Wednesday, March 12, 2014


Amanda Carpenter is only in her early thirties, but she's published a book, written for publications ranging from The Washington Times to Glamour, and made many TV appearances, not all of them on Fox; she was a senior communications aide and speechwriter for Jim DeMint when he was a senator, and she now works for Senator Ted Cruz in the same capacity. She's also one of the most popular congressional staffers on Twitter -- where tonight she harrumphed about this:

Yup -- apparently it bothers her that anyone would want women to be educated (or "educated") and have smaller (or "smaller") families.

Did I mention that the bill in question is meant to express support for the goals of International Women's Day? Here's the paragraph that has Ms. Carpenter so riled up, and the paragraph immediately preceding it:
Whereas according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, two-thirds of the 774,000,000 illiterate people in the world are female;

Whereas according to the United States Agency for International Development, "educated women are less likely to marry early and more likely to have smaller and healthier families. They are also more likely to get a job and earn a higher wage.";
A reporter for Roll Call gently tried to explain at least part of the reason one might endorse these goals for women:

Ms. Carpenter replied:

Um, maybe they assumed a less provincial audience than Ms. Carpenter, or her boss. Maybe they assumed a little knowledge about how people in less developed countries escape poverty. Maybe they assumed an understaning of the fact that everyone in the world can't breed like the Duggars and maintain a First World standard of living.

While I'm on the subject, I should point out this opinion piece by Suzanne M. McCarron and James K. Glassman, titled "Africa's Future Depends on Women," which was published last year:
Improving educational opportunities for women and girls also yields tremendous benefits. A child whose mother can read is 50 percent more likely to live past age five. An extra year of primary school increases girls' eventual wages by 10-20 percent, encourages girls to marry later and have fewer children, and makes them less likely to experience violence.
That opinion piece appeared on the Huffington Post blog of ... the George W. Bush Institute.

But I guess George W. Bush was an evil anti-family liberal. Right, Amanda? Right, Ted?


Victor said...

You know, I really hate to admit this - maybe because I'm getting older, and more forgetful - but I don't remember the TV getting all staticky, and having some sort of visual waves around me, and some scary music rising louder and louder, when I entered this alternate Universe a few years ago.


Jules said...

Dear me, as a liberal feminist, I do hope Democrats are ready if the GOP makes "Chicks should start having lots of babies once they graduate from high school" part of its outreach to women voters.

Because that sort of messaging would be mighty hard to resist. Especially if it were extra slut shame-y and poor blame-y.

Grung_e_Gene said...

This is partially because anything which helps the "poors" is anathema to the Ruling Elite and the Republican Party is tasked with crushing 99% of Americans.

The GOP message is: You have No Friend in Government.

With that as your byline why would you ever worry about political defeats?

Glennis said...

So, the correct read on that is the female US senators think being "less likely to marry" young is a GOOD thing.

Uh, YES. It is. Thank you.