Erick Erickson is shocked, shocked! to learn he thinks “women cannot be breadwinners.” Ever since his remarks on income inequality between men and women on Lou Dobbs’ show, liberals have been unfairly smearing him as some sort of cave-man era sexist.
In trying to defend himself, Erickson tells it from the heart, explaining how his own wife had to win the bread because, big surprise, his early go at RedState was not enough to pay all the family’s expenses. They struggled! And it was good, because God arranged for his wife to stay at home, and also apparently him since he is “fortunate” to work “most” of his three “rather constant” jobs “from home” as well.
All of which is to say, continues Erickson, that he’s not “judging” anyone! We’re all swimming in of anti-biological, unscientific gender-confused sin, and those who live in glass houses, well, they shouldn’t cast stones, especially if they also work there.
“Ladies,” writes Erickson, just in case you didn’t know he was talking down directly to you, “if you want to work that’s fine.” See, the founder of RedState himself grants you his approval! And, he goes on, “If your position in life makes it advantageous for you to be the primary bread winner,” that’s fine too! As long as you understand that you’re familial arrangement is sub-optimal. The Cleavers are the ideal, after all, and can be blamed for failing to live up to an ideal? Also, it’s not single moms fault that they can’t have the perfect family—it’s their baby daddies’ faults for abandoning their “obligations” (Erickson refers to his own children as blessings).
And Erickson’s evidence for this epic assertion of platonic proportions?
- Feminists and emo lefties wear panties and those panties are in wads
- Three quarters of people think “more women being the primary or sole breadwinners in families is harmful to raising children.”
- “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.” Or, as Erickson later rephrases it: “It’s the female who tames the male beast.”
- “children in a two-parent heterosexual nuclear household have a better chance at long term success in life than others.”
- “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.”
- Since we abandoned the nuclear family norm, “we’ve been on a downward trajectory of more and more broken homes and maladjusted youth.”
- 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.”
- Women as primary breadwinners does make raising children harder, increasing the likelihood of harm in the development of children.
- “who is less valuable — mom or dad?”
But there appear to be some holes in his otherwise seamless reasoning. First off, I’m a leftie and I don’t wear panties. Second, what Erickson doesn’t note: “But at the same time, the report notes that other polls have found that nearly 80 percent of Americans don’t think mothers should return to a traditional 1950s middle-class housewife role.”
Of course, what people think has absolutely no bearing on what is actually the case. Also, I’m not sure why Erickson thinks it’s an okay move to extrapolate from the rest of the animal kingdom to humans. Obviously, there are a lot of things people share with other animals–cells and a metabolism for instance. But we were also made in the image of God, or at least I’m sure Erickson would maintain that, which is grounds enough I think to render any argument by analogy completely baseless.
This next piece of evidence is actually just a re-assertion of Erickson’s original point. As is the one that directly follows it. And the usual caveats apply: are the children doing better because dad’s bringing home the bacon and mom’s not…or simply because they’re being raised in a stable family which is affluent enough to do well on only one person’s income?
The “downward trajectory” is another assertion masquerading as evidence since Erickson makes no attempt to back it up with, like, actual scientific data or anything. Then Erickson again selectively references a survey of people’s opinions which makes it completely irrelevant to his argument. Also, the point that follows: another unsupported assertion.
So who is more valuable in the end? According to the economy it’s the father, since he’s paid more, on average, to do the same work as the mother. To Erickson it’s clearly the mother. What either point has to do with whether their is a biologically prescribed “ideal” family arrangement is beyond me (perhaps because my development was harmed by the fact that my mother and father both worked part-time while raising me, and she made more than him).
One last point: Erickson repeats over and over again that, hey, if you can’t afford to be a stay at home mom, or the person you procreated with abandoned you, don’t worry: It’s Not. Your. Fault. But what Erickson makes clear is that he believes, if you can afford to be a nuclear family, if you can emulate the Cleavers, then you have a moral responsibility to do so because otherwise you are literally harming your children.
Maybe, just maybe, you’re right Mister Erickson (I’m speaking directly to you!) But if that’s the case, stick to your guns and don’t pretend like it isn’t morally egregious that mothers are working and having kids and not giving them the proper family life when they could afford not to.
I don’t think that Erickson argued that it was morally egregious for women to work.
Only to make more than a man.Report
He definitely goes even further, and thinks that if you work, and can afford not to work, and are a women, and decided to have kids, then you are not fulfilling your responsibility to your children.Report
Zazzy and I have been having a lot of conversations about our work situation, what with the new baby and all.
As we saw it, here were our options:
A) We both continue working and maintain roughly the same standard of living, with a few small adjustments to account for the added cost of the baby
B) One of us (more likely her*) stays home with the baby, we downsize our house to something we can afford on my income, and we make the other necessary adjustments to our standard of living (likely small ones similar to A provided we properly downsize)
C) One of us (again, more likely her*) stays home with the baby, we stay in our current house, and we make massive changes to our standard of living
As we discussed the pros and cons of each choice, we kept coming back to A) being the superior choice for us. This was based on a number of factors, including financial, “happiness”, upheaval, and our desire to have Mayonnaise in a nursery program sooner rather than later for social reasons.
Now, we are fortunate enough to be able to make this choice. We are both employed with a high degree of job security AND are well positioned for rather rapid career advancement.
Other people are not so lucky. And still others are, perhaps even more so, but arrive at a different answer based on their own calculation.
There are so many variables involved in terms of what is best for children and families that to argue that there is “one true way” is the height of ignorance.Report
Had I had the time, I was hoping to do an incredibly short post on this, but you beat me to the punch, so I’ll just put it here:
I found the source for Erickson’s claims:
http://youtu.be/y6hx1nXe41A
According to the documentary from which that source is drawn, the speaker’s friend was an advisor to the Bush White House, while Erickson is considered one of the country’s most influential conservatives. Coincidence? I think not.
And yes, I’m pretty shocked that no one else seems to have thought of that movie with regards to Erickson’s remarks.Report
I posted this (as in the article) to Facebook with as short a response I could give to the garbage that was the Erickson article…
#davepalm
I will say no more.Report
And I found where Erickson learned everything he knows:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQR1r1KTjaEReport
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere.
– Mark TwainReport
Also, I’m not sure why Erickson thinks it’s an okay move to extrapolate from the rest of the animal kingdom to humans.
It’s the same way he demonstrates that heterosexual monogamy is a universal principal.Report
Years and years ago, I was contesting a cousin who averred that homosexuality was “unnatural.” He said that it did not occur in the animal kingdom, thus proving his point.
A mere 3 minutes of googling found Penguins, and Bonobos, and fish that pair-bonded and had sexual relationships with the same gender. I assumed that I had won my point.
“Those animals are perverts!” was my cousin’s response, and he didn’t change his beliefs in the slightest.Report
Homosexuality is pretty widespread. It’s not even restricted (as you note) to mammals, which means either it’s cropped up several times or been conserved for a very, very, very long time.
The common ancestor of chimps, fish, and penguins is pretty far back.Report
The common ancestor of chimps, fish, and penguins is pretty far back.
Like, 6000 years?Report
Homosexuality was actively bred for in humans.
Made us better at building civilizations.Report
Homosexuality was actively bred for in humans.
Awesome. (Really, think about it. )Report
To be fair, do you have any evidence the animals aren’t perverts?Report
“You want to know what I think? I think penguins are some kind of deviated preverts…”Report
I’m really disappointed in the penguins, in particular. After all, they kind of look like little nuns.Report
Penguin in Bondage. EnjoyReport
My preferred response to “homosexuality is unnatural” is to say “so what if it is?, nature sucks”, civilisation is itself a protracted effort as separating ourselves from the depredations of nature. Unless you eat raw meat and sleep in a tree you don’t get to complain about things being unnatural.Report
“The Cleavers are the ideal”
Who’s ideal?
I don’t know where to start. There are just so many things that I don’t agree with that I get a little sick reading about this guy.Report
Who needs history or science when you can learn everything you need to now to feel American Exceptional™ simply by viewing the Youtoo channel.Report
Clarrification: after you’re done watching Fox, of course.Report
I’m a leftie and I don’t wear panties
Mike Schilling’s hidden camera says differently. 😉Report
I blame Murphy Brown.Report