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.
Notice how Mr “Sorry I was offensive” sounds like the idea of women having choice is what pisses him off?
rty23: ll I’m saying is that women will have babies when men want them to. You don’t think that changes anything? Think harder.
Um… no. Assumig, arguendo, that this ability of either sex to prevent accidental pregancy, what it means is children will require the active participation of both partners. That will have a large effect.
It, of course, assumes all people have access to the means of making it so. Right now what the MRM is arguing for is women to have no control over when they get pregnant. Which seems to be what you think a male pill would provide.
So you are arguing for a misogynistic world, and expect us to think this is a good thing? While feminists aren’t working to prevent a male pill (see, I denied it; again) because the underlying assumption you are making (that women are desperately eager to use pregnancy to control/enslave men) is false, you have provided the only good argument I can see for doing so.
You want male BC so men can control women.
I’m no rapist. I would never hurt a woman. But is it possible that feminism has over reached in some areas?
No, I want it to level the birth control playing field. Right now, women control men.
What a stunningly original question! Truly you have amazed us with your thought-provoking arguments.
(We really need a sarcasm font just for when people this dim show up.)
And, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that feminists (or some strains of feminism) are out to get men.
You can answer the question instead of attacking me Cassandra.
I’m not attacking you, sweetie, I’m making fun of you. Notice the tagline at the top of the page?
No. It has not.
There’s no denying that you’re fractally wrong, rty23.
rty23: I’m no rapist. I would never hurt a woman. But is it possible that feminism has over reached in some areas?
No.
And, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that feminists (or some strains of feminism) are out to get men.
Again, no. There are some strains which are angry with men; there are feminists who hate men. But they aren’t actually “out to get men”.
No, I want it to level the birth control playing field. Right now, women control men.
Again, you are wrong.
23trollskiddoo: All I’m saying is that women will have babies when men want them to. You don’t think that changes anything? Think harder.
Except for those who will take their hard-earned money and zip down to their local Sperm bank!.
Really? You think that a good male contraceptive will give men MORE power over women?????????????????????
How does choosing when or if I have a child – go through pregnancy, childbirth and all their associated risks to my health and life, MY body – mean I am controlling a man, any man?
When you can get pregnant and give birth, you can whine about women using birth control. Not before.
Think harder.
Wait, I can’t say snigger?
Huh, interesting, it *does* stick it into moderation.
(Dave: sorry for the extra buttonclick, I was curious…)
Kitteh’s: How does choosing when or if I have a child – go through pregnancy, childbirth and all their associated risks to my health and life, MY body – mean I am controlling a man, any man?
He means that women can choose to have (or not) a child if they get pregnant. If they have the child the man has no say, and he has to pay child support.
Ergo she is controlling him, stealing his money, etc.
Ninja’s by Pillowinhell!
@23skiddoo: It won’t be so easy for a woman to decide when she’s going to have a family like it is now.
What makes you think it’s easy?
Oh, let me guess, women never have to work at anything; they just sit in the street and cry until some white knight arrives to give them money, cars, sperm, etc.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhht.
*snorts*
Oh, dear lord, the dumb is strong with this one.
Has feminism over reached? Not at all. Got any other stupid questions?
I’m not against women having a choice. I just want men to have an equal choice in reproductive control.
Um, yes. So do we.
(Equal choice by adding choices, it’d be fucking stupid to reach equality by taking options away from women.)
@pecunium – yes, because of course men have no birth control of their own available, or it’s unreasonable to expect them to use it, or something. Silly me.
Isn’t it funny how these trolls always talk as if men are the totes superior sex, rational, smart, controlled, etc, etc, etc, yet at the same time they have no agency or resources at all?
smh
Kid, do yourself a favor and go practice your arguments on a less educated audience for a while, then come back here. Right now you’re basically doing the equivalent of trying to recite Mary Had a Little Lamb to people who’re studying for a degree in literature.