The first thing I did when I heard about this video was to check Erick Erickson’s Wikipedia page to see if he is married. The page doesn’t mention a wife, which gives me hope he is not. Otherwise I’d feel compelled to organize an intervention for the poor girl. But on watching it, I was even more appalled.
Most of the time, conservatives pooh-pooh the pay gap as a result of women’s “choice” to work less and attend to the home more. They’re not against equality, they assure us, but equality just naturally fails on its own because women make it so! That ruse lasted right up until the announcement that four out of ten households with children now have a female breadwinner. So how did Fox News respond? By gathering a panel of all male pundits to explain that, under no uncertain terms, the disappearance of male economic dominance signals the end of life as we know it.
Choice phrases tossed around, including from resident liberal Juan Williams: “disintegration of marriage,” “society dissolve around us,” and “something going terribly wrong in American society.” Then there’s Lou Dobbs, darkly intimating that women’s escape from economic dependence turns them into killers: “And those are the children who survive!” he exclaims at one point, in reference to all those money-grubbing ladies having abortions on their lunch break.
Here is a portion of Erickson’s contribution:
“I’m so used to liberals telling conservatives that they’re anti-science. But liberals who defend this and say it is not a bad thing are very anti-science. When you look at biology — when you look at the natural world — the roles of a male and a female in society and in other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complementary role. We’re lost the ability to have complementary relationships … and it’s tearing us apart.”
I can think of a number of species, including primate species, that don’t fit Erickson’s notions of male dominance, but let’s go on … a big chunk of those primary breadwinner moms are never married or divorced. Having lived that life myself, I have no doubt that a large majority of those single moms would dearly love to have a decent man in their lives to help support them and raise those children. But while there are a lot of decent men out there, there are not nearly enough to go around, it seems. So, women end up raising children by themselves.
I propose convening a panel of women asking why so many of today’s men fail to abjectly at being husbands and fathers. Erick Erickson could be Exhibit A.
“Erick Erickson could be Exhibit A”
Agreed. I think Erickson has a problem with women because they have a problem with him. I’m sure it all started with his poor mother. I can only imagine her distain for him, I mean just look at the size of that noggin. One can only imagine!
It may not be in his bio, but I’d bet Erick Erickson is married, and, if they don’t already have children, is hard at work, banging away, trying to produce another son of Erick – Erickson Erickson – son of many son’s of Erick’s. Probably going back all the way to “Erick, the Red-stater.”
If he has any daughters, their names are likely to be Freya ( Goddess of love, fertility, and battle), or Frigg (yes, that’s a real name – she’s the Goddess of marriage and motherhood), Sif (Wife of Thor), or Thruer (Daughter of Thor and Sif).
But no matter how many fine daughters his loins produce (though, FSM help them, for having a misogynistic nitwit, with more “chins” than the Hong Kong phone directory, for a father), they’ll never be as important to him as him having a son.
Dammit!
An Erickson simply HAS to produce a son named Erick, lest he be mocked and ridiculed by fellow Norsemen as Erick Erickdauthersof, or Erick Ericknoson.
And God would never allow that, would HE?
So, rest assured, if like Kings of yore, he has to behead wives, or divorce them, Erick Erickson will keep trolling through wives until on finally produces a son – and this idiot is scientifically ignorant enough, to not know that it’s the father who determines the gender of children.
Well, at least CNN finally let this bigoted blow-hard go – oh, and did anyone notice, that since he left, their ratings increased.
And just imagine how high their ratings would be if they threw fellow Norseman, Wolf Blitzer, on to a pyre (‘of fire’ – one of my favorite gag’s from “A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the Forum”) made of slips of paper that said, “YOU’RE FIRED, WOLF!!!”
I hope you will take it as evidence of my appreciation of this blog that I watched the video at the end of the link, this early in the morning. It really is stunning.
After all the childish “chicken little” responses to the concerns of other groups, these three are spouting off about the gloom and doom without a scintilla of evidence. It is typical that Lou Dobbs begins with an assertion that “women have become the breadwinners” in response to the 40% figure, twisting the results right off the bat.
I heard part of Diane Rehm’s show yesterday and there was the umpteenth show on the “future of the Republican party”. That subject seems to crop up too often on NPR over the past few years. This time, there was a bit of soul searching, but, not enough for my taste. There was a lot of talk about the Republicans “having a problem with” minorities, women, etc and about not “getting their ideas out”. These phrases seemed like obvious euphemisms to me and they were aimed both outward and inward.
Deconstructing this video might give them some insights.
As a side note, the role of the female horse is interesting. We have a lot of mythological and cultural lore about stallions and their physical strength, etc. But, Monty Roberts described his insights into groups of wild horses. The mares are really the leaders of the group, and the head mare can discipline a stallion by forcing him to the periphery of the herd and in other ways.
The supposed dominance of the male sex in other species maybe the projection of the human males wish for dominance.
“Complementary,” as in I exist to serve some male?
C’mon over here, Erick, I’ll serve you. With risotto on the side.
joan,
Just make sure you either made a stew of him, or make him well-done if you’re grilling – that vermin is bound to be full of other vermin.
Actually you hit on something important here – there’s no talk of when men fail (from being bad husbands to destroying the economy), it’s always women’s fault.
I’m not kidding in that I think you should go ahead with the idea and convene that panel. As a guy, trust me, it’s well worth discussing (and having dealt with some Erikson types, there’s plenty to discuss). Plus the right-wing meltdown over it would be DELICIOUSLY informative.
They do love to live in their fantasy world, don’t they?
I can think of a number of species, including primate species, that don’t fit Erickson’s notions of male dominance…
Yes, someone should send him a copy of Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape by Frans de Waal. (Not me, of course, I don’t have money to waste.)
And then, too, this kind of biological determinism overlooks one of the most basic facts about our species, which is that different human societies have different social structures. Including different conceptions of gender roles. Nothing is fixed. Of course we have certain biologically determined drives and propensities, but these are so malleable that it/s an insult to the species to insist we have no choice but to be assholes.
Google blows my mind sometimes. I just went to Google Images, because I remember seeing a picture of Erickson and noticing that he isn’t the handsomest man on the planet. And when I started typing his name, the first thing that came up in the autocomplete was of course “Erick Erickson.” And the second thing was “Erick Erickson wife.”
You can try it yourself. The search results are noteworthy too. You get a bunch of pictures of Erick Erickson and some other guys, and one of Arianna Huffington. Who I’m pretty sure is not his wife.
“noticing that he isn’t the handsomest man on the planet”
Yes but his pleasant demeanor makes up for his boorish looks!
I don’t remember where I read this (and I wish I could find it, because it was a great exposition), but it was an article describing how arbitrary the family unit is. Only a century ago, it was common for kids to be raised by a large extended family. Now the nuclear family is more prevalent, and when we extend that trend, by single parents.
I personally think it’s much better for kids to be raised by a large group of people considered to be “family” – both for the kids and for the parents – historically the nuclear family and especially single parent families are an aberration and not a particularly good survival strategy – but humans are extremely flexible in this regard, and what we consider to be “family” is an extremely elastic concept. Way more elastic than these conservative dimwits and their notion of “science” can admit.
“I personally think it’s much better for kids to be raised by a large group of people considered to be “familyâ€
“especially single parent families are an aberration and not a particularly good survival strategy”
I personally think it’s better for people to raise their kids however they see fit. The structure or makeup it seems to me means absolutely nothing, what is important is that a kid gets what he or she needs to be healthy and productive? I was raised by a single mom and have been hearing this tripe my whole life, all I can say is people should mind their own business and raise their children as they see fit!
And we wonder why the Onion is going out of business…!
moonbat,
The term, “nuclear family,” is very recent – dating back to 1947.
And the concept, when not out of necessity, is also relatively recent, since you’re right, throughout history, in most societies extended families helped to raise children – and so too, did villages.
I think the actual concept probably comes from pioneering times in different societies, when lugging Grandma and Grandpa, and aunts and uncles and their families, was not the best way to get to your destination.
Our concept of that family unit, beyond the actual individual immigrant family units who came here (but usually, the husband came, found work, and then paid for the rest of the families passage), probably comes from the Westward movement, as part of Manifest Destiny. And there were a lot of ‘little houses on the prairie.’ But, you can bet, as soon as could be arranged, villages formed around those isolated families, since in numbers, there’s greater safety. And then, with the widened pool of people, and marriage, those isolated ‘little houses on the prairie,’ probably ended up somewhere near Main Street, where the next generations children were raised by their new extended families, and the village.
The “nuclear family” as we we know it now, came from the growth of the post-WWII boom-economy, home telephones and cars became ubiquitous, air travel more common, and the construction of roads and airports to accommodate the increased traffic of both cars and planes, allowed for greater freedom of movement, while still having some degree of access to those who were left behind.
People could move to where the jobs were, take their spouse (usually the wife) and children, and still maintain family ties to each spouses families, through phone calls, and car and plane trips when on vacation.
When I was growing up in Queens, NY City, my fathers mother lived with us (until her 2nd husband died, and she remarried a year later, when I was 8, and move do Southern NJ), his sister’s family lived 4 blocks away, his brother’s, about 20.
My mother’s parents lived in Brooklyn, about a 45 minute subway trip away less than 1/2 an hour by car, barring traffic problems.
And, when I was 11, and my parents decided to move to Upstate NY, when we left, it wasn’t exactly like a nuclear family leaving their relatives behind in NY City, or Philly, when they decided to “Go West, young man.” Or, waving goodbye at the rest of the family as you left the shtetl in Russia, or village in Ireland.
And the ones leaving, or left behind, didn’t know if they’d ever see, or even hear from, their loved ones again. We knew everyone was a phone call, or relatively short round-trip, away.
I propose convening a panel of women asking why so many of today’s men fail to abjectly at being husbands and fathers. Erick Erickson could be Exhibit A.
Erickson himself, if asked that question, would probably say men don’t want to be breadwinners because of feminism. Which would be another reason to loathe him.
I guess in natural selection the chowder head gene is predominant.
For the full Godzilla vs. Mothra smack-down, you have to catch the clip of Fox’s own Megyn Kelly telling Son of Erick how wrong he is. Especially when Lou Dobbs chimes in, it’s really has the flavor of one of the classic Toho monster movies of the 60s! All it needs were some cut-away shots of scale models getting crushed. 🙂
What does Lou Dobbs mentioning the amount of abortions since Roe v. Wade have to do with anything? How does it relate?
Just my opinion on why many men aren’t stepping up to the plate in the role of husband and father…It’s selfishness.. they don’t know how to give of themselves to either a spouse or children….I never got my fully dressed Harley, but I’ve spent enough money on Pampers and baby formula to afford one.. Guys, you’ve got to let go of your mommy’s apron strings and give up your toys if you want to make it as a husband and father.
No one ever asks how a single mother becomes a single mother. Nine out of ten cases, it is because the man who is the father of the child had told the mother to get along best she can because he does not want to take the responsibility–it might ruin his life. When I was in college and had a circle of about 20 to 30 women friends, there were about 8 to 10 of those women who got pregnant by their boyfriend. The boyfriend when told he was about to be a father would just up and leave her with commentary about how it would ruin his life to have a kid then. It always amazes me when men like Erickson make statements like this as if they were NOT the guy begging the girl to “do it because he loved her and he would respect her in the morning.” Every one needs to listen to Meatloaf’s “Paradise by the Dashboard Light.” Erickson is just one cog in our culture of rape and the demeaning of women.
“Boy,” oh, “boy,” when FOX’s main “fox,” takes them on, it’s PURE FUCKIN’ COMEDY GOLD!!!
Watch as Meghan Kelly, takes her cohorts to task:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=T4Dyzm8L6cU
After that epic take-down, Lou and Erick probably had to have their poor, subservient wives, apply a lot of salve and comfort – THE MISOGYNISTIC TWITs!!!
Oh, and the really fun part is, when, the son of may other sons of Erick, defends rich Lesbian couples, raising children – even though he doesn’t probably even realize it.
ROFLMAO!!!
When a FOX cutie takes you on, you’ve got to at least to begin to realize that you’re a feckin’ eedjot!
Here is a link to Meatloaf’s Paradise by the Dashboard Light:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmPMMitJDYg
Kelly to Erickson: “What makes you dominant and me submissive and who died and made you scientist-in-chief?”
I want the T-shirt!
It’s wonderful when the Foxes start eating their own.
What’s irritating is the Noonanish rolling around in the muck without getting specific about the problem or solution. There are more single-mom households than I like. I was a single dad who raised a daughter post divorce. I was near the poverty line, working full-time and I know I did not do the job that is possible in a stable household with a higher income – where I am now with a second daughter. I’m not saying it can’t be done – because I did it – but I’m doing a lot better job with a partner. So I grant them that point BUT….
What are the conservatives proposing? Less assistance to families in need? How does that help? Is there a supply of good men available – guys who are good with kids and capable of earning a middle-class income? Last I heard, jobs are still scarce… So rather than roll your eyes and scrunch up your nose in a Peggy Noonan way, propose some answers and declare that you will fund them.
OT:
More tornado’s around Oklahoma City yesterday, more lives lost.
I’m awaiting the headlines:
OKC, NOT OK TODAY! Big Winds Sweep the Plains – Again!
Coburn: There’s No Such Thing – Global Warming NOT At fault.
Inhofe: Obamacare Is The Cause. Global Warming Not Responsible.
Pat Robertson: Teenage Boy Caught Jacking-off To Justin Bieber Photo’s, Is
Yes, I’m kidding.
But you have to admit, our Congress is full of idiot’s and loons – largely because of the influence of Christian morons, like Pat Robertson.
Fox News Boosts Preposterone to the Max.
Wait, Swami you wanted a full dressed Harley? I had no idea you went that way…LOL
BTW
oops BTW that fully dressed Harley I am sitting on? I would have traded it in a half a heart beat for children.
justme277 ..Not that there’s anything wrong with it….but I’m as straight as an arrow.
So Ericson thinks males are the dominant gender? He is obviously not familiar with Italian or Jewish culture, he also ain’t pretty.
Meghan kelly has never been more attractive than in the clip ‘Gulag posted,she ate those boys for lunch.
Conservatism is alive and well in Denmark.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/05/09/women-strip-men-judge-their-bodies-on-danish-tv-show/?iid=obnetwork
http://www.ted.com/talks/jackson_katz_violence_against_women_it_s_a_men_s_issue.html
Pingback: The Mahablog » Twilight of the Patriarchy