Fox News host Jessie Watters: seemed to be channeling Warren Farrell with some particularly obtuse remarks he made recently on the Fox show “Outnumbered” on the “single ladies” vote.
Hillary Clinton needs the single ladies vote. I call them ‘The Beyoncé Voters’ — the single ladies. Obama won single ladies by 76% last time, and made up about a quarter of the electorate. They depend on government because they’re not depending on their husbands. They need contraception, health care, and they love to talk about equal pay.
If we ignore the implicit racism of his castigating “Beyonce voters” for being welfare “takers,” Watters is more or less rehashing an old, bad argument that Farrell made in The Myth of Male Power. In a section of the book called “Government as Substitute Husband,” Farrell wrote that “when divorces left women without husband-as-savior, many women looked for substitute saviors … .”
While New Age women turned to gurus and traditional women turned to God the Father or his alleged earthly representatives, Farrell wrote, feminist women either opted
to save themselves or to turn to the biggest savior of all – government as substitute husband. … Divorces led bodies of men (called legislatures) protecting women collectively as other men (called husbands) failed to protest women individually. This meant raising taxes mostly on other men to provide money mostly for women. When divorces deprive women of husbands to protect them, then, our collective unconscious still wants to protect women.
Farrell attempted to hand-wave away the inconvenient fact that the overwhelming majority of those running the government are men by suggesting that
a legislator is to the voter what a chauffeur is to the employer – both look like they’re in charge but both can be fired if they don’t go where they’re told.
So apparently the “chauffeurs” in government are completely at the mercy of women voters, since women make up a small majority of voters.
Given how laughably simplistic – and just plain wrong — this argument is, it’s kind of astounding to think that Farrell has a degree in Political Science.
Farrell’s “Big Daddy” government theory was also popular with one of this blog’s most prolific trolls, a fellow calling himself NWOSlave. Some sample comments (each paragraph is from a different comment of his; click on them for links).
There’s plenty more where that came from, but you get the idea. He went on and on and on about this. Then again, he went on and on and on about everything.
NOTE: Quotes from Farrell taken from pages 237-238 of the original hardback edition of The Myth of Male Power.
Kittehs,
Since you’re not an USian, I’m going to have to explain the pathetic logic of the American right wing to you.
If a straight white Christian man and/or his wife accept any kind of government assistance or subsidy, it’s their right as a citizen or something they’ve earned as a tax payer.
If a person of color, single woman, non-Christian, gay or trans person accepts any kind of government assistance or subsidy, it is because they are lazy moochers. This applies even if the benefit is the same as the one the straight white Christian man is getting.
The right also doesn’t like to admit to themselves that tax breaks are actually subsidies. A millionaire taking thousands of dollars in mortgage tax deductions on his summer home in the Hamptons is making a smart financial move. A single mother receiving $100 a month in food assistance is a taker.
I don’t know if other countries do this, but the US really loves to give wealthy and middle class people and corporations subsidies disguised as tax breaks or deductions. Only subsidies for the poor are direct. That way they look like taxers while the more privileged look like they do everything on their own. It’s really annoying.
deniseeliza — 1) almost 2 am and 75 here, I feel you about the heat! 2) that cat is thinking “I fits, I sits, what’s your problem human?”
deniseeliza, kittieeeeeee!
WWTH – yup, that makes sense. The attitude’s pretty similar here among the wrong wing, though generally without the blatant racism and fauxChristian twaddle. Propping up the rich at the expense of the poor is very much a thing here. The gap isn’t as wide as in the US, but it’s getting wider all the time.
Not sure if my avalanche of stat is useful, but I discovered that they had statistics for Marital Status and Gender & Vote by Gender and Children in Household (minus Mississippi).
-Outside of the liberal democratic North East, unmarried and childless men are more conservative and less likely to bother to vote. How very MRA.
-Apparently fathers like big daddy government more.
Voting by Marital Status and Gender & Vote by Gender and Children in Household
Mississippi
Married Men 30% total [ 29% Obama | 68% Romney] (Other: 3%)
Married Women 35% total [35% Obama | 65% Romney]
Unmarried Men 14% total [ 58% Obama | 41% Romney] (Other: 1%)
Unmarried Women 21% total [ 60% Obama | 39% Romney] (Other: 1%)
Virginia
Married Men 30% total [41% Obama | 57% Romney] (Other: 2% )
Married Women 32% total [46% Obama | 53% Romney] (Other: 1% )
Unmarried Men 17% total [57% Obama | 41% Romney] (Other: 2% )
Unmarried Women 22% total [ 64% Obama | 35% Romney] (Other: 1% )
Fathers 17% total [50% Obama | 49% Romney] (Other: 1%)
Mothers 22% total [49% Obama | 50% Romney] (Other: 1%)
Men with no child 28% total [43% Obama | 54% Romney] (Other: 3%)
Women with no child 33% total [55% Obama | 43% Romney] (Other: 2%)
Florida
Married Men 28% total [41% Obama | 58% Romney] (Other: 1% )
Married Women 30% total [45% Obama | 54% Romney] (Other: 1% )
Unmarried Men 16% total [57% Obama | 41% Romney] (Other: 2% )
Unmarried Women 26% total [63% Obama | 36% Romney] (Other: 1% )
Fathers 13% total [51% Obama | 49% Romney]
Mothers 22% total [56% Obama | 43% Romney] (Other: 1%)
Men with no child 28% total [44% Obama | 54% Romney] (Other: 2%)
Women with no child 36% total [54% Obama | 45% Romney] (Other: 1%)
New York
Married Men 27% total [49% Obama | 49% Romney] (Other: 2%)
Married Women 28% total [57% Obama | 42% Romney] (Other: 1%)
Unmarried Men 17% total [66% Obama | 32% Romney] (Other: 2%)
Unmarried Women 28% total [78% Obama | 21% Romney] (Other: 1%)
Fathers 14% total [50% Obama | 50% Romney]
Mothers 21% total [ 67% Obama | 33% Romney]
Men with no child 27% total [59% Obama | 39% Romney] (Other: 2%)
Women with no child 38% total [68% Obama | 30% Romney] (Other: 2%)
So our cunning plan is to stop all US marriages in future?
Is nobody else fucking ENRAGED at the title and concept of that show? “Outnumbered” because there are more women than men; how quaint! When FOX has a show that’s all men and one woman it’s Serious Very Real News. But when the genders are flipped it’s hilarious because the only way Logical Menfolk could possibly be wrong is when they’re #Outnumbered by womenz!
Ha. Ha.
Ha.
“Misogynoir” makes me want to invent a new confectionery product called Misogynuts. I’d suggest them for the WHTM welcome package, but to truly reflect their namesake the description would have to be something like “peanuts and Brazils with the great taste of rancid yak piss”.
kiki, I’m hearing Michael Palin advertising those nuts – like his Bishop doing a beer ad where he keeps saying “the mighty lager with the great new taste of fish.” 😀
“Hey, you got half-baked personal grievances in my long-held patriarchal assumptions!”
“And you got long-held patriarchal assumptions all over my half-baked personal grievances!”
“Mmmmmmmisogynuts – two terrible tastes that taste exponentially worse together!”
Half-baked personal grievances are improved with hokey pokey ice cream. It is known.
Are Fox News and MRA’s getting more lovey-dovey with each other lately, or does it just seem that way? I guess with Obama on his second term, and the possibility of Hilary Clinton running next election, they might be shifting their focus from racism to misogyny. If a black woman were to run for president with a high possibility of winning, the entire network might collapse into some sort of super-hate black hole.
Why they think further alienating the voters they don’t have is going to net them more votes is baffling. Saying “We hate women and minorities sooooooo much” over and over isn’t going to make white dudes vote twice. And saying “yeah well, if you don’t vote for me, you’re a dumb” isn’t going to work nearly as well as, say, listening to a demographic and trying to meet it’s needs through policy.
The whole thing starts from the entirely incorrect premise that there’s something wrong with taking advantage of services that the government provides. Maybe if there’s a demographic that consistently uses them it’s because that demographic consistently gets fucked over and actually needs them?
I always thought that Beyoncé was:
-married
-fucking awesome and totally able to make it on her own
-even better known than her husband
G’day, giliell! Always enjoy your comments on Pharyngula.
Y’know I couldn’t name Beyoncé’s husband if I had to. Well, not without googling, anyway.
Good to see you, dlouwe.
Yeah, government services … the right wing want ’em like tax breaks, there for those who don’t need them, stripped from those who do.
giliel,
She’s famous, talented, wealthy, confident, female and black. That’s why the Faux News crowd hates her.
I guess I’m a Beyoncé voter in that I would vote for her over pretty much any Republican for any office, so he’s got me there!
@ladyrainicorn Agreed, this show’s concept is total garbage.
“they love to talk about equal pay” – excuse me, did you mean “they are forced to continue talking about equal pay because they haven’t fucking got it yet, wow what the hell is wrong with this country?” ugh
I like giliell’s Beyoncé checklist
And I appreciate dlouwe’s take on gov’t services. Y’all are so smart!
Interestingly, the only reliable correlation for who receives public assistance is poverty. If you break it down by race, for example, you get a similar real number of white people and black people below the poverty line (second link), which is why the break down for welfare stats ends up being relatively even, nearly 40% each (first link). Poverty disproportionately affects black people (racism!), for example, but because they are a smaller percentage of the population than white people, they are not necessarily or consistently the largest demographic of people in poverty or on public assistance. That ‘honor’ goes to the seniors.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
http://www.statista.com/statistics/200476/us-poverty-rate-by-ethnic-group/
Basically, if you need assistance, you are more likely to apply for it and be approved for it.
Mind blowing, isn’t it? -_-
But then again, if you compare real numbers and not percentages, there are tons of people living below the poverty line who are not receiving any assistance but desperately need it nonetheless, and many are children. It’s depressing.
(from the above sites)
% of total US population in poverty in 2012: ~15%
% of total US population receiving public assistance in 2012: ~4%
That’s fucking ridiculous.
Hi Kiki from Keke!
Great comment. Made me spit on my keyboard.
I love the term Misogynoir. It’s perfect. Can I borrow that?
Um, this whole comparison of misogynoir to candy is, at best, misguided. It’s a term coined by black women to describe the special sort of misogyny they face. Using it to joke about chocolate…yeah, I don’t think that’s a particularly good idea.
Seconding this. It’s a real word black women use to describe their real experiences. I don’t think it would go over well to use it outside of that context at all.
If you’re not familiar with the blog Gradient Lair, here is a great post (she has many) discussing misogynoir, its origin, and how it’s different from misogyny: http://www.gradientlair.com/post/60973580823/general-misogyny-versus-misogynoir
Agreed with above posters that using it outside its original intent is not a good move.
It’s such a weird stigma, isn’t it? “You shouldn’t be able to receive money from the government… unless you already have money.” Uh what?