I wasn’t going to touch this one, because the dialogue was so inane. But then Fox News’ Megyn Kelly blasted back, and she was called names by one of the men she was calling to task (Lou Dobbs and Erick Erickson), fulfilling for them the role of “dominating/Dominatrix” that men seem to both crave and fear.
At issue here is the Pew Research statistic that 40% of households have a female sole or major breadwinner, striking terror in the hearts of men. Particularly interesting is the gender bent to the statistics, according to the Pew Research study: “There is a gender gap on this question: 45% of women say children are better off if their mother is at home, and 38% say children are just as well off if their mother works. Among men, 57% say children are better off if their mother is at home, while 29% say they are just as well off if their mother works.” [see Pew study] Are they afraid of what might happen to their family if they were asked to pick up some of the slack? Do they think that if we don’t need them to support us, maybe we won’t need them at all?
If Lou Dobbs and Erick Erickson were the only models of manhood, I’d pass. Erickson’s original statements were objectionable and false, but the way Lou Dobbs belittled Megyn’s unanswered tirade is emblematic of the problem. She’s labeled “oh dominant one” (thus feared) because she expresses a rational viewpoint with passion, though Dobbs seemed also to be sarcastic in his use of the word. His weak position came through in his choice to resort to name-calling: like a little boy getting bitch-slapped on the playground. (My weak position in the social order affects my tactics as well.)
Unfortunately, those little boys in big boy clothing have friends with the ability to marginalize or silence anyone who objects to their world view: the destruction of the American family comes from women working outside the home (and abortions, apparently, according to Dobbs). In my mind, working women are actually saving more families than they destroy, families who might sink into poverty without their income.
Who cares who is providing, as long as the family is being provided for? Is it just their wounded ego that makes men (albeit mainly the dogmatic ones on Fox news) so angry about this statistic? If that’s the case, I challenge them to get off their idealistic derrières and change the stat! Maybe it is the under-employed men who are eroding American families. Let’s get men working again.
I sure could use the help on my end.