Manosphere misogynists love fantasizing about a coming apocalypse, invariably caused by the bad behavior of feminists and/or women in general, and invariably resulting in feminists and/or women in general lost and forlorn and realizing their mistakes, returning to men begging for help and asking for forgiveness. Like Doomsday Preppers waiting for the planet to suddenly shift on its axis due to the sudden reversal of the magnetic poles, most of the apocalyptic misogynists don’t seem to have the faintest idea of what they’re talking about.
Take, for example, one Paul Elam of A Voice for Men, who transformed himself into an environmentalist last week when he realized it would give him an excuse to rant about the evils of women spending money. Turns out that the “conventional wisdom” his thesis depends on — that women are responsible for 80% of spending — is essentially an urban legend, and that men and women seem to spend roughly the same amounts. Similarly, there’s evidence that suggests men and women in developed countries have similar “carbon footprints,” with men if anything a bit more pollutey.
But of course this is hardly the only bit of apocalyptic misogynistic fantasy that, upon examination, turns out to be based on patent nonsense. Manosphere misogynists – particularly those on the racist right – love to complain about the evils of single motherhood, especially in the “ghettoes,” which they imagine will lead to crime rates spiraling out of control, riots, dogs and cats living together, and any number of other apocalyptic scenarios.
As one commenter on Dalrock’s manosphereian blog put it, providing a pithy summary of the coming single-mom apocalypse:
Single mothers bring the very wellfare state they depend on closer to the brink of colapse with every illegitimate child they pop out, who will most likely in turn create more bastards and be more likely to commit crimes thus placing an ever increasing strain on the state’s purse stings. …
[T]hings will collapse soon enough and then it will be everyone for themselves. No more suckling at the government’s saggy dried up teet.
Of course, manospherians are hardly the only ones who like to blame single moms for everything. You may recall that odd moment in the presidential debates when Mitt Romney responded to a question about gun violence with “gosh to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone, that’s a great idea.”
There’s just one tiny problem with the whole single-motherhood-means-higher-crime-rates argument: if you look at the history of the past twenty years or so you will find that while single motherhood has been on the increase, violent crime rates have been going down, down, down. Take a look at this chart, which I have borrowed from an excellent post on The Atlantic by University of Maryland sociologist Philip Cohen.
Huh. First single motherhood and crime rise together, then crime plummets while single motherhood continues to rise. It’s almost as if the two social trends have no correlation with each other at all.
As Cohen writes:
Violent crime has fallen through the floor (or at least back to the rates of the 1970s) relative to the bad old days. And this is true not just for homicide but also for rape and other assaults. At the same time, the decline of marriage has continued apace. Looking at two aggregate trends is never enough to tell a whole story of social change, of course. However, if two trends going together doesn’t prove a causal relationship, the opposite is not quite as true. If two trends do not go together, the theory that one causes the other has a steeper hill to climb. In the case of family breakdown driving crime rates, I don’t think the story will make it anymore.
Once upon a time, when both single motherhood and crime rates were moving upwards, you couldn’t entirely blame some social critics for suggesting there might be some connection. But with twenty more years of data we can see clearly that this just isn’t so. At this point, anyone predicting a single mother crime apocalypse is either a) an ideologue, b) ignorant about the facts or c) both.
In the case of the apocalyptic manosphere ranters, it’s obviously c.
” At this point, anyone predicting a single mother crime apocalypse is either a) an ideologue, b) ignorant about the facts or c) both.
In the case of the apocalyptic manosphere ranters, it’s obviously c”
Word
I attribute the decrease in violent crimes to internet pornography and violent video games….
@stonerwithaboner
Well, I don’t know about the pornography (though I have no problem with it), but you may be on to something with the whole “prevalence of violent videogames = decrease in violent crimes”.
I recall an article I read some time ago about this very idea. It toyed with the notion that people were using the violence they could perpetuate in games as a type of therapy…and thus were less likely to carry around excess anger/resentment in the real world.
Don’t know if any further studies have been done on this, but it’s certainly an interesting point of view.
They should call it the Smompocalypse.
“I recall an article I read some time ago about this very idea. It toyed with the notion that people were using the violence they could perpetuate in games as a type of therapy…and thus were less likely to carry around excess anger/resentment in the real world. ”
what I read was that it helped their dreams….
http://blogs.voanews.com/digital-frontiers/2012/10/02/video-games-the-future-of-psychotherapy/
my personal theory is that videogames can be like a punching bag to let off steam…
It ignores the reality that most women are not predisposed to theft. And that if we had a surge in the ranks of unemployed, we wouldn’t give them more money, we would divide it into smaller portions.
Sad as it is to say, I’ve also discovered some tenants turn to prostitution when they lose jobs.
What does it say about me that the thing I fixate on is moving the extra l from “wellfare” over to “colapse?”
It says that you and I should be friends.
(Except that I read “colapse” as “prolapse”.)
Personally, I am a fan of the Freakonomics theory regarding the connection between abortion and violent crime. A tad bit controversial and the statistics aren’t fully explained, but the theory is extremely intriguing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6gOeggViw
Also, the idea that women taking control of their bodies results in less crime would just royally piss off so many MRAs. Delicious.
@Cassandra XD
But @withenoughcourage, those skanky ladies are committed crimes against MENZ for killin’ their baybeez! Or some other such nonsense.
And I just had a mental image of what would have happened if the ex of Bob from the other thread had told him she was pregnant. Yikes.
@cassandra, based on what I read the past few minutes, Bob sounds sort of epically awful (grabs popcorn, goes to read)
Wellfare – is that making sure there are enough wells for everyone, or is it buying a ticket to be lowered down a well in a bucket?
Colapse sounds like colon prolapse. Ewwww ….
Boozie, your attempts at misdirection are patently transparent. Any guesses as to a.) what percentage of violent criminals are raised by single mothers? and b.) what percentage of the children of single mothers grow up to become violent criminals?
Didn’t think so. Doesn’t fit your narrative, does it?
^
|
Who is Boozie?
You find the greatest vintage pictures, David.
Boozie is driversuz’s illiterate attempt at wit.
Maybe these have caused a decrease in the rate of violent crimes comitted purely for fun – a minority of cases – but when the motive is profit or revenge then a vicarious substitute like a vidya game wouldn’t cut it.
I think DNA testing and the proliferation of CCTV cameras are a more likely deterrent.
David- Congrats on successfully refuting a straw man. It must have taken some effort.
It’s like pirates and global warming.
Correlation does not mean causation!
Also, I find that generally, “single mother” is used as a stand-in for other racist, sexist and classist slurs (such as poor, non-white, etc). The term is used specifically to bring up the mental image of a stereotype- that of the money-grubbing leech who has no “worth” as a human being and simply takes from society, does not care for her children beyond getting money for them (haha, anyone who thinks that having children makes you rich certainly hasn’t ever spent large quantities of time being primary caregiver of said children).
MRAs use “single mother” like anti-Obama racists use words like “monkey” (sadly, my father has sent me many a forwarded email using words that thinly hide the under current of racism) and they know it, but insist on being intellectually dishonest and going on about how there is “no true Scotsman” whenever they are confronted.
@stonerwithaboner
Letting off steam doesn’t really work to reduce aggression, unfortunately: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/myths/myth_30.cfm
Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker talks about the decline of violence and the spike that happened in the 80s.
His basic thesis (which he supports very well – you should read it) is that violence has been decreasing steadily in the west. The spike in the 80s is explained by the baby boomers. Basically a much larger number of teenagers than in any generation previously, combined with mass media that made them feel more connected to each other than to their parents in a way that teenagers never had before. He goes into detail about why that sort of situation leads to more violence
Now that the baby boomers are aging out and we are back to ‘normal’ numbers of teenagers the situation is correcting itself, and we are back on track for declining violence.
So yeah, it’s actually all those post-war nuclear families that are to blame, not single mothers.
I love the fact that MRA’s will rant and rave over all the salt seas about single mothers but never mention the FATHER’S of these children.
Surely if you’re going to rail about all these women daring to have children on their own you should also be kicking up a fuss about all these deadbeat Dads abandoning their offspring?
But no, tiz all the dreadful women’s fault. What are their theories as to WHY all these women are having children on their own? Let me guess:
Something something sluts something keep legs closed something something welfare queens something scroungers something something nagging something sluts something something.
Here’s what one area in India is doing to keep females under control: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/Kishanganj-village-bans-use-of-cellphones-by-girls/articleshow/17471655.cms