Friday, August 10, 2012

"Stupid Single Women" for Democrats

Okay, I usually try not to pay attention to morons spewing their ignorant, ratings-grabbing drivel on TV, but I just have to vent about this one. This is the straw that broke the camel’s back. Ann Coulter, described as a “conservative columnist” (meaning I have no familiarity with her work), is promoting the idea that President Obama and the Democratic Party’s voting base is “stupid single women.”

Her words, as transcribed in The Raw Story (I didn’t have time to watch the footage):

“I think it’s probably a good sign that Obama is so desperate just to get the base Democratic voter — stupid single women — to vote for him,” Coulter told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Thursday. “This is good news that he needs to lock up that part of the Democratic vote.”

“He’s trying to get the stupid single women voter, which is the Democratic Party base,” Coulter repeated. “And I would just say to stupid single women voters, 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. 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!”

First of all, let’s just break this down. Apparently if you are a single woman, you are stupid! I mean come on, only a STUPID woman wouldn’t be MARRIED! Also, apparently ALL single women have kids because, y’know, women are made for birthin’ babies. Now that we’ve established that all single women are stupid and have kids, we progress to the fact that these stupid single women are just sitting around waiting for a child support check, owing to the fact that women aren’t capable of doing work equal to that of men. That must be why Republican Presidential Candidate Romney is reluctant to support the Lilly Ledbetter Act.

These ridiculous comments stem from Sandra Fluke’s introduction of President Obama on the campaign trail in Denver this week. As you may remember, Fluke was publicly attacked by conservative blabbermouth and ratings-grubber Rush Limbaugh for speaking to Congress in support of contraception coverage by health insurance. I hardly think that Fluke qualifies as a “stupid single woman” seeing how she’s a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center. I suppose when strong, well-educated women promote what is right for all Americans, the easiest way to disqualify their voice in the ears of the masses is to attack their character.

Delving deeper, how many women actually buy into this craziness? I think we all know that married women who actually want and love their children still need birth control. Anyone with half a brain in their head and an ounce of compassion realizes that in order to become educated, establish careers, space children so they can be optimally cared for, and limit family size, families (not just women! But whole families! Including men!) benefit from access to adequate means of birth control.

In addition to benefitting individual families, affordable and effective birth control benefits society as a whole. If every child is born into a loving family where they are wanted and cared for, then all children will have a better chance of growing into productive members of our economy. Children who are unwanted and abused, neglected, or living in extreme poverty have a much greater chance of becoming a burden on society as opposed to a productive member of it.

And on a “boy are you a dummy” note: last time I checked, if you are married, you are not single, so I don’t know how single women could be waiting for child support from their husbands.

My thought is that the old white men in charge are scared because at some point they looked up from counting their stacks of money and realized that traditionally oppressed groups are much closer to becoming equals in our society. Of course, it’s not politically correct to attack blacks, so they just attack the president specifically. (In fact, the entire republican platform is “defeat Obama,” with no actual policy having been outlined for once that is done.) It’s not really cool to attack Latinos, seeing how they are perceived as a huge monolithic voting bloc, so they just attack “illegal immigrants.” (Of course, there is no way to tell from looking, just ask Arizona, where you must carry your papers if you are brown.) It’s slightly more acceptable to attack women, mostly because so many women will stand there and back you up (um, Women for Mitt, anyone?). LGBT are still the easiest target, but women seem to be a bigger threat (plus LBGT are still super-oppressed, and a war is on against them to prevent them from gaining civil rights the aforementioned groups already enjoy). So, out of desperate fear stemming from observation of the status quo crumbling around them, older folks of means have tried to roll back gender-equality gains that my generation thought were settled before we were even born.

Two years ago, when my daughter was born, we had just elected our first black president, and a woman was a serious contender for the candidacy. Gays were making progress on the marriage front, and DODT was crumbling. The Dream Act was a brilliant idea that seemed to have potential for becoming law. My thoughts were joyous, I thought to myself, “We made it, I can tell her about how terrible this nation used to be to women, blacks, and many other minorities before she was born, and she will listen wide-eyed and be appalled.” Now it seems like she may have to fight the same battles, only the fight will be even harder because we younger generations don’t even comprehend what it’s like to live with the second-class citizenry being pushed onto women by folks who supposedly are all about “family values.”

No comments:

Post a Comment