Erick Erickson/Fox News Panel: Female Breadwinners are Antithetical to Nature

[Antischism]

A report (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/29/breadwinner-moms/) released by Pew revealed that 40% of households in the U.S. have women as primary breadwinners. A panel of men joined by Erick Erickson of Redstate sat around discussing the results and demonstrating why the right is irrelevant with women.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ESm7zI9VtyY

Erick Erickson

I’m so used to liberals telling conservatives that they’re anti-science. But liberals who defend this and say it is not a bad thing are very anti-science. When you look at biology — when you look at the natural world — the roles of a male and a female in society and in other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complimentary role.

Later on, Erickson attempted to defend his position on his website by stating the following:


Many feminist and emo lefties have their panties in a wad over my statements in the past 24 hours about families. I said, in a statement reflecting the view of three quarters of those surveyed in a Pew Research Center poll, that more women being the primary or sole breadwinners in families is harmful to raising children. This result came from a survey that found “nearly four in 10 families with children under the age of 18 are now headed by women who are the sole or primary breadwinners for their families.”

I also noted that the left, which tells us all the time we’re just another animal in the animal kingdom, is rather anti-science when it comes to this. In many, many animal species, the male and female of the species play complementary roles, with the male dominant in strength and protection and the female dominant in nurture. It’s the female who tames the male beast. One notable exception is the lion, where the male lion looks flashy but behaves mostly like a lazy beta-male MSNBC producer.

In modern society we are not supposed to say such things about child rearing and families. In modern society we are not supposed to point out that children in a two-parent heterosexual nuclear household have a better chance at long term success in life than others. In modern society, we are supposed to applaud feminists who teach women they can have it all — that there is no gender identifying role and women can fulfill the role of husbands and fathers just as men do....

Fox News hos Greta Van Susteren later tweeted (http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/video/have-these-men-lost-their-minds-and-these-are-my-colleagues-oh-brotheri-need-to-have-a-little-chat-with-them/), "Have these men lost their minds? (and these are my colleagues??!! oh brother… maybe I need to have a little chat with them) (next thing they will have a segment to discuss eliminating women’s right to vote?)"

Why is this a gender issue again? Same-sex couples have been shown to be just as apt at raising children, for example. Why does it matter if a man stays at home to take care of the children or a woman does?

Here's Fox News host Megyn Kelly schooling and bringing Erick Erickson down a few pegs:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YZ5wNp67YcM#!


What I believe Erick Erickson really wanted to say: IT'S UN-CHRISTIAN!

[jclay2]

Truth


In modern society we are not supposed to say such things about child rearing and families. In modern society we are not supposed to point out that children in a two-parent heterosexual nuclear household have a better chance at long term success in life than others. In modern society, we are supposed to applaud feminists who teach women they can have it all — that there is no gender identifying role and women can fulfill the role of husbands and fathers just as men do....

[AlexAmore]

Lets get some universal child care reform while we're at it. That's what this is all about. The feminist narrative is that times are tough, women should work, and send their children to free day care. This isn't some random issue in a vacuum. Feminists are smart and understand that in order to change society you need to attack it at the roots...education.

Look at the black families who are farther along the single parent narrative, black society is broken as f***.

Of course single mothers are not to blame. It's government killing the economy making two parents working in order to survive.

Also Megyn Kelly is "offended" because she knows financially she could stay home and raise her children easily, but instead she's a mouthpiece for the establishment. I'm sure that eats at her on some suppressed level that Erick rattled a bit. Granted, her husband could stay at home as well, I'm not saying he's any better.

[James Madison]

I don't find anything he said to be particularly false. Males are specialized for certain tasks; females are specialized for certain tasks. Unfortunately for him, you can't articulate this message without a deep understanding of evolution, both human and in general.

Men are the competitive gender; women are the choosy, or the selective, gender. It doesn't mean the two are mutually exclusive and certainly there are many shades of grey, but in general these are the roles nature has chosen for us. Remember, evolution doesn't favor right or wrong, only reproductive success. Males must compete with other males because, well, the majority of men simply aren't necessary. A handfull of men can impregnate hundreds of women and sire thousands of children, because he contributes so few resources to a pregnancy. By contrast, a woman can have one -- maybe two -- children in a year. Hence, men have little choice but to compete for a small handfull of spots; women will get their's regardless because each female is several orders of magnitude more important than a generic male. From this scenario, you can see how 'alpha males' will come to dominate. These men are the biggest, strongest, and the smartest of the lot. Again, this doesn't make their actions right or wrong, it's just what won out over thousands of generations. Perhaps, matriarchal tribes existed at some time in our past. They died out because their women all got killed in battle, couldn't produce enough children, and were conquered by patriarchal societies.

If you understand all of this, then Erickson's argument doesn't seem quite as bad. Strictly speaking, females did not evolve to be the breadwinner; males did. It doesn't make either scenario wrong, however. Remember, evolution doesn't reward 'right' or 'wrong', only reproductive success. Alpha males were bigger and stronger (and maybe smarter :p) than most of the females. Competition between alpha males yields 'alpha males within packs of alpha males'. It's like taking 10% of 10% of 10% of 10%, only for millions of years.

In more recent years (re: millennia), sexual dimorphism has actually decreased in **** sapiens. Compare us to our primate ancestors; the differences between male and female were much greater than what exists today. This is probably a result of greater reliance on intelligence (less brawn, more brains) and social interaction. Both of these reduced the need for true alpha males, yes, but it's hard to undo tens of millions of years of natural selection. And for the record, women still prefer alpha males and men prefer being the alpha male. Because all men living today are decended from some alpha male somewhere in history, while all women are decended from females who found alpha males irresistible.

[Antischism]

Truth

Yeah, let's just regress back to when women were more repressed and subjected to culturally constructed gender roles because they're supposed to stay home, cook, make babies and take care of them. Let's not stop there, though! Black people are genetically inferior, so we should go back to free farm labor and the three-fifths clause. Interracial marriage between blacks and whites should be outlawed as well because black men aren't suitable fathers as seen in the number that leave their women and don't take care of the children, clearly.

[Brian4Liberty]

Immigration has primarily effected male dominated job categories. Women generally have an easier time finding steady work. It's the new economy. This trend will continue.

[Antischism]

I don't find anything he said to be particularly false. Males are specialized for certain tasks; females are specialized for certain tasks. Unfortunately for him, you can't articulate this message without a deep understanding of evolution, both human and in general.

Men are the competitive gender; women are the choosy, or the selective, gender. It doesn't mean the two are mutually exclusive and certainly there are many shades of grey, but in general these are the roles nature has chosen for us. Remember, evolution doesn't favor right or wrong, only reproductive success. Males must compete with other males because, well, the majority of men simply aren't necessary. A handfull of men can impregnate hundreds of women and sire thousands of children, because he contributes so few resources to a pregnancy. By contrast, a woman can have one -- maybe two -- children in a year. Hence, men have little choice but to compete for a small handfull of spots; women will get their's regardless because each female is several orders of magnitude more important than a generic male. From this scenario, you can see how 'alpha males' will come to dominate. These men are the biggest, strongest, and the smartest of the lot. Again, this doesn't make their actions right or wrong, it's just what won out over thousands of generations. Perhaps, matriarchal tribes existed at some time in our past. They died out because their women all got killed in battle, couldn't produce enough children, and were conquered by patriarchal societies.

If you understand all of this, then Erickson's argument doesn't seem quite as bad. Strictly speaking, females did not evolve to be the breadwinner; males did. It doesn't make either scenario wrong, however. Remember, evolution doesn't reward 'right' or 'wrong', only reproductive success. Alpha males were bigger and stronger (and maybe smarter :p) than most of the females. Competition between alpha males yields 'alpha males within packs of alpha males'. It's like taking 10% of 10% of 10% of 10%, only for millions of years.

In more recent years (re: millennia), sexual dimorphism has actually decreased in **** sapiens. Compare us to our primate ancestors; the differences between male and female were much greater than what exists today. This is probably a result of greater reliance on intelligence (less brawn, more brains) and social interaction. Both of these reduced the need for true alpha males, yes, but it's hard to undo tens of millions of years of natural selection. And for the record, women still prefer alpha males and men prefer being the alpha male. Because all men living today are decended from some alpha male somewhere in history, while all women are decended from females who found alpha males irresistible.

There's a lot of truth to what you say, and it points out exactly why his arguments fail as presented. He doesn't believe in evolution, for one. And you presented reasons why his argument can be discarded, because evolution isn't prescriptive.

This (http://www.mibba.com/Articles/people/3538/Looking-Beyond-Normalcy-The-Construction-of-Gender-Roles/) is an interesting read, regarding your comment about matriarchy.


Margaret Mead is a cultural anthropologist who, in 1930, travelled to Papua New Guinea to research and discover if gender differences are culturally constructed rather than innate. After two years of research, her findings produced results which made a groundbreaking contribution to anthropology. Mead studied three tribes: the Arapesh, Mundugumor, and Tchambuli. She discovered that in the Arapesh tribe, both men and women were gentle in nature. They were caring, cooperative and responsive. The Mundugumor, on the other hand, were quite the opposite. Both men and women were aggressive, violent and desiring power. The women of Tchambuli were, unlike Western culture, dominant, controlling and lacking nurturance. The men were more dependent, emotional and not in control. All three cultures are very different from each other regarding gender roles (Mead). This demonstrates that gender roles (including temperament) must be culturally constructed instead of innate.

[juleswin]

In before the creepy bitter girl calls all the male members on this site creepy for having an opinion.

But I think he has a point, there is something screwy with the gender that is virtually disabled 5+ months while she is busy producing and nursing her offspring being the bread winner of the family. Not saying we should favor men in hiring or wages but biology sometimes gets in the way of a woman and there is nothing wrong pointing that out.

[James Madison]

Yeah, let's just regress back to when women were more repressed and subjected to culturally constructed gender roles because they're supposed to stay home, cook, make babies and take care of them. Let's not stop there, though! Black people are genetically inferior, so we should go back to free farm labor and the three-fifths clause. Interracial marriage between blacks and whites should be outlawed as well because black men aren't suitable fathers as seen in the number that leave their women and don't take care of the children, clearly.

You make the same mistake many in the Social Sciences are guilty of: thinking that culture leads to evolution instead of realizing that evolution leads to culture. Those 'culturally constructed gender roles' were dominant because their adherents reproduced with higher success than those who favored more progressive 'gender roles'. Doesn't make either right or wrong.

[Brian4Liberty]

Oh yeah, keep stirring the gender wars. Hillary/Michelle 2016!

[Brian4Liberty]

Men are the competitive gender; women are the choosy, or the selective, gender.

Oh boy.

[Antischism]

You make the same mistake many in the Social Sciences are guilty of: thinking that culture leads to evolution instead of realizing that evolution leads to culture. Those 'culturally constructed gender roles' were dominant because their adherents reproduced with higher success than those who favored more progressive 'gender roles'. Doesn't make either right or wrong.

The point I'm making is that we've progressed or evolved as people to where we aren't defined or relegated to particular tasks based on gender. Ultimately, I think both culture AND biology play a role, but we aren't subjugated to particular gender roles solely by biology.

[brandon]

I can't believe the number is as high as 40%. I haven't looked at the methodology, but does a single mom existing solely on welfare/child support/alimony count as being a primary breadwinner? Or does the study only look at married couples?

I personally don't care at all what other families do but I definitely would want my family and my friends families to have traditional gender roles. If I meet a guy who tells me he stays at home while his wife works, yea I probably am going to judge him negatively for it unless he has extenuating circumstances.

[brandon]

Ahh, from the study:


5.1 million (37%) are married mothers who have a higher income than their husbands, and 8.6 million (63%) are single mothers.1

Okay now it makes sense. I'm sure the vast majority of those single mothers are actually supported by the state or by baby's daddy, or a combination of the two.

[Antischism]

I can't believe the number is as high as 40%. I haven't looked at the methodology, but does a single mom existing solely on welfare/child support/alimony count as being a primary breadwinner? Or does the study only look at married couples?

I personally don't care at all what other families do but I definitely would want my family and my friends families to have traditional gender roles. If I meet a guy who tells me he stays at home while his wife works, yea I probably am going to judge him negatively for it unless he has extenuating circumstances.

Fair enough, but why would you view a stay-at-home dad negatively? What if this stay-at-home dad works from home via a computer, for example? Would that change how you view him? Or would the woman also staying at home with the man who works from home make you feel better about the situation?

[brandon]

Fair enough, but why would you view a stay-at-home dad negatively? What if this stay-at-home dad works from home via a computer, for example? Would that change how you view him? Or would the woman also staying at home with the man who works from home make you feel better about the situation?

Yea working from home is fine. I guess my main thought here is that it is very important for children to be with their mother, full time, at least until they are old enough to go to school. If the mom wants to go back to work after the kids are in school that's fine.

Again this is just my personal preference. It was how I was raised and how all of my ancestors were raised, and I feel that I want to continue this trend because it seems like the right way.

[Antischism]

Someone doesn't like this topic, haha.

Neg Rep: Thread: Erick Erickson/Fox News Panel: Female Breadwinners are Antithetical to Nature
you're a marxist troll

[James Madison]

There's a lot of truth to what you say, and it points out exactly why his arguments fail as presented. He doesn't believe in evolution, for one. And you presented reasons why his argument can be discarded, because evolution isn't prescriptive.

This (http://www.mibba.com/Articles/people/3538/Looking-Beyond-Normalcy-The-Construction-of-Gender-Roles/) is an interesting read, regarding your comment about matriarchy.

This is why I simply cannot take most anthropologists, archaeologists, philosophers, and psychologists seriously.


This demonstrates that gender roles (including temperament) must be culturally constructed instead of innate.

Gender role and behavior would be considered a phenotype. Anyone who tells you a phenotype is purely genetic or purely environmental doesn't know what they are talking about.

As for her findings, I don't see anything that rejects my assertion that evolution (genetics and environmental factors) begets culture. Papua New Guinea became isolated from Eurasia roughly 30,000 years ago (going from memory, here). That's quite a long while and more than enough time for cultures to diverge significantly. Think of the biological diversity of Madagascar compared to the rest of Africa. Same reason. Small, isolated tribes can vary wildly. Note how this scenario is unlikely in, say, the Middle East. Large populations offer what ecologists refer to as 'stabilizing evolution'. Offshoots are in danger of simply being outbred; defectors are in danger of being conquered. Hence, the large majority phenotype 'drowns-out' the novel. Papua New Guinea, due to its isolation and unusual ecology, is free from such disruptions.

Your reference actually provides more evidence to support the belief that culture derives itself primarily from evolution, meaning it is mostly innate, with certain aspects of it being more flexible.

[Antischism]

Yea working from home is fine. I guess my main thought here is that it is very important for children to be with their mother, full time, at least until they are old enough to go to school. If the mom wants to go back to work after the kids are in school that's fine.

Again this is just my personal preference. It was how I was raised and how pretty much every one of my ancestors was raised and I feel that I want to continue this trend because it seems like the right way.

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with wanting to stick with what you believe works best or what has worked for your family. Tradition is important to a lot of people, for sure. My main point here is that I don't believe women should be made to feel like they shouldn't be the breadwinners, nor do I think anyone should be trying to pressure them into taking a specific familial role. Everyone should be free to build their family how they see fit or how circumstances allow for it, and there's a lot of science to back up the idea that the gender of the parent taking care of the child doesn't make a difference in the end.

[James Madison]

Oh boy.

What's the problem? With some variation, this is a correct statement. What if I wrote...



Men Male lions are the competitive gender; women female lions are the choosy, or the selective, gender.

You also conveniently edited my post to make it seem more controversial that it actually was. Did I not say the two are not mutually exclusive and there are many shades of grey between the two?

[tod evans]

Ahh, from the study:


8.6 million (63%) are single mothers

Okay now it makes sense. I'm sure the vast majority of those single mothers are actually supported by the state or by baby's daddy, or a combination of the two.

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Relevant! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Antischism]

This is why I simply cannot take most anthropologists, archaeologists, philosophers, and psychologists seriously.



Gender role and behavior would be considered a phenotype. Anyone who tells you a phenotype is purely genetic or purely environmental doesn't know what they are talking about.

As for her findings, I don't see anything that rejects my assertion that evolution (genetics and environmental factors) begets culture. Papua New Guinea became isolated from Eurasia roughly 30,000 years ago (going from memory, here). That's quite a long while and more than enough time for cultures to diverge significantly. Think of the biological diversity of Madagascar compared to the rest of Africa. Same reason. Small, isolated tribes can vary wildly. Note how this scenario is unlikely in, say, the Middle East. Large populations offer what ecologists refer to as 'stabilizing evolution'. Offshoots are in danger of simply being outbred; defectors are in danger of being conquered. Hence, the large majority phenotype 'drowns-out' the novel. Papua New Guinea, due to its isolation and unusual ecology, is free from such disruptions.

Your reference actually provides more evidence to support the belief that culture derives itself primarily from evolution, meaning it is mostly innate, with certain aspects of it being more flexible.

So you then come to the conclusion that it's a mix of both culture AND biology, yes. It's not strictly biological nor does biology dictate that children are worse off being raised in a household featuring two men or a stay-at-home dad with a mom for a breadwinner. It doesn't lead us to conclude that women aren't equally as capable as men to earn the most money and head the household in that sense. Families can be equally as successful regardless of gender roles, and the real issue then is socio-economic in nature. I believe culture plays a bigger role than you're giving it credit for, however.

[Brian4Liberty]

If I meet a guy who tells me he stays at home while his wife works, yea I probably am going to judge him negatively for it unless he has extenuating circumstances.

Like I've said in many threads about this, in nearly every family that I know, the woman has more job security. Men have periods of unemployment. Haven't known a woman that has been unwillingly unemployed.

[Antischism]

What's the problem? With some variation, this is a correct statement. What if I wrote...



You also conveniently edited my post to make it seem more controversial that it actually was. Did I not say the two are not mutually exclusive and there are many shades of grey between the two?

But lionesses are the hunters, and they also feed/take care of cubs as well...
Lions take more of a stereotypical female gender role.

[Anti Federalist]

The point I'm making is that we've progressed or evolved as people to where we aren't defined or relegated to particular tasks based on gender. Ultimately, I think both culture AND biology play a role, but we aren't subjugated to particular gender roles solely by biology.

LOL, no, not in thirty years we haven't.

This is simply a reflection of deliberate policies put in place at the macro level, a subtle and not so subtle barrage of economic, political and government actions, all backed up by a massive propaganda effort, designed to turn the entire structure of work, family, government, earning, labor and capital upside down.

"They" wanted a New Soviet, and they got it.

And now, as we move into the Global Surveillance Era, compliance will be total and complete.

[Brian4Liberty]

What's the problem? With some variation, this is a correct statement. What if I wrote...


Women can be competitive, maybe more so then men.

You may be trying to say that men are physically stronger than women for the most part. That would not be controversial.

[Antischism]

LOL, no, not in thirty years we haven't.

This is simply a reflection of deliberate policies put in place at the macro level, a subtle and not so subtle barrage of economic, political and government actions, all backed up by a massive propaganda effort, designed to turn the entire structure of work, family, government, earning, labor and capital upside down.

"They" wanted a New Soviet, and they got it.

And now, as we move into the Global Surveillance Era, compliance will be total and complete.

Fair enough.

[James Madison]

But lionesses are the hunters, and they also feed/take care of cubs as well...
Lions take more of a stereotypical female gender role.

True, they are hunters, but that is more a consequence of the hyper-competitive nature of male lions. More to the point, being a hunter doesn't have anything to do with competitive versus selective. You're trying to look at other animals from an anthropocentric perspective. So, I'm not really sure what is your point?


Women can be competitive, maybe more so then men.

You may be trying to say that men are physically stronger than women for the most part. That would not be controversial.

I don't think you understand the meaning of 'competitive' in an evolutionary sense. As I outlined earlier in the thread, males viciously compete with other males for the attention of females because, historically, the majority of males do nothing but cause violence, breed hostility, and drain resources. In more recent times, this statement is only partially true. Anyways, men compete against other men; women 'select' the male they like best. Ergo, men are generally more competitive, while women are more selective. It's the same explanation for the so-called 'gender pay gap'. It's true men make more money on average, but that's because they are far more likely to be motivated by monetary gain -- working weekends, evenings, holidays, bad hours, dangerous jobs, professions with high risk of injury or death. Like those guys who fish off the coast of Alaska. Very dangerous job, but it pays well. Total sausage fest. Men want money because it's an excellent way to communicate high fitness to mates and will do just about anything, including betray their male friends (let alone male strangers), for a chance to get laid. Women, given the opportunity, will choose a male they see as competitive. It's just nature, man. Might as well embrace it.

[jclay2]

Yeehaw, isn't this wonderful! We are arguing about women's role in society due to their increased prevalence in the work place but fail to realize the cause for the major demographic shift is the stealing of family's purchasing power via inflation. Really this is just another offshoot consequence of constantly having our money stolen from central bankers via money printing.

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't think you understand the meaning of 'competitive' in an evolutionary sense.

You mean the way the human female breasts are "large" at all times vs. animals where they only fill out at certain times? Competition for the attention of these big brute men you speak of?

[James Madison]

You mean the way the human female breasts are "large" at all times vs. animals where they only fill out at certain times? Competition for the attention of these big brute men you speak of?

Female breasts, on average, are not significantly modified from our ancestors when you adjust for body size. Penis length on the other hand....

[ObiRandKenobi]

Penis length on the other hand....

Yes?? Go on...

[James Madison]

Yes?? Go on...

Humans have the largest penis on average of any primate, both raw and adjusted.

Some more than others...

[ObiRandKenobi]

Humans have the largest penis on average of any primate, both raw and adjusted.

Some more than others...

So...is that just natural selection? Human chicks just prefer a big schlong? My girlfriend has assured me size doesn't matter.

[NationalAnarchist]

My wife is the breadwinner and I stay home. But it is NOT by choice...we would love to reverse those roles...I was injured in 2007 had surgery in 2009 and 2012 and now am back to looking for work but because of a lousy driving record what I do for a living is hard to find work in right now. We have 3 kids and I am so thankful August/September is just around the corner all 3 will be in school 7 hours of the day! My wife enjoys the traditional woman/mother role...she loves to cook and clean etc...soon enough we will get back to the way things are supposed to be because she is miserable working and I am miserable staying home!

[James Madison]

So...is that just natural selection? Human chicks just prefer a big schlong? My girlfriend has assured me size doesn't matter.

It would seem so. In fact it would seem that women prefer big schlong more than men prefer big boobs.

[ObiRandKenobi]

It would seem so. In fact it would seem that women prefer big schlong more than men prefer big boobs.

So shallow.

[Anti Federalist]

Yeehaw, isn't this wonderful! We are arguing about women's role in society due to their increased prevalence in the work place but fail to realize the cause for the major demographic shift is the stealing of family's purchasing power via inflation. Really this is just another offshoot consequence of constantly having our money stolen from central bankers via money printing.

Yes, very valid point.

Inflation and taxation.

I recall reading that in 1960, an average family of four, making median household income, paid roughly 15% of that income in combined taxation, hidden and unhidden.

By 2000 that had risen to over 50%.

[Anti Federalist]

So shallow.

How so?...I just saw a study recently that confirmed that.

Tens of thousands of generations have bred that fact into human males.

Which is why human males have a much larger penis than similar mammalian species.

ETA - Here it is:


How Women May Have Shaped Men’s Penises

April 9, 2013 11:26 am

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/04/how-women-may-have-shaped-mens-penises/#ixzz2UvIma4Hy

Size does matter, Nature reports, at least to some extent. A new paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that female preference likely helped shape the size and thickness of the human penis through natural selection.

[brandon]

///

[Danan]

Why do women prefer long penises? Cervix stimulation? :p

[DamianTV]

Me and my buddy went fishing last week. We drank just shitloads of beer, which inevitably leads to shitloads of pissing. So we were out in the middle of the lake and by buddy proclaims he had to piss. So I turn my back, he whips it out and his dick falls in the water, at which point he exlaimed how cold the water was. A while later I also had to take a leek so I turned around and whipped it out and advised that not only is the water cold, it was deep too!

Just saying since this whole thread has completely devolved into Big Tits and bragging about the size of ones Junk.

[BAllen]

There are repercussions to this turnabout. Who's going to watch the children while mommy's at work? Government, that's who. What's the cost? Taxes go up to pay for it. Children have a less than stable environment to grow up in. This is what the cultural marxists want. More demoralization which they hope will necessitate more government. They create the problem, then offer a solution to the problem they created in the first place. Propaganda in schools and msm promotes gay and single parent lifestyles.

[Anti Federalist]

Why do women prefer long penises? Cervix stimulation? :p


Me and my buddy went fishing last week. We drank just shitloads of beer, which inevitably leads to shitloads of pissing. So we were out in the middle of the lake and by buddy proclaims he had to piss. So I turn my back, he whips it out and his dick falls in the water, at which point he exlaimed how cold the water was. A while later I also had to take a leek so I turned around and whipped it out and advised that not only is the water cold, it was deep too!

Just saying since this whole thread has completely devolved into Big Tits and bragging about the size of ones Junk.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lku7qdgu0F1qjswkso1_250.gif

[amy31416]

Women are better at raising children, therefore men should do the majority of work outside the house when children come along.

What's the big deal? It's not like women aren't working while men are busting their hump. They cook, clean, raise children (not easy and often not fun), often they sew, knit, paint, garden, shop, pay the bills, take care of animals, etc. And that's just the old-timey women-folk. Those things generally don't bring in cash, but they are exhausting and very rarely afford any sort of reward aside from maintaining the basics to survive.

Blah. I'm going to sleep.