Erick Erickson Continues His Impotent, Childish Flailing for Your Entertainment

I won't be able to pop in until around 10:30, but hey, let's Panda Party!

Erick Erickson, in his continually futile quest to make himself feel like a big, tough manly man by shitting on women, has decided to respond to the howls of laughter at his impotent quaking in fear at the possibility that women's financial pull is giving them decision-making power in the home. Because everything---literally everything---with him is about pretending his fantasies about being powerful and intimidating are reality, he's trying to pretend that he teed people off with his comments about women's natural subservience.

Many feminist and emo lefties have their panties in a wad over my statements in the past 24 hours about families.

It's funny, because women wear panties and women are inferior beings! If he keeps saying it, it will keep him from glimpsing the reality that is obvious to all of us, which is that he's just a substandard slice of humanity whose white male privilege has kept him afloat despite his obvious lack of any talents besides being dim-witted and obvious lack of emotions outside of self-pity and resentment of the rest of humanity for not being as pointless as he is. Alas, the only person he's convincing is himself, because the rest of us can see that his opponents don't so much "have their panties in a wad" as they have given themselves throat strain from laughing so hard at this imbecile.

He keeps saying it's "fact" that all the other animals play house, but keeps neglecting to come up with examples:

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.

I know it's hard to do when 99% of your rather shrunken mental space is taken up with trying to convince yourself that you're smarter/tougher/less laughable than you are, but you can't just declare something "science" and call it a day. At bare minimum, "science" requires things like "evidence". Even coughing up one example of other animals who play house would have been useful.

But he knows on some level he's being ridiculous, which is why he's being purposefully vague with the "male dominant in strength and protection and the female dominant in nurture" nonsense. I would point out that there's nothing whatsoever about the existence of single mothers or women who make more than their husbands that really goes against that. What's providing for your family financially, if not fulfilling the nurture role? The reality is that animals where males dominate because of strength, it's not really because they're going out and earning paychecks, or even necessarily because they offer "protection". It's often because strength means you get to physically intimidate everyone else into putting up with your crap. (See: Other primates like chimpanzees, where strict dominance hierarchies use the threat of violence if crossed to keep the peace.) Incidentally, this is basically how human history has played out, and the whole point of feminism is to argue that might does not make right. And if you think that it does because ANIMALS, you're free to take off your clothes, start communicating in grunts and get the fuck off your computer and the TV screen, because those are things---like women going to work and earning paychecks---that animals don't do, either.

With that, let's Panda Party!