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.
Well, a statement like “single motherhood drives violent crime” is so vague and qualitative that this graph can’t really say much about it – noone is saying single motherhood is the *sole* cause – particularly if there is some other positive evidence for the claim. You could also imagine that like single motherhood causes crime only in the presence of crack cocaine or when the planets are aligned or something.
Even in the scenario they’re describing, it’s hard to believe the state would just keep shelling out money all over the place until it literally ceased to exist though.
What the fuck is with the MRA insistence that male birth control pills not existing means men have no contraceptive options at all? It’s such a blatant false equivalence. It makes no sense. Men still have condoms, sterilization and not having procreative sex, all of which are options women have. The medical options for birth control available to women are all more expensive, less accessible, less effective and more dangerous than using a condom (though, again, I advocate doubling up for everyone for safety).
This is not that complex. If you as a male don’t want to risk spawning? Don’t have procreative sex, use a condom, or get a vasectomy. YOU HAVE OPTIONS. YOU CAN MAKE CHOICES FOR YOURSELVES.
Oh, right, that’s the issue, actually. The underlying conviction of the MRM is that men are never at fault and never responsible for anything, because everything is always a woman’s fault. *headdesk*
Uh huh Driversuz. I actually do know what the rates are for kids growing up to be criminal in single parent versus two parent homes, at least according to one study. What’s going to disappoint you is that there are several confounding variables, not one of which is single parent. It just happens that single family households are more vulnerable to negative impacts caused by larger societal influences.
Oh, and why do so many MRA’s complain to feminists about there not being a male birth control pill? We have nothing to do with that, so you’re wasting your time. You should be writing to drug manufacturers to let them know you want it. If they believe there is enough demand out there to make a good profit, then they would probably work on it. It’s your job to convince them it’d be profitable.
When health activists wanted new regulations on the use of antibiotics to make livestock grow faster, they voiced their concerns to the FDA. After some court battles, they accomplished their goals* and now there are rules in the US against using antibiotics to make livestock grow faster. What if they had instead visited websites for surfing enthusiasts to complain? Would they have been as successful? They might have convinced surfers about the risks of antibiotic resistance, but that wouldn’t help much.
*kind of anyway. The new rules are vague with a lot of loopholes, but it’s a start.
Ugh. Leavitt. He’s the dancing bear of the Chicago econ department. There’s some actual intelligent people there, but they don’t sell books and shit.
[insert rant about how the alma mater is going to hell and how the kids these days are degenerate]
Um, because condoms decrease sensation? And in MRAworld, everything revolves around their boners.
Everything.
@freitag235 Sensation certainly isn’t nothing–also condom failure rates are higher than other methods. It would be great if men had better contraceptive options, though to pretend we don’t have any at all is laughable.
Condoms and spermacides work well. They are also things men can provide (that whole, “personal responsibility” thing).
A lot of the “failure” in condoms is based on people who didn’t use them properly.
@itsabeast, I am quite aware of the sensation problem. I used them all my adult life until getting a vasectomy, and yes, they do decrease the feeling. They also prevent pregnancy and help prevent getting or passing on STDs. Ergo, worth it.
Last I heard progress on a male pill was proceeding. A quick google produces a few links, firstly this one:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48689501/ns/health-mens_health/t/new-cancer-drug-affects-sperm-study-shows-finally-male-birth-control-pill/#.UL5UM4bpVvI
Men do have options, and medical science is catching up. Since men are fertile 24/7 it’s more of a challenge to create a hormonal solution than for women, who are fertile only for a few days a month. Three cheers for science.
They don’t actually want it. If men could reliably prevent contraception on their own, the MRAs would lose their child support-related talking points.
Uhh. When it comes to pregnancy prevention, the only methods of contraception I am aware of that have higher success rates than condoms are abstinence and sterilization.
and when it comes to preventing disease transmission, only abstinence works better than condoms.
If you know something I don’t know, please share.
I am all for male hormonal birth control — go nuts! So to speak! …I just wouldn’t stop using other methods of birth control as well. Like condoms. Because frankly I’m not going to entrust the state of my uterus to anyone but myself. And I really wouldn’t trust an MRA to not lie about taking his pill just to get a woman knocked up and under his thumb.
inurashii, I believe itsabeast was comparing condoms to other female methods of birth control, such as the pill or an IUD (which is the most effective form of birth control short of sterilization or abstinence currently available).
Here’s some info on the relative failure rates of various forms of birth control: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-effectiveness-chart-22710.htm
Hormonal methods tend to be more reliable than mechanical methods, as the chart shows.
Ok, thank you for the deets.
@Karalora and Bagelsan, what you said. Also, taking a male pill every day requires maturity and responsibility which I don’t see much of in MRAworld. Also, they are actively hostile towards women, so I doubt very much that they would care whether they got her pregnant or not. Members of hate groups, which the MRM largely is, aren’t normally considerate of the people whom they hate.
With the exception of the non-hormonal IUD, which I am so getting if I ever have a long-term sexual relationship with a male involving PIV again.
The copper IUD is a good non hormonal method that lasts a long time and is reversible. It can have some rough side effects, though. (TMI?) I had one once, and it made my periods much heavier and more painful. But that’s still better than pregnancy.
Hey all, I noticed that Ozy had a great idea for a nice thing you can do via Just Detention International to help prison rape survivors get through the holiday season.
Indeed, it’s important to note that social conservatives and the Movement differ greatly in their respective visions of the future. In point of fact, we are diametrically opposed! Social conservatives, while often against feminism, seek to patronize women, to assauge their insecurities and keep them pampered in the home. The Movement, on the other hand, respects women – which is why we hold them – and feminism – responsible for themselves! We do not mince words – we expect men and women to be responsible adults.
In this sense, feminism itself is far more aligned with social conservatism than the Movement. The Movement is radical.
lol @ Steele talkin’ like the MRM can agree on anything except hating women
Bowel MoveMENt??? Well that’s radical.
While excusing anything any man does ever as being the fault of women, and never his own defects, somehow.
Tut tut, Steeley-Butt! That is clearly vile misandry.
I have been with my partner 21 years (even married him 7 years ago). I have never used hormonal birth control during the relationship because it makes me feel like shit. We have always used condoms. When we decided to have children, we stopped using condoms and I was pregnant with number 1 three months later and number 2, one month after stopping using condoms. We did have a few failures of condoms on the way…I think 2 in the last 21 years. Lucky for us, being in the UK, I went to the Brook Advisory Clinic and was prescribed the morning after pill as it was called then and took it within 72 hours. No forced consultations, probes, counselling or cost.
When my husband had a hernia, he had a vasectomy at the same time since the surgeons were going in there anyway and we knew we didn’t want any more kids. People can have mature and equitable discussions about how to manage their fertility by, you know, fucking talking about it and listening.
Steele, what exactly do you mean by making women accountable and responsible? Please be specific. Because if you mean that moms should do all of the physical work and have all of the financial costs for children, then you’re barking up the wrong tree here.
MRA’s like their children once they grow up and no longer require care. Then all of the sudden, they want to be involved fathers. But forget about them changing diapers, taking a sick child home from school, or pitching in to pay for college. That would be misandry, right?
Again, they ignore all the men who don’t take responsibility for the children they father. If we want fewer people on Wellfare, we should start with better education. Educated females tend to put off having babies. And waiting to have a baby when you have a good career and therefore can afford it is a good thing. Men too need to be responsible. Also, we need birth control technology to improve. And I’m all for children having two parents in a loving relationship.