Ann Coulter’s gender identity crisis
By Josh Richman
Friday, October 5th, 2007 at 12:52 pm in Elections, Media.
Verbal-grenade-throwing conservative commentator Ann Coulter said this to the New York Observer:
“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?’ ”
Take that, all you misguided suffragettes!
First, at least most single women, unlike Coulter, manage to vote where they’re supposed to, without appearing to violate the law. (Old news? Not really; the investigation appeared to be still alive as of August.)
Second, I assume Coulter now will pull out all the stops to ensure the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), H.R. 2015, isn’t watered down by removal of protections for gender identity and expression — a move that would be devastating for transgender people.
Why? Because based on her comments, Coulter seems to be uncomfortable as a woman, yearning to be a man — and a misogynistic man, at that.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
October 5th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Sounds more like she does not agree with the way many women vote…Josh your statement makes you misogynistic for assuming a woman can’t have an opinion based on things she thinks to be true.
Since she differs from your opinion something must be wrong with her.
October 5th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
On the contrary, JH… She’s saying that ALL women should be denied the vote on the basis of some with whom SHE disagrees. She’s entitled to her opinion just like anyone else, but when she starts talking about how great it would be if all women were denied a basic civil right, that’s misogyny.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Coulter obviously has a thing against Moms, particularly Soccer moms. But then Ann Coulter has a thing against tons of people, gays,soccer moms, possibly, moms in general and children. Maybe she’s jealous because she has no children? I’ve seen a picture of her on the cover of one of her books. She was dressed in leather like one of those Nazi femmes of the l920′s and 30′s.
Misognystic? How about plain ole mean-spirited, intolerant, bigotted and sadistic. And it’s said that there are people who would speak up to defend such a person. In fact, I think it’s a terrible waste of column space to even spend time discussing her, but it’s revealing since probably many Republican women who include soccer moms would probably find her comments abhorent as well.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Ann obviously does not realize you can be an A-hole even if you don’t have a penis
October 6th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
You guys have to remember that Ann writes with a lot of satire and tongue-in-cheek. She’s not advocating taking away women’s right to vote. God! Why does everybody have to be so sensitive and take everything so seriously?!! Her biting sense of humor is what makes her a consistent NY Times best-seller!
October 7th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
I find Coulter’s comments chilling. My grandmother was a suffragist (“suffragette” is derogatory) who marched for the right to vote. She died in 2000 at age 93. Every election day she called to remind me to vote, saying, “men gave us the right to vote and men will take it away if we don’t use it.” Grandma was right.
October 12th, 2007 at 2:25 am
Oh, please. Ann is indulging in satire, something the humorless cannot appreciate. She is pointing out the simple fact that far too many women vote for whoever promises to give them someone else’s money in the form of assorted government programs.
As a woman myself I’m embarrassed by the number of women who agree with such bizarre statements as “the war in Iraq is so expensive it is bankrupting the country; and that money should be used for health care.” When someone actually asks why bankrupting the country for health care is better than bankrupting the country for war they simply gape like a suffocating goldfish because obviously if you spend a gazillion on something unpopular it will bankrupt the country; but if you spend the same gazillion on something they like a miracle will occur and the budget will obviously be balanced.
Case in point – the Newark City Council race. We have candidates running on platforms featuring affordable health care or more recreational programs. This in a city that is in major fiscal crisis. When one asks these candidates why they are running, they explain that because of the budget crisis programs they support were cut, so they want to be on the council to make sure these programs aren’t cut – but when you ask them what they will cut in order to pay for these programs, they say they don’t intend to cut *any* spending. Apparently if they are elected, money will drop into the city coffers like manna to the Hebrews in the desert.