Why Conservatives Can’t Win the Non-Male Vote, “I’m Fishing Speechless” Edition
So here’s the thing. I’ve started this post maybe half a dozen times before scrapping it and starting over. I have no idea what to say. No idea. I am seriously fishing speechless. I’ve decided to just power through and see where we get. I’ll get to why I’m so gobsmacked in a moment, but first some quick background:
As many here already know, a new Pew study was released this week that compared women’s earnings to men’s in the United States and the degree to which things have changed in the past fifty years. The study had two big takeaways: The first is that 23% of American wives now earn more than their husbands. This is up from 5% in 1960. The second is that single mothers have increased substantially during that same period. In 1960 5% of mothers were single; that number is now 41%.
I’m going to assume that if you’re a woman, these findings are kind of a mixed bag. Female incomes rising in comparison to male incomes is probably a cause for celebration, even if it’s still not as equitable as one might hope. The rise in single mothers who must be the primary breadwinners for their children is probably troubling, as is the fact that many seem to come from the lower end of the economic spectrum. As I said, probably a mixed bag for women.
For the men at Fox News? Not so mixed.
Last night Lou Dobbs, Juan Williams, Erick Erickson and Doug Shoen discussed the study on Dobb’s show. Erick Erickson has been getting a bit of heat for his comments that women earning higher salaries is somehow “unscientific,” and to be fair that kind of shocking idiocy does indeed deserve attention. However, it may not have been fair to have singled Erickson out, because… because…
Wow, I really am just gobsmacked. You know what, just watch the whole clip for yourselves:
I’m not entirely sure what to say, because I’m not entirely sure I understood what the hell anyone was talking about. If you don’t have video capability, the discussion in a nutshell goes something like this:
Women becoming breadwinners is a sign that society is dissolving around us, and is somehow connected to this President and his scandals. Children who see their mothers as breadwinners will be hurt, and no one’s thinking of the men. Also: abortions. Some wives make more then men and that’s anti-science because science says men should be the dominant one in a relationship, plus women shouldn’t be competing with men in the marketplace because science says it’s their job to “compliment” men instead, and there are too many single mothers, and hey – why do we still have public schools? Something something voucher system! You know, women are breadwinners because kids don’t know how to read or write anymore.
The segment finally ends with Erickson noting – without even the slightest trace of irony – that conservatives need to be careful when they tell people this so they don’t come off as sounding anti-women.
I’ve been criticizing Fox on this site for a while now, and even I’ve never seen anything like it.
Normally this is where I make the comment that conservatives need to be careful about saying stuff like this because it could hurt them with the female vote in the next election. But this? This is so astoundingly terrible that I think it might create a rip in the space-time continuum and hurt them not just in future elections, but in past elections and elections in other dimensions as well.
Holy fishing s**t.