Erick Erickson, the man who's so voll von der Scheiße * they named him twice, went on FOX to say this:
When you look at biology, look at the natural world, the roles of a male and female in society, and the other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it's not antithesis, or it's not competing, it's a complimentary role. We as people in a smart society have lost the ability to have complimentary relationships in nuclear families, and it's tearing us apart.
It's interesting that righties who insist that evolution is a myth and that people have nothing in common with animals because we were made separately, out of mud, or out of a rib, to be the spitting image of the Almighty suddenly want us to model our relationships after lions or warthogs or bonobos or whatever if it suits their argument.
Then Erickson went to his own ridiculous website "RedState" to double down on his bullshit.
The Truth May Hurt, But Is Not Mean
Erick Erickson (Diary) |
Gee, why would anyone be put off by that? All I said was that 40% of families are harming their children because the mothers are too successful. I mean, that's just basic science!
Devestating rhetorical technique, by the way. "emo lefties," "panties in a wad?" You must have been the star of your school's debate team! Also, I assume you just wanted any excuse to type the word "panties," after which you copied and pasted the word into Google Image Search and then resumed your column a few hours later.
And what research did Erickson cite to back up his claim that women making more money is harmful to children?
Wow, that's quite a leap! The study says that 4/10 families with kids are headed by women who are the primary earners, therefore, ipso facto, women being the primary earners is harmful? I don't even get it.
Maybe if I click on the link Erickson provided, I can read the entire study and see what it says about the harmful effects of mothers having good jobs. . . no. No, the link goes to a Washington Post article about the study, not to the study itself. The Post article does contain this bit of pseudo-info:
But the Pew Research report shows that Americans are decidedly ambivalent about mothers who work outside the home. Three-fourths of those surveyed say these mothers make raising children harder, and half worry that it’s bad for marriages.
Well, if Americans are ambivalent about something, that's pretty much scientific proof that it's evil!
Nobody tames wild animals! Hence the descriptive title "wild animals." Take bears, for instance. Mother bears have to keep their cubs away from adult males because the adult males see them as future competition and will kill them before they get big enough to be a threat. If we're going to model our child-rearing after wild animals, should we go bear?
Gee, it's awfully gracious of you to make such a generous allowance!
And your evidence to support this thesis?
Well, that's pretty convincing. Of course, a third of Americans believe in UFOs, about 30% believe in Bigfoot, and 17% believe that Obama is a Muslim, but still. . . if half worry that it might be bad for marriages, well it's hard to argue with that!
And yes, the link is again to the Washington Post article, not the actual Pew report, which it's safe to assume Erickson has not read.
Here is Erickson and the rest of the He-Man Woman-Haters Club discussing mommies with jobs:
More right-wing boys with their feelings hurt tomorrow!
* It means "full of shit" in German
Many feminist and emo lefties have their panties in a wad over my statements in the past 24 hours about families. I said, in a statement reflecting the view of three quarters of those surveyed in a Pew Research Center poll, that more women being the primary or sole breadwinners in families is harmful to raising children.
Gee, why would anyone be put off by that? All I said was that 40% of families are harming their children because the mothers are too successful. I mean, that's just basic science!
Devestating rhetorical technique, by the way. "emo lefties," "panties in a wad?" You must have been the star of your school's debate team! Also, I assume you just wanted any excuse to type the word "panties," after which you copied and pasted the word into Google Image Search and then resumed your column a few hours later.
And what research did Erickson cite to back up his claim that women making more money is harmful to children?
This result came from a survey that found “nearly four in 10 families with children under the age of 18 are now headed by women who are the sole or primary breadwinners for their families.”
Wow, that's quite a leap! The study says that 4/10 families with kids are headed by women who are the primary earners, therefore, ipso facto, women being the primary earners is harmful? I don't even get it.
Maybe if I click on the link Erickson provided, I can read the entire study and see what it says about the harmful effects of mothers having good jobs. . . no. No, the link goes to a Washington Post article about the study, not to the study itself. The Post article does contain this bit of pseudo-info:
But the Pew Research report shows that Americans are decidedly ambivalent about mothers who work outside the home. Three-fourths of those surveyed say these mothers make raising children harder, and half worry that it’s bad for marriages.
Well, if Americans are ambivalent about something, that's pretty much scientific proof that it's evil!
I also noted that the left, which tells us all the time we’re just another animal in the animal kingdom, is rather anti-science when it comes to this. In many, many animal species, the male and female of the species play complementary roles, with the male dominant in strength and protection and the female dominant in nurture. It’s the female who tames the male beast.
Hmm, must be a bachelor!
You never go back!
Then it really gets good when Erick tries to seem empathetic.
Not everyone has the luxury of raising their children in a traditional manner and the rest of us have an obligation to help and support those in unfortunate situations.COMMUNIST!
Likewise, there is nothing wrong with mothers having jobs. There is nothing wrong with women being breadwinners. Sometimes they have to by necessity.
Gee, it's awfully gracious of you to make such a generous allowance!
Life is terribly unfair. Sometimes a parent dies. Sometimes a parent is an abusive ass. There are unfortunate exceptions. But we should not kid ourselves or scream so loudly in politically correct outrage to drown the truth — kids most likely will do best in households where they have a mom at home nurturing them while dad is out bringing home the bacon.
And your evidence to support this thesis?
As Pew found, “Three-fourths of those surveyed say these mothers make raising children harder, and half worry that it’s bad for marriages. About half of those surveyed felt it was better if mothers stayed home with young children. In contrast, 8 percent thought it was better if fathers did.”
Well, that's pretty convincing. Of course, a third of Americans believe in UFOs, about 30% believe in Bigfoot, and 17% believe that Obama is a Muslim, but still. . . if half worry that it might be bad for marriages, well it's hard to argue with that!
And yes, the link is again to the Washington Post article, not the actual Pew report, which it's safe to assume Erickson has not read.
Here is Erickson and the rest of the He-Man Woman-Haters Club discussing mommies with jobs:
More right-wing boys with their feelings hurt tomorrow!
* It means "full of shit" in German
