Last night, Mitt Romney appeared to blame mass shootings on single-parent families.
His non-sequitur response to debate moderator “Don’t You Silence Me” Candy Crowley’s delightfully rogue question as to whether the Republican presidential nominee would support the reinstatement of expired bans on assault weaponry that used to enjoy Republican support is important for several reasons.
1. We have a fundamental violence problem.
Violence cuts across poverty, it cuts across wealth, it cuts across privilege. The problem is not who does it but that we as a culture refuse to confront guns, we refuse to confront dominance, we refuse to confront the reality that the only accomplishment of the sham war on drugs is the mass incarceration of African American men. Mitt Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan and his House Republicans buddies refuse to reauthorize 18 years of bipartisan support for the Violence Against Women Act. It is as dangerous to lay the blame for violence on the feet of single parents as it is to lay it on Marilyn Manson, because naming a black sheep is exactly how to pull attention away from the fact the whole farm is burning.
2. It’s time to get real about guns.
Whether you are a PhD student in Aurora, a mentally ill undergrad in Virginia, two Littleton high school students from wealthy two-parent families, an abuser whose girlfriend is trying to leave, or frankly anyone in the United States, guns are easier to get your hands on than the more popular Happy Meal toys. The Supreme Court is an outpost of the National Rifle Association devoted to trampling the rights of local governments to regulate guns. There is not a single defensible reason to have assault weapons on the consumer market. In this climate, the gun lobby sits there smugly like a Grover Norquist of mass death above the silence of elected officials. No action was taken after a sitting member of Congress was shot.
3. Basically, Mitt told those slutty women to put assault weapons between the knees.
Single parent families are part of life, and a class divide is at work. More than 40 percent of births take place outside a marriage, with just 10 percent of those attributed to college-educated women. Last night Mitt outright lied about his well-documented intention to allow employers to dictate which women can get birth control and which can’t, and it’s also unclear how his plan to “get rid of” Planned Parenthood, his desire to overturn Roe v. Wade, and his running mates’ assertion that rape is a “method of conception” will increase two-parent families so there won’t be any more violence.
Let’s face it, people are driven to have consensual sex (how fun!) and half the population is encouraged to grow up with toy guns and violent entertainment until they too are big enough to carry a concealed AK-47 wherever they want.
For some time Mitt Romney has appeared to agree with those who believe a woman with an IUD is committing mass murder for years at a time. What is most frightening is that now he is saying a woman who raises children without the watchful eye of a man is responsible for mass murder in our streets, schools and movie theaters.
4 thoughts on “Mitt, Assault Weapons and Single Parents”
I totally agree with you and love reading your post.
I comment about this when I saw it last night and that made me a very publicly flogged person I know his view is not balanced and thank you Facebook for taking care of bulling on the pages. Single parents are brave tough and doing their best they are not targets for Romney’s agenda or at least he should not be targeting them in any way to push his personal views. Shame on him
This is why I can’t watch these goddamn shitshows (aka Presidential debates) anymore. I’m glad YOU do, though!
While my pond nods in agreement, congratulates one another that we see the dark intent embedded in the oppressors thinking and shine the light on such immoralities; this election, more than any I recall, is teaching the far right to collect their power, state their misogyny loudly, be proud of their instruments of oppression. What is the natural outcome of this escalating imbalance and, worse, what will it take for the moderates to hold their civil rights?