This in from Think Progress.
Good for Megyn Kelly for telling Red State’s Erick Erickson to suck it. And then doing the same to Lou Dobbs.
Kelly was referring to Erickson’s blog post, which tried to clarify remarks he made here:
After inserting his foot in his mouth, Erickson wrote his post. Here is an excerpt:
Ladies, if you want to work that’s fine. 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.
We should also, as a society, recognize that many single moms are in that position because the men in their lives abandoned their obligations. We should work on all those fronts to put the pieces of the nuclear family back together.
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. 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.
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.
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. 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.
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 in the liberal fantasy world.
Except in the real world it does not work out that way.
Not everyone has the luxury of raising their children in a traditional manner and the rest of us have an obligation to help and support those in unfortunate situations. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with mothers having jobs. There is nothing wrong with women being breadwinners. Sometimes they have to by necessity.
But to say the two parent, heterosexual household isn’t the best for children or, more troubling, that our society should not be encouraging it, may make people feel tolerant and open, but it is killing our society.As Pew found, “Three-fourths of those surveyed say these mothers make raising children harder, and half worry that it’s bad for marriages. About half of those surveyed felt it was better if mothers stayed home with young children. In contrast, 8 percent thought it was better if fathers did.”
None of us can have it all. Women as primary breadwinners does make raising children harder, increasing the likelihood of harm in the development of children. While it is a reality in this world and sometimes even necessary, that does not mean we should not ignore the consequences of the increase in moms, instead of dads, as primary breadwinners (often because the man walked out).
People who seem to think it does not matter should answer one question: who is less valuable — mom or dad? The American people instinctively understand complementary relationships between men and women. The left should too.