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:
A am confused as to how not letting children go to school hungry could be seen as anything other than good for society.
3 1/2:15 1/2 – katz
I looked at this and thought I was back in maths class for a minute. It was scary.
Actually, let’s focus on why you think you get to dictate what everyone else will talk about. Last I checked, you are not our employer, our government, or our mommy. If you want to talk about that, talk, but it’s pathetically arrogant to instruct everyone else on the topics that you, random n00bling troll, wish them to talk about for you.
All high schools should cover content to wankage ratios. They’re very important.
Tmason, could you repeat your question please?
Free school lunches don’t cause societal problems. They solve a societal problem, which is childhood hunger.
@Linds The article is actually very vague. The reason married women focus more on the economy is because they have less of a need for the social services that the Government provides; which in this case was Ann Coulter’s point.
Single women, and especially single mothers do not have the combined income that makes it a lot easier to live a full life so they depend more on the services provided by government. Thus, they ‘ll vote for the party that provides what they need.
The basic premise that Ann Coulter put forth isn’t inaccurate.
Where we differ is whether that is a problem or not and is that a good trend. I don’t believe that single motherhood is good for society simply because we need to have two people (sometimes more) taking care of children. It’s great to provide for the women now but we need to work on ways to reduce single motherhood and not simply enact policies that help people in the short term.
I must have missed it between your one liners stating you can’t respond to people because they assume stuff about your ambiguous point.
But you opened up claiming bionicmommy should not have gotten assistance for getting her kids lunch each day. If you have a point to make then make it, you have only vaguely explained that and refusing to answer anyone who can’t mind read what your fucking point is.
Besides that I also meant what is your point in coming here? Clearly you have some point otherwise you wouldn’t keep engaging in trying to make us guess your super secret point which you refuse to tell us.
Uh, no. It took you a good while to “ask” anything. Here are all your comments until you get to your “question”:
Six comments until you “asked” a question, several of which contained some glimmer of an attempt at argument.
PS the actual argument at hand is whether or not women should be able to vote. Why single women do or do not vote the way they do is irrelevant to whether they should have voting rights, dingus.
I daresay Mann Coulter hates the Hell out of women who can have children. She’s a chromosomal anomaly if I ever saw one.
Wow, I stopped to watch the Parkour and the thread exploded.
We got a live one, I guess. Sorry I’m heading out for D&D in a few minutes (no I’m not).
Obviously, those children are not wealthy, and many of them are non-white. Imagine how much richer and whiter – and thus better, clearly! – society would be if we just let all the relatively poor and/or non-white kids starve to death!
See, it makes perfect sense, provided you’re a racist sociopath.
omg did we sorta get a response out of him
Whoa there. Not okay. Ann Coulter is a terrible person; let’s stick to talking about how she is terrible rather than trying to slam trans and intersex people, who have nothing to do with Ann Coulter’s terribleness.
Fair enough, 4 1/2:15 1/2. He’s edging towards 1:3!
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/21481191.jpg
This troll is hilariously stupid. Providing food for children right now – hmm, I don’t see how that could possibly benefit them in the long term.
Can we spare with the gender policing crap? Her looking like a “man” or her chromosomes have nothing to do with her being a shitty person thanks.
So you think it would be good for society if single mothers didn’t get assistance for their kids.
I mean, that’s really the only justifiable reading of your comment that what is good for the individual is not necessarily good for society; if you didn’t mean to imply that single mothers shouldn’t get assistance, then your comment was a ridiculous non sequitur and your defensive huffiness totally unwarranted.
But since you get pissy when people take your words at face value, I’ll ask you directly: Should single mothers receive government assistance or not?
If you believe that they should, then what the fuck are you arguing about?
That’s what you were talking about. If you’d like to discuss; I’d rather we enable the caregivers to provide the lunch for their children versus school lunch. That’s not the way it is now; caregivers are too dependent on the school because of various pressures faced in society.
Isn’t it interesting that we work harder and harder to pay someone else for things that we probably could do better ourselves? In our case no can take care of the children because of their careers, etc.
We have pushed people out of the home only to work ever harder for the services that were traditionally provided in the home.
@Reynardine
I know people with chromosomal anomalies, and many of them can have children quite well. I’d prefer if we stick to arguing that her beliefs are detestable rather than insinuating that there’s something wrong with her gender or gender presentation,
@Tmason
That depends on what you define as a “social service”. Also, the article was pretty clear that polling indicates that married women (statistically, I believe, likely to be older women and therefore already likely to be more conservative) are attracted to Republican “smaller government” talking points.
That doesn’t mean they don’t benefit from social services, it means they don’t recognize or acknowledge that they do so. Married women, after all, benefit from child tax credits, home mortgage credits and other assorted things that aren’t touted regularly as a government service but ARE.
Again with the falsehood. When did I say school lunch shouldn’t be provided?
I mean, it’s clearly good for Tmason that zir computer isn’t being overrun with thousands upon thousands of computer viruses, but what is good for the individual isn’t necessarily good for society.
WHAT WHEN DID I SAY THAT TMASON’S COMPUTER SHOULD BE OVERRUN WITH COMPUTER VIRUSES FOR THE GOOD OF SOCIETY I NEVER SAID THAT STOP LYING
5 1/2: 16 1/2
No that’s your argument. I am responded to the post.