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.
Then I can dismiss anything you call hard evidence here on this website. What’s the point of talking at all?
Rty23, Define “hard evidence” as it is used in your alternate universe.
Not really, because much of what we cite as evidence has like, proof. And has been reviewed and stuff.
OMG we have another philosopher on our hands! You create your own reality and all that shit.
Wait, sorry, a guy saying he developed a male contraceptive (without any documentation from any health organization, natch), but that it was shot down by “ugly Betty Friedan” is evidence? I heard a guy on Coast to Coast say he was channeling Michael Jackson. Is that proof of the afterlife?
Common, get real. That was an actual talk show. A real interview.
Oh ffs! Dude, menstration isn’t just us leaking blood cause we didn’t get knocked up. Its the bodys method of riding itself of unwanted pathogens and rebalancing the hormonal system. From an evolutionary point of view menstruating for three to seven days every twenty eight to forty days is very expensive to survival. Its the equivalent of four days worth of food in its caloric expendature on the body.
Go and look up some of the other effects of menstraution on a womans body. The same horomones that induce the cramping and removal of lining also serve to induce changes in the bowels and possibly the bacterium in the bowel lining.
Changes in estrogen are known to have effects on various types of cancers, many of which are prevented by lowering estrogen in some areas of the body and increasing them in others.
And for women who associate having periods with actually being, you know, women getting rid of menstruation and saying its worthless says A LOT about how women are viewed.
Talk shows are hard evidence?
I think you better take another look at your video, trollboy.
Women are in total control of China (ha) and mens birth control is supposedly from a natural product and so of no interest to big pharma, male birth control interferes with testosterone so it is no good, but this is all the fault of feminists.
Criminy!
@Unpaid Help
Hmm… *goes to closet and steps in* *sounds of crashing, breaking glass, and an elephant trumpeting emanate from closet* *rubber chicken, three watermelons, a small fishbowl, and 13 mechanical ducks fly out of closet, land on bed* *mechanical ducks begin to walk around and do flips* *emerges from closet*
One of these?
You haven’t read any of the criticism of your hero at all, have you? Dude, it takes five minutes of Googling to find it.
You’re right about one thing: there’s no point in talking to you. Just buzz off, you’re wrong-headed, willfully ignorant and a misogynist.
This is a site about mocking misogyny, not us educating you or you convincing us that teh feminism is all wrong. Posting videos by creepy doctors ain’t getting you anywhere.
Ithiliana: I didn’t say we weren’t swearing. I was saying we weren’t shouting, and we most certainly weren’t swearing like bikers.
He made a very specific claim. He is still batting 1.000; every such a claim he has made as been as wrong as all the rest.
rty23: No, I’m saying two wrongs don’t make a right.
Well… You’ve not let that stop you; a long list of wrongs have you presented.
Moreover, swearing at you isn’t “wrong”. It might be rude. I say might. A person who has given no offense ought not be abused; just for asking a question.
You are not such a one. You have argued in bad faith, refused to engage with countering evidence, moved goalposts, accused us uf lying, offered an insincere apology, and generally made an ass of yourself.
Since we can’t actually show you the door, we have every right, and reason, to treat you as contemptuously as your lack of respect; and honest action, have made it clear you hold us.
So, since the last example was illustrative, not demonstrative, let me actually, “swear at you”.
Your an idiot. You assume your question begging propositions ought to be treated as if they were honest tools of debate. You are dishonest. You are a fool. You think a yuotube video is evidence. Moreover you think it conclusive, to the point of proof.
You are a rude, ignorant fuckwit: You arrogate to yourself the certitude of TRUTH, ignoring that we are not possessed of tabuli rasi but rather adults, experienced and educated. Engaging in facile, and cute, attempts to play “gotcha” with loaded questions; the which you will not accept any response which fails to accord with your close-minded bigotry deserves scorn, abuse, and mockery.
You are being treated far more kindly than you deserve, and you pretend (willfully, I am certain) that we are being unfair, unjust, and pointlessly mean. You are, again, WRONG. We are being quite pointedly short with you.
Keep it up, and we will actually move toward giving you the abuse you deserve, and seem to crave.
I heard on a talk show that you can cure cancer with kitten videos. SCIENCE!
Haven’t we discussed that same talk show video before, with Antsy Zarat?
As I recall, it turned out that his pill had JUST a ten percent chance of leaving its user infertile.
But hey, a dude said a thing on a talk show, so, you know.
A little fact checking would develop your bull shit meter so that you don’t get suckered by d00dz like this, trollboy.
rty23: Common, get real. That was an actual talk show. A real interview.
Condoleeza Rice went on television and said Saddam Hussien had obtained tons of uranium ore from Niger too. It was a talk show, a real interview, and everything.
It was also horseshit.
Rule One: The Doctor always lies.
I saw in a magazine that scientists found a being that is half-boy, half-bat. It was in print, so it must be true. I think we should now discuss the social implications of Batboy.
@pecunium: ::applause::
🙂
Well, I’m going to leave. Sorry if I’ve been offensive or hostile. I’ve never had an exchange like this before and I’m glad I did. There’s an incredible amount of hostility from both sides. Hopefully it can work out amenably and everyone will benefit.
The Doctor does always lie, the skeezy little bastard!
And I can fuck up the HTML, apparently. We all make mistakes.
“Why is am I stupid,” you say?
(Perhaps you should call it a day.)
Your youtube-ery
cannot prove “misandry.”
Kid, it’s best to shut up. Go away.
BYE!!!! Please stick the flounce.