Subscribe to this Blog
Today's Blogs
    The Checkup:

Ann Coulter and Single Moms

Ann Coulter is not married and not a mom.

Yet in her new book "Guilty" she devotes an entire chapter to single mothers and the children in their homes. In it she blames almost all societal problems on single motherhood. "The strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single parent," she writes.

On "The View" last week, Coulter vs. Interviewers was typical "The View," with a few exceptional moments like Coulter accusing Barbara Walters of reading an excerpt of the book as though it was "Mein Kampf."

Just listen to some of the interview, which begins with Whoopi Goldberg reading an excerpt from the book and asking about Coulter's stated Hollywood hype of single moms.

Coulter: "I'm just giving the numbers. ... the illegitimacy rate alone has gone up by 300 percent since 1970. This was just a specific plan by the left attacking the nuclear family."

Goldberg: "Having been a single mother I don't think it was something I used as a tool."

Coulter: "I don't think you've done it in the last few years."

And later, Coulter: "Single motherhood is not good for children. That is a fact."

"All mothers, single or otherwise, should be exalted," says mom Stephanie A. Crockett. "If she were a mother, she'd know that, and she'd know why." Crockett is a single mom to a 15-year-old and she says that Coulter's words don't affect her life in any way. Still, like most parents who've watched Coulter over the past two weeks, she has some well-formed thoughts about Coulter's statements:

She just doesn't know what side of the coin she wants to fall on. On one hand, she sympathizes with the white women who raised their bi-racial children alone, only to have the "half-black celebrities" to grow up and "insult" the "white women who struggled to raise them." They sound like they're being painted as victims to me. Then, on the other hand, she chastises single mothers because they supposedly paint themselves as victims.
She has the chapter in her book about single mothers raising criminals. How can you name the first black president of the United States, the Oscar-winning Halle Berry and the Grammy-winning Alicia Keyes, who were all raised by single mothers in one breath, then accuse single mothers of raising criminals in the next breath? It just doesn't make any sense.
Also, I don't have any studies like Coulter does, but I have a ton of anecdotal evidence that shows that simply having two parents doesn't cure all the social ills Coulter blames on single motherhood. I know a ton of adults who were raised by two parents who did a real number on their kids. In fact, some of our most notable criminals grew up in two-parent households. Jeffrey Dahmer? Raised by two parents. Columbine's Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold? Both raised in two-parent households. Clearly, just having two parents doesn't create the utopian society Coulter thinks it will.
This conversation has been going on for years, and it's still being had as if the only single mothers are black, uneducated and draining the government through welfare and food stamps. It's as if single motherhood is some type of disease that needs to be cured.
Some women, a lot of women, in fact, are making choices and they support their choices. So, when Coulter talks about single mothers, she's not talking about the white women who she paints in her book as victims of black men who abandoned them. And she's not talking about me, the mother of a 15-year-old who attends a private school in Fairfax County, paid for with the money I make working for a top media corporation, a job I got because I was uniquely qualified for it. So, if there is a conversation that needs to be had, it's one that tells the whole truth of single motherhood. And while we're at it, let's tell the whole truth about two-parent households, too.

Here's the thing about Ann Coulter: As Walters and others point out, she's just trying to sell books. And the ladies on "The View" are just trying to get ratings. The two mix it up as entertainment and all get what they want.

So, why do the rest of us bite -- me included in today's blog? Wouldn't we all be better off if we let Coulter's antiquated notion of what families should look like -- when's the last time you heard a child called illegitimate? -- just roll off our shoulders?

By Stacey Garfinkle |  January 21, 2009; 7:30 AM ET  | Category:  Newsmakers
Previous: Do You Have a Mom Car? | Next: Public Enemy No. 1: Layabout Dads

Comments


I think yesterdays events should once and for all put Coulter's facist hate leaning sentiments to rest. She is no longer relevent. Any major publication like the Washington Post that gives her a forum to spread her bile is doing us all a major diesservice. Time to throw her on the Sarah Palin junk heap of yesterday's news.

Posted by: CHICO13 | January 21, 2009 7:47 AM | Report abuse

Oh, what the heck....

Ann Coulter is an idiot. Okay, that's not fair. She's an entertainer who makes a very good living by going around insulting people, taking a particular point of view. Apparently, if you do that very well you can make a good living. (Sort of like Chris Rock, only she's nowhere near as funny.)

The "ladies" of "The View" are little better; they tend to gang up on various causes/people with a token airhead representing the opposition. But hey, it pays well.

There are all kinds of "single moms" and it's difficult and probably unfair to generalize about them. Think of the recent brouhaha on Stacey's blog about Ponnie Cousins, and the column in the WaPo Sunday Magazine a few weeks before that by Dana Wilkie. Contrast that with the "stereotypical" single mom who's been abandoned by the father, with limited support. Very little can be said that applies to all of them.

Crockett's thoughts are "well-formed?" In what sense? Maybe that they're grammatically correct, but they're not logically consistent nor supported by facts. She has no facts or studies, just anecdotal evidence. And she resorts to name calling as her logic - yeah, well two-parent families have produced criminals, too! So what?

Rant over - for now. :-)

Posted by: ArmyBrat1 | January 21, 2009 7:50 AM | Report abuse

Every single mother is an individual.

Posted by: anonthistime | January 21, 2009 8:08 AM | Report abuse

I want to know how some people end up getting so much air time on tv and of course press time when they have nothing to contribute to this society but the negative and to destroy it.

If you cannot get up and do something worthwhile for your fellow human besides tear them down every which way you can then just don't crawl out of bed or better yet --do like the Bible supposedly says--cut your tongue out if it offend you. That goes for Ann and all the negativity from others that people in this country have had to suffer with.

Posted by: mac7 | January 21, 2009 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Well, I'd have to say that Ann Coulter ranks even below cleaning out my car on my "things to worry about" list. Yes, our society has its fair share of problems. So let's talk about solutions, not scapegoats.

Basically, I don't see any reason to pay for the privilege of listening to someone whine about how it's always everyone else's fault. I get enough of that at home with my 7-yr-old.

Posted by: laura33 | January 21, 2009 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Coulter seems to have a penchant for blaming society's woes on anyone not exactly like herself- a self righteous, crass, classless anorexic who's wardrobe was assembled from 80's music video castoffs.

Posted by: vegmom | January 21, 2009 8:22 AM | Report abuse

BTW, every car is an individual, just that some owners are preparing them to be on the National Register of Historic Places.

Posted by: anonthistime | January 21, 2009 8:23 AM | Report abuse

i think what coulter misses is the financial stability of the family whether that family is a single mom or a two parent household.

let's just say that coulter is correct & that's a big stretch. what does she recommend to remedy the situation? easier access to abortion? government help?

i would love to ask her if she means that sarah palin's grandson is likely to be a crminal.

Posted by: quark2 | January 21, 2009 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Is Ann's claim "The strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single parent" true?

If it is, we should be directing our policing dollars away from the war on drugs and onto helping single parents. Or putting them in prison as accessories ...

Posted by: jimward21 | January 21, 2009 8:41 AM | Report abuse

I can't honestly believe I'm wasting a nanosecond on Ann Coulter, a moronic excuse for a human being if ever one existed, but I wanted to register my outrage that we are giving space to her, her stupid arguments, and the hate mongering she does to make herself money. Surely there's something else we can discuss, like larvae or composting.

Posted by: WorkingMomX | January 21, 2009 8:45 AM | Report abuse

This is me, deciding not to bite. Coulter's not worth discussing. See y'all tomorrow.

Posted by: newsahm | January 21, 2009 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Wouldn't we all be better off if we let Coulter's antiquated notion of what families should look like -- when's the last time you heard a child called illegitimate? -- just roll off our shoulders?

Yes Stacey, we would.
I am with newsahm, and I am outta here til tomorrow.

Posted by: VaLGaL | January 21, 2009 9:09 AM | Report abuse

In the hopes of making this somewhat productive: let's avoid the Ann Coulter discussion and address jimward21's question, re whether her stats are true:

The latest data I could find is from a 2002 US Department of Justice study, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pji02.pdf, which states:

"Over half of jail inmates grew up in
either a single-parent household or with
a guardian, such as grandparents,
another relative, or a nonrelative (table
15). Jail inmates who lived with a
mother only dropped from 43% to 39%
between 1996 and 2002."

So in answer to jimward21's point, yes it would likely be a sound investment to point more policy dollars towards supporting single parents (using the standard "it costs less to educate them than to incarcerate them" rubric).

(Recall Ponnie Cousins' article, where when she was a single mother to her older daughter there was a strong private-sector safety net in terms of good, low-cost day care; neighborhood support; etc. With her second daughter that strong private-sector safety net was gone and what remained was only a very weak government-provided safety net which seems to be disintegrating itself.)

Posted by: ArmyBrat1 | January 21, 2009 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Ann Coulter is wrong. We should encourage single motherhood as much as possible. A family without a father is the ideal standard to which our society should aspire.

Ok, that's not what I really think, but it is the opposite of what Coulter is saying. Is anyone ready to sign on to that view? I hope not. Instead, I assume that most people believe we should, as a general matter, aspire to have intact families. That is not inconsistent with the idea of having compassion for non-intact families.

Posted by: Compared2What | January 21, 2009 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Bill Cosby and many others have made the exact same case as Ann Coulter but libs jump all over Coulter because...because...because she is Ann Coulter, dangit!

Posted by: spamsux1 | January 21, 2009 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Ann Coulter has the face of someone who was once male.

Posted by: euroguy | January 21, 2009 9:27 AM | Report abuse

And later, Coulter: "Single motherhood is not good for children. That is a fact."

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33210

She'd be well-served to actually do some analysis...but that might be too hard.

Posted by: robjdisc | January 21, 2009 9:28 AM | Report abuse

fr spamsux1:

>Bill Cosby and many others have made the exact same case as Ann Coulter but libs jump all over Coulter because...because...because she is Ann Coulter, dangit!

Nope, sorry, not true. People "jump all over coulter" because she's full of LIES. She attempts to rewrite history to fit HER little world, and she fails, miserably, every single time.

Posted by: Alex511 | January 21, 2009 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Spending any time talking about Ms. Coulter is a terrible waste. So let's not.

I'd rather talk about how my kids spent the inauguration and how none of us can stop smiling.

Posted by: jjtwo | January 21, 2009 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Well, I came from a single parent home and gee, I did end up in prison...but as a correctional Lt.! Since she loves to generalize and really has no idea what she is talking about, maybe she needs to contact me for a tour and work a couple of days by my side. Coulter is full of crap, as usual, but we certainly help her on her way to keeping the bucks rolling in.

Posted by: rgncajn | January 21, 2009 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Why is Ann Coulter treated more seriously than other performance artists or professional wrestling? I doubt she actually believes half of what she says. Ann is proof that nobody lost money underestimating the taste of the American public.

Posted by: terminator_x | January 21, 2009 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Agreed. Ann Coulter is not worth the time. Bye Bye

Posted by: interestingidea1234 | January 21, 2009 9:45 AM | Report abuse

"Bill Cosby and many others have made the exact same case as Ann Coulter but libs jump all over Coulter because...because...because she is Ann Coulter, dangit!

Posted by: spamsux1 | January 21, 2009 9:25 AM |"

Nope. Cosby has credibility from decades of living in and working to better his community. Coulter has done neither.

Respect is earned, not bestowed through a media contract.

Posted by: laura33 | January 21, 2009 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Agree with everyone that Ann Coulter is not worth our virtual ink.

But...

Coulter is shaking her finger at the wrong symptom here. The symptom is not single motherhood. It's poverty. Single mothers are more likely to live in poverty.

So maybe we should spend our virtual ink and valuable time discussing this much more important and complex issue.

Posted by: VegasMom | January 21, 2009 9:53 AM | Report abuse

It's funny that Ann Coulter blames single mothers for all these evils. Single mothers are the ones left behind when fathers won't stand up and take responsibility for their children. She should be blaming absent fathers, not single mothers.

Why do we listen to this woman? Why do the media keep giving her outlets for her idiot rantings? This woman doesn't seem to have a single intelligent thing to say.

Posted by: jennifercadam | January 21, 2009 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Was there anyone watching The View that got a
useful message there?
Coulter or not?
W

Posted by: George20 | January 21, 2009 10:02 AM | Report abuse

"So, why do the rest of us bite -- me included in today's blog? Wouldn't we all be better off if we let Coulter's antiquated notion of what families should look like -- when's the last time you heard a child called illegitimate? -- just roll off our shoulders?"

It's amazing that someone actually had the gall to print that. I read the blog entry because I usually like On Parenting, but I won't even watch the video clip, because I've seen Coulter's dirty, deceptive, obfuscating, baiting tactics enough to know that there's no point in listening to her. Period. The best I can say is sometimes we listen because it brings the rest of us together in agreement that she's completely, 180 degrees wrong, and makes us express our opposition to her ideas more clearly. But in my mind, it's definitely not worth it to put up with her bile.

Posted by: MaxH | January 21, 2009 10:08 AM | Report abuse

The strongest indicator of someone growing up to be a criminal is poverty and it is no surprise that single minority parents make up the bulk of impoverished family's. Being a single parent is definitely more stressful, if you add on the necessary bad but affordable day care, stress, living in a bad but affordable neighborhood and bad public schools you get a bad combination...and of course the cycle continues. I was a single parent for a long time. However, my son had quality childcare, good public schools and a good neighborhood. And lets face it, it is better to be a single parent than make your kid grow up in an abusive household. It is the way society is set up NOT single mothers that contribute to the ills of our society and criminality.

Posted by: mikmiah | January 21, 2009 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan also raised the warning about fatherless children. That was four decades ago, and he was denounced by some as being racist (because he was worried about African-American family structure). Now, he's widely seen as having been prescient.

What bothers me about Coulter isn't that she's trying to make a buck, or that she's watering down a complex argument. Instead, what bothers me is that she makes her bucks and waters everything down to a simplistic and ideological argument.

President Obama said yesterday:

"On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."

It's time to move on past the Ann Coulters and Arianna Huffingtons who make their money strangling our politics.

Posted by: Kili | January 21, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse

If someone wrote that being homeless is not good for your musical career, would anyone disagree just because of Seal's success? I doubt it. It's the same with single motherhood: it is, in general, something to be avoided, which is not the same as saying it always turns out badly or that single mothers are evil.

Also, the fact that someone achieved a measure of fame or fortune in life despite having grown up without a father is not the same as saying that person was better off without a father. Maybe that person would have been less motivated (and thus would have been less rich or famous) in a two-parent household, but perhaps happier and spiritually better off.

Put another way, I'd rather be me than Heath Ledger.

Posted by: Compared2What | January 21, 2009 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Anne Coulter is a performance artist. She plays a conservative woman who wears big crosses deep in her V-neck sweaters and plays with her hair. How many real church-going 47-year old women go out in public in crotch-high spandex dresses?
Bottom line, she's not a mom. Can you imagine, before you became a mother and had never stood over a feverish two-year old at 3 in the morning, denigrating a mom, and one who's parenting all by herself? Please.

Posted by: QingyuanMama | January 21, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Coulter is right on. The problem is that people, especially those ninnies on the View are deathly afraid of offending people or telling the truth. Her statistics are correct and children of single mothers do do worse. Impressionable women see rich actresses with kids and think wow no big deal. Which when you are super rich is no big deal, when you make 30k, it is herculean.

Posted by: pwaa | January 21, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Stacey, Ann Coulter is a big meanie and a rabble-rouser who makes her arguments in a confrontation-inciting manner rather than a calming consensus-seeking manner. So don’t fall into the trap of taking it personal and getting your hackles up. That is what she is trying to do. Apparently it works.

However, she does have some facts on her side. Being raised in a single-parent household is bad for kids. Women should try very hard to avoid this fate. They should try instead to establish a solid relationship (like marriage) with a man who will stick around and try hard to be a good dad before she becomes pregnant. It’s better for her, better for her children, and better for society.

These are the facts. They are not in dispute. However, Coulter tends to present facts in ways that are mean-spirited and logically-disjointed and hard to follow. So people naturally argue back, even though they are wrong. They tend to get upset and make silly arguments like “I don’t have any facts, but I tons of anecdotal evidence,” etc.

Congrats on a child who is doing well, you deserve all kudos and accolades available. Moms make the world go round, single and otherwise. My single-parent-raised son is already in prison.

Posted by: ZZim | January 21, 2009 10:34 AM | Report abuse

She doesn't have to be a mom to have an opinion on motherhood and child-rearing. After all, she's an expert on politics, yet she doesn't even know where to vote!

Posted by: goaway41 | January 21, 2009 10:37 AM | Report abuse

If the obama fraud said the same thing, these posters would be swooning all over themselves at his "courage" and "forthrightness".........

Posted by: pwaa | January 21, 2009 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Because of people like Ann Coulter, AND OUR REACTION TO THEM, we can't seem to have constructive dialog about important issues anymore.

Why can't we think honestly about what it means to grow up in this world, how doing so is affected by such a fundamental variable as whether there is a father and mother involved in raising a kid, what that means for the children as individuals, and what it means for society at large-- why can't we think about that without turning it into a power struggle and an exercise in laying blame on someone?

It's a fair question, and an important one, whether raising kids without fathers is harmful to them and to society. It's important because of what's at stake, and because there has been a dramatic shift in the prevalence of single-parent households in the last 50 years or so.

At the very least there seems to be enough evidence to warrant having a serious discussion. And even if we conclude that children need a father and a mother (do we really need statistics to support that thesis?) it doesn't mean that single mothers are bad people, or the ones at fault, or anything else like that. It means we have a societal problem that we all should pay attention to.

Some people seem to only be able to think about things like this in terms of coercive government power, but we're a society, not just a people under government. We all stand to benefit from the discussion, not so we can pass laws for or against single moms, but so we can make individual, familial, and institutional changes to address the problem.

Maybe that means that a man tries harder to be a good husband because, in part, he loves his kids. Maybe it means we think about the messages our kids are getting about sexuality from the entertainment and advertising media, and take the time to deconstruct what they're hearing and teach them about what really matters in relationships. Maybe it means we think about we've structured our economy and our consumption practices and expectations such that we're putting increasing pressure on marriages and families. And yes, maybe it means there's a place for government programs and leadership to help preserve marriages and support the people involved when they fail.

Imagine what would happen if CEOs and entertainers and advertising executives and so-called thought-leaders concluded that children need a mother and a father. And let's further imagine that they and everyone else decided to operate in their profession with the idea that they're responsible for the influence they make on society, and that maximizing profits or whatever measure of success they have is not an absolute pursuit. That's called being a society, and it involves intentionality and a consideration of means in light of desired ends, rather than leaving us all to suffer the effects of forces that pursue their private ends by appealing to the baser elements on our nature.

Yeah, it would be great to talk about this stuff. But we can't, because we're too busy shouting at each other and we can only think in terms of a zero-sum blame game based on shallow observations and with no recourse to any normative standard.

This is the intellectual and moral ocean that surrounds us, and Ann Coulter is just one of the fishes swimming in it.

Posted by: mark51 | January 21, 2009 10:39 AM | Report abuse

pwaa, you are probably right we'd listen to Obama on this topic. That's because he doesn't spew hate with every syllable like Coulter. I am actually hoping that one day, she will wake up a normal human being, and then people will start listening to her, because on occasion, deep in the muck she spins like a web, there is a point that should be discussed.

Posted by: WorkingMomX | January 21, 2009 10:46 AM | Report abuse

in one book BO called Coulter and others sourpusses. It is a great term she is never happy. If there were a 300 percent decrease in single parents she would argue something against that fact. Still she is easy on the eyes though....

Posted by: jayp1 | January 21, 2009 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Coulter can be big pain, but the well all mother should be cherished blah blah is BS. It is like a person standing on a cliff about to jump and someone saying well all decisions should be supported and cherished and what business is it of mine etc etc.

Posted by: pwaa | January 21, 2009 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Why does the media, such as the Washington Post, continue to sell books for Ann Coulter? You wouldn't interview a deranged person at the mental hospital and pass it off as news. The woman would say aliens landed in her backyard if it would sell books. She plays the media like a fiddle. Sucker!

Posted by: jtmaddensr | January 21, 2009 11:00 AM | Report abuse

"You wouldn't interview a deranged person at the mental hospital and pass it off as news"

They have been doing it for liberals railing against Bush for 8 years. Get out much?

Posted by: pwaa | January 21, 2009 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Sigh. This statistic about children of single parents is wrong and misleading. Here's where the statistic comes from: the study she quotes from is not exactly about children of single mothers, it is about so-called "fatherless" children. It considers children who are "fatherless" to be those who did not have their biological father in the household for some stretch of time. This includes children whose fathers have died, who never lived in the household (children born to single women), fathers who were divorced from their mothers and did not have custody, and fathers who are in prison. As one can see, this is a varied group.

They then went and surveyed people in prison or ex-cons. And yes, a majority of them had been "fatherless" for some time but the largest category was because their father HAD BEEN IN PRISON.

So the REAL correlation is that children whose fathers had been in prison for some time while they were growing up, ALSO end up in prison! Gee, is that a surprise?

If you go the other way around and look at the much broader group of people who were without their biological father for some time, hardly ANY end up in prison. The added risk of a child ending up a criminal because his or her mother is single is very low, hardly significant.

I am really sick of people misusing this statistic to insult single mothers. For the vast majority of the time, the single mother is the hero, the only one who gives a damn enough to make the best of a bad situation and take care of the children and try to make sure they grow up right. Very very few women choose to be single parents.

Ann Coulter - she's just taking an old worn-out false stick and trying to beat mothers with it. She isn't even original. She's not teaching anything useful. Forget about her.

Posted by: catherine3 | January 21, 2009 11:05 AM | Report abuse

"Posted by: catherine3 | January 21, 2009 11:05 AM | Report abuse "

Wrong!

BOSTON, Sept. 7 (UPI) -- The number of single mothers in the United States is steadily increasing and their lower incomes are a major concern, an expert says.

Northeastern University economist Andrew Sum said with the percentage of single mothers eclipsing 50 percent of all births to women under the age of 30 in 2006, the potential concerns for society are growing in kind, The Kansas City (Mo.) Star reported Sunday.

Sum, who heads up the Boston school's Center for Labor Market Studies, said those among the 50.4 percent of 2006 births typically are thrust into a near-financial crisis due to a limited income.

"The inequality of incomes in these families is unbelievable," he said. "Forty percent are poor, or near-poor. A large fraction is dependent on public assistance. Unless the mother is very well-educated and has a bachelor's degree or above, there's a huge fiscal cost to the rest of us."

Missouri resident Sara Bell echoed Sum's findings, telling the Star that having two children on her own while trying to earn a living and a college degree was exhausting.

"There were times when I was like, 'This is why people marry when they have a kid,'" Bell told the newspaper.


© 2008 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Posted by: pwaa | January 21, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

catherine3: I'm not disagreeing with you about Ann Coulter, and I agree with your general attitude about single mothers, but you're misusing the statistics yourself.

I posted the link to the study in the thread; check it yourself. The relevant table is Table 15.

You say: "They then went and surveyed people in prison or ex-cons. And yes, a majority of them had been "fatherless" for some time but the largest category was because their father HAD BEEN IN PRISON."

Not correct. Even if EVERY SINGLE INMATE whose father had EVER been incarcerated (18.6%) lived with a single mother during that time of incarceration, that still leaves 20.6% who lived with a single mother while the father was never incarcerated. And that assumes that there were NO cases where the father was incarcerated prior to the subject's birth, or after he had left home.

Posted by: ArmyBrat1 | January 21, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Ann Coulter. Was she once a man? She looks like she was.

Posted by: euroguy | January 21, 2009 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Ann Coulter may be the strongest arguement for my not going to Heaven after she steps on death's "trapdoor"! I don't care to see or hear about her while I'm alive! And I sure wouldn't want to spend eternity with her!

Posted by: zenwols | January 21, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

In Coulter's right wing view every one in America is a problem if you're not a Christian (preferably of the evangelical theocratic type) heterosexual with a Leave It To Beaver style family.

Posted by: Dieterman | January 21, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Anne is clearly an explosive personality who uses hyperbole to make a point, which is that Hollywood et al seem to be trying to turn single-motherhood into something to which women should aspire. I think we can all agree that two parent homes are the preferred situation to raise children...certainly not the only way, but the preferred way.

Posted by: FH123 | January 21, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Or putting them in prison as accessories ...
Posted by: jimward21

I did not believe I could read any reaction to Ann Coulter's thoughts on single motherhood that was worth my time. Jimward21 proved me wrong. I just busted a gut! LOL!

Posted by: annenh | January 21, 2009 11:27 AM | Report abuse

One would hope that Ann Coulter does the world a favor and does not procreate. I would pity her children.

Posted by: phillip3 | January 21, 2009 11:31 AM | Report abuse

When I see Miss Coulter, I actually feel sorry for her. She is in her late 40s, trying to look much younger than she is; is childless & never married, when she apparently believes that it is not the right way to live; seems not to have any contemporaries or friends; and, finally, is really running out of things to say. The country has shifted its attention, and Fox News and vitriole are out, and unity and true compassion are in.

Au revoir, Ann!

Posted by: readerny | January 21, 2009 11:39 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if it were not Anne Coulter, this discussion would be different? I by NO MEANS like her, but I have to (gulp) agree, at least in part, with her statements about single-parent households. True, any parent can screw up their kids, whether a one parent or two parent household. But, there are additional emotional/developmental problems in a single-parent household - whether it's the result of not getting married or being divorced. A single mother who takes on the responsbility of taking care of her kids, really should have taken the responsibility of NOT getting pregnant (in this day and age with various birth control options, there's no excuse for accidental pregnancy), or made the father take responsibility for his kids by marrying her - you've heard of shotgun weddings?

Posted by: p_176 | January 21, 2009 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Ann who?

Posted by: pjkiger1 | January 21, 2009 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Ann Coulter and Barbara Walters are trying to sell books and improve TV ratings by stirring things up. Don't fall into their trap.

Posted by: SilverSpring8 | January 21, 2009 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Ah Catherine3...you should spend a few weeks in a High School...like I did for twenty years. The kids that had the toughest time were from broken homes, being raised by single parents. Which is not to say that all single mothers did a bad job. Some were absolutely wonderful.

Coulter is right, statistically. As in any study there are exceptions and thankfully not all kids in broken homes end up as criminals. Growing up in a broken home is just much tougher and it takes a tougher mom/dad and tougher kid to make lemonade out of sour lemons!

Someone made the point that it is more an economic issue. Could be. Of course there are myriad stories of poor kids becoming a success, too.

My feeling is that economic issues are the core. The question becomes what causes the economic situation....single parent hood...generational dependence on Government handouts...lack of genetics...lack of hope....bad luck...race?

But after all is said and done...single parents have less successful kids....statistically.

Posted by: wdwjr72 | January 21, 2009 11:48 AM | Report abuse

The problem is that when Ms. Coulter is involved, the discussion becomes about Ms. Coulter - because she is trying to get on TV or sell books, or whatever - which is quite disgusting, given the topics she is discussing.

She has some good points. True - every child should be raised in a home with two functional parents. (there are a lot of things in the world that *should* be a certain way...). Anyway - sometimes that is not possible. So single moms are to be praised. But certainly, we in our society should probably try to figure out how to make things better for single moms - so that their kids could have a better chance than they would have, given what we know.

We could demonize single moms, but would that get us to a better place? I don't think so.
Certainly, better education would be a good thing - better information for children to teach them that they shouldn't be having kids unless there will be a father present. blahblahblah. But in the end - what do we do with the children who are here? Again, quoting someone above - Ms. Coulter did not give any solutions to help out the issues we are dealing with. We can just say how horrible things are, or we can try to offer solutions...

Posted by: atlmom1234 | January 21, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

My only question about Mann Coulter is...

...How big IS her peeenis, anyway???

Posted by: Tom333 | January 21, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't this boil down to a simple causation/correlation discussion? After reading the cites we're all swinging around (those of us who aren't unilaterally declaring what "the facts" are), it looks like we're saying that many of the people in prison had single mothers. I bet many of them drank a lot of soda. Sugar makes kids hyper, and makes it harder for them to concentrate. Sugar = prison. BAN SUGARY DRINKS!

It seems to me that, when you look at the problems that single mothers face, it's mostly based on a lack of support--poor or no child care, long working hours, stress, exhaustion, comparatively less involvment in their children's lives, etc. To generalize, it all comes from the lack of support you would get from a co-parent (one who is working). Assuming that's true, what do we want to do about it? More abortions for single women? Preemptively jail children of single moms? Mandatory marriage? Or maybe, we provide the support to single moms in the form of affordable, competant child care, health care, education and job training, recognizing that it is in society's best interest to do so. Compare the cost of prosecuting and housing prisoners to the cost of supporting their moms, and I bet we come out ahead fiscally (we certainly would morally).

Posted by: jbs280 | January 21, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Just trying to imagine what scientific/biological process could result in a pregnancy, single or otherwise, for Coulter? "That dude has great hair!"

Posted by: irae | January 21, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse

if we sample our prisons...will we find the majority of inmates the product of conservative, two-parent homes? NO!!!!!!!!! Not by a long shot! It's fatherlessness...single (and mostly liberal, uneducated and immoral) moms at the root of our prison problem! Get real!

Posted by: ramvt84 | January 21, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Back in 2000, Mann Coulter showed her stripes and said some nasty things about Democratic candidates. She was on MSNBC at the time, and they threw her off the air.

Back before Chimpy's Reign of Error, we actually still had broadcast standards which precluded psychotic ranters like Coulter from getting on the air.

But that changed after Chimpy went to the Supremes to stop a recount. Suddenly, it was okay to put all kinds of reich wingnut psychotics like Coulter on the air, and she could spew stuff WORSE than what got her kicked off MSNBC.

The level of discourse in this nation has fallen to a new low, thanks to Coulter, Junkie Rush Limbaugh, PervOreilly, Sean Insannity, Michael Savage Weiner, Michelle Anchor Baby Malkin, et al.

I blame the Repukes, and particularly Ronnie Poopy Pants Reagan for destroying the Fairness Doctrine.

As for my remarks about these scumbags, they lowered the bar, so turnabout is fair play.

And I still want to know if Mann Coulter has a bigger whanger than I do. I won't date any woman who does.

Posted by: Tom333 | January 21, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Tom333: Would you support the 'Fairness Doctrine' in our grade/high schools, colleges and universities!?

Didn't think so...

Oh, read your post and then dare to talk about the 'level of discourse'! Typical liberal...free speech for you...just not for anyone else.

Posted by: ramvt84 | January 21, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

An article that claims that you must be married and a mom to understand problems is the real travesty today. The flawed logic that passes as journalism is reprehensible. Statistics, Statistical Analysis are all scientific endevors. Just as the therapist does not need to BE an Alcoholic to help an alcoholic- Ann Coulter does not need to be a mother, or married to look at data and identify single parenthood as a risk factor for raising children.

Now, ofcourse facts have no place in a debate as important as determining what is best for our children, and trying to help them have the best futures. No- that would be producitve. Instead, we should focus on anecdotal "evidence" which is ofcourse always much more accurate and predictive than studies, data, and relevent statistics. Infact,we should know that the qualifications of raising one 15 year old child as a single mother is simply much more compelling than Yale Law School, and a much better indicator of understanding social problems in a macro scale. I feel that. I sense that. I don't need to look at the data. No, the research time Ann Coulter spent could not have any relevancy, meaning, or importance. Indeed, all the journalists including Harry Smith, the entire View Cast, Matt Lauer all ran from any real debate about the stats- infact they didn't even want to mention it. Facts could expose the agenda driven smokescreen that tells us everything is allright- and we don't have to worry about an exploding population of single parents families, and what that means to children with marginalized futures, crime vicitms, overburdened courts, overpopulated jails, and futures lost.

Indeed, this logic seems to work so well that with the recent emergency landing of the airplane in the Hudson River- the NTSB should probably also give up its reliance on science, statisitcal data, and analysis to discover risk factors in flight- all in an effort to make them safer. It should instead, rely on annecdotal "evidence" from the general public. After all, using these established techniques they have only made Air Travel the safest mode of travel- including the bicycle- despite the fact that airplanes are some of the most complicated machines, and operate in variables such as bad weather. No absolutely no reason to defer to statistics simply because they work.

Posted by: droukiol | January 21, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Mann Coulter must have gotten an operation to remove her Adam's Apple.

It was prominent in older photos and videos of her.

I wonder how much that cost?

I don't think health insurance covers it.

Posted by: Tom333 | January 21, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Ann Coulter is the single most compelling reason why nobody should take the media--right, left, center---seriously. She spews, people get indignant, she spews some more, people get indignant some more, and all of the doctors treating blood pressure and hypertension make a killing over this cycle!

Seriously, if you ignore her, she'll have to go back to more honest labor, like breaking kneecaps or foreclosing homes on poor people.

Posted by: dewdrop2 | January 21, 2009 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Coulter is a satirist, only she doesn't realize it, which makes it even more difficult for us to tolerate her.

Posted by: nocprof | January 21, 2009 12:29 PM | Report abuse

in the movie "as good as it gets" the jack nicholson character explains his process for writing dialogue for female characters in his novels: first i think of a man, then i take away reason and accountability.

coulter has no reason or accountability in anything she does or says. she creates strawman "them"s "liberals" what ever "they" are to rail against. she is not trying to solve a problem or bring insight to any issue. just selling books to people who don't know how to read. why bother paying attention to anything she says. it is a waste of your time. she does not know what she is talking about. any one who does not agree with what ever she is ranting about at the moment is one of "them". facts and reality are relevant to her. coulter and rush dim bulb are the ultimate victims. they are are victims of their own ignorance and selfishness.

Posted by: del3 | January 21, 2009 12:30 PM | Report abuse

statistics, statistical analysis are all scientific endevors- so whatever we do- lets not pay any attention to them, and focus on the anecdotal "evidence" provided by a mother who raises one 15 year old as this will be a better way to understand the societal problems on a macro level much better.

Infact, the logic is so sound maybe the NTSB should abandon statistics and analysis of plane crashes. I mean, all its done for them is create the safest mode of transportation including bicycles despite the fact that airplanes have thousands more moving parts that could fail and operate those machines in such unkowns like weather.

Also, we should also abandon the idea that therapists and docotors can only treat diseases unless they suffer from the same disease- because not being a mother or a wife would certainly preclude you from understanding statistical data- what with that Yale Law degree and all.

Posted by: droukiol | January 21, 2009 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Tom333: Would you support the 'Fairness Doctrine' in our grade/high schools, colleges and universities!?
- ramvt84

Jeez, you're an idiot. The Fairness Doctrine was put in place because the airwaves are unique in that they are limited and they are owned collectively by the people of the United States.

Even without the Fairness Doctrine, there are broadcast standards under the FCC Act which require broadcasters to act in the public interest. This got ignored during Chimpy's Reign of Error. He put ideologues into the FCC and wrecked it.

And free speech is not unlimited in high schools either. Courts have ruled this, because they're minors. Look it up.

And as I plainly stated, you Repukes lowered the bar on the level of discourse, so you cannot complain when I take the low road to smear you scumbags.

Grow a brain, moron.

Posted by: Tom333 | January 21, 2009 12:37 PM | Report abuse

If you must read the book, then don't buy it; borrow it from a library. If you must watch "The View", then write to the broadcaster and complain about Coulter being on the air.

Posted by: nbahn | January 21, 2009 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Tom333 | January 21, 2009 12:37 PM | Report abuse

tom is in hog heaven now that the liberal media has been down on its knees for Obama for nearly two years.......

Posted by: pwaa | January 21, 2009 12:43 PM | Report abuse

One word:

Obama

Posted by: tricia_will | January 21, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

I think of an episode of cheaters last night where an unmarried mother who was living with the father of her child. Unfortuately for her and her child he was busy with another woman- who when confronted admits that she is also pregant by him. Oddly, these two women were supposedly best friends. Now, what he did was absolutely wrong- but the second women can't claim that she just woke up pregnant one day. She knew he already had a family of sorts- (this would be a big part of the problem) and yet she went ahead and got pregant by him even though one would conclude that he is already spoken for. Or do we not want to talk about those kind of annecdotes.

Posted by: droukiol | January 21, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

The Fairness Doctrine would NOT put a gag order on psychotic fascists like Mann Coulter. That is not how it works.

It would only require that for every minute of TV airtime she gets, the network has to give EQUAL TIME to Randi Rhodes.

You Repukes are idiots. You don't know anything about the Fairness Doctrine except the LIES you get from Junkie Rush Limbaugh.

Why isn't that fat junkie in prison right now? They caught him with a cigar box full of hillbilly heroin. I've heard of rednecks going to prison for just one or two oxycontin pills.

And why is PervOreilly still on the air? If I sexually harassed a woman who worked for me, like he did, I would expect to lose my job and probably be unable to work in my profession ever again.

It's the old Repuke double standard.

Posted by: Tom333 | January 21, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Bill Cosby said the same thing last year.

Here's his exact quote:

We, as black folks have to do a better job. Someone working at Wal-Mart with seven kids... you are hurting us.

She's just jumping on his bandwagon!

Posted by: Rameses | January 21, 2009 12:53 PM | Report abuse

pwaa, you're a Repuke moron.

The media are not librrrrul.

The media are CORPORATE. And corporations are not liberals.

Over 80% of US media are owned by 6 big corporations. 2 of them are defense contractors and supported the Iraq lies.

and pwaa, you're an idiot who doesn't know the first thing about me.

For starters, I did not vote for Obama, because he voted for the Bush Bailout.

I only voted for Democrats who were against the bailout.

You Repukes are morons, and you prove it with every single post to WaPo blogs.

Posted by: Tom333 | January 21, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

On the Fairness Doctrine... in regards to terrestrial radio... the solution is fairly obvious. Rush and Hannity, et. al, will simply set up shop on the Internet and "Broadcast" via "Webcast". Or go onto XM/Sirius. The terrestrial talk radio business will go the way of the 8-Track, as no one will be listening.

Posted by: Rameses | January 21, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

I think of an episode of cheaters last night where an unmarried mother who was living with the father of her child. Unfortuately for her and her child he was busy with another woman- who when confronted admits that she is also pregant by him. Oddly, these two women were supposedly best friends. Now, what he did was absolutely wrong- but the second women can't claim that she just woke up pregnant one day. She knew he already had a family of sorts- (this would be a big part of the problem) and yet she went ahead and got pregant by him even though one would conclude that he is already spoken for. Or do we not want to talk about those kind of annecdotes.

Posted by: droukiol | January 21, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

A single mother who takes on the responsbility of taking care of her kids, really should have taken the responsibility of NOT getting pregnant (in this day and age with various birth control options, there's no excuse for accidental pregnancy), or made the father take responsibility for his kids by marrying her - you've heard of shotgun weddings?

Posted by: p_176 | January 21, 2009 11:41 AM | Report abuse

I find it remarkable (and repugnant) that in the 21st century, people still insist on talking this way. Until we hold men to the same standard of being responsible for their sexuality and the results thereof, this problem will persist.

Posted by: VegasMom | January 21, 2009 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Two things as a single mom, who happens to come from a 2 parent household and who also happens to have given birth to a multicultural child, whose black father has not participated in her life...

1)What makes me bother to voice an opinion about Coulter, be it now or when she was denegrating the widows of 9/11 is because it is not that she can't have an opinion I think is appalling, but because she makes no effort to seek solutions. She spews and allows for no opinion other than her own.

2) More over what viserally bothers me is that she seems to gain pleasure out of being mean, spiteful and downright hateful.

Should she gain much of our time no, but just enough to push back that hate and vitriol are simply not helpful in the fabric of social dialogue.

Posted by: dpvny3411 | January 21, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

I will credit Ms Coutler for living her principles and that is it.

In a perfect world every child would have two people who love them, will protect them, educate them, and pass on common sense and wisdom to them whilst raising them. This is not a perfect world.

For ever "criminal" coming from a single mom, there is at least one upstanding, decent, and successful person. Ms Coulter ignores these people because we do not advance her propaganda.

We just need to consider the source and give the right amount attention...which in Ms Coulter's case is none.

Posted by: skramsv | January 21, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

I spoke too soon.

Mann Coulter has NOT had her Adam's Apple removed.

It is quite prominent in this video.

I wouldn't mind the fact that she's transsexual, except for the fact that she supported the gay-bashing Repuke platform.

Posted by: Tom333 | January 21, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

"The terrestrial talk radio business will go the way of the 8-Track, as no one will be listening." Posted by: Rameses

You don't know anything about the radio business, do you.

AM and FM radio are alive and well, and are doing fine because they are still free once you buy the radio.

The new HD radio isn't doing too well because people have to buy new radios to get it.

And the two satellite radio companies had to merge because they're not doing too well either. You have to buy a new radio AND pay a monthly fee.

And internet radio requires you to buy a computer and pay a monthly fee for an internet connection unless you can hitchhike off someone else's wifi.

Radio isn't going the way of the 8-track anytime soon. Unless the stupid government tries to switch it to digital like they did with TV. And that isn't working out too well either.

Posted by: Tom333 | January 21, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

You got it right in the end. Anne Coulter is not worth a minute of your time, and inch of your ink. The only thing that will shut her up is if the world stops acting as if she has anything to say.

When her biological clock goes off and she adopts a baby, it will be, like the Palin daugter's ill-timed child, a "blessing."

Posted by: fmjk | January 21, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Coulter is right. Though some single mothers do well, most do not. The causes of single motherhood in the nation's projects are at fault: there is a cycle. A child is routinely sexually molested by men; when she reaches menses, she becomes pregnant at 12 or 13. No one protects her, because her mother went through the same thing. She continues in the "forced prostitution" till she has several children. This is the way she is brought up, and so, thinks it is normal. She is too young to parent, so her children grow up to repeat the pattern--as molester or molested, as criminals or victims. It never ends.

Posted by: IIntgrty | January 21, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Tom333

Tom, I bet you voted for Ron Paul. You have that stink about you........

Posted by: pwaa | January 21, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Two things as a single mom, who happens to come from a 2 parent household and who also happens to have given birth to a multicultural child, whose black father has not participated in her life...

You are a poster child for the problem. Not married, having sex with men who are perfectly willing to knock you up but then are not willing to not participate in the childs life. Bad decisions that now some poor child has to deal with...

Posted by: pwaa | January 21, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Tom333:

I didn't say AM/FM talk radio wasn't doing well. I'm saying it is, because of conservative talk radio. Unless the stupid government brings back the Fairness Doctrine...

Posted by: Rameses | January 21, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I have worked in the criminal justice system in both the North and the South and the major contributing factors to violent crime and drugs are lack of education and substance abuse. This is directly related to crime irrespective of whether a person grows up in a single parent family or a two parent family. When you read the presentence reports you see that a significant number of offenders are high school dropouts or have drug and alcohol problems. We even see doctors (health care fraud) and businessmen who presumably have high levels of education, but they succumb to drugs or alcohol. We also see decent parents of both the single and two-parent variety who raise 2 or 3 successful children, but one child simply pursues the wrong path. Invariably this bad apple does not take school seriously and/or is involved with drugs or alcohol.

Posted by: aaron20 | January 21, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Personally I love Ann Coulter. Everyone but the far right recognizes her as an humiliating embarrassment, and they still embrace her.

Posted by: Attucks | January 21, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Wouldn't we all be better off if we let Coulter's antiquated notion of what families should look like -- when's the last time you heard a child called illegitimate? -- just roll off our shoulders?"


oh yes, wouldn't it be better if we just waved a wand and ignored the facts and realities of illegitimate children, foolish women and irresponsible men?

Posted by: pwaa | January 21, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Miss Coulter is just angry because, as of yesterday, her 15 minutes are up.

Posted by: bucinka8 | January 21, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

"oh yes, wouldn't it be better if we just waved a wand and ignored the facts and realities of illegitimate children, foolish women and irresponsible men?

Posted by: pwaa | January 21, 2009 2:17 PM"

Brilliant!

The fact is irresposible behavior is now celebrated. No one really gives a damn about consequnces, it's live for yourself and use the kids as pawns.

Posted by: chicago77 | January 21, 2009 2:33 PM | Report abuse

jimward21 wrote:
Is Ann's claim "The strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single parent" true?
------------
Probably not. I bet she pulled that "fact" out of her butt. Either that or there are co-occuring factors she conveniently neglects to take into consideration, hoping you won't notice.

Posted by: bucinka8 | January 21, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

President Obama agrees that children need two parents (both a mother and a father) and that two-parent families are what keep the foundation of our country strong:

"But if we are honest with ourselves, we'll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing - missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.

You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled - doubled - since we were children. We know the statistics - that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it."

"...we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child - it's the courage to raise one.

We need to help all the mothers out there who are raising these kids by themselves; the mothers who drop them off at school, go to work, pick up them up in the afternoon, work another shift, get dinner, make lunches, pay the bills, fix the house, and all the other things it takes both parents to do. So many of these women are doing a heroic job, but they need support. They need another parent. Their children need another parent. That's what keeps their foundation strong. It's what keeps the foundation of our country strong."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/27/obama.fathers.ay/index.html

Posted by: obamamama31 | January 21, 2009 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Ann Coulter, in Internet terminology, is a troll. Please treat her as such, do not feed the trolls.

Posted by: Joran | January 21, 2009 2:44 PM | Report abuse

tom333, let me give you some advice: Never wrestle with a pig. It just gets you dirty and annoys the pig.

Posted by: bucinka8 | January 21, 2009 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Who cares what that dried up old tranny thinks about family anyway?

Posted by: LABC | January 21, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

I tried to post a message calling for a more reasoned approach to this discussion, and discussions in general. But Stacey apparently chose not to allow it (I posted it at 11:00 AM ET). So I guess she prefers all the name calling and ad-hominem arguments, which is really what Ann Coulter and The View are all about anyway.

Posted by: mark51 | January 21, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

How about we focus on her arguments, instead of calling her ridiculous names? She is definitely not the only one to make these points. If you disagree with her, fine, but let's have a discussion on the argument.

Posted by: choirgirl04 | January 21, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Well I think that single parenting is not as good as dual-parenting, regardless of the sex of the parent. Single mothers, single fathers, whateve the case may be...I think two responsible adults in a household will help foster the kind of environment that a child needs moreso than a single parent could ever provide. Ann Coulter is easy to attack but if her stats are correct (not sure that they are), maybe the hens on 'The View' should listen to what she is saying instead of attacking her for saying something controversial. Whoopi Goldberg stated that she was a single mother and that her child turned out well. Simply put, she's one case and she has the means to have a nanny, adequate child care, etc. where most people cannot. I am assuredly no fan of Ann Coulter but I am even less of a fan of 'The View'. What a crappy, crappy show.

Posted by: wvugemini1 | January 21, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Also--you don't need to be married or have children to have an opinion on them. If we limited opinions to personal experience, a lot of us wouldn't be permitted to have any!

Posted by: choirgirl04 | January 21, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

First of all, to say that it was a conscious effort by "the left" to de-legitimize the nuclear family is farcical on its face. All the left did was point out that children could succeed in non-nuclear families--such as those that result from divorce, abandonment, abuse and so on.
Second, why would anyone take ANYTHING the Anorexic Harpy of the right has to say? She spews supposed "statistics" without references or footnotes, and bellows her bile to sell books to the same dimwit dittoheads to whom Rush Limbaugh vents HIS spleen. A look at ANY Justice Dept study will show that the greatest indicators of future criminal behavior are poverty and lack of education. That single parents are over-represented in that group is hardly earth shattering news.
Third, any reasonable discourse with Coulter borders on the impossible--she will sound as strident as she needs to as a way to hype sales. Watch her most recent interviews (with Lauer and Handley Smith)or any TV "appearances". She preaches to her own choir, satisfying their need for red meat nonsense while getting rich. The larger issue is why people need their prejudices confirmed in such a pejorative, disjointed manner.

Posted by: bklyndan22 | January 21, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Any look at an Ann Coulter book will find copious references. Take a look at the back of the book.

Posted by: choirgirl04 | January 21, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Because of people like Ann Coulter, AND OUR REACTION TO THEM, we can't seem to have constructive dialog about important issues anymore.

Why can't we think honestly about what it means to grow up in this world, how doing so is affected by such a fundamental variable as whether there is a father and mother involved in raising a kid, what that means for the children as individuals, and what it means for society at large-- why can't we think about that without turning it into a power struggle and an exercise in laying blame on someone?

It's a fair question, and an important one, whether raising kids without fathers is harmful to them and to society. It's important because of what's at stake, and because there has been a dramatic shift in the prevalence of single-parent households in the last 50 years or so.

At the very least there seems to be enough evidence to warrant having a serious discussion. And even if we conclude that children need a father and a mother (do we really need statistics to support that thesis?) it doesn't mean that single mothers are bad people, or the ones at fault, or anything else like that. It means we have a societal problem that we all should pay attention to.

Some people seem to only be able to think about things like this in terms of coercive government power, but we're a society, not just a people under government. We all stand to benefit from the discussion, not so we can pass laws for or against single moms, but so we can make individual, familial, and institutional changes to address the problem.

Maybe that means that a man tries harder to be a good husband because, in part, he loves his kids. Maybe it means we think about the messages our kids are getting about sexuality from the entertainment and advertising media, and take the time to deconstruct what they're hearing and teach them about what really matters in relationships. Maybe it means we think about how we've structured our economy and our consumption practices and expectations such that we're putting increasing pressure on marriages and families. And yes, maybe it means there's a place for government programs and leadership to help preserve marriages and support the people involved when they fail.

Imagine what would happen if CEOs and entertainers and advertising executives and so-called thought-leaders concluded that children need a mother and a father. And let's further imagine that they and everyone else decided to operate in their profession with the idea that they're responsible for the influence they make on society, and that maximizing profits or whatever measure of success they have is not an absolute pursuit. That's called being a society, and it involves intentionality and a consideration of means in light of desired ends, rather than leaving us all to suffer the effects of forces that pursue their private ends by appealing to the baser elements of our nature.

Yeah, it would be great to talk about this stuff. But we can't, because we're too busy shouting at each other, and we can only think in terms of a zero-sum blame game based on shallow observations and with no recourse to any normative standard.

This is the intellectual and moral ocean that surrounds us, and Ann Coulter is just one of the fishes swimming in it.

Posted by: mark51 | January 21, 2009 3:38 PM | Report abuse

ArmyBrat1, you said it. I find a serious lack of credibility in the louder battles of the culture war. Let's just all forget this episode of The View ever happened, shall we?

Posted by: patrick4 | January 21, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

chico13 wrote: Time to throw her on the Sarah Palin junk heap of yesterday's news.

Now, I'm no conservative apologist, but that is Beyond the Palin. At least the Governor says what she believes; AC says things to be mean. Even my toddlers know the difference.

Definitely NSFW: http://www.hamellontrial.com/music.htm

Posted by: info_stuporhighway | January 21, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

copious references - there is an entire industry of work that goes through fact checking that hag's work. She is mean twisted person who needs to prop up her sad life by tearing others down. And those that follow her path are just as sad.

And I am not a single parent, I have a husband. But I know a number of single mothers and I know better than to make judgments about their lives and their children. They are fine people and I have no interest in listening or reading some dried up piece of flint's b*tchy take on something she will never experience. Based on some of the comments here, her idiot plate is full and she hardly needs my money or time.

Posted by: LABC | January 21, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Coulter's statement about single motherhood being the "strongest predictor" for future imprisonment is fatally flawed for at least one reason: Most young men in prison today are there on drug charges, which are insane in my opinion - this is not criminal behavior, this is a health issue.

End the War on Drugs. Only decriminalization will end the violence. Invest in making these people healthy again, not keeping them in prison!

Posted by: patrick4 | January 21, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

"End the War on Drugs. Only decriminalization will end the violence. Invest in making these people healthy again, not keeping them in prison!"

Got busted for weed again didn't you? Bummer

Posted by: pwaa | January 21, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"This was just a specific plan by the left attacking the nuclear family."

Wow. Single parent families were planned and plotted?

Has she had her head checked?

Posted by: kgotthardt | January 21, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Ironically, I just blogged on something similar before I read this article:

http://luxuriouschoices.blogspot.com/2009/01/lets-put-blame-where-it-belongs.html

Posted by: kgotthardt | January 21, 2009 4:11 PM | Report abuse

It is simple. If you don't like what she has to say, don't support her by buying her books or listening to the airwaive peddlers of her verbal garbage.

Coulter loves making money by spreading hate. She is a master of taking an argument that has some merit (in general (and subject to MANY exceptions), children ARE better off in two parent households, and then twisting in inflamatory remarks such as promoting the theory that it is really a race issue or a class issue. She paints her hate targets with broad brushes and she provides fuel and perceived validation for the extremists on the right and aggitates the extremists on the left to no end.

Posted by: MdLaw | January 21, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

pwaa - Your post is weak.

We've wasted billions of dollars on enforcing laws that cannot help society. Every high school student in this country can obtain drugs if he or she desires them. Most violent gangs exist solely for trafficking drugs. We let murderers and rapists out of prison faster than drug addicts. Do you have an argument?

Posted by: patrick4 | January 21, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

"Posted by: patrick4 "

Well try this one. Look your child in the eyes and say "Honey, if you want to try heroin , ok. if you want to legally throw your life away, that's fine with me. Now here's 50 bucks, go to the store and buy some legal drugs. Being a junkie legally is fine by me.
That's what you are proposing and frankly it's an idiotic proposal.

Posted by: pwaa | January 21, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Anne Coulter is a manipulative wretch who benefits every time her name is featured front and centre in a controversial setting like this one. As others have mentioned, her objective is to sell books, and whenever she can stir things up with her pig-ignorance she probably sells a few more. I am grateful that such a hatemongering freak defends the conservative, right-wing point of view. That only makes the left look good by comparison.

A large part of her book sales is generated by wealthy right-wing nuts, who buy up a big load of them when they are released and then give them away - as a prize for making a donation to a Republican's campaign, for example.

Posted by: marknesop | January 21, 2009 5:17 PM | Report abuse

People get too caught up on the "delivery" rather than the actual message. Everyone is focusing on the exception, rather than the rule.
Of course Pres. Obama, Halle Berry, Dr. Ben Carson et al are successful besides some of the insurmountable sociological odds that were against them and despite of those barriers, they were able to defeat them. Unfortunately, that is not the majority in those challenging cases, hence the "exception to the rule."
Parents must be available to their children in every aspect of their lives. Without the full commitment & unselfish sacrifice from these so-called adults, statistically, these children will not have an opportunity to realize their full potential and that in itself is a tragedy.
So rather than harp on Coulter's delivery, lend credence to her message because in the end, that's all that matters.
If you doubt her thoughts, then perhaps you're willing to be more favorable to Bill Cosby's call for fathers to be involved with their children... President Obama's many references eluding to the fact that parents have to be responsible and not rely on others, namely government to solve all of their family's problems. How about Hillary Clinton's: "It Takes A Village?" Messages that were and are delivered with a lot less "shock" value, thereby avoiding all of the media attention (except for Mr. Cosby-exception to the rule). These are all recurring themes: Be responsible for the children you bring into the world.
There's an old yet appropriate saying: "Don't Shoot The Messenger."

Posted by: ginel | January 21, 2009 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Ironically, in the 60s, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a liberal, raised the issue that statistically children from two parent households fare better. There is no easy answer. You find jails full of two parent children who dropped out of school and have substance abuse problems. There are children from two parent home that have suffered from physical abuse at the hands of their parents. Others become talk show hosts for Fox News. You will also find police officers, judges, poets such as Maya Angelou, lawyers such as Barak Obama, doctors such as the noted neurosurgeon Ben Carson, entertainers such as Alicia Keyes, pilots, teachers, ministers, former President William Jefferson Clinton, current President Barak Obama and other productive members of society that come from single parent families. Don't write off children from single parent families. Sure, statistically they might havve it tougher, and they might have to work harder to obtain some of the things that kids from two parent families obtain, but they can do if they're given a chance. Isn't that the so called American dream.

Posted by: aaron20 | January 21, 2009 5:36 PM | Report abuse

None of you seem to understand Coulter's extremely valid point here. And while she can be insulting and sharp in the way she explains her point, that doesn't take away from the validity of it.

She is not saying that ALL single mothers are terrible, selfish people who don't care about their kids. She is not saying that ALL children from single-parent households turn out to be criminals and never amount to anything. That you would either say this, or post someone else's argument that says this about her is a flat-out lie and is a main reason we can't have real, substantive, and civil debates anymore.

What Coulter IS saying is as follows:
Children from single-parent households who succeed are the exception more so than the rule, especially compared to children raised with 2 parents. The statistics bear this out in all facets, education, criminal records, careers, and the children's relationships. The question becomes, Why has the number of children reared by single parents spiked so much? One answer to this question is that it has become financially more rewarding, almost profitable, for women to divorce their husbands and then never remarry. These practices by the courts and government programs were done with good intentions, to "help single mothers raise their kids without the threats from the big bad man, because all men are evil and it is always the husband's fault in a divorce."(hint for you liberals: that was a hyperbole)

And before you insult me and tell me, "you've never been a single mother;" being a male I will never be a single mother. However, I have witnessed the very things Coulter talks about from both sides. My sister became a mother just out of high school and married into a short and what turned out to be abusive marriage. Throughout my niece's entire childhood, my sister's ex paid nary half his required child-support and was never even required to pay alimony. It wasn't until my niece was a teenager that she met and married a great dude who has turned out to be more of a father to her than her real father ever was. I have also seen all 3 of my brothers victimized by divorce, being accused of unspeakable acts against their children just so their ex's could extort more money from them through the "court." There was absolutely no truth, no evidence, and the accusations were recanted, yet the stain of them was used against each of my brothers in their divorces.

Look, single mothers who individually do a good job raising their children should be praised. But single motherhood shouldn't be promoted as "a perfectly fine way to raise children," because it isn't and the statistics prove this. Marriage needs to be promoted as the best (once again, generally speaking) way to raise children, and family law needs to be reformed from an extortion mechanism for women to looking out for the best interests of the CHILDREN.

Posted by: octopi213 | January 21, 2009 6:34 PM | Report abuse

To Mark51: The blog's automatic spam filter stops some very long comment entries on its own. I've found your comment and posted it. Thanks for noting that it hadn't made it live. Anytime you see that happen, please feel free to e-mail me at parenting@washingtonpost.com.

Posted by: Stacey Garfinkle | January 21, 2009 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Wow - Coulter wins! Three times as many comments as on a typical day recently. And more hate speech today than I've seen in some places in LA and MS in the old days. (And yes, Tom333, your posts qualify as "hate speech" whether you like it or not. So do several others.)

So, Coulter wins - she got discussed at length, got a huge amount of publicity, and inspired her opponents to sink to levels of hate not generally tolerated these days. Pretty much exactly what she wanted.

Posted by: ArmyBrat1 | January 21, 2009 7:43 PM | Report abuse

As a single mother, I can tell you why Ann Coulter is relevant. Ann Coulter is relevant because she says what a lot of people think. I chose to adopt because I didn't want to be single and childless at the age of 47. It hasn't always been easy (would have been easier if I stopped at one child, but I didn't), but I wouldn't change what I did. But I repeatedly encounter people who automatically assume negative things about single parents. It is really bad in the school my kids now attend. My neighbor, also a single mom (through divorce in her case), has noticed the same thing. Her daughter's teacher referenced the "broken home" factor once when talking about some transgression the child had made. I get it from teachers (not all, but even once just kind of sours you on the school) and other parents.

Coulter says things in a mean way, and chooses to ignore statistics that don't exactly show what she wants to say. But her views are not that different from many I encounter--including some of today's posts. She accurately reflects the views of many people--that is why she is relevant. Maybe people on this blog by and large don't agree with her, but I've heard it before and I'll hear it again. Until she is the only one espousing her views, Ann Coulter will be relevant. And it will be a long day before she is the only one who thinks that single parent households are substandard.

Posted by: janedoe5 | January 21, 2009 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Yes, its so mean for people to want to desire a father figure/role model for children. Its so mean for people no wish children feel the emptyness of not knowing who their father is, or what it would be like to have their father in their lives. Its society's fault that you chose to not have that- and socieity is just mean.

Professional Educators commenting on the broken home could not have any basis for saying that. They are out to get you. They didn't enter the profession because they like children, and have the best interest of the children in mind.

Not having a father figure would have no impact on the children. Its all mean society.

When you see teachers forced to act like social workers because they have to first deal with all of the problems children bring to school with them, then yes its logical to conclude that they are so much healthier and happier than they were 30-40 years ago. And yes, its just society being mean to you.

Posted by: droukiol | January 22, 2009 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Precisely, droukiol. I could not have asked for a better illustration of my point.

Posted by: janedoe5 | January 22, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

fr wdwjr72:

>Coulter is right, statistically...

No, she is NOT, stat

Posted by: Alex511 | January 23, 2009 10:07 AM | Report abuse

I was astonished that people would actually applaud her crap. The story true....you can use statistics to back up any biased, narrow minded BS on the planet! She wants to sell books by scaring people and pointing fingers.

Posted by: k2high | January 23, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

fr patrick4:

>...Coulter's statement about single motherhood being the "strongest predictor" for future imprisonment is fatally flawed for at least one reason:...

She's never been able to tell the truth, from her ridiculous idea that whiny joey mccarthy was "victimized" by people that HE victimized, to the 9/11 widows that she called "harpies", and now finally this.

The former pastor of the UMC that my wife and I attend was raised by a single parent; he never knew his biological father who ABANDONED L's mother when he found out she was pregnant. L is a fine man, and very well-respected. He's never been in prison, but annie is sure looking at lawsuits for slander. I wonder how she'll like the taste of shoe leather....

Posted by: Alex511 | January 23, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

You don't have to be a wheel to understand how a wheel works. Single parenthood is bad when 12 year-old girls are eight months pregnant because of pedophilia and perversion in the projects. This is a real problem that is not being solved by name-calling. We need to solve child abuse and neglect, period. This will solve much of the single-parent issue.

Posted by: IIntgrty | January 26, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Here's how it works: the child of a teen is not parented adequately, is made the victim of a pedophile or a series of pedophiles; when she reaches the menses, she becomes pregnant UNWILLINGLY. She must give up her education, go on welfare, raise children, and possibly to mask her pain, go on drugs; to earn extra money, go into prostitution--all that she knows to do. Because she is not adequate at parenting herself, her own children are subjected to the same indignities, and on and on.

Posted by: IIntgrty | January 26, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Coulter is talking about these children--not mature women who can parent singly. Children who grow to be criminals are often the offspring of single mothers, but these are teen mothers who are UNWILLINGLY impregnated. Why take offense when she is simply trying to expose a societal phenomenon that springs from criminal behavior and that makes its victims unhappy and maladjusted? Broaden your minds. Learn.

Posted by: IIntgrty | January 26, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Ann Coulter needs to spend more time researching the effects of growing up in a combative two-parent household before making such sweeping statements.

How many kids do we know who grew up with an alcoholic parent who stayed together "for the kids?" Those kids learn to be equally as dysfunctional, disrespectful, and / or full of anger for not having the "perfect" childhood.

As the single parent of 14-year-old, he knows exactly where in stands in this family. He is loved more than words can express. He has structure, stability, and continuity in his life. There is no one to undermine my authority or to send mixed messages.

Posted by: tlfoster2 | January 26, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company