Erick Erickson wants everyone to know that he is definitely not mean

Indeed, he wants everyone to know that he's not mean at all, just a harsh truth-teller.  As you may have seen, Erick Erickson recently came out and informed everyone that women were better stay-at-home parents than men, because of science, apparently.

Now, my first reaction, and probably yours as well, is that Erick Erickson must have grown up in a difficult area where the only source of food was an endless supply of baby seals that had to be clubbed to feed the family, and his mother just lacked the fortitude needed to perform such a vicious act. 

So, uh, right.  Anyway.  Point is, Erick has become aware that people are upset by this, so he has considered his position and issued a sincere apolo--haha, nope, he's just decided to write an extensive article regarding 1) why he's right and 2) why he's not mean.  Apparently, a guy who insinuates that women are unable to keep up in the workplace (and, conversely, that men are ill-suited for solo parenting) is really desperate for our approval.  Let's see what he has to say!

The Truth May Hurt, But Is Not Mean

I feel the need to add to this post as it is obvious a lot of people take up this topic with some heavily preconceived notions and biases.

Hey, I agree!  People are really biased about things like this, which sometimes leads to them making offensive statements.  Really finding some great common ground here.


I am shocked to learn I think women cannot be breadwinners.

So was I!  Now that you've noticed how silly that is, have you reconsidered anything?


That is what the left says, but it is not so.

That darn LEFT.  Every time!

Even now I am getting beaten up for suggesting women should stay home with their kids. While I think it is preferable, I also know it is often impossible. I know from first hand experience.

I really find it incredible that someone can look at a veritable mob of people that disagree with them, see all of the various reasons why they might disagree and circumstances that might differ for every single person, and then say, "Whaaaaaat?  I did it, so why can't you?"  The term "first-hand experience" should appear in a piece like this roughly, oh, nowhere.

Prior to having kids, Christy and I both worked. Once we had our first child and I was making a full time go of RedState, Christy had to work if we were to have insurance. Frankly, we could not make ends meet on my salary alone and, even after the cost of day care, had to have the remainder of Christy’s salary to help make ends meet. We still struggled.

What an interesting personal story that has nothing at all to do with whether women being primary breadwinners is a problem.  This is the equivalent of a child bursting into tears when he gets in trouble so that you'll feel sorry for him (luckily, I personally don't feel sympathy for children, so I have no problem with telling them or Erick that they can just fuck right off with the sob story).

At one point I had to contemplate being a single dad, but thank God I did not have to be.


See, Erick, this is where all the actual single dads stopped reading.  "Thank God I was saved from being one of those!  Single dadhood would have sucked, right?"

When we made the decision that Christy would stay home with the kids, we did so contemplating I would have to get one or more additional jobs in order for her to do it. God truly blessed us in how he arranged it, but we had made the decision to make the leap to her being a stay at home before those blessings even arrived.

You keep saying we and then telling us something that she did.  And then you said that "God truly blessed us" as if it was something he did, as opposed to your wife agreeing to stay home with the kids because your sorry ass clearly didn't want to.

I work three jobs rather constantly, but am fortunate to do most of it from home.

Like I give a fuck.  You're a commenter on Fox--I'm sure you'll be just fine.

All of this is to say there are many people who’ve heard what I said and think I’m judging them.


What?  All of that was to say that you have it hard and God helped by making your wife stay home or some such bullshit.

I am not.

lol ok


In my own family we’ve been there and struggled. But just because the world has moved on and seems to think the two parent nuclear household with a stay at home mom is no longer necessary or useful does not make it so. 

Evidence for your position: one anecdote you told that is maybe kind of related at best
Evidence against your position: pretty much all of the other things

Ladies, if you want to work that’s fine.

Ladies, make sure you thank Erick for so kindly granting you permission to work.

If your position in life makes it advantageous for you to be the primary bread winner, that’s fine. But your individual circumstances and mine should not hide the fact that there is an ideal and optimal family arrangement whether we in our own lives can meet it.

"It's totally OK to go with whatever arrangement you personally think works best for you!  Just so you know, all the other ones other than mine are wrong, though.  If you're OK with wrong, then that's totally fine!"


Having said all that, now on to the main point wherein all the controversy lies. . . .

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

Gosh, I just can't imagine you saying something that would bother people.  Also, I'm not sure you know what "emo" is.

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.”

The facts you have presented here are that nearly four in ten families now rely on a woman as the primary breadwinner and that many people are concerned by this.  None of that is evidence that your statement is accurate, it's just evidence that a lot of people agree with you.  Also, the specific wording in the study was "Three-fourths of those surveyed say these mothers make raising children harder."  I'm sure some of those people agree with your reasoning, but it's entirely possible that if you asked a stay-at-home dad if raising children was harder when his wife worked full-time, he'd be like, "Well, duh."  Making sweeping conclusions based on a single question from a single survey won't always work out well for you. 

I also noted that the left, which tells us all the time we’re just another animal in the animal kingdom,

The LEFT strikes again!

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.

And in others, the male is the primary caregiver for the offspring.  In others, the female is the stronger protector in the family.  In yet others, a single female is dominant over thousands and thousands of subordinates.  Nature is weird as hell and it's kinda bizarre to say, "Well, look at those animals!  We should emulate them when it comes to deciding which member of the family physically fights to defend the family goes out to earn green pieces of paper that we trade for goods and services."

It’s the female who tames the male beast.*

*Except in lots of cases, such as:

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

If you're trying to argue that animals all follow some universal family structure, you're going to find that about all of the species are exceptions.  I did enjoy the amount of shade you're throwing at MSNBC there.

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.

Erick is strongly implying that he is really just a bold, outspoken rebel who is willing to stand against the tide of...people telling women they can be successful in ways of their choosing, I guess. 

This does not mean the two-parent, heterosexual nuclear household will always work out for the best. But it does mean children in that environment will more often than not be more successful than children of single parents or gay parents.

When did gay parents enter this discussion?  It seems like someone who's so insistent on there being a mother in the house would love the idea of having two mothers, though I suppose the other way around might be an issue for Erick.  Anyway, if we follow his previous logic, we can always look to the animal kingdom for evidence as to whether there's a problem with gay parents, right?

Feminists and politicians on both sides of the aisle view these statements as insulting to single moms and antithetical to their support for gay marriage. What should be insulting to single moms is for society to tell them they can do it all and, in fact, will subsidize their doing it all. 

"Single moms have a really difficult time, because we insult them by offering assistance."

I know a number of wonderful, nurturing single mothers. They do as best they can. Most of them have wonderful children. But not one of them prefers to be a single mother.

Life is terribly unfair. Sometimes a parent dies. Sometimes a parent is an abusive ass. There are unfortunate exceptions. But we should not kid ourselves or scream so loudly in politically correct outrage to drown the truth — 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.

Erick spends several paragraphs talking about how being a single mom is difficult, all of which is somehow evidence that in a two-parent home, mothers should stay in the home and fathers should work.  Being a single parent certainly is tough, but that has little bearing on Erick's point about which parents should stay home.

As a society, once we moved past that basic recognition, we’ve been on a downward trajectory of more and more broken homes and maladjusted youth.  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

Sounds great!

in the liberal fantasy world.

Erick's problem is that his version of "liberal fantasy world" sounds awesome.  Well, that and all the other problems.  Still, I have to say, he's really convinced me of some things--admittedly, they're all probably the opposite of what he was hoping to convince his readers of, but still!

When it comes to claiming voter fraud, dream big

Prior to the election, Dean Chambers had a site called Unskewed Polling.  You may remember them as the group that claimed to believe this would be the outcome of the election:

I tried to make sure this was the correct prediction, but unsurprisingly, the site has been taken down.

One might expect that Chambers would take a few months off to recover from his glaringly incorrect predictions and maybe learn math, but he's back with another web venture: BarackOFraudo.com!  No, really, that's what he called it.  It looks like this:

O'Fraudo?  Is that a reference to Irish heritage?  Why?  Is O'Fraudo supposed to sound like Obama?  What the hell, man.

Ignoring the terrible site design--no, just kidding, I'm not going to ignore that.  First of all, there are random links everywhere, 90% of which are broken and go to a 404 not found page.  The image in the upper left is a link, which takes you directly back to the same page it appears on.  Click on the words "Barack O'Fraudo?"  Also a link back to the same page.  You'll note that in the maroon links running horizontally across the top, the first one is slightly lower than the rest.  Why?  Because the blank space contains the words "QStar Network", but for some reason the letters are white on a white background.  His coding is so bad that I couldn't copy-paste any text from the article, because he kept leaving open html tags everywhere and making everything go wonky. 

Of the many, many links, most are about various voter fraud items; for some reason some of them reference voter fraud in 2008 (which, okay, that's semi-related to your crazy person point), and some of them reference voter fraud by Obama Kerry Gore Clinton Dukakis Mondale Jimmy Carter, in 1980, which is 32 years ago.  Why?

If the 1980 election could have been handed to Jimmy Carter by stealing fewer than 2 million votes, less than 3 percent nationwide, then the much closer election of 2012 won by just 2.6 percent in the popular vote and fewer than 400,000 votes in the four key swing stats that denied Mitt Romney the presidency, could easily have been stolen by various methods of vote fraud and ballot-box stuffing.

Okay, the argument is that if we assume Jimmy Carter could have stolen the election by somehow getting 2 million fraudulent votes, then it'd be totally feasible for Obama to do the same, since he only needed 400,000.  Why is that an argument?  This is entirely made up.

Note: This is a scenario, we are NOT suggesting there was any vote fraud in the 1980 election. 

Does anything mean anything?  What are words?  What is life?

What the hell was the point of that?  "If we assume a thing that we are not assuming then this other thing is presumably assumable."  So far, Dean's evidence for voter fraud is that he created an imagination picture where it could have theoretically happened before and if that were true, it could happen again.  Madness.  Anyway, Dean goes on to lay out a whole scenario where Carter could have hypothetically committed voter fraud--it's batshit crazy, and the whole point is that the existence of a theoretical election theft proves that it could happen again, or something.  I can't even paraphrase it without sounding ridiculous.  

Anyway, Dean's main point, aside from showing us how Jimmy Carter helped Barack Obama steal the 1980 election or something, is that the 2012 election is dubious, as some states were affected by (gasp) VOTER FRAUD, as shown:

If Obama had just stolen 63 more electoral votes from Romney, "Obama Fraud" could have placed second in the election.

Shockingly, Dean gives very little evidence to explain why he believes these 4 states were stolen; here's literally the entirety of what he has to say about it.

Evidence of vote fraud is very much like that. Those who engage in it are slick and do all they can to hide it, so the evidence is often quite circumstantial. In fact, often the circumstantial evidence is all the evidence we have, such was finding tens of thousands of bogus votes in the ballot box, we didn't see someone actually put them there, but they are found, they are there, and they are clearly evidence of vote fraud. Such is true of the voting divisions where Obama gets 100 percent of the votes cast. As if anyone REALLY believes that is legitimate...

Let's break down his points:

• We don't have evidence of voter fraud, which is evidence of voter fraud because vote frauders are slick and good at hiding their work, so the lack of evidence proves it's happening
• I didn't see people put all those ballots in, so fraud (note: I don't understand what he's saying with "we didn't see someone actually put them there, but they are found, they are there, and they are clearly evidence of vote fraud." If anyone does, please let me know).
• Obama swept districts that are often swept by Democrats?  As if!

That's all of them.  I guess it's not surprising that the guy who kept saying that the polls were skewed would go ahead and say the vote was skewed after the polls turned out to be right.  Let's close with a quote that Dean uses on his site:

"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."
           -Henry David Thoreau

I give up.