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:
Spending a little bit of money on preventative care so that we don’t end up with loads of expensive dying babies? Crazy talk!
Obviously the first question is why Tmason would come to a mockery blog to get actual answers.
The second question is why anyone would bother talking to someone who does nothing but make vague statements and then go “THAT’S NOT WHAT I SAID!”, especially when we could be talking about our post-apocalyptic commutes instead.
Lowquacks’ front lawn.
You made that up. Point to exactly where I said kids should starve.
Again with the labels. I already posed my question and even offered a source for my claim.
What do you mean by this? Are you agreeing with me, then, that percolate economics makes more sense than trickle down economics?
Comments where Tmason made an actual statement of any sort: 2 (not counting the duplicate)
Comments where Tmason whined about how that was TOTALLY NOT WHAT HE SAID, complained about how we are NOT OFFERING REAL REBUTTALS, and generally wanked about his or others’ treatment: 7
Oh, tmason, my child also gets free school breakfast, too, because the school bus comes so early. Please explain how $2 worth of food a day is going to wreck the economy, but allowing rich people to cheat on their taxes doesn’t. You’re worried about tiny amounts of money while the 1% are the actual problem here.
Obviously the first question is why Tmason would come to a mockery blog to get actual answers.
That “question” says more about you that it does about me.
You could have asked me directly instead of making assumptions.
I think, Tmason, a heavy burden of proof still lies on you to explain exactly why choosing to be in support of children and their mothers is worse than choosing to support funneling more money into tax breaks for the rich and defense research for technology no government agency even wants?
Why don’t you explain what your original post was saying then instead of changing the subject and demanding we answer your random questions. XD
2:8
I know, right? The conservatives can’t even pretend to care about fetuses if they are opposed to Medicaid covering prenatal care. I can’t stand their hypocrisy.
hahaha he refuses to answer questions and continues his dick wagging.
I will give him one thing, he is somewhat original in comparison to other trolls here.
My first question is, whose sockpuppet is he?
TBM, I’m really sorry there are dickheads like this who jump all over you just for feeding your family 🙁
I believe in productive programs that utilize people talents versus just assistance based on a subjective need.
So, WPA style projects and work that actually builds things, yes. Run of the mill “assistance” programs, no.
In addition, I do believe that we are increasingly being pitted against one another. As it stands we are in direct competition at all times for more and more facets of life. In addition, because of this competition; we are being driven further and further into debt and despair, if you will.
An admission that you can’t find anything about me wanting kids to starve. Thanks.
FYI, Coulter would claim that stuff is commie socialist.
You picked up that from the other commenters. *Tsk Tsk*
Your question is based on a false premise and tons of false assumptions.
Actually, I find it funny that TMason requested an answer that the article zie LINKED US TO answered.
TMason:
The link TMason provides:
[emphasis mine]
Muttering about her being selfish for using programs so her kids don’t go hungry at lunch has nothing to do with letting your kids starve…..
Dammit, there was supposed to be emphasis on a group that tends to care more about social issues like birth control and abortion than married women do.
False assumption #1: That I agree with Ann Coulter’s political positions.
More dick wagging and refusal to answer anything XD
I may claim to have the most beautiful campus in the world but the city it’s in looks like this: