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:
@TMason
And what, pray tell, do you think this long-term plan should be?
The poor shall you always have with you.
Standard righty rhetoric about social programs. One of your presuppositions is that social programs damage an individual’s ability to care for hirself. (If it isn’t, your argument implies that it is, so I’d suggest you find a different argument.)
And I see you moving the goal posts about school lunches. I’m sure you are all in favor of students eating lunch. It’s free lunch programs you went off on, claiming that “what’s good for the individual is not necessarily good for society” and don’t try to pretend you didn’t.
@thebionicmommy
That’s how you read it; the true takeaway should be that we should reduce your need for that program. That doesn’t mean that a child should starve. What it does mean is that if you are married and as such both you and your partner cannot provide for your child then that is bad for society as a whole, if you are representative of most married couples.
Thats not my point dude. I was answering you asserting you never said school lunch should not be provided when you said yourself it should not be with your own words.
katz, please promise me you will never collect or share stats on my ratio of substantive comments to OT derails/animal videos. 🙂
But then that means you, to an extent. agree with Ann Coulter then. That’s her underlying point.
Cloudiah, I live for OT animal videos.
So what are you saying? That single mothers should be forced to wed? Or are you okay with providing free birth control and abortion on demand? Or are you saying pregnant, unmarried women should be imprisoned? What about the men who get them pregnant?
I’ve read and read reams of crap from dudes like you on this ignorant “single motherhood should be stopped!” as if it were happening in a vacuum with no male participation. Because every single one of these single mothers? has a single father in the equation, and like as not he’s the reason she’s still single.
But in any case, the result is the same: so-called “concerned about society” ignorant blabbermouths who are just so sure that if those pesky wimmen would stop not being married then we wouldn’t have any problems. Because all men are dependable and loving and not abusive at all and all are willing to help raise the babies.
tl;dr: you’re a man, I doubt you’ve even touched a woman except that one time you got sprayed with mace, and in any case you’re not any kind of authority on what women should do. By the way, all this screaming and whining about tax dollars being used for things you don’t approve of end, I am sure, at your own well-being. Those roads better stay paved, right?
Except I never said that.
I am going to call her an ugly he-woman exactly because she has the gall to gender-police real women, in her goose-honking voice. I don’t care what the Hell she has between her legs, but her stentorian hypocrisy makes me want to kick her in it.
Both of those were borderline, but I’m calling it 6:21. And now it’s time to go home.
By the way, even though I ate school lunches as a kid, amazingly enough I still learned to prepare my own meals myself if needed. How do you figure that?
Reynardine, shut up and go away.
Dammit, 6:22. Can’t keep up!
Are you suggesting we massage the price of food? ‘Cause the options are: set up social programs to feed poor children; give the poor children’s parents more money; make food cost less.
And I don’t see how we’re going to make food cost less if the price of producing the food is dependent on the price for oil, which is not going down.
Oh, I know, your solution is to give The Willard Mechanism a tax cut, like that’ll mean he re-invests in Murrka rather than squirrel it away in his Swiss bank account.
You know what helped encourage the rich to plow back into America? Taxing their profits. If your choices are spend money to expand your business, or pay tax money, which would you choose?
Evening all.
SHE IS A REAL WOMAN YOU DIPSHIT EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WITH HER. RIGHT NOW YOU ARE GENDER POLICING A REAL FUCKING WOMAN. You have a really immature idea about what feminism is if you think its about helping only women you agree with.
Hey, Reynardine, fuck you and your transphobic gender-policing bullshit.
Look up the stats on your school district and you can see what percentage of students need free or reduced lunches. You would surprised how high the number is. And if you actually do care about how these problems, you need to understand the underlying issues, which are a lack of affordable, quality childcare, lack of support for parents, and a societal obsession with “bootstraps” instead of a better approach of “it takes a village”.
Now we have a discussion. If we are to reduce single motherhood we need to ensure that people are responsible for their actions. In the case of men, I don’t believe in simply visitation and a check every month; their should be complete shared parenting responsibilities.
On the other side of that coin, we do have to look at several issues:
(1) What makes men run away from responsibility?
(2) Are we, as a society, making it harder for men to commit?
(3) How do we build better partnerships between couples such that there is far less of a trend of people breaking up?
And on and on.
I can’t respond to the projections you are making here…
Already with the love-life diagnosis?
I’m intrigued, “the twisted spinster”, tell me more.
Gender policing is bad, so now I get to gender-police the gender police! Grr gender policing.
Mc manly here decides when the discussion starts.
Oh yeah, and enrolling in a program when you need it is a way to provide for your child. Again, you’re oh so concerned about tiny programs like school lunches but fail to see that it is the rich tax dodgers that are the real drain on society.
The Democratic Party is the party of women? Huh? What about all the male Democrats? Or the female Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents? Why stereotype women as belonging only to one political party? And BTW, if all men would take responsibility for their offspring, we’d have less government dependence.
Reynardine, shut the fuck up, don’t double down on your stupid shit. I’ve thought you borderline troll before, thanks for proving it.