Republicans just can't seem to stop talking about their views on women. They simply can't resist letting slip their true feelings on the place of women in our society.
“I’m so used to liberals telling conservatives that they’re anti-science,” Erickson explained. “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 as people in a smart society have lost the ability to have complimentary relationships in nuclear families, and it is tearing us apart,” he continued, adding that “reality showed” it was harmful for women to be the primary source of income in a family.
Fox News contributor Doug Schoen concluded the freak out by claiming all these so-called breadwinner moms “could undermine our social order.”
Wow. I guess they really don't want to hold on to the House in 2014. More amusing, though, is his doubling down.
Pro-science liberals seem to think basic nature and biology do not apply to Homo sapiens. Men can behave like women, women can behave like men, they can raise their kids, if they have them, in any way they see fit, and everything will turn out fine in the liberal fantasy world.
The only fantasy world being bandied about here is the one that Erickson thinks still exists. I'll never understand the perpetual "Golden Age" thinking trap in which the Right seems to be ensnared. They see any sort of change as a threat to a fantasy that never existed in in the first place.
2 comments:
"... the male typically is the dominant role."
Typical conservative overgeneralization. "Nature" is not one monolithic block. Different species are organized in completely different ways. For example, many species of bees and ants are organized around a single female queen whose welfare is the sole concern of the entire colony. Females provide most of the workforce and males are almost completely unnecessary.
There are certain species of spiders in which the female is much larger than the male, who is basically nothing more than a sperm delivery system that is eaten immediately after mating.
In many rabbit breeds females are larger than the males, and are therefore more dominant. Female humpback whales are slightly longer than males.
Female lions do most of the hunting. The males are mostly useless, and even though they might be dominant because of their size, they are easily replaced by another younger, stronger male.
Elephant societies are usually matriarchal.
The real point, though, is that each species is different. It's totally irrelevant that male bucks are attended by several does, and male lions are attended by several lionesses. Are these misogynists claiming that is "proof" that polygamy is the natural state of mankind?
Since every species is unique, you have to take each one on its own and look at how it best adapts to its environment. Up until the last century one could argue that men should be the dominant partner because naked size and strength were very important in dealing with the natural environment. Women were more "frail" because the process of childbirth was so deadly.
We don't really need hypervigilant testosterone-fueled maniacs whose fight-or-flight reflexes are constantly engaged. In this day and age such a mindset is menace to society, and is usually linked to various criminal pathologies. People constantly primed for warfare are a detriment to civilization.
Furthermore, as humanity has come to totally dominate the planet making mankind the undeniable master of the world, technology has made masculine raw strength and size less and less important: we have machines to do the heavy lifting. We have rifles and tanks and airplanes and drones to do the fighting when fighting does become necessary. Improved medical care has driven down female mortality rates, due to improved survival from childbirth.
Because such a high percentage of us live in cities, the ability to work well with others has become much more important. Since women usually have better social skills than men, one would expect that they eventually do better than men.
And, indeed, we're already starting to see that. Women are graduating from college in increasingly greater numbers than men, and women have recovered better from the recession than men. Women tend to multitask better than men, and modern society requires paying attention to many things at once.
In general, women have been adapting better to the new world than men have. And that's the real reason why these troglodytes are whining: they're getting the short end of the stick now, and they only see themselves only going downhill faster.
Their own inability to understand and adapt to the changes in society is causing them to criticize these changes. And the irony is that these are usually the same guys who insist we need to have increased growth rates and larger families, things which will only lead to greater urbanization and the end of these self-styled "rugged individualists."
I'll never understand the perpetual "Golden Age" thinking trap
Why would you understand something that you are so guilty of yourself?
Post a Comment