Erickson: Liberals Are “Anti-Science” Because Women Belong in the Kitchen

The revelation that women are the primary source of income in 40 percent of American households has roused the He-man Woman Haters Club from their entitled slumber and compelled them to display their inner caveman.

At 1:30

Erickson: Lou I’m so used to liberals telling conservatives that they are anti-science. But liberals who defend this and say it’s not a bad thing are very anti-science. When you look at biology, look at the natural world, the roles of a male and female in society, in other animals the male typically is the dominant role, the female is not antithesis or is not competing; it’s a complementary role.

We as people in a smart society have lost the ability to have complimentary relationships in nuclear families and its tearing us apart. What I find interesting in the survey is that three quarters of the people surveyed recognize that having moms as the primary breadwinner is bad for kids and bad for marriage, and reality shows us that’s the truth.

Williams: The politicians won’t say it. That’s what bothers me Erick…

Erickson: It’s a War on Women Juan.

Erickson’s “science” argument is not too far removed from the eugenicist master-race argument. Because it isn’t science. It’s junk science. It’s pseudo-science. The kind of science that Erickson learned by reading the back of a cracker-jack box while watching Disney movies and reveling in his own arrogant genius.

His lamentations over the disappearance of the traditional nuclear family has less to do with the health of today’s society and more to do with his nostalgia for a past time when men were men and women were in the kitchen where they belong. A time when it required less effort for men such as himself to justify their own existence and place in society.

The last time I heard someone deliver this kind of argument with such seriousness, I was in grade-school.

(H/T Maddow Blog)

This entry was posted in Misogyny and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Draxiar

    Sounds to me like Erickson is using pseudo-science to mask his own insecurities.

  • Christopher Foxx

    When you look at biology, look at the natural world, the roles of a male and female in society, in other animals the male typically is the dominant role, …

    Really? Let’s see.

    The lioness is the one who does the hunting for the pride, since the lioness is more aggressive BY NATURE. The male lion usually stays and watches its young while waiting for the lionesses to return from the hunt.

    The female [elephants] spend their entire lives in tight-knit matrimonial family groups… and are led by the eldest female, or matriarch. She remains leader of the group until death.

    Females are dominant in many more species including bees, spiders, various fish, several other mammals, etc. Even some primates, for those who’s say the other examples throughout the animal kingdom don’t relate to humans.

    But that’s science (a.k.a. reality) and we know how liberals like to use that as a crutch, right?

    Erickson goes on:

    …the female is not antithesis or is not competing; it’s a complementary role

    So Erickson is worried that men, faced with competition from females, can’t compete.

    • JozefAL

      Thank you for posting this. The thing about the lions was the first thing to cross my mind when I read Erickson’s bullshit.
      And, of course, the whole “nuclear family” is a very recent societal development (especially in the West). Until about WWI, the typical family consisted of mother, father, kids and, at least one set of grandparents. Even in urban areas, one lived very close to one’s relatives–not necessarily in the same building or even next-door but usually within the same block or neighborhood. And let’s face it: The very term “nuclear family” only came into being after WWII.
      But what’s really interesting is how these “conservatives” don’t seem to be as concerned with the woes that have helped cause the breakdown of the nuclear family. The whole model of capitalism–fueled by the “keeping up with the Joneses” mentality–has led to women needing to get a job, especially as all the “good-paying jobs” disappeared overseas. Then there was that whole WWII thing. Women were expected to go to work, in order to free up the men to go fight the Japs and Nazis, and when the war was over, they were just expected to go back to the kitchen. Funny thing, though–some of those women actually LIKED getting their own paychecks and being able to spend money on things THEY wanted and many women actually resented the idea that they shouldn’t want to work outside the home (when just a few short years earlier, they were “unpatriotic” if they wanted to stay at home). And when these women started having daughters of their own, the resentment sort of started manifesting itself through the daughters–that a girl COULD want something more than just a husband and kids. And, by the time these girls got out of high school, they started thinking about college and a career of their own. And while the jobs didn’t pay as much as the men were getting, the young women realized they didn’t really need that “MRS” degree.
      And, of course, there’s the fact that young Black men tend to get arrested and incarcerated at higher rates than young men of other races which doesn’t help young Black women to have a “nuclear family” of their own (again–something conservatives will rail against but aren’t willing to do anything more than just talk about). And when these young Black men are released from jail, their job opportunities are lower-paying which means that, IF they want to have that “nuclear family,” their wives pretty much have to go to work as well. (Then, of course, comes all the right-wing outrage at social programs designed to help people because, naturally, if these people would just go out and get good-paying jobs, they wouldn’t need all the “handouts”–not like the big corporations that get to pay no taxes when they move their operations to a new state which has also promised to help these corporations move in and get set up, even paying for these companies make “improvements” to the area.)

      • Christopher Foxx

        Yes, “conservative” hypocrisy and ignorance know no bounds.

  • Christopher Foxx

    What I find interesting in the survey is that three quarters of the people surveyed recognize that having moms as the primary breadwinner is bad for kids and bad for marriage, and reality shows us that’s the truth.

    And some surveys show two fifths of the people surveyed believe Benghazi isn’t in Lybia. But it is.

    An opinion poll doesn’t show reality. A survey which asks “What do you think?” means nothing. Studies which ask “What’s really happening?” show the reality that where moms are primary breadwinners the kids do fine.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=663669914 Sean Richardson

      It might actually be “bad for marriage”, but if it is, it says a lot about the husband’s ego.

      • Christopher Foxx

        Right. And, of course, if the husband can’t take it, then it’s clearly the wife’s fault.

        It’s the same argument one hears about not allowing women into the military. The “regular” male troops won’t be able to deal with it, so the fault is with the women.

    • JozefAL

      Actually, Benghazi’s in LIBYA.

      • Christopher Foxx

        Heh. Y’know when I originally typed it I’d said Syria but fortunately corrected myself.

        Thanks for the correction JozefAL. I’ve corrected my typo in the original post.

  • Lady Willpower

    Pssst, it’s complementary with an E.

  • trgahan

    That will win a lot of the professional female vote in the next election….

  • Clancy

    Looks like Erickson subscribes to the Gingrich Giraffe-hunting school of ‘science.’ I wonder if he thinks women will have “biological problems” and “get infections” if they are allowed to be in combat?

  • D_C_Wilson

    Is it me, or have the wingnuts turned the misogyny up to eleven even as the GOP has claimed to be engaging in “outrage” toward women and minorities?

  • Clecinosu

    Shorter Erickson: “Daddy go to work. Mommy stay home. Mommy go to work bad.”

    To be fair, this was one of my original arguments, too, but I abandoned it on my first day at pre-school.

  • mrbrink

    The Reagan 80′s invented latchkey kids and initiated the end of the traditional breadwinner out of necessity- or middle class survival– putting more and more economic pressure on women in the workforce and the working poor. George W. Bush considered it ‘uniquely American’ for a mother of four to have to work several jobs to live.

    But it was Reagan who began to tear apart the so-called “nuclear family.”

    Because Republican policies are terrible for working people, for economic growth, for wealth income equality, for job security, for labor laws, etc. But especially for women and children or women with children.

    Erickson is too much of a mental defective to understand that his idiotic perspective is one of economics– the failure of free-market capitalism to provide enough economic security for a chance at a decent standard of living.

    They are their own best enemy.