More Right-Wing Boys With Their Feelings Hurt

Bryan Fischer, leader of the American Family Association, or something like that, and just generally all-around terrible person finds (surprise, surprise) Biblical justification for his pathetic gynophobia. According to his reading of Scripture, God designed men to be "breadwinners," because that was totally a thing that existed in ancient hunter-gatherer / nomadic herder societies.

 I believe it was in the book of Genesis when the Lord said unto Adam "Yea, and thou shalt put on a tie and go to thine office each day, excepting of course for the Sabbath, and shall endure the wrath of Mr. Dithers so that thou shalt be able to bring home thy bacon which thou shalt not ever eat, for it is unclean unto thee. And Thou, Eve, shalt stay in thine house and raise thy children and bring unto thine husband a cocktail when he arriveth home. And verily, this child-rearing arrangement shall be so foolproof that there shall be very little chance that thy first-born son shall ever murder his brother."

 

 

Of course, I could be wrong. . .

 

 

 Of course, Fischer's real reason for why women should not out-earn their husbands is that the mens' feelings will be hurt. Seriously, that's his main reason. All these men are going to feel bad about themselves if they aren't the primary earner, because I guess they realize that money is pretty much all they bring to the relationship?

 

 

 

There is absolutely no other reason she would tolerate me!

 

 

 My wife earns more money than I do. A lot more, thank God, which is why we live in a house and not a cardboard box under an overpass. But I guess I'm supposed to feel bad about that. And if she was a decent God-fearing lady she would immediately quit her job and become dependent on me so that I could feel like there's some reason she keeps me around? Besides my cooking and a pretty nice head of hair. (Also, I can reach stuff on the top shelf, so I got that going for me.)

 

So basically, our 18 years of marriage have been a complete sham. It's almost as if she likes me because of who I am, not because of how much bread I can win. She must be insane!

 

 



Brave Miami Cops Neutralize a Threat

Oops, I mean "find creative excuses for roughing up a black kid with a puppy."

Won't Someone Please Think Of The Children?

A couple of days ago, a Pew Research study came out stating that Four in ten mothers are either the sole or primary source of income for their families, a new high. Unsurprisingly, right-wing boys lost their shit!

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

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  May 30th, 2013 at 02:57 PM

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!

 

 

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?

 

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

Anthony Weiner Can Never be President

I hear that Anthony Weiner is re-entering politics.  we here at the Chaos Compound wish him well. There is a limit to how succesful he can possibly be in American politics, however. No matter how successful he may be, he, through no fault of his own, can never be president because of his name. 
President Weiner?Never gonna happen.

 

Air Force 1?

Here are a few more political figure that can never be President due solely to unfortunate names. 


Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse can never be president because it would be too confusing.

Idaho Congressman Raul Labrador can never be president because his name sounds like a dog.

And Idaho Governor Butch Otter can never be President because "President Otter" would just be too adorable!

  

Maybe Surgeon General?

California Congressman Adam Schiff can never be president because he's be too busy yelling at Sam Waterston

  

Chung Chung!

Michigan Congressman John Dingell can never be president because that would just be silly. President Dingell!



Alabama Congressman Jo Bonner can never be President because Bonner is too close to "Boner." Also, "Jo" is a woman's name. The male version is "Joe."

  Arizona Senator Jeff Flake can never be President for obvious reasons.

Same goes for Arkansas Senator John Boozman.

And it goes without saying that if your name contains the word "crap," you should abandon any presidential aspirations you may have. Honestly, it's a miracle this guy made it to Senator!

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush can never be president because he shares the same last name as the worst president in our history. Not his fault, but them's the breaks!



 

Horrible Columnist is Horrible, Probably Racist.

I had never heard of Mona Charen before, but we recently started receiving the Atlanta Journal Constitution again and they featured one of her columns entitled White House Ducks Truth Over Americans' Deaths. I'm guessing that this is a fairly typical column for her since I found the on-line version at Townhall.com

It begins:

Count me as irritable on the subject, but President Obama's imperious habit of suggesting that American diplomats work for him is offensive to democratic sensibilities.

Which is odd since they pretty much do work for him.

Also, Imperious? Really? This seems to be a common theme for right-wing critics of Barack Obama. They like to say he's "arrogant" or "aloof" or "elitist." My assumption is that they think it is the height of arrogance for Obama to act like he's really the president, or that he has any right to be president. Do a google search fro Obama + arrogant. I just did one and it returned 7,900,000 results. Results like:

1. Barack Obama's arrogant EU intervention won't help David ...

1. Beck Maps Out How Scandals Reveal Obama's 'Arrogant' Goal Of ...

 

1. Arrogant President on His Heels: How Obama Fell for the Mandate ...

2.  

Does Obama's arrogance have any limits? » The Loft -- GOPUSA

The Arrogance Of The Obama Administration Will Bankrupt Us ...

 

 

And it would be one thing if he seemed at all arrogant, but Barack Obama? He's conciliatory to a fault. He doesn't strike me arrogant at all.

In the second presidential debate last fall, when the Benghazi matter came up, the president responded: "Well, let me ... talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation [sic]. And these aren't just representatives of the United States; they're my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm's way. I know these folks, and I know their families. So nobody's more concerned about their safety and security than I am."

 

He's concerned about their safety? The arrogance!

And he is, in fact, the person who sends them out. So what's the problem here?  Hell if I know.

 

 

Then she adds this snide little aside:

(I wish Candy Crowley had asked what the names of the four dead Americans were. But, as we discovered, she had other plans that night.)

 

 

First of all, I guarantee you he would have known the names. No way would he have gone into a debate that unprepared. Secondly, what "plans" did Candy Crowley have? The plan to not let Mitt Romney's falsehoods go unremarked upon? Was that her nefarious scheme?

 

 

Last week during a press conference, the president again described the murdered Americans as "people I sent into the field."

 

She keeps bringing this up as if it were some sort of obvious faux pas, but they were literally people whom he had sent into the field. So what's the objection? It isn't clear. If he hadn't said something like this, she would have attacked him for passing the buck or failing to face up to his responsibilities or something. I think it just grates on her that this particular person is president, and so anything he says that reminds her of that fact offends her.

 

White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer, emphasizing the president's deep concern, noted, "This is a horrible tragedy, people that he sent abroad whose lives are at risk, people who work for him."

No. Ambassadors and other officers of the Foreign Service represent the United States of America. They are not the personal envoys of Barack H. Obama.

 

Well, yes and no. They are employed by the State Department, at the president's pleasure, which is the agency tasked with carrying out the president's foreign policy, so they kinda represent both the United States AND the President.  Or, as you quoted Obama as saying " these aren't just representatives of the United States; they're my representatives. I send them there."

 

The president sets our nation's foreign policy, Mona. Even if the president is black!

 

(I shouldn't so lightly accuse someone of racism, but I really can't see any other reason why she would be so undies-in-a-knot over a sitting president stating basic facts about the state department)

 

(which reminds me)

 

 

 Anything this president does is an outrage to the mouth-breathers on the right. Even if it is something that other presidents have done routinely, like use a teleprompter or play golf.  Maybe a white Democratic president would have been treated just as badly. They certainly accused Bill Clinton of everything from rape to drug trafficking to outright murder before settling on having received oral, so who knows. Maybe it's not based entirely on racism. But it's still dickhole behavior and it isn't good for America.