Study hard for your M.R.S., girls

Study hard for your M.R.S., girls

by digby

SE Cupp modern woman:

[W]hile liberal women may praise Ann for (at least) getting herself an education, where is the praise for Ann’s best decision of all — to marry well?

Progressives like Hilary Rosen, who lambasted Ann Romney on economic issues for being a stay-at-home mom, would presumably prefer women to be dependent on the state for health care and housing .

But by marrying wealthy, Ann made a truly empowering decision that allowed her the freedom to do whatever she wanted. And she did it, by all accounts, without sacrificing the really important stuff, marrying someone she loved.

And what a catch she found in Mitt Romney, a good, churchgoing guy who worked hard to achieve huge success.

But don’t hold your breath for the choruses of “You go, girl!” from the feminists. Apparently, picking a good provider is only okay in political mates, not domestic ones.

But why is that? Women want safety and dependability, especially today, with such a volatile economy. And President Obama knows this, which is why his appeals to women include paternalistic language and fear-mongering about the Republicans.

If Democrats insist that women need Obama to take care of them, then why shouldn’t women also feel compelled to consider how their future husbands will take care of them? What’s the difference between the feminists’ political marriage to Obama and Ann’s marriage to Mitt? Both choices are predicated on who will be the better provider.

Because of whom she married, Ann was able to stay at home and raise her family the way she wanted. She was able to support her husband’s ambitions. She was able to afford lifesaving care when she was diagnosed with both multiple sclerosis and breast cancer. And she was able to devote her time to charity.

In fact, her excellent choice of a mate makes her uniquely qualified to talk about the most important economic issue that real women confront: How am I going to support myself and my future family?

The feminists may wish otherwise, but little girls want stability and security, not state-sponsored welfare. For choosing a life partner who could give her that, Ann Romney is a great role model.

Somebody's been watching too much Mad Men, I'm afraid.

Seriously, it's been a while since I read such retrograde drivel even from a right winger. She's literally saying that if women want stability and security they should marry rich. Which is, I think we can all agree, nice work if you can get it. But the 1% is only 1% and unless we are going to require wealthy men to marry
more than one wife (which I'm sure ole Mitt wouldn't be averse to either --- his grandfather wasn't anyway) we have a little math problem here.

But I have to say that I'm depressed by the notion that the only valid choices for a woman to gain security and stability is to be dependent on welfare or marriage is still in circulation anywhere. Presumably, Cupp is aware that the vast majority of women don't depend on anyone for those things. Not even the conservative married ones. They work at jobs, just like she does. Are they irresponsible gadabouts for failing to properly secure a millionaire?

Evidently Cupp is looking for a wealthy, patriarchal throwback to take her away from all this and there are probably a few available. Sadly, being in her 30s she's pretty much out of the running for anyone younger than 60 or so. (Rich male "providers" of all ages tend to prefer the younger ones.) She missed her "Romney window" a long time ago.

I will say this: Romney was lucky to have undertaken a long term strategic projection back when she was 18 and decided to marry a future president of America. It's far less likely that a man on that path will trade you in for a newer model once you get to be SE Cupp's age. It's bad for business. That Ann Romney really did have it all figured out didn't she?

Update: In case you missed it, there's this too:

According to Schlafly, the word "liberal is a perjorative now since Michael politician wants to be called a liberal anymore" and because it's a perjorative, Schlafly thinks "that's the way we should treat feminism." She goes on to say women don't want to be called feminists because it's a bad word, and that "everything they stand for is bad and destructive."

She's right about the word liberal. And considering how easily the left abandoned it, we might as well start thinking of another word for feminism and get the jump on them. It'll only take about 25 years for it to catch on.