Hey Ann Friedman, is Obama your sugar daddy?

I didn’t start this politician-as-paramour trope but someone did and now I want to play.

If Paul Ryan is my annoying Libertarian ex-boyfriend then Obama is Ann Friedman’s sugar daddy.

In my experience, women are less likely than men to be in total denial about the fact that some Americans are born with more cultural and financial advantage than others and that government should have some programs that seek to lessen the disparity.

What a load of sexist bullshit.

So men are less likely to support entitlement programs (where is your data to support that claim?) because they are in “total denial about the fact that some Americans are born with more cultural and financial advantage than others?”

No, Ann, many PEOPLE don’t support entitlement programs for myriad solid reasons, including that they tend to grow fiscally unsustainable over time, they breed governmental dependency, they crowd out private solutions, they’re a forced redistribution of wealth and therefore a violation of property rights, they’re unconstitutional, etc.

[Women] make less money. So we’re more likely to rely on programs like food stamps and Medicare. And, unsurprisingly, we’re more likely to support legislation that stems from a collective-good worldview, such as the Affordable Care Act. The Ryan agenda of going all Edward Scissorhands on the social safety net would hit women especially hard.

So since women aren’t cutting it in the private sector, we want a sugar daddy government to take care of us.

Gross.

Photo by Dain Sandoval.

4 Comments

  1. hahastatism

    “[Women] make less money.” Fact! That’s what happens when men are the overwhelming majority of students in technical fields such as engineering, and thus fill the field with more men and get paid a lot. While women on the other hand are far more likely to study social sciences, which pay far less than technical fields. Your choices have consequences. Men and women in the same job, for the same amount of time on average have very similar salaries and in many fields women are actually paid more.

    On the subject of female CEOs, the reason why there aren’t that many is because promoting a women to a critical position is risky. If she gets pregnant, she will be unable to work for several months, leaving a hole in leadership.

    It’s not discrimination, there is no war on women, it’s just the hard truth. My advice to women is, learn programming.

  2. That women make less money is definitely not in dispute. What I’m taking issue with is that the solution is government-run entitlement programs. A better solution, as you’ve pointed out, is for individual women to make more economically sound personal choices. But we need to also keep in mind the societal and biological hindrances to women making solid economic choices, most importantly childbearing and breastfeeding. Sure, women can forgo reproducing and breastfeeding to compete with men. Childless urban women actually earn more than childless urban men on average. But for that to be the long-term solution to the wage gap seems unfortunate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.