Schlafly: Non-fact based hater.

Vanessa mentioned in the What We Missed a few days ago that Phyllis Schlafly made some really offensive comments about married women. She said,

“One of the things Obama’s been doing is deliberately trying to increase the percentage of our population that is dependent on government…For example, do you know what was the second biggest demographic group that voted for Obama? Obviously the blacks were the biggest demographic, yall know what was the second biggest? 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. And they know that. They’ve admitted it. And they have all kinds of bills to continue to subsidize illegitimacy, which is now nationwide, running at 41%. 1.7 million babies were born in our country illegitimately last year. The Obama administration wants to continue to subsidize this group because they know they are Democratic votes. Republicans never could have given the amount of money they are going to get. And as Ronald Reagan said, if you subsidize something you are going to get more of it, and if you tax it you’re going to get less of it.

Transcript via RH Reality Check.

Schlafly should produce evidence that indicates what she is claiming since generally it is women that are more educated and more empowered in their life choices that chose to wait for marriage, wait to have children, have greater success in their relationships long-term and also realize that voting for Republicans is not in their best interest. The assumption could be made that a larger number of educated women vote for Obama.

Also, she is lumping two demographics together and it doesn’t make sense. “Unmarried,” means a lot of different things, including, never been married, or the Levi and Bristol Palin set, who are decidedly not the same as the Obama voting set. Her assumption is that these unmarried women are divorced. Also, she is confusing her hatred for single black “welfare” queens, with single women in general, who depending on class, education, and culture wait longer to have children. These are two groups that can’t be generalized around, have different needs and voting patterns.

But that is what people like Schlafly are all about right? Making group assumptions with caricatures of people they have never met or interacted with.

As a result the Dems have asked the GOP to re-consider her endorsement of them by Eagle Forum, the group of which she is president.

And I just feel like, if haters gonna hate, they should be factually accurate about it.

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

5 Comments

  1. Posted July 30, 2010 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    Sadly, I don’t except anything less of her. I am not surprised at the comments she made. If those 1.7 million children were aborted as fetus’, she would be up in arms that “single” mothers are irresponsible and should never have sex in the first place. Who is to say these “single” mothers do not have partners they are not married to? What if these women could not marry their partner because they are lesbians? What if they simply did not want to marry their partner? What if they chose to be a single parent? The what if’s that she has never thought about could go on. Can she stop condemning women for making different life choices than her? I know I’m asking for to much but that speech his horrid.

  2. Posted July 30, 2010 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    The Sharon Jayson piece in USA Today, linked in the post, actually helps demonstrate the fading credibility of Schlafly’s idealized prescription for an unchanging nuclear family. The article points out that–leaving Bristol and Levi aside–self-described Christian parents from a presumptively working-class background are deferring marriage (and citing Hollywood celebrities to assert the viability of their choice). Traditional gender roles retain their appeal for some folks, and many others are ambivalent–but fewer people than ever are apt to let themselves be bullied into following them, especially on the basis of Schlafly’s reductive fantasy of a universally available and suitable provider husband.

    It’s encouraging that a simple appeal to patriarchal norms isn’t enough to give her critique an aura of contemporary relevance. She needs to embed it in a larger message featuring Tea Party-friendly language of limited government, independence, and self-sufficiency. Here there’s arguably more reason for concern, because such themes understandably resonate with many people. There are probably many ways of responding to this line of argument, and I’d be curious what others think about the options. We do need to consider them, because the anti-government messaging is passionate and widespread. Schlafly may even be correct that a government source of support will motivate some people to rely on it, for a time. But she doesn’t consider that doing so might be better than their available alternatives. Are most independents, populists, and conservatives really as ideological as her, insisting that one size fit all and convinced that any dependency equals damnation?

  3. Posted July 30, 2010 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

    Sigh…don’t you just LOVE “family values” people who are anti-choice, anti-birth control, AND demean single mothers? You gotta love it!

    *eyeroll*

  4. Posted July 30, 2010 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

    I’m a Libertarian and yes, I hate big government. However, women still have a larger burden when it comes to raising children, and I recognize that programs to assist single mothers are necessary for the advancement of women (yes, I’m full of contradictions). She talks as if these women asked to have the sole burden of raising their children, or as if all single mothers rely on government assistance, or as if it’s horrible to need assistance.

    Anyway, fiscal conservatism doesn’t mean that the government can’t ever aid marginalized groups, and I bet there are plenty of other fiscal conservatives who are as concerned about these issues as I am. I’m more concerned about cutting down on pork barrel spending than I am grinding some stupid moral/partisan axe.

  5. Posted August 1, 2010 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    I am extremely annoyed with her continued, deliberate use of the word “illegitimate.” How the fuck can you call someone an illegitimate person? I HATE language like that. besides being deliberately hurtful, it’s also IGNORANT. Marriage is a social construct, and therefore does not legitimize a single fucking thing. Humans are humans, and their humanity cannot be made illegitimate based on the fucking marital status of the sperm and egg donor.

    On the other hand, I wouldn’t expect anything different from that hate-monger. Why are we even making this news? She should just fade into oblivion.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

172 queries. 0.710 seconds