Cenk and Ana Kasparian lay into conservative commentator S. E. Cupp’s recent op-ed praising Ann Romney decision to “marrying well.” Ana says, “She makes the assumption that women are worthless and they are unable to be independent, so they need either a wealthy man or the government to take care of them, which is not the case at all.”
Digby flagged Cupp's op-ed as well the other day. I would not be surprised at all if Cenk found out about it from reading her post here -- Study hard for your M.R.S., girls. After quoting a good deal of the post from Cupp she added this:
Somebody's been watching too much Mad Men, I'm afraid.
Seriously, it's been a while since I read such retrograde drivel even from a right winger. She's literally saying that if women want stability and security they should marry rich. Which is, I think we can all agree, nice work if you can get it. But the 1 percent is only 1 percent and unless we are going to require wealthy men to marry more than one wife (which I'm sure ole Mitt wouldn't be averse to either --- his grandfather wasn't anyway) we have a little math problem here.
But I have to say that I'm depressed by the notion that the only valid choices for a woman to gain security and stability is to be dependent on welfare or marriage is still in circulation anywhere. Presumably, Cupp is aware that the vast majority of women don't depend on anyone for those things. Not even the conservative married ones. They work at jobs, just like she does. Are they irresponsible gadabouts for failing to properly secure a millionaire?
Evidently Cupp is looking for a wealthy, patriarchal throwback to take her away from all this and there are probably a few available. Sadly, being in her 30s she's pretty much out of the running for anyone younger than 60 or so. (Rich male "providers" of all ages tend to prefer the younger ones.) She missed her "Romney window" a long time ago.
More there so just go read the rest.