Because bureaucracy is the best sugar daddy around. At least, this is the tactic conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly thinks unmarried women are taking (emphasis mine):
Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly took aim at “unmarried women” at a recent fundraiser and in an interview with TPM, saying that they overwhelmingly support President Obama and are all on welfare. Democrats aim to exploit the comments to pressure the more than 60 Republican candidates who have earned Schlafly’s endorsement.
“Unmarried women, 70% of unmarried women, voted for Obama, and this is because when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have big brother government to be your provider,” said Schlafly, president of Eagle Forum and infamous for her opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment.
A liberal organization recorded the Schlafly comments at a Troy, Michigan fundraiser Saturday for a Republican congressional candidate, the Detroit Free Press reported. In an interview with TPM this afternoon Schlafly stood by her comments and said Obama is trying to boost welfare rolls to help with his reelection and to help Democrats.
“Yes I said that. It’s true, too. All welfare goes to unmarried moms,” Schlafly told TPM. “They are trying to line up their constituency for Obama and Democrats against Republican candidates.”
…My brain just exploded from all the stupid. Let’s go through this step by step, since hearing those quotes has eroded my ability to form more complex paragraph structure.
1. Not all unmarried women are the result of women kicking their husbands out. Some husbands may have left on their own accord. Or, you know, there’s that option where a woman never had a husband to begin with, but that would probably just blow Schlafly’s mind. Have to take it slowly when we’re dealing with the type of conservatives who go into shock every time a woman leaves the kitchen for a reason other than bringing her man a martini.
2. Regardless of the reason the woman is single, that does not mean a woman needs a provider. Seriously, did we hop in a time machine to the 1950s or something? Can someone let Schlafly know we’re in the year 2010, where women are actually allowed to be educated and have careers? Apparently I’m doing something wrong because I haven’t settled down yet. Well, I’m sure I do a lot of things wrong if we’re using her standards.
3. The idea that all welfare goes to unmarried moms is simply false. Anyone ever hear of Social Security? Medicare? Unemployment benefits? This isn’t a failure to fact check, it’s either willful obliviousness or purposeful deception. You can guess which one I think is more likely.
4. Notice how she interchangeably uses “unmarried women” and “unmarried moms”? You mean women can actually not reproduce?! Inconceivable! Put those baby makers to use, like God intended! But don’t expect any help from the government. That’s just ludicrous.
Hope you keep doing “a lot of things wrong”!
*slams head on desk*As a divorced mother who works full time, does not receive child support from an ex-husband who walked out (not to say dad doesn’t contribute.. his contribution just isn’t generally monetary) OR government assistance – and let’s face it, our commie-bastard canuckian government LOVES throwing cash at single moms – this woman makes me want to kick a puppy.”All welfare goes to unmarried moms” – I noticed she didn’t really have the stats to back THAT one up. I could see “All Mother’s Allowance goes to unmarried moms” but that just goes without saying, although I don’t think you guys have Mother’s Allowance in the States, do you?Grumble grumble. P.S. I say commie-bastard with the sincerest affection. Someone once implied I was a socialist. The surprise to me was that he thought he was insulting me.
Schlafly is a perfect example of the difference between ignorance and stupidity. An ignorant person doesn’t know something. A stupid person doesn’t know something and isn’t willing to learn about it. This stupidity is the same as people acting like only heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry because only they can breed “naturally”. Not all Heterosexual couple want children or can have children. Should those couples not be allowed to marry?
I don’t know that I’ve ever actually experienced a chin-drop before this. I’ve play-acted them, but I believe this is the first time I read something, only to realize after the fact that at some point during reading it, my mouth opened.Curious experience. I wonder whether it was a reaction to the horror or the stupidity? Or the combination? I’ll need to subject myself to a few experiments. We’re going to need more republicans if I’m going to do this right.
Inconceivable, eh? Interesting use of the word…
“You mean women can actually not reproduce?! Inconceivable!” Sometimes the worst puns are unintentional. (Either that or very subtle.)Also, most of the welfare in this country goes to white male CEOs, usually married.
Dude, my mom is the exact opposite of Schlafly’s scenario. In fact, every single mom I know is the exact opposite of Schlafly’s scenario.”Willful obliviousness or purposeful deception,” indeed. Also, I’d like to wholly second hcbowman’s comment. Chicks with degrees are waaaaay hotter than hockey mom baby-factories for Jesus.
Yes, lots of assistance goes to divorced mothers and single mothers. And it should. If men were not such bastards, this wouldn’t be necessary. Would Schlafly rather have these kids grow up in total misery and often turn into criminals later in life?
Setting my pique on the shelf for a moment, may I politely ask why you’re pinning all the blame on men, here? We’re not all bad, honest.
Ah yes, Phyllis Schlafly. The ultimate case of hypocrisy: a woman who has made a very lucrative career of telling other women to not have a career.Her son is even stupider than her, if you believe that that is possible.
Peter took the words right out of my mouth. You are tarring all men in the same way that Schlafly is tarring all unmarried women. I do have a problem with someone who stays on welfare as a lifetime entitlement, but there are lots of people who fall in that category. Of course, nobody HAS to have kids nowadays so blaming children for the parents poverty, or saying that a child has to lead a life of poverty, is false. Abortions, adoptions and foster care are all alternatives to a child growing up in poverty and misery.
I was going to make a Princess Bride reference here, but then I realized WHY the term is so incredibly appropriate, and then i realized your user name is Fred Flinstone. And that just BLEW MY MIND.
Sadly, I believe this more than anything. After all, what do you think she’s been teaching him?
Andy is the “brains” behind Conservapedia. If you can go to that site without raging then… well, I probably don’t much care to spend time with you.
Hmmm… How about billions? Trillions? for the Banksters? The oil companies? Nuclear Power? Merchants of Death? Well that’s not welfare. It’s just a helping hand to the deserving.
She is one of a long line of female conservative pundites who tragically were not born with the ability to see irony. She has made very good career speaking her mind about how women shouldn’t speak their minds, or have careers. I hate to be mean, but luckily she is getting old and wouldn’t be around that much longer.
Oh man, I think my head exploded a little after reading this. There are FAR too many things wrong with this to even BEGIN to start in on it. x.x
Thought that was a comedy site
Jen, I’m afraid you have made a simple, though common, mistake.You think that pronouncements from the right ought to make sense and to be grounded in reality.Silly girl!:-)rhb
I have two kids. When I was married to my now-ex-wife, we were both on welfare because times were tough and I had lost my job due to the economy.You know, this whole “welfare because they’re deadbeats” mentality (along with the “unemployment because they’re lazy” reasoning) needs to stop. As Seth Rogen’s character in Pineapple Express said, “This ends NOW!!”
Trouble is that if you believe in a god in the way the Schlafliers do, then you are pretty-well forced to think that people deserve bad luck. If you don’t do that then you’re left worshiping a right bastard of a god.You almost have to feel sorry for them.Almost…
Umm… this married woman on WIC will just crawl under a rock now.(Did I mention that I have a college degree and it’s just a shitty economy?)And seriously, I kind of expect that my tax dollars are going to go back to help me during a time like this. Otherwise, why pay them?
Unfortunately, I’ve known people who get will not look for a job until unemployment benefits run out. Not everybody, and generally only young, single people (unemployment doesn’t pay enough for those with families to just sit on it), but enough to support the stereotype.Of course, I’ve also known people who hated unemployment or welfare and got off as fast as possible.
“Anyone ever hear of Social Security? Medicare? Unemployment benefits?”…bank bailouts? Tax breaks?Conservatives are enthusiastically in favor of many kinds of welfare. In fact, I’ve seen fairly credible argument that the chief arbiter of whether they’re likely to support a given “welfare” policy is how likely it is to benefit brown-skinned people.
FU! I am not a bastard. If the men you have dated are bastards, try dating nice men instead of bastards. I can play the sexual stereotype game too. If all you women were looking for something other than a guy with money and a fast car and got an education in something other than Cosmo sex quizzes and “like, oh my god, Justin Beiber!”, they wouldn’t walk out when you put on ten pounds, and if they did leave, you would be able to pay your own damn bills. How’s that?Grrr! feminism <> misandry
You mean it is not the mother of all Poe’s? I really thought it was….
It is the ultimate proof of Poe’s Law. There is no way to make a parody of Conservapedia that would not be mistaken for the real thing. They are beyond satire.
As a conservative, I will happily disagree with you. I believe EVERYONE in this world needs to focus on the transmutation of their community, not sit around with a sense of entitlement on any level and expect me to keep working my pitootie off to buy their groceries or fancy houses.
Tonight, there just aren’t enough palms for my face. I’m going to snooze, but here’s my comment from Facebook: LOVE it! I lean conservative, am unmarried (divorced, actually *gasp*, over circumstances I CHOSE not to tolerate in my household), have no children by choice, and am educated. Oh yeah, and I am self-employed. Women like Ms. Schlafly really need to get outside their comfort zone and see how the country is outside her warm husband-supported box.
I agree. Some of us are looking for a hand UP, which is entirely different than a handout.
A quibble but an important one: unemployment compensation frequently is lumped in with various kinds of entitlement payments that are usually means-tested, but it should not be. It is an earned benefit paid for by employers, not an indefinite welfare benefit. Eligibility for UC is limited and has a looking-for-work requirement, and payment is limited to six months, unless extended by act of Congress, and we’ve had a few of those recently.
ok, ok, we get it that this old lady, and I mean it in the most polite way, after all an 85 year old widow should be respected for raising 6 children, without financial support from the state, [wink, wink, nudge, nudge] has the right to express her personal, however delusional views on the world around her.One thing that struck me was that someone is taking this lady seriously!!I know its hard to imagine, but lets face the truth, as people age their minds wander and their TRUE feelings are shown. Just like a Freudian slip, but off the side of Mt. Everest!Yes these people are very active in politics and religion, because really they have nothing to do, so why take them seriously?If people really want to change the way politics are done, introduce retirement age, in politics, after for example 70, we give you a watch, and send you to a retirement home for politicians, people like Lady Thacher and John Major, Bush sr., Gorbi, and other leaders would make perfect attendees, if not for a retirement home, at least a jamboree! :DAs far as the issues this woman is taking about, SHE IS STILL LIVING IN HER GOLDEN AGE!!!!! This may be 2010, but in her mind its still 1970!If THIS is the fodder that the Democratic party is looking for to stifle the GOP, you have bigger issues than some old senile old hag! If after you have 2 years and you can BARELY pass legislation, the members of your party are corrupt, and you lack the backbone to stand up and say FUCK YOU, and rip your opponents apart, after they had the WEAKEST showing in years, a Democratic president, and Senate…. YOU SUCK!!! and not just juice, YOU SUCK DONKEY BALLS!!!!
Please start attending all of Schlafly’s public appearances and say exactly that!I know of too many conservative christian couples who had too high standards to begin with, so they married very late in life. They are now being cannabalized by their “friends” for using science to conceive. Maybe getting someone like Schlafly to say they lose their marriage rights will cause some people to wake up to the double standards, and begin to think for themselves.
Never mind whether or not a woman is married/divorced/happily single/a mother or whatever. The most insulting part of this is the idea that a woman needs a provider by default. I’m more than capable of paying my own way in life, and my relationship status does not affect my vote! As it happens I am married, but I did it for love, not financial security, what an odd concept?
Let us not forget that the majority of welfare dollars do not go to individuals. Think TARP, Farm Subsidy, AIG, GM, Chrysler, BofA et.al. Whether you agree or disagree, if the government gives it and doesn’t get a product or quantifiable service back (like roads, less water bottles on planes, or criminals in jail) it is welfare.