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:
Arguing with this guy is like arguing with a kindergartner. I’m bored now. How about some Repo Man?
Exceptions do not disprove the rule.
LOL, Republicans aren’t really for small government, either…… they just want the governing of their lives to be small, but all for big governing of others (i.e., putting/keeping women and POC “in their place”).
18:51
Reductio ad absurdum
Try a mandatory jobs/training program for a person asking for assistance versus a simple check.
And if we’d build a society such that one person can work and take care of the family?
Attention Women!! Get back to thy kitchen and support your career-havin’ man!!
Nope, never heard that proposal before!
While the bus service here is slightly better coming every 45minutes, there are several areas without a supermarket despite a large population without cars. Even where I live the nearest supermarket is about 45min walk each way, and this area is hot.
My guess is that most places so far from supermarkets are bad areas you wouldn’t get the richer people driving to the supermarket so it wouldn’t be worth the investment. No idea what the people who live there do for food.
I see these areas because I take the bus.
This is how I feel about dealing with Tmason:
Someone has totalitarianism on their minds.
Let’s instead focus on building people up so that partners don’t leave when responsibility calls. Then the pregnant party has a choice to actually have a party take care of the situation and would need less outside services.
O rly? Could you point me to the study that says “what the child sees is daddy not home anymore and some strange man being nice.” because that is what you originally claimed. Totally in a not creepy way at all of course.
Are we entertaining a troll too stupid to know why/when the free lunch program began and who doesn’t know anything substantive about Clinton’s welfare room?
Seriously?
You assume I believe the past was rosy. No dice.
19:53, still being generous.
Oh man. That is, like, the best answer ever!
I’m the smartest person in the world! Exceptions do not disprove the rule.
I can control the universe with my mind. Exceptions do not disprove the rule.
This John Birch Society/Tea Party movement are all about taxation and not at all racist in any way in the slightest. Exceptions do not disprove the rule.
This is a conundrum. The challenge of raising the child without either party feeling like they can use the child as a tool to get with or back at the other.
I believe it can be done though.
Let’s be clear, you’re talking about women right? By and large, women are the people who get pregnant. In what ways do women need to be built up so that their partners don’t leave them?
I’m dying to hear your thoughts?
No, I assume that you believe that in the past all families were neat little packages of working dad and stay-at-home mom and it all worked out for everybody.
Here, I’ll summarize the book for you. The 1950’s were a historical anomaly.
Instead of spending government money on something that actually benefits people lets spend money on some program that might not even benefit anyone.
20:54.
To be fair, I’m counting questions in the latter category, since he’s generally been using questions either to derail or to weasel out of actually giving an opinion.
So are we benefiting from letting other people, as a society, do all of this work for us?
Instead of “Dani Alexis” and folk like you performing this work, we now have someone else in one form or another doing the work you itemized above.
So when I refer to it being “easier” for us to do this work, I mean what you write above versus you (or society if you prefer a stand-in) now having to work to pay for someone to do what you wrote above.
@Tmason
You know what happens without minimum wage? Well, seeing as slavery is illegal, businesses have to pay their employees something. The employees are paid bare minimum to keep them from striking or revolting. This varies by class, but at the very poorest end of the working class, this may mean that small children would have to go to work in order to afford enough food to live on. When I say ‘live’, I mean barely living. And if one of those workers gets sick, they can’t afford to take a day off, and they can’t afford medicine.
And no, they cannot get a better job. All the jobs they can be hired for have exactly the same pay policies. In some cases the company may own the town they live in, and they cannot buy goods and services from anywhere but the (expensive) company store, so they can’t save.
The minimum wage may not be perfect, but at least we don’t live in the Victorian era.
Define awesome single parents and wonderful kids. And are you saying that as a society we should make it such that we encourage single motherhood?
The fact that they’re already doing these things? Tax them higher and they have a choice to either have a lot more of their capital tied up in offshores or to actually invest it.
Honestly, if I had my way, they just wouldn’t have those ridiculous amounts of money to begin with, but taxing them is at least a start.
Yes.
Will yo go away now?