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:
20:56
Why don’t you define whats so terrible about being a single mother? It’s hard for any single parent but definitely doable.
So not being douchey and nonsensical and hateful about it, focusing on ONE gender about it… that is “encouraging it”. It’s the RARE bird that says, hey I want to do this alone!!! And the ones I have heard of that say that are materially able to do so ( I think it takes the child into no consideration and objectifies them, but a lot of parents are guilty of that, too.)
Pretty sure awesome family = healthy nonabusive family were the guardian helps a child grow to their fullest potential. You can be a single mother and do all of that.
But the main point I want to stress is that if we’re going to make a generalization about single parents that need a collective, we can generally say this is not the fault of women. Most of those cases are women that wanted an intact family. I know that’s general, but I think that is definitely the majority and a true statement, so again, the right villainizes innocents so that they don’t have to think or be responsible.
Do you grow your own food? And, if so, what percentage of your food needs are met by the food you produce through your own labor?
“intact” meaning nuclear. Not trying to be offensive.
I was pointing to Ann Coulter’s original assertion that single women / single mothers tend to vote for a Democratic politician given they’re situation. That much is true. I don’t agree with her subscriptions of policy.
As for my policy subscriptions; there are a lot of avenues to look at, so I may point to only a few items which aren’t conclusive:
(1) We need far more STEM related education than what we have now. I’d go as far as to say we need to curtail some of the other degree problems to make room for this. In this manner people are prepared for the jobs of the future.
(2) I like Germany’s Green initiative where they made owning solar panels profitable. I don’t agree too much with a completely subsidized model of the government paying you to have/buy panels (that money has to come from somewhere and once that subsidy starts it never stops) but rather an initial government funding project of designing really cheap solar panels and then having companies sell the panels at a low cost to consumers. The company then pays the government back for using the rights to the designs the government funded.
(3) Restore all funding for NASA and make sure that anything NASA comes up with is patented, etc. People are free to use whatever technology they come up provided they pay a royalty fee to NASA in return.
(4) Make it such that the universities must provide any and all loans for their students. This forces the university to make sure the student succeeds and not just hand that person a diploma.
I may think of more things as I comment on different posts here.
Not really what I was getting at. The men who have taken exception to my “addendum” do so because they are perfectly content (and believe it is perfectly right and “natural”) for Mom to do the lion’s share of the childcare while they take care of disciplinary matters when they arise and doing the fun stuff with the children for a few hours on the weekend. I think that men should be way more involved in the hands-on caregiving, and not just in role of disciplinarian or weekend fun guy.
The only times I’d say single parenting is categorically a bad idea is if there are a large number of children (especially if they’re all quite young so you can’t ask the older ones to help out), or if a child has special needs that require lots of attention. However, these situations would be taxing for a two-parent family as well, it’s just easier when there are multiple caregivers.
Beyond that, the effectiveness of a single parent is more due to the personality and capabilities of the parent and the amount of support they receive from their family and friends, community, and the state (including access to schooling and healthcare).
Oh, great, he’s going to stink up other threads. Awesome.
<blockquote?I may think of more things as I comment on different posts here.
You’re going to be polite and not post them unless they’re actually relevant to the conversation, right?
(If he does not abide by this basic principle can he be moderated? We really don’t need another B$%#@on.)
Curse you, blockquotes.
So anyway, Flash Gordon.
If we could simply destroy the government subsidies that are basically being taken by corporations in the private sector and squirreled away as profit, we’d probably have enough money to keep a chicken in every pot and give everyone health care that they need.
In fact, if we created a system where living wages, sick and vacation time, and protections for the sick or the disabled were supported, we’d have nearly zero people in poverty- with the lowest income people being able to provide the basics, and every higher income level living at a standard of comfort and opportunity that has never been seen in human society.
Life is not just about hoarding money and being the biggest dragon. It’s about community, meaningful connections with other people, and having your hierarchy of needs met. The more people who have these basics in place, the healthier society as a whole will be.
Of course, we would also need a clear and empirically evidenced method of determining effectiveness of programs and governmental systems of doing things, and tweak or revise them as necessary to get the proper results. This would require an objective eye with lots of accountability and checks/balances, but it would be much more effective than the “throw money at crisis programs to Band-Aid over huge problems that won’t be solved with short term cash piles” method we’re getting now because no one wants to create long-term programs, and the long-term programs that we currently have in place (social security, pensions, etc) are being underfunded or borrowed from by greedy politicians who keep putting their hands in the cookie jar for their own designs.
It pisses me off that the “social security problem” and the “pension problem” is not really a “expense problem”- it’s a “the government/management promised to contribute X amount of money per month towards this program and they KNEW they needed to contribute X amount of money per month towards this program but instead of doing this, they put in a fraction of X into the accounts and then kept borrowing from the accounts whenever they fancied, and now that it’s come due they’re freaking out that they’ve been caught and have decided to create “reforms” (which is bullshit-speak for “we don’t want to have to pay you the money we rightly owe you and promised you and we ALSO don’t want to have any consequences for reneging on our deal”).
I find it a real fucking shame that our society operates on instant gratification and corruption. I wouldn’t be too sad if it all collapsed, honestly (so if you Fox News pundits keep talking about END OF AMERICA OHNOES as though it is going to scare me, I’m going to say “good riddance” unless it turns into Gilead from the Handmaid’s Tale, and in that case, I’ll probably flee the fucking country and watch in horror as North America becomes Bible Thumping Rape And Murder Land Of Fuck All.
I expect to work until I die. Even if it’s selling firewood or matches or my own internal organs once I get too old to be “hirable” because I don’t expect any of the things I’m paying for (retirement, social security, my pension) to actually BE there. I actually wish I could just take that money home in my paycheck because I’m fucking pissed that I’m being forced to pay into a program where some greedy bastard is going to be dipping in his paw and stealing MY HARD EARNED MONEY so that he can give me the “too sad so bad” speech later on when I come to collect my due.
Oh, and I’m married. I’m female. I have one child, going on two, and then I’m done. And I would never, in a million years, vote for someone whose idea of fiscal policy is to take away social safety net programs (THAT I PAY INTO WITH MY TAXES BTW- they’re not “free”- they’re PAID FOR BY THE TAXPAYER) and give all the money, including subsidies to PRIVATE FUCKING COMPANIES that then turn around and act like they earned all their money fair and square and shouldn’t have to give anything back or share or help anyone else out because they are morally superior for having all teh moniez.
And what do you think started the push towards putting money offshore?
I believe CEO’s should be taxed higher but not at 90%
Your answer to #2 is an unknown. And I’ll research that paper. I highly doubt they have more income sitting than almost double the debt of the US.
Kids, of course are human beings, we were kids. Ask yourself if you want no father/mother, etc. So while I agree with the general tone of sticking up for single parents and pointing out hateful crap, I have an issue with people treating children like objects or another species that won’t want both their mother and father. But the main thrust of all this is the right wing attacking vulnerable populations AGAIN. And the problem with not considering children as people proper belongs to everyone everywhere.
Douchbag is such an overused word. And it wasn’t me who focused on that; it was others trying to make it look like I supported a position I didn’t in order to score debate points.
Tmason, the Bionicmommy’s story was the first thing you zeroed in on. Douchebag weasel.
Douchbag is such an overused word.
From your perspective, I’m sure it is.
*PS: I don’t want anyone to think I’m against social or safety net programs. In fact, I’m super supportive of them- I’m just fucking tired of being told that the program is being shut down or that I’m no longer eligible because I don’t make NEGATIVE DOLLARS because someone in power decided to move the goalposts so they could steal from the coffers that fund said program and the amount of money that I’ve paid to have those safety nets in place is null and void EVEN THOUGH I NEED HELP ASAP.
I will be out on maternity leave for about three months. During that time, I will probably need to get some assistance from social safety net programs. This will help me to establish breastfeeding (which is proven to help children be healthier, stronger and develop better, heal properly from giving birth, and basically redefine the family dynamic so that we’re all less stressed out.
I have the job with the benefits and the health care coverage. So I have to work. My husband works in retail with little chance of advancement. But we need his paycheck to cover our basic expenses, stay out of debt and save a little bit of “oh shit” money. We’re basically OK right now, but any other big expenses and we’re going to be screwed. Especially after the cat had to go in for over $1500 worth of medical care this last week.
Most people are about one paycheck away from homelessness. And that’s not fucking ok.
As far as I’m concerned, having a roof over your head, access to nutritious food, and healthcare for when you need it is not a FUCKING LUXURY.
But at the same time, I honestly think that just throwing this shit at people without fixing the system is horrible as well. It keeps people from dying but it never helps them THRIVE. In fact, it often contributes to generational poverty and suffering. Most people WANT to work at a career that fulfills them, be part of a community. I’ve never seen a homeless person sitting on the street scratching at scabies scabs and talking about how HAPPY they are about their situation.
This doesn’t mean we should get rid of these safety net programs. It means that the safety net should be the LAST RESORT instead of the first one. We need a whole hell of a lot of other infrastructure and social networks in place to make sure that the number of people who NEED that last resort are few and far between.
But that’s not how it works now. People are forced to live in the twilight between barely surviving but not really being able to afford the basics and basic survival/avoiding starvation.
That’s fucked up as all hell, IMHO.
Also, 21:58.
Then I’d trade the subsidies offered for ethanol. for example, for these.
Point to where I said the poor were stupid.
This makes me sick.