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:
14:42, as long as we count sarcasm and one-word answers in the “wanks” camp, which seems fair since they clearly don’t belong in the “actual statements” camp.
Sir Bodsworth, now it’s “no time” even if the market was there because demand.
A total catch 22. Only not.
My comment above was for tmason, if that wasn’t obvious.
And now I’m tired of arguing in circles. MORE YOUNG ONES! (I don’t remember who posted the first Young Ones clip, but thank you.)
Bionicmommy: It’s not your fault Tmason is an asshole. He came looking to pick a fight, and you were the target of opportunity, because the thing you mentioned is the trigger to some of his shibboleths.
Tmason: Other than her point about single mothers tending to vote for Dems you can’t find any one to one correlations.
I can’t find one thing you’ve said she’d disagree with.
Projecting again; sticking to a topic and avoiding “would you let kids starve?” questions is not hostile.
Dude… this is the internet. It’s easy to check, so let’s take a look at your first comment.
So you have no actual rebuttal to the charges she has laid out and instead offer empty quotes and snark.
Nope, nothing hostile there, just sticking to the topic were you?
The topic being that Ann Coulter thinks women should be ignored in politics, because when they vote they don’t vote the way she wants? Because that was the topic, and I don’t see any actual respsonse to that in your comment.
Show me where I said the rich shouldn’t be taxed or that they deserve their wealth, etc.
Show me where you’ve said anything which would lead one to suspect you don’t side with them.
Again, marriage/house/other credits can’t be looked at the same:
(1) It is a shared credit to a married couple, so it is targeted for both partners.
Who are both supporting children (or not, and getting those advantages for what?).
(2) Most times it is a deduction on money they paid in taxes versus a simple payment from the government to the individual/family (such as food stamps) or a program.
Which reduction in taxes I argued made it easier for them to not need those forms of aid. So that’s non-responsive.
(3) It is not something that requires a management overhead to maintain versus what is already there (the IRS).
Because they don’t need the assistance. If no one needed assistance then there would be no need to assist them; tautology.
(1). I said that food assistance problems are OK in the short term but we should move away from them in the long term.
(2). One program provides jobs/training/cultural cohesion etc. while the other is simply a stopgap.
(3). Overall you won’t have a need for the latter if the former works out.
creativewritingstudent, you are not the only one who gets that impression of Reynardine.
Dani: re Farm work: AMEN SISTER. Even minor farming (3/4s of an acre, 40 chickens, some horses) is hard fucking work, 50ish guinea pigs, 50ish snakes, uncounted rats and mice (mostly for the snakes)
Mucking stalls, tending to mares in labor, making sure the chickens are all abed, chasing down “lost” eggs, waking when the geese hissed so one could shoot the raccoons and possums, scything the mallow (fodder for the cavies, when we had them, and compost when we didn’t). Feeding the chickens, collecting the eggs, turning; and leveling, the soil, weeding, keeping the fruit trees watered (and shooting the squirrels), heaving hay bales, sorting feeds for the horses, watering the crops, tending them, picking tomatoes, and corn, and squash, and melons and onions and peppers, and putting them up. Raking the leaves, and tending the compost heaps.
Oi…
Tmason is rapidly reaching his expiration date.
That is completely wrong. That is not why food deserts exist. There are people in food deserts who want to buy better quality food, but there are either not enough of them for larger chain supermarkets to want to bother opening a store there, or the costs are prohibitive due to the neighborhood/location. Food deserts exist because you can’t get rich making decent food available to poor people, not because poor people are too stupid to know what good food is. Jesus wept.
So mandating service in the form of community building is absurd, but saying all rich people need to hand over an ever larger portion of their money isn’t?
If the rich can (and should) be taxed, then we could implement this.
Ok, so Tmason is one of those right libertarians that have been so popular in the states lately?
Are you saying that the majority of men, if asked, can’t be role models?
15:43
Except their positions and my positions do not correlate.
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.
Citation needed.
If people didn’t have to budget an extra day’s labor, just to go shopping (and I was only shopping for one), then they could do it.
There were lots of people who managed it. They made group trips in shared cars, they arranged to take everyone in the family, with backpacks and hauled it all home on Saturday, and then did it again on Sunday.
The problem was the grocers deciding they didn’t want to be in the neighborhood. They didn’t think they were making enough money.
As I said, when a grocery finally did move back in, the demand was huge.
Hang on, 15:44
I’m pretty sure the point there was that they already are. But… projection! Catch 22!
Yes, because this idea of huge mandatory community service stuff has never existed in the US outside of the general wartime economy from 1941-1946, but significantly higher taxes has.
Also nobody is suggesting the rich handing over an “ever-larger portion” of their money, just that taxes on the wealthy should go back up at least to what they were 12 years ago. When you spew shit like that in comments is how people conclude you’re a libertarian asshole, btw. It smacks of “taxation and government are evil and out to steal all our money!”
Don’t be disingenuous, it’s not a good look on you. No one is saying or implying that, and you know it.
Actually we do, but in order to find the right answer we need to ask better questions.
And it is nice to accuse me of trying to “implement a vast experiment” when people do this all of the time. What I proposed has actually been implemented in some forms already in many schools, etc. in the form of requiring kids to commit to volunteer service in order to apply for college. The problem with those approaches is that they are inconsistent and too short.
(2). One program provides jobs/training/cultural cohesion etc. while the other is simply a stopgap.
Because being nourished enough to study, and having food at home is so not encouraging jobs/training/education/cultural cohesion.
So mandating service in the form of community building is absurd, but saying all rich people need to hand over an ever larger portion of their money isn’t?
If the rich can (and should) be taxed, then we could implement this.
There is a difference between telling someone (actually a entire class of someone’s) they must provide free labor; at the whim of the gov’t, doing things not of their own choosing, and of telling people who make lots of money they have to pay some of it in taxes.
If you can’t see the difference….
Except their positions and my positions do not correlate.
They are congruent, in enough ways, that it doesn’t matter, esp. when you shuck and jive about what you actually believe.
Shorter Ann Coulter: Single mothers are stupid for not voting Republican, even though Republicans want to completely fuck them over.
There are a whole bunch of voluntary organisations devoted to providing role models for the young. Men ‘are’ being asked to fill this role. Are you doing it?
As for ‘mandatory’ who is ‘mandating’ this? What is the difference between society demanding people give up their precious time and society taxing people of money they earned through selling their precious time?