Erickson Says Shocking Thing, Is Surprised When People Are Shocked

Erick Erickson said yesterday that it’s damaging to families and anti-science when mothers are the primary earner in a household. Make no mistake: he said this with the intention of trolling liberals and, naturally, it worked.

That’s not to say he doesn’t believe it, but you don’t express such flagrantly anti-woman opinions on television without knowing the outcome and consequences. Yet Erickson is amazed that people are shocked by his pre-planned shocking remark. First, he used his own wife as a human shield (because he’s, you know, so tough and manly) and then continued his whiny diaper baby counterpoint with this:

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. 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.”

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. One notable exception is the lion, where the male lion looks flashy but behaves mostly like a lazy beta-male MSNBC producer.

In modern society we are not supposed to say such things about child rearing and families. In modern society we are not supposed to point out that children in a two-parent heterosexual nuclear household have a better chance at long term success in life than others. In modern society, we are supposed to applaud feminists who teach women they can have it all — that there is no gender identifying role and women can fulfill the role of husbands and fathers just as men do.

No, see, in a modern society the days are over for paleoconservative he-man woman haters like Erickson going around telling women what they’re not allowed to do (especially with their uteruses) and passing it off as “science” when everything else Erickson says is absolutely contra-science — except this one convenient thing. We’ve had centuries of Erick Ericksons telling women what to do or else, while using science and religion as excuses for the male subjugation, oppression and heinous abuse of women.

Adding, I’m amazed Erickson found someone who would marry him, especially considering his obvious hatred of women.

  • blackdaug

    It is interesting that he would use the lion as an exception.
    The male of the “family” sleeping 21 out of every 24 hours, only awakening long enough to steal food that the female has hunted down and killed, murder any offspring that might not be his own and occasionally procreate…
    Perhaps “Eric son of Eric” could be dropped down into the middle of a pride’s territory, where he could scold the female for neglectful parenting as she removed his liver for easier consumption, and yell insults at the slumbering male for not conforming to the “natural order”….

  • joseph2004

    Wow, I’d hate to see what someone who really does hate women is like, and how you’d react to that especially given how citing statistical studies that favor 2-parent homes, and even a poll that reveals Americans generally agree with such studies, leads you to accuse Erickson of harboring an “… obvious hatred of women.” Over-the-top rhetoric like that puts citing studies promoting 2-parent homes in the same bucket as wife-beating. When everything is an affront, nothing is.

    • blackdaug

      I am distrustful of any “pole” that reveals things. Sounds painful and somewhat kinky….

    • muselet

      When can we expect those links, joseph?


      • Victor_the_Crab

        It takes time for the digestive system to do its thing.

    • D_C_Wilson

      It’s not his citing of spurious studies that makes up accuse Erickson of harboring an obvious hatred of women. It’s the fact that he obviously hates women.

    • Victor_the_Crab

      Gotta stand up for your fellow he-man women haters, dontcha joey misogynist?

  • muselet

    Many feminist and emo lefties have their panties in a wad over my statements in the past 24 hours about families.

    Erick Erickson mistakes laughter for upset. It’s a common error on the Right. (A Righty would be a hoot at a comedy club: “Why are all these people so angry at the performer?”)

    It’s the female who tames the male beast.

    Why do I get the feeling that taming the male beast that is Erick ibn Erick involves spanking?


  • You forgot to mention one thing Bob : Erickson is 65 years old. That’s why he is a disgusting patriarchal caveman. This is a guy that still believes he is back in 1950.

    • Candace Castle

      Born 1975; so he has no excuse whatsoever!

  • Mike_Norris

    “Panties in a wad” is more evidence that he is a woman-hating, gender-phobic troll. A douche nozzle of the highest order.

    • centerfielddj

      It is a massively sexist insult, no doubt.

      The comments from RedStaters in response to Erickson’s most recent post here are funny as hell. Erick’s ignorance is a little too obvious for every member of that crowd to ignore, which leads to some uncomfortable moments where actual issues and difficult choices real Americans face are discussed.
      But others bring the thread back to liberal-bashing, and you know that any comment thread from conservatives which discusses science will quickly bring up the liberals’ wish to destroy the sterling science published in Murray’s “The Bell Curve.” Sure enough, these commenters are on the case.

  • trgahan

    Poor Erickson. Clearly women scare the hell of him.

    The anthropologic reality is the majority of human societies have NEVER conformed to such a narrow definition of family/gender roles. The human family is a very dynamic unit typically conforming to the practical needs of the individuals and society as a whole. Where any semblance of conformance of such an idealized arrangement is present; it is limited to a small specific social-economic class and usually only lasts for a generation or two before outside economic/environmental factors force a change.

    The reason men like Erickson need to continually go on about the mythic “how it was and still should be” is because it never really was.

    BTW, among the majority of animal and human groups; lion social organization is the rule, not the exception.

  • Nefercat

    Blobby dough weasel says what?

  • David Ferguson

    People propose to death row inmates. Not surprising Erickson could find a willing hostage to go all Stockholm Syndrome.