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:
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.
But you are decrying the short term solution. You say it needs to be done away with, in pursuit of the one that cures the second.
When presented with explanations of why the second exists, you say that fixing those is too expensive.
So what do you propose (other than questions which seem be meant to make you look as if you are pondering “the problems” so you can condemn the present situation with a veneer of being a deep thinker, concerned with improving things. Because you’ve not made one suggestion of actual merit… certainly not one that won’t either cost a fuck-ton of money, or hurt a lot of poor people).
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.
A society can? You know this? How? Share it with us. Because it’s not as if we think single parenting is a good thing. We think it (at best) neutral. So if you are privy to a way to change this; while keeping people’s liberties, please; by all means, share it with us.
You like putting words in my mouth about the assistance bit.
I’m not. I’m reading for content. You won’t actually say what your views on assistance are, other than it’s done wrong.
It’s still offensive, creativewritingstudent. She may be trolling for lulz, but those are her words, and it really doesn’t matter her motivations when they hurt people here.
Reynardine, get the fuck out.
Great ally there, only people you agree with should be treated equally.
thebionicmommy, don’t apologize! It’s relevant to the discussion, and you don’t need to justify it, either.
Boinicmommy, you have nothing to apologize for.
Yeah, thebionicmommy, you had no way of knowing it would be some douchebag’s rant trigger.
13:38
Reynardickhead you do realize that lots of women that are feminist have masculine appearances right? or are trans? Why are you insulting them? Why are you so focuses on chromosomes, genitals, and looks? Those don’t determine jack shit about who you are or what you do.
Farming is not a way of life any more exactly because heat at the wrong time, cold at the wrong time, sun at the wrong time, rain at the wrong time, too much wind when the bees fly, too little when the corn tassels, bugs…you lose it. And that’s just truck farming. Get into raising animals, and it gets multiplied. Farmers need subsidies just because of that, but subsistence farmers and family gardeners can’t get them. Community gardens can fail from all the causes truck farms can, and you don’t get subsidies for them. This stuff should be encouraged, but to expect people to support themselves like that is cruel. And who’s going to can and preserve that stuff for the rest of the year? It’s time consuming, canning equipment is expensive, and a mistake could clock out a whole family or community with botulism. People managed in WW II exactly because there was not only a communal spirit, but government programs that enabled such efforts. That is the very opposite of what the Reublicans are offering us now, which is to break our legs and then order us to stand on our own two feet.
@Reynardine Ann Coulter will never know that you said these mean things about her, whereas there are people here, who read this blog, who are harmed by what you are saying — and you don’t care. This makes you stupid, as well as evil.
GTFO
Yeah, I know everyone else has already said it but you have nothing to apologize for. Trolls will find any reason to troll, it wasn’t you.
And hence an underlying problem. You have pointed to the real problem of food deserts; there is no demand for supermarkets to provide healthy food because no one would buy the food. They don’t have the time to cook.
We have outsourced one major aspect of caring for your child because it is too expensive. But over time that neglect of properly cooking for your child and buying carry-out/restaurant food instead creates a massive healthcare overhead which we will be paying for through increased insurance costs and taxes.
Providing food stamps and other assistance to the poor is a small start, but doesn’t take care of the lack of demand for healthy food. This isn’t something you can provide in school either; a class in home economics won’t drive the need for that person to cook healthy food. They’d just have more information on how to do it.
In short, you need someone at home to have the time to cook and you need someone to be able to make the income to provide for the entire family.
Reynardine, go away.
I was always pro-child support.
hellkell, that’s an awesome typo. I’m picturing my cat Nilla, who is prone to jumping straight up in the air for no reason. He is prone to going “boing”, thus “boinic” (because “boingic” is too hard to pronounce).
Well, parents can qualify for the earned income tax credit, too, where you get a bigger refund back than you paid in the last year. If people compared their W-2’s to their rebates, they would see their help. However, because it’s not in the form of food, housing, or medical care, not everyone who gets this help realize they get it. I only figured it out on my own by doing our family’s taxes.
Another good solution for the income inequality is to raise the minimum wage. Right now it’s at $7.25. That’s not a living wage for one person, let alone a person with dependent children. Anyway, these problems are complicated, and bashing the programs that help people only makes these problems worse, not better.
Tmason–nice try saying the poor are too stupid to go to these markets. How do you know they wouldn’t make time to cook? Cooking relatively healthy meals with fresh ingredients is not the five-star gourmet ordeal you seem to think.
KEEP FUCKING THAT FREE-RANGE CHICKEN, DUDE.
The catch 22 refers to there not being any outlets for fresh food but businesses not providing those3 options because there is a lack of demand in the areas that they are needed in. If those companies did open up shop in those poor neighborhoods people wouldn’t buy there because, as other commenters put it, not enough time to cook.
@Clairedammit: oh, shit, ha. Bionicmommy, sorry for mangling your name.
No.
Tmason, cooking doesn’t take that much time. Nice try.
14:40
Yes, organizations like City Year are exactly like Xe (formerly Blackwater).
So we’ve shifted from “everyone should buy and cook fresh food because personal responsibility” to “of course some people can’t buy and cook fresh food because supply and demand.”
So here’s a question – if market economics can so easily crush and destroy personal responsibility, doesn’t that pretty discount libertarianism?
But you’re the one who said poor people wouldn’t need gov’t assistance if they’d just cook their own food.