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.
Spoos, Let’s s’pose you aren’t just here for the lulz (I’m willing to be generous).
Care to actually support those talking points with facts? Because history says you’re wrong; in a liquidity trap (which is what we have) gov’t spending is pretty much the only way out.
I’d also like to see how public debt is crowding out public borrowers (what I see is capital being locked up by a lack of demand; which stems from people not having money; which gov’t spending would ameliorate).
The question is: would it be useful to reduce fatherlessness and, if so, how?
1:. that’s not, “the question”, it’s your question.
2: that formulation begs the question.
Assuming, for a moment, that a two-parent household is desirable,
Why do you assume that.
All the rest, is blame shifting. You make the problem of, “deadbeat dads” a problem for women (and engage in more question begging in your explanation).
You aren’t being honest here. You have an agenda. You aren’t very good at hiding it.
It’s, “women are to blame”.
And it’s bullshit.
Come back when you have data. Then we can take it apart too.
Is spoos Bob? Because it’s the same “women should be psychic and know everything that will happen for the rest of time and never make bad choices that could bother me” line of reasoning.
LBT, hang in there! Its not your fault, where you’re at. Its societies attitudes about the value of a human being that’s at fault. Especially in the states, where the safety net is tissues thin.
Mildlymagnificent, that link pretty much describes the situation I went through, minus getting beaten.
And all the while it was going on, I thought it was just the stress of a baby on the way coupled with poverty. The midwife caught on early, and was trying to steer me away from staying with him. Eventually she just out and said that I was under too much stress and that if I continued to work up until the baby was born it would likely result in misscarriage. So I left work at seven months pergnant and collected maternity leave. Whereupon asshat decided I waas contributing financially at all, despite every penny going to pay bills.
That should be contributing nothing financially…
@ Steele, I don’t know if you’re still around, or if it’s a good idea for me to respond to you, but…
You state that the men’s movement, as a whole, rejects social conservatism, and that they are radical in their approach to gender relations (unlike either feminism or social conservatism). I wish the men’s movement was like that, I truly do. We need to examine men’s roles in society more, in my opinion. Unfortunately, I haven’t found this to be the case at most MRA sites at all- and before you tell me that I haven’t looked in the right places, yes I have looked at many, many MRA sites, and a lof of them want women to go back to their ‘proper’ place (and be punished extra for having dared leave it). What about all those ‘Christian manosphere’ sites that are such a big part of the men’s movement?
Also, you should not ignore the fact that the traditional male role came with privileges, or at least privileges that a lot of men would enjoy. Men are considered the primary decision-makers, and women are not just ‘pampered’, they are also expected to serve their husbands, to do all of the unpleasant tasks such as cleaning (surely you agree that this is unpleasant on some level?). Thing is, many men (most? I don’t know) don’t want to give up these things; instead, they take pride in being protectors, fighters, decision-makers, etc. You may not believe me, but I have spoken to many men in real life about this issue, pointing out how they can be victims too, but most of them just laugh it off, saying they are strong and not ‘pussies’, and so forth. You can’t put all the blame for this on feminism or women in general if you want to be honest with yourself.
To be honest, I think you have a few good points (I know the commenters here will disagree with me!), but in order for there to be a ‘movement’ you have to have a lot of people who agree with each other on what their basic goals are, and then move towards those goals together. I just don’t see that in the MRM. I see a lot of lone voices all shouting different things, united only by their hatred of feminism, and they can’t even agree on a definition for that. So, honestly, what do you want?
WHAT FRICKING OPTIONS?
Sorry for the caps, but this annoys the crap out of me. Yes, there are several options for a woman who wishes to control her fertility. Point me to ONE that does not require a doctor’s visit, or worse, several.
Yes, IF you have a Planned Parenthood clinic near you, they can hook a woman up with free birth control, but that’s a big if. I personally am uninsured. The closest PP clinic to me is an hour drive away, and to go there during their office hours I would have to take time off of work. Time I can’t really afford – I don’t exactly get sick leave where I work.
For the record, that’s also the closest place that will provide a free/low-cost abortion.
Now personally, it’s not a concern for me, as my preferred method of birthcontrol involves the fact that I’m a lesbian 😉 But I have plenty of coworkers in similar situations. So please. Show me all these options for women that are anywhere CLOSE to the cheapness and convenience of being able to walk into a store and pick a box of condoms off a shelf.
PP is also not “free”. 1: if you have any insurance (even if it doesn’t provide the services you are at PP to obtain), you pay full-freight.
2: If you don’t have insurance it’s means tested.
@Spoos
Do you? There’s a lot of PUA lingo on your blog…
Re. spending your way out of a depression:
That didn’t work out too well for most of the economies that tried in the ’30s. Hyperinflation inevitably follows trying to print enough money to cover all the bad assets (uncollectable debts). And, sure, we’re in the hole, and it does seem like more spending is the answer, but that will lead to more problems later on. There isn’t really a good long-term answer to the cycle of boom and bust other than letting it happen; the U.S. has had an economic crisis about every 40 to 50 years, some more severe than others.
Look at the tulip craze in Holland: successful risk-taking encourages even more gambling. The federal subsidy of mortgages to risky debtors is part of what created the current economic crisis (as did low capital gains rates, which encourage malinvestment), but even early in American history, currency and banking have caused economic hardship.
With regards to intimate partner violence, I absolutely recognize that it can be difficult to get out, and that support is necessary, whether it comes from family and friends, or from the government. Identifying a likely abuser can be difficult, as can identifying a potential deadbeat dad, but having the children of a felon (prisoners have an average over 2.1 kids apiece: http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2530/Characteristics-Inmates-PRISONERS-THEIR-CHILDREN.html) is almost certainly a bad idea. And yet, many women nonetheless do, even though convicts’ names are a matter of public record. Most inmates with kids are also violent or drug offenders, as it happens; likely not very good father material.
@palmedfire: Both women and men can buy condoms (and spermicide)* at the grocery store? Birth control may or may not be covered by an individual’s insurance, but, for most people, the cost is not prohibitive. I would support paying for hormonal contraception for every woman who cannot currently afford it, especially if she is already receiving WIC.
*There is some contention over nonoxynol-9’s safety and efficacy, as it can cause irritation, leading to increased STI transmission; using it to lubricate condoms is not much more effective than condoms alone.
@pillowinhell: Not particularly a B5 fan, but I’ve watched an episode or two.
Spoos: “Now that’s a tricky thing to do, since men do lie for sex, but I have every confidence that women can accomplish it if they put their capable minds to the task.”
READ MINDS HARDER LADIES.
NEXT UP: LOTTERY NUMBERS. PUT YOUR CAPABLE MINDS TO THE TASK.
SPOOS: BRANDON 2: ABOVE IT ALL BOOGALOO
I’m well aware that anyone can buy condoms and spermicide. But you referred to “the plethora of contraceptive options at their disposal” My question was what the hell those plethora of options were, especially if you are poor.
And the cost is prohibitive, if you’re living paycheck to paycheck. A doctor’s visit where I live is $150 if you have no insurance. Due at the time of the visit. Birth control pills run $20-$50 a month. That is not a trivial amount.
Ladies, ladies! Don’t RUIN HIS SMUGNESS WITH YOUR FACTS.
Really, that capable bit was all about how effective holding an aspirin between the knees is.
I forgot the technical term for it.
But if you compare bank stickup numbers, its overwhelmingly male. There are more men who defraud banks than women, but as a percentage, its higher than bank robbers.
But you can’t actually make someone use them and a lot of men will refuse (at which point, of course anyone considering sex with that person could refuse, but for women, if you’ve reached that point, you can’t consider refusing to go further without considering the risk of him refusing your refusal and getting violent):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1831928/
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2008/09/why_teens_dont_use_condoms.html
It doesn’t help that the abstinence only garbage being served to kids in schools lies to them about the efficacy of condoms routinely, which further discourages use.
Incidentally, from The Journal of Sex Research:
“An estimated 3.1 million unintended pregnancies are experienced by women in the United States each year, and just over one half (52%) of these are experienced by women who did not use any method of contraception in the month of conception (Finer & Henshaw, 2006).”
http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-278880601/willingness-to-have-unprotected-sex
Which looks a whole lot like young men and women are both throwing caution to the wind. Now, if we could get more of these women on OCPs, maybe that’d help, but something like Norplant or Depo would doubtless be more effective. (I doubt you will get much reliable condom use out of this demographic, and consistent use of the pill may also be putting the bar a bit high.) The breakdown of unintended pregnancies by the Brookings Institute shows that most accidental parents are young and poor, that is to say, likely welfare recipients.
Also, compared to the cost of raising a kid, BC is dirt cheap. I don’t have an issue with the state subsidizing family planning, in fact, I’m a strong proponent for it, but I do not believe that the current trend of (de facto) reproductive subsidy is sustainable, let alone desirable.
All who care what Spoos believes, raise their hands.
Yeah dude, it’s amazing how easy it is to save money when you already have money to spend. Poor people far too often can’t afford to save money.
@hellkell — I CAN’T GET MY HANDS ANY LOWER OH GOD THERE’S A FLOOR HERE
@Myoo — Sam Vimes’ Boots theory of Socio-Economic unfairness.
Sam Vimes says it best. And he’s right about how you can tell what street you’re walking on if the soles are very thin.
Comments like this always make me wish that there was a way to revoke someone’s membership in the human race. Though when you start talking about taking care of children in terms like that I guess you can be said to have voluntarily opted out.
I remember I read of a study somewhere, done in a poor neighbourhood in the US, where they offered free contraceptives for everyone for a certain period of time. Lots of women who’s never heard of norplant before or could have afforded it otherwise chose this option because it doesn’t require any planning or remembering to use it. Not surprisingly, the number of pregnancies dropped steeply.
I agree that it’s fucked up to blame women, as if it didn’t take two to tango, but if one is really worried about the singlemomcalypse it would be reasonable to support something like this nationwide rather than just going on about the importance of marriage.
I just want to know if he’s also going to sites like Roissy’s and Roosh’s and lecturing the young men there about their desire to go “raw dog” as often as possible. Does he go on the sites where men complain about the cost of their child support and pull this insipid finger-wagging routine about responsibility?
And I definitely want to know if he’s spending time on the sites that are ultra-conservative and don’t want any government funding of birth-control and reproductive care and giving all of those fine folks his “two cents”?