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:
Is this fellow a manosphere troll? So far he’s just seeming like a randroid to me.
Hushhhh don’t make assumptions aworldanon! XD
Reynardine, can we focus on what’s important here? If Ann Coulter looked like Salma Hayek she would still be a pathetic excuse for a human being, and her views would still be offensive. Part of her schtick is to try to goad liberals and leftists into engaging in policing of women’s looks as if that had something to do with their value as people and right to have opinions, and you’re playing right into it.
Oh great, Ruby’s here. This thread just got 50% more ignorant.
Tmason–sorry you don’t believe in single mothers or whatever, please take your awesome mansplaination powers away from here.
I’d split it, the half wank in your stats is kind of starting to bother me.
Tmason really is just like half a wank isn’t he? They’re both one of the most irritating things that can happen to some poor innocent woman. :p
Shorter Tmason: This blog dedicated to mocking misogyny is subject to my twelve-point agenda, as I have outlined from pages six to nine in the packet you received at your workstations. And please, everyone, no making inferences from my vague statements; just because I’m shit at communicating doesn’t mean I don’t decide what constitutes valid discussion in this space.
Tmason: Show us where she includes any substance to her snark. If she did that we’d rebut it.
But she’s not making an argument from logos, nor one from ethos this is pure pathos.
Which merits nothing more than snark. She reaps what she sows.
What’s good for the individual is not necessarily good for society.
So you have no actual rebuttal to the argument and are engaging in snark.
Nice to see such consistence in your methods, as to your complaints.
Name-calling came out quick there. Let’s try an actual argument.
Gladly, care to make one?
Far more options than that.How about we enable the parents to prepare their food instead of being more and more dependent on less healthy options?
Regardless of the time in history it is always cheaper to prepare your food versus buying it pre-made.
Everyone can read other’s thoughts via the comments. Interesting.
With this question you just disproved the point you were making; if my choices are to expand versus pay taxes I’d expand.
Perhaps a better question would be how to convince companies that paying taxes is worth their while. In this manner they would be less resistant to the idea. AKA what can they purchase with bonds to help improve America?
@tulgey
That sums it up perfectly. 😛
Isn’t it “amusing” how these little Serena Joys will stab their own gender in the back for attention and power? We all know that they’ll hate it if their side will ever gets their way and the rules apply to them.
What’s good for the individual is not necessarily good for society.
That’s obvious! Even our awesome commentariat couldn’t give every troll in society the spanking you’re individually begging for.
Everyone can read other’s thoughts via the comments. Interesting.
Yes. It’s kind of the purpose of the written word.
Dude you assumed that yourself for the last 2 pages…
The school lunches just happened to be discussed and that is one example, but we need to step back and take a tally of all of the programs. Truth be told if we tax the rich 95-100% we still be far in the whole.
They are a problem, but not the only ones.
Is tmason the same person as steele, or is semicolon abuse just a Pretentious Troll Thing?
Please, enlighten us on how we can encourage deadbeat parents to come back. Even in the “good old days”, parents would run away from their families and leave the other person with all of the work and cost of raising the children. That was when the laws were all written strictly for the benefit of men, and women had very few legal protections against abuse and abandonment.
We’ve been changing laws to help single parents get financial support from the noncustodial parent, and we have social services (which are sadly underfunded) to help their children receive the basic level of care, which is food, shelter, and medical care. Things are not perfect by a long shot, but they’re much better than what we used to have.
So what solutions do you propose to try to force people into your 50’s sitcom fantasy of the nuclear family?
They are a problem, but not the only ones.
The problem is rich old men, but also small children. Mostly the small children. Little fuckers asking for food like it’s a goddamn right or something.
He’s as boring as Steele, but so far he hasn’t displayed any of Mikey’s, um, idiosyncratic use of rhetoric.
How, specifically, should women and men be held responsible for their actions?
As a general rule, I am in support of shared parenting responsibilities. But what if the man is abusive to the mother or the child(ren)? What if there are irreconcilable differences between the mother and father, and it would cause massive disruption for the children to try to force 50/50 shared custody?
How do you, TMason, answer those questions?
Oh fuck you. You’re another one of those “what about the poor menz, how are we discouraging them from committing” MRA bullshitters. We’re “discouraging” men to be adults by telling them they’re entitled to a compliant sex-slave wife-mother who will always be thin and ready for sex and will stay in the kitchen while the adult manbaby is busy with the “important” work of pontificating on the internet in between bouts of texting “tits or GTFO” to women players on World of Warcraft. You make all sorts of assumptions about people you don’t know but bristle when it’s done to you. Swallow your medicine, you big fucking baby.
This Ad Hominem™ Attack has been brought to you by Twisted Spinster, Ltd., a subsidiary of the Fuck Off And Die MRA Clowns Company.
Hasn’t steele said tsk tsk before too….
If we had a proper society, the young would just eat their way out of their mother’s carcass and then forage for themselves in the streets.
@Bagelsan
Yes, even deeply held beliefs and political positions that were never mentioned.
Not always, but nice sweeping generalization. Ever hear of food deserts? Ever notice that fresh produce and definitely organic is more expensive? You going to give these single slatterns the means to pay for these nutritious homemade lunches?
I know, you just want these women at home not working, taking jobs away from the manly men.
@jumbofisch
He hasn’t said anything about presumptions yet though. ;D