Wednesday, January 15, 2014

MISS PARKER'S MAGICAL CONCOCTION.

Kathleen Parker, holder of the Roberto Begnini Pulitzer Prize for Commentary, hates feminism enough to engage in weird, lurid public fantasies about its invalidation ("The feminist woman of the left, who burned her bra and insisted that all hear her roar, is today a taupe-ish figure who wonders where things went wrong"), so it was inevitable that she would join the other dumbbells on the marriage-makes-you-rich bandwagon.

Here's my favorite part of her column, from near the end:
Obviously, marriage won’t cure all ills. A single mother could marry tomorrow and she still wouldn’t have a job. But in the War on Poverty, rebuilding a culture that encourages marriage should be part of the arsenal.
Hold on -- marriage won't get you a job? Then how, specifically, does it fight poverty? Does it make you better at picking lotto numbers?

Here is the closest thing to an explanation Parker offers:
...because marriage creates a tiny economy fueled by a magical concoction of love, selflessness and permanent commitment that holds spirits aloft during tough times.
In other words: Misery loves company. Why can't poor people just get a dog instead of a spouse? It would fulfill the "love, selflessness and permanent commitment" part, and cost less to feed.

Oh, right -- anything that might give paupers pleasure would be blocked by Republicans.

I guess all conservatives will get with this program soon enough, even though, in correlation-is-causation terms, marriage is as likely to make you white as it is to make you rich. Poor people who don't want to get married, here's your only hope: When the Republicans come for you, tell them you're gay.

UPDATE. Nancy Derringer, known around these parts as Nancy Nall, was on this last fall:
"That argument is that marriage causes the best outcomes for your children,” [University of Michigan professor Pamela Smock] said. “That if you get people who are poor to marry, it would solve a lot of problems. But things don’t work like that. People who have better economic prospects are more likely to get married. You couldn’t take two poor, unemployable people and marry them and lift them out of poverty."
I thought people knew this, but I guess common sense has gone further out of fashion than I thought.

In comments, JennOfArk: "Apparently Lifetime re-ran Pretty Woman for the umpteenth time this past weekend, and Parker watched it (again) for the umpteenth time...only THIS time, she realized that the movie's plot holds the key to helping every impoverished woman in America improve her lot."

156 comments:

  1. Dr. Hunky Jimpjorps1:46 PM

    As a practical matter, how is a woman supposed to care for little ones and/or pay for child care, while working for a minimum wage that is significantly less than what most fair-minded, lucky people would consider paying the house cleaner? Not very well.



    WELL THEN MAYBE WE SHOULD PAY THAT WOMAN BETTER INSTEAD OF TELLING HER TO GET MARRIED, YOU INCORRIGIBLE IDIOT

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gromet1:51 PM

    But when the jobless single mother marries the employed man, his income gets divided three ways instead of just being used by he who actually earned it. Why, that's redistribution of wealth! Zounds! I've never head of a more despicable socialist plot! We can't base our civilization's financial decisions on "love" and "selflessness" and "commitment"! That's treasonous, China-red hogwash!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gromet1:55 PM

    "The American people don't need laws to guarantee them a minimum level of safety. They just need the magic of love!" -- an idiot

    ReplyDelete
  4. PulletSurprise1:58 PM

    >>>...marriage creates a tiny economy fueled by a magical concoction of love, selflessness and permanent commitment



    Is this what her first marriage was based upon, or her second?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Robert Johnson2:02 PM

    In all fairness "....a tiny economy fueled by a magical concoction..." is a pretty apt description of most Republican economic theory.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Halloween_Jack2:02 PM

    ...because marriage creates a tiny economy fueled by a magical concoction of love, selflessness and permanent commitment that holds spirits aloft during tough times.


    And in this snowglobe fantasia pocket universe, Paul Krugman has been replaced by the Care Bears, who aren't hesitant to use their Stare without getting all big-brain-poindextery about it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. bargal202:07 PM

    Silly Roy. Marriage means the wife can sell her hair to buy her husband a fob for his fine watch, while the husband can sell his watch to buy his wife a barrette for her lovely hair. It's all so magical!

    ReplyDelete
  8. coozledad2:07 PM

    It could also be code for most of their boners. she's probably uncomfortable talking about that boom and bust cycle.

    ReplyDelete
  9. redoubtagain2:08 PM

    "Those who would commit matrimony, to gain a little financial safety, deserve neither matrimony or financial safety." Zombie Ben Franklin Kathleen Parker

    ReplyDelete
  10. Derelict2:14 PM

    Geez. Between David Brooks worrying about people having unauthorized sex on their couches in their trailers and Parker joining the parade on how marriage is the key to economic viability, it's a wonder any of them have time for their own affairs.


    But I guess berating people is much more effective, than, say, actually doing something to help them.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Derelict2:15 PM

    It wasn't the economy that was tiny, nor was it the thing that recessed.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Derelict2:17 PM

    Always interesting to read someone hectoring others about selflessness when her entire political philosophy boils down to trying to construct the highest moral arguments for selfishness.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "...because marriage creates a tiny economy fueled by a magical concoction of love, selflessness and permanent commitment that holds spirits aloft during tough times."
    Did she crib that from Little Women?

    ReplyDelete
  14. If I may address a small but, I believe, crucial bit in Ms. Parker's argument:

    Democrats avoid the M-word for fear of trespassing on important constituent turfs, especially women’s.



    I can't speak for any given group, but I can't help but feel that you're wrong on this. I think that Democrats avoid the "M-word" because we've realized that in a society post-Industrial Revolution, marriage is more of an expression of love than a business arrangement. Pre-modern romantic literature often depicted love and duty as contrary forces, but this is a world we have long since abandoned in favor of one that (in my opinion) is much nicer.


    Now, I will give you some credit for actually using the L-word. Most of your contemporaries on the cultural right refuse to acknowledge "love" as a component of marriage at all, treating it instead as a form of social engineering with the intention of producing infants. But I can't help but feel that, by using "love" as a mere bullet point in your argument, you've missed something that's rather important. You've forgotten that to brew this "magical concoction" of yours, you have to start with love. It's not like a little dialog box pops up, reading "Would you like to be married to the person you love?" It's not that simple, and you must realize that it's not that simple - yet here you are, making this argument.


    What you and your ilk need to acknowledge is that life is never so clear-cut. It's not a matter of drawing a card and then carefully selecting from among the proffered options. It's hitting a crossroads with an indeterminate number of choices and having a split-second to choose. It's occasionally reaching an impasse where there is no right choice. Put it this way, Ms. Parker - I am not unmarried by choice. I am single because of a number of factors, most of which were outside of my control. Those single mothers you're so eager to condemn are not any different. And if you're really convinced that you can reshape the next generation by making some decisions for them, then you might want to consider taking up role-playing, where your decisions have more predictable outcomes.


    This has been another overlong post from the dragon-man.

    ReplyDelete
  15. But if we do that, then it won't break the cycle of...uh...dependency? Wait, that doesn't make sense...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jay B.2:23 PM

    ...because marriage creates a tiny economy fueled by a magical concoction of love, selflessness and permanent commitment that holds spirits aloft during tough times.


    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, hippie freak.

    ReplyDelete
  17. marindenver2:24 PM

    The whole column is a fantasy filled meandering. Not a single statistic is presented to support a thing she says. "I, K Pa, the Wise and Wonderful, proclaim that marriage is the cure to all societal ills . Go ye forth and marry, peasants!"

    ReplyDelete
  18. Of course if I were to land a generous rich dude my personal poverty would be defeated.
    But I take it that's not what she had in mind when she talks about magical economies?

    ReplyDelete
  19. coozledad2:26 PM

    When you get called out for being brutal, it's always time to haul one of these Hallmark paeans to marriage, so you can build a structure of sentimentality on it.


    So what if your ass hungry? You in love.


    It's an old formula, but it pays her sorry regurgitative ass thousands.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Spaghetti Lee2:53 PM

    You know, I do get it (ish). Trouble shared is trouble halved, pleasure shared is pleasure doubled, and all that.


    Even when conservatives stumble into something that most people can agree with, they fuck it up.

    ReplyDelete
  21. hellslittlestangel3:01 PM

    When Peggy Noonan, wakening in a pile of gin bottles and her own filth, imagines what she might have been if not for demon alcohol, she imagines Kathleen Parker.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I would like to tap my heels together and hang on a cross of gold with this comment.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Oh, I thought PN was the ghost of christmas future for KP.

    ReplyDelete
  24. JennOfArk3:21 PM

    Apparently Lifetime re-ran Pretty Woman for the umpteenth time this past weekend, and Parker watched it (again) for the umpteenth time...only THIS time, she realized that the movie's plot holds the key to helping every impoverished woman in America improve her lot.

    ReplyDelete
  25. PersonaAuGratin3:22 PM

    And John McCain.

    ReplyDelete
  26. smut clyde3:30 PM

    The feminist woman of the left ... is today a taupe-ish figure
    She is mole-coloured? Or mole-coloured-ish? Smut not understand.

    who burned her bra

    What's that, Snope? Parker is confusing fiction with reality? Smut shocked.

    a tiny economy fueled by a magical concoction
    I'll go out on a limb here and speculate that Parker is a fan of Reaganism.

    ReplyDelete
  27. smut clyde3:31 PM

    Go to your room, young man.

    ReplyDelete
  28. tigrismus3:34 PM

    The feminist woman of the left, who burned her bra and insisted that all
    hear her roar, is today a taupe-ish figure who wonders where things
    went wrong


    Taupe-ish? Maybe she should've stored that old straw-figure under a tarp.

    marriage creates a tiny economy fueled by a magical concoction of love,
    selflessness and permanent commitment that holds spirits aloft during
    tough times


    Also serves as a meat source, though once only.

    ReplyDelete
  29. smut clyde3:53 PM

    I am genuinely puzzled by the "taupe-ish" part. "Taupe", for me, is one of those minority-appeal colour words which one might encounter in a discussion of fashion or interior decor. Does it have connotations of which I'm not aware? Does it signify insignificance, or irrelevance? Why is "taupe-ish" more appropriate than "taupe"?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Gromet3:53 PM

    I always figured Democrats don't talk much about who's married and who's not because it's none of the government's business. It has always seemed to me one of the myriad ways the Democrats are a lot more "live free or die jesus just live free" than the Republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  31. philadelphialawyer3:55 PM

    "Bachelors were about an inch shorter on average than married men"

    http://www.shortsupport.org/News/0035.html

    "And a study published in the journal Nature seems to back up this theory. Robin I. M. Dunbar of the University of Liverpool and colleagues studied 3,200 men in their 20s to 50s, whose average height was 5'6." They found:

    "Taller men are more likely to be married and have children than shorter men

    "Childless bachelors are significantly shorter than married men

    "Those with children were, on average, 1.2 inches taller than childless men

    "Married men were an average of 1 inch taller than bachelors"

    "Tall men are more likely to get married and have children than short men."

    http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/08/03/how-much-of-an-advantage-do-tall-men-have-are-tall-men-really-better-off.htm

    So, again, following the correlation equal causation, GOP-benefits-of-marriage argument, I say that marriage makes men taller!
    But now I know how it works.......it's a "magical concoction of love, selflessness and commitment!"
    And I also learned that having children makes men taller too! Wow, all the benefits of traditional families that were just out there, waiting to be discovered by modern social science. Its amazing how what we always knew instinctively (ie that being married with kids is the best, if not only, way to live) turns out to be so beneficial in other ways too! Love, magic, tradition, the Bible....all validated by science! The best of both worlds, truly!

    ReplyDelete
  32. smut clyde3:55 PM

    Cynical people used to say that marriage is a form of prostitution, with a long-term contract. Trust Parker to seriously promote that as an argument in its favour.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Gromet3:55 PM

    Taupe is to beige what arugula is to lettuce. Real Americans simply don't do taupe.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Mark_B4Zeds3:56 PM

    If they believe that marriage creates prosperity, shouldn't right wingers be balls to the wall in favor of gay marriage? It would make sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Mark_B4Zeds3:59 PM

    It's the first time I've ever heard the word taupe used to describe a temperament. I'm not sure if it's a Perkerism of some sort of attempt on her part to be literary. One thing is for sure, Kathleen Parker is no Dorthy Parker.

    ReplyDelete
  36. satch4:00 PM

    "...because marriage creates a tiny economy fueled by a magical
    concoction of love, selflessness and permanent commitment that holds
    spirits aloft during tough times."


    Aww... and then when the power company turns off the electricity, they can huddle together for warmth and share a meal of roast pet over Sterno. . This really isn't much different from the stuff Mona Charen Suzanne Fields, or Peggy Noonan does, except that they don't have the Pulitzer committee saying "NO, we didn't mean THAT Kathleen Parker!!!"

    ReplyDelete
  37. the girls would always find a way to harness their Love, or Friendship,
    or Hope, or some other abstract concept, and turn it into what was
    functionally a giant laser beam



    Pssh, they've got nothing on today's free-market innovators. Why, I know a bright young man who can monetize love and hope and leverage friendship's surplus value into a very profitable enterprise!

    ReplyDelete
  38. tigrismus4:03 PM

    She wants to call them "beige," but "beige" is just so beige.

    ReplyDelete
  39. JennOfArk4:03 PM

    DUH! Then the homosexuals would all be prosperous. Can't have that.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Having the right set of ideological biases is all you need to be a successful conservative writer, even an "academic" one. For some reason this bit from Krugman always sticks with me:

    But can you discern any model in what Malpass wrote, or for that matter in almost anything on the WSJ editorial page? I can’t. All I see is a bunch of prejudices, strung together with some vaguely economistic-sounding phrases, something like someone talking gibberish that sort of sounds like Swedish. In the world according to the WSJ, lowtaxes are good (unless the people involved are low income lucky duckies), regulation bad, low inflation good, low interest rates bad, strong dollar good — and don’t ask why.

    The thing is, however, that more or less the same thing, at a subtler level, is going on among famous Republican economists. Read what Robert Barro is saying lately, or Robert Lucas, and try to find any commonality between their explanations of the current slump and what they have been saying about business cycles these past 30 years. I can’t.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Mark_B4Zeds4:05 PM

    They say our love won't pay the rent,
    but that's just not what Kathleen Parker meant
    Well I don't know if all that's true
    cause you got me and Baby I got you

    ReplyDelete
  42. Well, there's nothing wrong with pursuing love even in the face of material hardship. But imagining that dong so will magically cure your material hardship is delusional. But that's the quintessential conservative delusion: that your material hardships can be cured by moral propriety (and conversely, that continued hardship is your fault due to your lack of moral propriety).

    ReplyDelete
  43. smut clyde4:08 PM

    It's a French word... but then, so is 'beige'.
    Right now I'm supposed to be working with a linguist colleague on a cross-cultural analysis of colour language in different European languages, and I'd noticed how many of them have added "beige" (in suitably transliterated form) to their lexicons. Is this the global impact of IBM design choices, perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
  44. philadelphialawyer4:09 PM

    Two can live as cheaply as one, is the truism that I think best fits what this person would be talking about, if she wasn't an idiot. Two adults can live more cheaply in one household than in two. Basically, the minimum necessary to maintain a household, however humble, is way more than half of what it costs to maintain the humblest household for two. Like the way a one bedroom apartment does not cost double what a studio costs.
    Similarly, two adults and a child can live more cheaply together than it would cost to have two households, one composed of an adult and a child and one composed of a single adult. Again, the cost of maintaining that second household is the key. A two bedroom apartment costs less than a one bedroom and a studio combined. Besides rent, there are utilities and so forth, which also reflect the relatively high cost of additional household as opposed to an additional person.
    Sooooo, yeah, if a single parent can find another adult willing to share household expenses, that would make his or her situation better. And even for the second adult, his or her share of the total costs will probably be less than it would cost to live alone.
    But that has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. Or even with love, really. A platonic or even non friend boarder would help a single mom or dad make ends meet. And it is has nothing at all to do with "magic."
    Of course, as Aimai says, there is such a thing as a benefit of two people who care about each other being able to whether adversity better than two people on their own. Love, caring, emotional support, etc, is worth something. But, again, marriage, per se, has nothing to do with it. The two adults could be friends, non married lovers, fiancé and fiancée, siblings, cousins, parent and adult child, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Gromet4:09 PM

    Because they'll contribute to Democratic candidates, because the Republicans can't possibly change their platform to accept gay marriage even as it becomes widespread. Because that would mean embracing one of the free market's biggest success stories... oh. Wait. Coherence breaking -- apart -- can't stand internal contra...dictions! Must hit... Benghazi button... [Explosion noise]

    ReplyDelete
  46. I have a sinking feeling that I know what movie will be on the next "10 Great Conservative Movies" list.

    ReplyDelete
  47. smut clyde4:11 PM

    the classical, ur, magical economy of cinderella and snow white.
    Have you been writing slashfic again?

    ReplyDelete
  48. JennOfArk4:11 PM

    She wants to call them "spinsters" but that's so passe. She uses "taupe" as a stand-in for "boring," "wallflower," "invisible." My guess is this is more a reflection of Parker's own fear of aging and her incorrect assumption that "the feminist woman of the left" never married or had children and so has come to the "invisible" part of life with nothing to show for it. That's what "taupe" means, in Parker's context.


    What she fails to mention is that these "taupe" women can do a lot of things their mothers or grandmothers couldn't do, such as buy property without a male co-signer, get access to the best colleges and universities, train for and do pretty much whatever type of work they want to do, and etc. I'm pretty sure that most of them have been too busy to sit around musing about "where things went wrong."

    ReplyDelete
  49. Well, they have to frame it very carefully, because if they just talk about love and togetherness without qualifiers, people might get the idea that you can love someone of the same sex, or love someone without marrying them, or love more than one person, or something ungodly like that.

    ReplyDelete
  50. All those tiny economies add up.


    Yeah... if you're a commie.

    ReplyDelete
  51. smut clyde4:16 PM

    Ahh! [nods sagely]


    You know the first-wave feminists are now irrelevant nobodies -- bypassed by society and history -- by the way that Parker can't stop talking about them and complaining about the attention they receive.

    ReplyDelete
  52. smut clyde4:18 PM

    shouldn't right wingers be balls to the wall in favor of gay marriage


    Celebratory visits to the glory-hole, you mean?

    ReplyDelete
  53. coozledad4:19 PM

    Hormel chili, from a can
    if I puke, you hold my hand.
    I found pickled eggs in the trash
    we'll have to roll
    someone for their ca-a-a-ash.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Well, all these discussions come within the context of a society in which the costs of reproducing children and rearing them are either born more or less successfully by indepdnetn child rearing units (families) or partially by society itself. Thats been true since the get go, long before the founding of the actual country. During the earliest periods of settlement people simply weren't permitted to have a baby without assigning responsibility to some kind of parent or guardian and midwives were tasked with demanding to know who the father was for any child born out of wedlock. Similarly the very old and the very young were assigned to foster families for care or else their cost was born by the village/polity itself.


    So even liberals will talk about marriage when the family structure is not strong enough to rear children without cost to the state (I'm thinking welfare and snap and medicaid for example). Its part of trying to find a way to offoload the expense of new citizens onto some willing person, or prevent the creation of new people who are going to cost the state something.

    ReplyDelete
  55. M. Krebs4:21 PM

    I'm looking for a ecru-ish woman.

    ReplyDelete
  56. smut clyde4:23 PM

    My mental image of K. Parker tends more towards puce.

    ReplyDelete
  57. ADHDJ4:25 PM

    "Pardon me sir, might I have some more mush?"
    "NO! David Brooks is off today."

    ReplyDelete
  58. BigHank534:25 PM

    ...who can monetize love and hope and leverage friendship's surplus value...

    That's kind of a long-winded way of saying "Sells amateur porn vids on the internet", isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  59. coozledad4:25 PM

    Or the ubiquity of Land's End closeouts.

    ReplyDelete
  60. ADHDJ4:29 PM

    Colorless taupe feminists scold furiously

    ReplyDelete
  61. coozledad4:35 PM

    Lynchburg, VA is crowded enough as it is.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Mooser4:53 PM

    Nor does she explain why so many poor, single mothers are divorced. Does she blame them for trying?

    ReplyDelete
  63. JennOfArk4:54 PM

    There's a great line in Michael Moore's Roger and Me, where he's following a guy who serves and enforces eviction notices. The guy says about one of the people he's called to evict, something like "she got married to a guy who doesn't have a job, either. I told her she didn't need no help being poor."

    ReplyDelete
  64. Mooser4:56 PM

    Kathleen does do Ms. Parker a service, tho. She validates one of her most oft-quoted epigrams. Something about raising flowers, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  65. JennOfArk4:57 PM

    There's this horrid color I refer to as "WalMart blue." It's a sad, institutional looking medium blue shade, and it seems that every piece of plastic shit WalMart sold through the 1980s was made in that color.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Mooser4:59 PM

    "a tiny economy fueled by a magical concoction"


    Sorry, Kathleen, we already know how "Breaking Bad" ends.

    ReplyDelete
  67. BigHank535:04 PM

    I have a couple catboxes in that color. I thought the damn felines were colorblind, but one of them has taken to shitting on the floor instead, so maybe not.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Mooser5:07 PM

    Gromet, you've put the men's rights arguments in a nutshell!

    ReplyDelete
  69. Mark_B4Zeds5:12 PM

    As I remember it, cats see color pretty well, Dogs are still colorblind.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Mark_B4Zeds5:13 PM

    This one?

    “You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think.”
    ― Dorothy Parker

    ReplyDelete
  71. glennisw5:19 PM

    "Keep writing, Kathleen, and maybe someday there'll be a cordovan loafer there for YOU!"

    ReplyDelete
  72. MBouffant5:46 PM

    Aw, don't give it away to the rubes!

    ReplyDelete
  73. PulletSurprise5:46 PM

    It's a fair cop.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Dean Baker has been doing a good job on this front, also.

    http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-gives-us-another-example-of-the-single-parent-fallacy
    ~

    ReplyDelete
  75. Mickey_Zellberg6:02 PM

    I'm down with sneering at Kathleen Parker and all, but don't try to perpetrate that there's no economic benefits to marriage. My wife's plan for paying off her canuck undergraduate degree was "keep filling out the loan deferral paperwork until I'm in my grave". I paid for her history BA and her MLS in cash.

    ReplyDelete
  76. GlockPalin6:04 PM

    It's like she broke into Peggy Noonan's liquor cabinet.

    ReplyDelete
  77. MBouffant6:11 PM

    We shouldn't forget that Kathleen Parker is the very same no-not-a-racist bottle blonde who didn't think Obummer had any "blood equity" in these United Snakes, discounting his All-American from Kansas mother entirely.


    The feminist woman of the left, who burned her bra and insisted that all hear her roar
    So the feminist women of the right (?) were sitting demurely w/ aspirins clutched between their legs while bras were (not) being burned?



    Also, we can retire Helen Freaking Reddy from the cliched discussion any day.

    ReplyDelete
  78. well, wimmins aren't 'sposed to work--that's why they get married!!

    And my understanding is that, besides the ick-factor, a major reason the average dirt-collar winger grunt is against gay marriage (at least for men) is that "it just ain't fair" for gays to be able to double-team the poor straight guy burdened with a (non-professional) wife and kids in the great and glorious free-for-all that is American capitalism.

    it just ain't fair

    ReplyDelete
  79. GTFOWI6:18 PM

    "fueled by a magical concoction"



    Clearly, this is Kathleen Parker's latest cry for help to fight her pathetic addiction to hallucinogenic substances.

    ReplyDelete
  80. MBouffant6:19 PM

    Stipulated: Two can indeed live as cheaply as one & a half, or even one.

    ReplyDelete
  81. yeah, it had the boom anime-babes (who made me think the wrong things)

    ReplyDelete
  82. stepped_pyramids6:20 PM

    So what she's saying is that marriage creates wealth because even lazy moochers will work harder to keep their loved ones from starving to death?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Ellis_Weiner6:24 PM

    These patriots who can't wait to quote "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" will be the first to wag the judgmental, dismissive finger if you said to them, "Marriage is based on a promise most young people aren't competent to make--which is why previous generations joked about marriage as a prison sentence without hope of parole." That's when they'll haul out the sermon entitled, "Happiness Isn't Everything."

    In the end--and at the beginning, and all during the time in between--they'll say and theorize and promulgate literally anything, so long as it results in the rich getting richer. Period. This, regardless of the effect on the majority, the earth, the country, and justice itself. You heard it here...well, not "first." How about "again."

    ReplyDelete
  84. stepped_pyramids6:56 PM

    Autocorrect error for "Taupin-ish". She means feminist women of the left write really catchy songs.

    ReplyDelete
  85. GTFOWI7:01 PM

    Stipulated: not every woman can marry a Mickey Zellberg. Some marriages are economically beneficial, but that doesn't invalidate the general point here.

    ReplyDelete
  86. TGuerrant7:01 PM

    Y'all are just trying to bait me into going over to WaPo and posting some thought-provoking questions about the economic impact of dildos.

    ReplyDelete
  87. whetstone7:08 PM

    because marriage creates a tiny economy fueled by a magical concoction
    of love, selflessness and permanent commitment that holds spirits aloft
    during tough times


    She's apparently a columnist because she doesn't write well enough for Hallmark.

    ReplyDelete
  88. sophronia7:11 PM

    Selflessness is something the poor are supposed to feel, so they will smile and be happy knowing that the rich are keeping all the money, power, influence, prestige, nutrition, healthcare, education, clean air, and so on. To keep themselves busy they can go to megachurch and dream of death's sweet release and an afterlife where they get to be something other than a used doormat.

    ReplyDelete
  89. tigrismus7:12 PM

    In the interest of using your example to set public policy, how many folks are you willing to marry?

    ReplyDelete
  90. sophronia7:18 PM

    Hey, Prince Harry is still available!

    ReplyDelete
  91. Gromet7:18 PM

    Ohhhh... have I? But aren't the "men's rights" crowd a pretty conservative bunch? This is confusing. Why can't the crazy side of the argument be coherent!

    ReplyDelete
  92. i would like to offer this comment three wishes from my magical monkey's paw.

    ReplyDelete
  93. mortimer20007:30 PM

    In the end--and at the beginning, and all during the time in between--they'll say and theorize and promulgate literally anything, so long as it results in the rich getting richer. Period. This, regardless of the effect on the majority, the earth, the country, and justice itself.

    I realize this is written right up above but I wanted to see it again because this is the crux of it. Underlying all this right-wing bullshit is this selfish belief: poverty and unemployment are caused solely bu the lack of individual responsibility of the poor and the unemployed. It has nothing to do with an economic system of ownership by the few, falling wages despite higher productivity, or the deliberate powerlessness of labor, because capitalism is virtually perfect. Therefore, poverty and unemployment can only be ameliorated by the poor and unemployed themselves: by overcoming their own laziness, getting married, improving their moral character*, turning to Jesus, whatever. Government can't and shouldn't do anything about it, so we should end all entitlements and give rich people even bigger tax cuts. Now and forever, amen.

    * © David Brooks

    ReplyDelete
  94. Very true. Get a conservative in the right mindset, and they'll go on and on about our duty to contribute to society via such things as being productive worker drones or having children. Getting married, having your requisite one-point-five kids, setting up your little suburban fiefdom and living like a good middle-class person should is considered the adult, prosocial thing to do, whether or not you're happy in such a life. Individual freedom is only valuable if you use that freedom to make white-patriarchy-approved life choices.

    But then, you pretty much summed up the reason for all the conservative cognitive dissonance: "In the end--and at the beginning, and all during the time in
    between--they'll say and theorize and promulgate literally anything, so
    long as it results in the rich getting richer." Well said.

    ReplyDelete
  95. smut clyde8:01 PM

    indistinguishable from those "Kong" dog chew toys
    Hilarity ensues.

    ReplyDelete
  96. smut clyde8:05 PM

    Sadly, no. Cats see the blue-yellow dimension of colour space, but not a red-green distinction -- same as dogs (same as most mammals except a handful of primates).

    ReplyDelete
  97. coozledad8:09 PM

    Or multiple piercings.

    ReplyDelete
  98. JennOfArk8:15 PM

    Thus highlighting the major drawback of dildo-shaped guns - getting shot by your dog.

    ReplyDelete
  99. the girls would always find a way to harness their Love, or Friendship,
    or Hope, or some other abstract concept, and turn it into what was
    functionally a giant laser beam that blasted the demons into oblivion


    That is currently the work of wee small talking horsies, although they work for rehabilitation rather than oblivion.

    ReplyDelete
  100. JennOfArk8:17 PM

    They are also the subject of internet fetish porn.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Magatha9:21 PM

    Taupe is the opposite of pink.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Magatha9:29 PM

    That reminds me: I keep proposing to Mr. Paul Krugman and Ms. Robin Wells, but they are playing hard to get. I don't understand it. They are both economists. Wouldn't you think they'd both be so busy economizing that they'd jump at the chance to join forces with an energetic dog-walking, chore-doing, soon-to-be-ex-spinster? I will write to them again. They obviously need someone to help answer their mail.

    ReplyDelete
  103. LittlePig10:15 PM

    Shut the front door!

    ReplyDelete
  104. LittlePig10:15 PM

    feelest thou not alone, brother.

    ReplyDelete
  105. LittlePig10:21 PM

    Here now! Pomegrantate and Puce are the school colors of Wassamatta U (Bullwinkle's alma mater). Leave us not dis puce.

    ReplyDelete
  106. LittlePig10:23 PM

    The Jell-o shots! Zey do nothing!!

    ReplyDelete
  107. LittlePig10:25 PM

    "But most of all beware this boy,

    for on his brow I see that written which is Doom"

    Yeah.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Mooser10:58 PM

    That very one.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Mooser11:01 PM

    "When Peggy Noonan, wakening in a pile of gin bottles and her own filth,
    imagines what she might have been if not for demon alcohol, she imagines
    Kathleen Parker."



    And calls out for another drink. And the waiter, of course, brought a tray.

    ReplyDelete
  110. M. Krebs11:12 PM

    Maybe they were both in the red-green dimension of color space.

    ReplyDelete
  111. I AM HIGHLY OFFENDED BY YOUR

    [Clears throat]

    ...Sorry; I am highly offended by your assertion about shoulder-shrugging. Good Christian conservatives would never simply shrug their shoulders over a married couple with children living in poverty. They would actively try to make their lives even more hellish by eliminating whatever remaining scraps of public assistance they receive, all while calling them worthless garbage at every opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  112. marindenver11:19 PM

    LOL, taupe is actually one of my favorite colors for decorating. Taupe walls go with pretty much any furniture color. I totally didn't get K Pa's reference to "taupe women" as, apparently, a pejorative. Taupe is good! What's sad is her belief that us feminists of the 60's/70's are sad and whiny today about how everything went wrong. I'm in a place I like and I think I'm not the only one! Also, too, my daughters are going for what they want and succeeding quite well, thank you. So get lost Kathleen.

    ReplyDelete
  113. AGoodQuestion11:19 PM

    She actually used the word "magical" to bolster her economic argument. You didn't make that up. That's crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  114. There's enough mush now in any single conservative column to feed a Victorian orphanage for a year.


    Which is lucky, in light of all the conservative cuts to Head Start.

    ReplyDelete
  115. AlanInSF11:23 PM

    "..because marriage creates a tiny economy fueled by a magical concoction of love, selflessness and permanent commitment"


    I think she's advocating home counterfeiting. That would make more sense.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Stipulated: not every woman can marry a Mickey Zellberg.


    [Sheds bitter tears]

    ReplyDelete
  117. but I think the dildos are what kept it afloat.


    The hollow plastic ones, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  118. AGoodQuestion11:29 PM

    Right. Cat's have awesome night vision, but not much in the way of color definition.

    ReplyDelete
  119. ...because marriage creates a tiny economy fueled by a magical
    concoction of love, selflessness and permanent commitment that holds
    spirits aloft during tough times.


    In other words, they can burn bullshit to stay warm.

    ReplyDelete
  120. GTFOWI11:45 PM

    Tragic is it not?

    ReplyDelete
  121. PersonaAuGratin12:13 AM

    <>

    ReplyDelete
  122. Sadly true, but then, what isn't?

    ReplyDelete
  123. mrstilton2:57 AM

    not every woman can marry a Mickey Zellberg

    If we would simply return to the Biblical marriage principles by which conservatives set such store, every woman could.

    ReplyDelete
  124. And Sailor Moon wasn't?

    ReplyDelete
  125. mommadillo6:16 AM

    Sounds like Parker's been dipping into Noonan's stash again.

    ReplyDelete
  126. mommadillo6:17 AM

    Damn - that'll teach me to read the comments BEFORE posting.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Lurking Canadian8:24 AM

    It's been at least a week, though...

    ReplyDelete
  128. satch8:39 AM

    Comments involving Peggy Noonan's liquor cabinet are usually found up among the "Best", so it's wise to start there.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Buddy_McCue8:53 AM

    Most conservatives I know would agree that marriage would help more poor people become prosperous… specifically because that's the way God wants it.


    Get right with God, and you will be rewarded. That sort of thing.

    ReplyDelete
  130. JennOfArk9:04 AM

    Uh...that's what the "also" was for...

    ReplyDelete
  131. Buddy_McCue9:16 AM

    I heard that the word "taupe" originally referred to the color of mole skin. I think they used it to make shoes or something.

    ReplyDelete
  132. We can't afford to pay the heat,
    we got no jobs, we cannot eat
    I'm not sure Kathleen Parker knows
    that or tiny economy really blows

    ReplyDelete
  133. oh no, they don't want you to stop at 1.5 kids, they want you to have as many as possible, to feed the wage slave demands of the giant corporations.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Helmut Monotreme10:02 AM

    I look forward to the day when we can tune in to "Wife Hoarders" on cable.

    ReplyDelete
  135. coozledad10:28 AM

    We could join a clinical trial
    I’d risk a lethal dose for your sweet smile
    They pay for blood and we’ve got a bunch
    And they provide snack items. It’s like lunch.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Mark_B4Zeds10:32 AM

    Well, damn, I was wrong. I'll endeavor to forget than it ever happened.

    ReplyDelete
  137. StringOnAStick11:44 AM

    Yes, no mention at all that the single biggest cause of divorce is money problems, but raising the minimum wage is a horror that must not be allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  138. StringOnAStick11:46 AM

    Dong should be able to do all that? Truly it is magical!

    ReplyDelete
  139. StringOnAStick11:52 AM

    I've got a fundy Xtian half sister who is bottom rung economically, but completely sure that if she keeps posting about the prosperity gospel on Facebook, any day now God is going to reward her for that. And for playing candy crush all day too.

    ReplyDelete
  140. therling12:19 PM

    Gosh, then one thing that could make marriage "more sturdy" would be to outlaw divorce. Oh, and make it retroactive, thereby invalidating Parker's own divorce.

    ReplyDelete
  141. I choose not to correct that typo.

    ReplyDelete
  142. realinterrobang4:59 PM

    Smut, you are a sick, sick man. I say that with the greatest possible degree of affection.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Mooser6:23 PM

    So Parker is an example of succeeding through divorce, not marriage?

    ReplyDelete
  144. Mooser6:25 PM

    She's advocating for a smarmy newlyweds reality show.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Mooser6:27 PM

    Shouldn't that be "not every woman can divorce Mickey Zellberg?" Cause that's when the true transfer-of-wealth takes place.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Mooser6:30 PM

    I wonder what Ms. K. Parker's story is, then.

    ReplyDelete
  147. RogerAiles6:45 PM

    Hellhole Kitty sez: "A single mother could marry tomorrow and she still wouldn’t have a job."



    Intellectually Consistent Wingnutz for Romney (obvs. hypothetical): "Hellhole Kitty says being a wife and mother isn't work! Splutter! Splutter!"

    ReplyDelete
  148. bekabot11:22 PM

    "The feminist woman of the left, who burned her bra and insisted that all hear her roar, is today a taupe-ish figure who wonders where things went wrong"

    Yeah. You know a woman's got real regrets when she's berating herself over things that never happened.

    "Hold on -- marriage won't get you a job? Then how, specifically, does it fight poverty? Does it make you better at picking lotto numbers?"



    Sure it does!! You're picking for two, so the odds-against are halved. (That's the ticket.)

    ReplyDelete
  149. digitusmedius9:34 AM

    Round where I live the problem isn't poor people not marrying. It's marrying early and often, and getting multiple children along the way (because, by gum, contraception is baaaaad). Do these rightwing pundits live in hermetically sealed echo chambers of their own imaginations? I certainly understand how they can concoct a world where two overpaid individuals tie the knot and become much more highly overpaid and then assume that's the way it will work for everyone. But, shit, doesn't it even dawn on them how they've simply moved from one privileged life to another for their entire existence? Of course it doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Buddy_McCue10:41 AM

    I know that color!

    ReplyDelete
  151. bekabot11:59 AM

    "Round where I live the problem isn't poor people not marrying. It's marrying early and often, and getting multiple children along the way..."

    I can dig it.

    "...(because, by gum, contraception is baaaaad)."



    In my neck of the woods, where unbelievers abound, it's more that contraception is complicated, contraception is artificial, contraception requires volition, and contraception involves admitting to yourself and to at least one other person that you definitely don't intend to have a kid. Plus, contraception isn't always immediately easy to get. Morality doesn't really come into it, it's more an issue of convenience (a word which sends righties into a tailspin).

    ReplyDelete
  152. Derelict6:32 AM

    Each must contribute to [the 0.01%] of society. None [except that 0.01%] should expect anything at all from society beyond stern rebukes to respect their betters.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Wm Kiernan10:14 AM

    I had to go look at the original document because, even though it was in a block-quote and all, I couldn't believe you didn't make up that business about the tiny economy fueled by magic. But it's there, right there on the Washington Post website.

    Trying to make sense, be gone. Trolls, all of them.

    ReplyDelete
  154. jefft4528:39 PM

    Demon: What you mean “better than magic”

    Rincewind: I don’t know,
    harness the lightning, maybe

    D: lightning goes up and down

    R: What?

    D: When you want to pull a cart, you want it to go side to
    side, not up and down. You gotta thing
    about these things

    ReplyDelete