couples but you can absolutely reduce said number of single parents. A society can deal with 0-5% but we can’t deal with numbers greater than 30%, as an example.