Unmarried: Not alone in being alone but not lonely.


I was sorta surprised to see the like-factor on this recent Facebook status I posted.

Married and non-married friends alike seemed to identify with (or at least appreciate) my little exercise of adventuring outside to bask in the moonlight – and bickering cacophony that bellows from beyond the walls of my apartment complex almost on a nightly basis. The only nuisance is that when the cops pay their weekly domestic disturbance call, they end up showing up at my door. Which sucks – because some of them have sexy-potential, which I 100% lack by the time of night they wake me up with what sounds like a battering ram of angry villagers pillaging the beast’s castle.

But apparently, I’m not alone in being alone and alright about it.


Recent studies spotlight how fewer people have been signing their genitals lives away.

And the stats have been increasing since the 70’s.

Apparently, employment plays a role as a deciding factor, demographically. In fact, one research effort on the topic concluded that black women want a man with a job. My instinct is to call that racist or skewed because most of the black women I know have their own well paying jobs. But I’m too lazy too look up the details of the sample size taken and assessed, so I dunno. Mayhaps it speaks to a larger dispossessed and impoverished portion of the population looking to survive because they either didn’t have an opportunity for higher education (requirement for a decent job in many cases) and/or who have children to support. Who knows.

However you wanna take that stat, there are other – more emotionally based – factors as well. For instance – how the evolution of the gender role has also played a part. Previous studies (in the disco era) on this looked at how men went off to work and brought home the bacon to their kids and Betty Crocker housewife.

Ya know.

Assuming she hadn’t oven-gassed her own skull as he porked Suzy secretary at the office.

Now, however, the scientific ruminations on the matter seem to observe that “love” is the larger factor motivating marriage. This makes sense if you think about the fact that everything started changing around the 70’s – when free love and self-actualization and all that kinda stuff started becoming popular. However, as we’re barraged with the ubiquitous assimilation of how media, movies, and anything but we ourselves define love – that’s an abstract concept that can get everyone confused due to its lack of an apt definition. I’d say it’s like waiting in a desert for your ship to come in, but it’s more like waiting for a ship to come in when you dunno what the shit a ship even is.

Regardless of romance or survival, I still don’t get the point of marriage.

It’s a promise I can’t make beyond a daily basis, so I can’t expect anyone else to try. Plus, the contract doesn’t exclude people from mistake-making, cheating, changing into monsters who infuse our consciousness with horrible words and acts that can’t be unsaid, or even leaving. In fact, all’a that seems to be more of a catalyst for many married folk – unless they mutually share a spiritual path or principles of some sort from the outset.

That said, I am still a human woman with scarlet life-giving liquid coursing through my veins. And I’m not terribly worried about “what my number” is (dusty thought my coital calculator may bit ATM). Which reminds me – I haven’t seen much of Frankie the schmexy-albeit-terrible-with-directions door battering cop. Neighbors are about a week late for interlache violence. Assuming he hasn’t killed her yet, maybe I should do an aesthetic prep practice round for the next time I hear the couple in 301 exchanging blows – the Paul Revere style sleep-stealing signifier that I’mma get a house call imminently, too.

(Bit outta practice, but I’ll try my hardest)

‘cause like mama always used to say: handcuff chains beat a ball n’ chain.

Is Erick Erickson a dicknose?



But if he is, it’s not because of his recent “women-in-the-workplace” commentary.

Erick Erickson On Air

When I started hearing there was hooplah about another douchebag in the news getting slammed for slamming dames (this time about bringing home the dough), I was all ready to go Akin-style ape-shiz on his sexist ass. Then I actually clicked on an article and read it, only to find maybe one quote that sounded sorta sexist.


No, not that.

But… ya know… I’m a pretty quick typist, and since I like to hear my quotes from the source, I figured it was a good time to play one of my favorite games I like to call “stenographer” while playing the actual news clip. While “Medialite” snipped out convenient bits to support their attacks, including a closing line pinning Erickson with the out-of-context-quote: “Having mom as primary winner is bad for the kids and bad for marriage”, I found that the whole of what he had to say was a lot more interesting. Mostly because… it’s what he actually said. Instead of, ya know, lies.

Here is it, stuttering and all:

“Well, Lou, I’m so used to Liberals telling Conservatives that they’re anti-science; but I- I mean the – this is – Liberals who defend this and say it’s not a bad thing are very anti-science. When you look at Biology, look at the natural world, the roles of a male and a female, in society and in other animals – the male is typically the dominant role. The female is not antithesis or is not competing; it’s a complementary role. We as people in a smart society have lost the ability to have complementary relationships in nuclear families and it’s tearing us apart. What I find interesting is that in surveys three quarters of the people surveyed recognized that having moms as the primary breadwinner is bad for kids and bad for marriages – and reality shows us that that’s the truth”

But, hey, don’t trust me… watch for yourself:

If you still feel it’s sexist and hate him, that’s fine. I mean, I hear he’s a bit of a cock-tard anyway. But I’m trying to stay in context here, and my argument (before we quarter horse Mr. Erickson and light his remaining torso of a corpse on fire) is that:

A. He’s not completely wrong, although he’s not completely right,

B. He was taken out of context, and

C. He’s getting singled the eff out which is retarted with two “t’s”

How is he not completely wrong?

Well, I’m glad you asked. My takeaway from his rant was that on an evolutionary level (or biological, as he put it), the male has traditionally/historically been the dominant one and the female sort of supplemented what he brought to the table. And that much is true. I mean, back on Caveman Court, the dad had a full time job of slaying beasts and shit. Meanwhile, Wifey’s part-time job was gathering berries before nesting, shitting out kids, and then making sure Bam Bam and Pebbles didn’t get eaten by a wooly mammoth or something.

As for modern times, though, I feel like a full time working mom wouldn’t necessarily be a “bad” thing anymore than a dad who’s not around enough, works too much, and his daughter grows up to be a self proclaimed high-class call girl with a penchant for PCP because she’s got daddy issues. Both parents working full time? Yeah. That’s not good. A generation of kids raised by TV was bad enough. A whole generation of kids raised by nannies, TV, Twitter, and the gore/smut they’ll inevitably see spattered across the net while you’re sitting in traffic and they’re starving for a healthy dinner?



Yeah, that’s super-bad.

Some of the best people I know have come from single mom or dad families, families where mom brings the bacon and dad is the stay at home one, or other various family combos. Not all mom-breadwinners are what’s eviscerating “generation next”. But that’s also not what he’s saying. Those are called “exceptions to the rule”

But if we are indeed speaking on a generic level, while it would be nice to say that it’s a perfect world and that Jane can take on the breadwinner role while John stays at home, I’m probably not wrong in assuming that it would cause some dissension and issues more times than not. Again – exceptions exist. I might be talking to you, the exception, right now. You whose mood swings, hormones, or PMS have absolutely never been cause for a single bad day at work. You who have never had to take leave for pregnancy or give birth. You who have never fled from the office because Little Johnny got sick at school. You who were never a perpetual bitch to your coworkers because you were going through menopause and/or couldn’t get over the fact that your youth is gone forever.

So, you, the exception. This isn’t about you. Get back to those TPS reports.

Onto the next gripe:

How was he taken out of context?

Well, Erickson actually paid attention in Politics 101.

He was pretty careful with his wording. Let’s start with his alleged “conclusion”. Erickson ended by saying: “3/4 of the people surveyed recognized that having moms as the primary breadwinner is bad for kids and bad for marriages and reality shows us that that’s the truth”

He was referencing a statistic… from a survey… from a public opinion.

Did he observe and perceive the statistic to be factual? Yes. Did he singularly “conclude” that a mom being a primary breadwinner is some sort of nuclear disaster to the nuclear family in every instance on his own? No. The qualifying elements to his statement were conveniently chopped off.

Erickson also acknowledged that biologically the male typically has had a dominant role and the female has complemented it. This wasn’t misquoted, but it was also conveniently cut from its important follow-up statement regarding how we have lost our ability to have “complementary roles” in society and that that is what’s tearing us apart. I think that’s a pretty general concept. Disagree? Let’s pause and level the playing field for a second.

Are you gay? Okay. Awesome. Let’s say you’re going to have a kid soon. You got an awesome donor, you have the perfect environment, and delivery day’s around the corner. Don’t you think it’d be a good idea for one of you to be the one bringing home the dough while your partner hangs around your little one a bit more for its most important years of life? No? Maybe let baby just thrash around in its crib and cry it out for 8 hours? Someone’s got to be there more consistently for the little nugget, no?

Or this, I guess....

Or this, I guess….

We’re talking about the capacity to have complementary roles in any marital dynamic – which doesn’t only apply to heterosexual marriages. However, so long as we are talking about heteros, let’s lay another out-of-context bit to rest. I only saw a brief 30 second clip of Megyn Kelly lambasting Lou and Erick for saying “women in the workplace” is to blame.

Did I miss the part where Erickson said women should stay out of the workplace? For that matter, did I miss the quote where he even said wives shouldn’t work? No, I didn’t… because he didn’t say it. What he agreed with is the claim in surveys that their role as “primary breadwinner” (ie – having the task of earning the most in a family unit) is “bad”. Nowhere did he say that women shouldn’t work. What he said is that in a family with kids, someone should have a complementary financial role and that it usually makes more sense for the female to be that person: not because she belongs in the kitchen, not because she should kowtow in deference to her dude’s almighty dick, and not because it’s the 1950’s. Rather, it’s because it makes biological sense the majority of the time for a chick to not have to be stuck with the pressure of being main financial source of income (not that she shouldn’t work at all, but that she shouldn’t be the main source). She shouldn’t be stuck with that responsibility when she’s already the one who has to take leave if hubby knocks her up, be subject to the emotional puppeteer-work of her hormones, and everything else I’ve already listed above.

So let’s get the eff over being butthurt about stereotypes. I mean, they are funny for a reason and they hurt for a reason: and both are because they’re generally and usually true. There’s a sort of irony when everyone has to walk on eggshells about stating factual generalizations about how most women are emotional because… women might get emotional about it. For fckk’s sake, I am one – I know! There are some stereotypes I fit like a glove (ie – bi-polar-bitchy, vain, crazy) and then others that couldn’t have missed the mark with me worse if they were an autistic archer having a stroke (ie – desire for dream wedding, husband, or babies).

For the millionth time – that’s called “exceptions to the rule”.

And speaking of “exceptions”, let me address point C.

Why was Erickson singled out for chiming in?

Mr. Erickson wasn’t the first one to speak on this matter, nor was he the loudest or most audacious.

But you know who pretty much was? The other two dudes speaking on the same show before and after him! Preceding Erickson, Juan Williams definitely did not tapdance around his excited, insistence that, “This should be in LARGE letters on the front page of every newspaper in America! Because what we’re seeing with four out of ten families now, the woman is the primary breadwinner. You’re seeing the disintegration of marriage!”

Following Erickson, Schoen chimed in to agree with the others, stating that it was “catastrophic” and “undermines the social order”.

So, that’s great. They all concurred – some a little more vehemently than others – but then, WHAM! Juan totally called it on the matter being destined for “front page news”, but it wasn’t his own face trending across the interwebz… it was Erickson’s. Seriously? Three dudes have a gab and gossip-fest about the chicks. Out of everyone speaking on the topic, the one who was most careful with his words, was the one to get thrown under the bus? Reminds me of a movie I saw once about high schoolers who also took shit outta context and hit eachother with buses:

I survived my first 3 way phone call attack LOU: "Don't you think it was totally bitch of Gretchen to tell me?" EE: "I guess it was kind of bitchy, but maybe she just likes the attention..." MEDIA BACKLASH: "I can't believe you think I LIKE ATTENTION!!!1" LOU: "Love ya! Bye!"

“I had survived my first 3 way phone call attack”:
LOU: “Don’t you think it was totally bitch of Gretchen to tell me?”
EE: “I guess it was kind of bitchy, but maybe she just likes the attention…”
MEDIA BACKLASH: “I can’t believe you think I LIKE ATTENTION!!!1”
LOU: “Love ya! Bye!”

Some of these guys were a little too “fire and brimstone” for my liking… and the social evolution of dudes and chicks, their interactions, and roles might be able to continue to change. But Erickson’s implications on a biological level (what the roles have typically historically been and why since we were furry club bearing cro-magnons), has remained un-debunkable since forever and are thus facts that can’t be argued… unless my whole life is a lie, evolution is a myth and we’re all from aliens who crash landed in a space craft comet that killed the dinosaurs forever-ago.

I’m not totally agreeing or disagreeing with Erickson. Given the respective gender proclivities, I think he has a point. Then again, I’m not God or a survey collector for the “Breadwinner Bitches Census”, so I have no way to tell if maybe most guys are actually perfectly content to play second fiddle to their female counterpart and all is well in their family units.

I only have biological facts, experience, and observation to fuel me.

In the meantime, I’ll just have to scratch my head and stay awake at night, trying to figure out why the fckk Erickson could possibly have been singled out for what boils down to “smile and nod” commentary:

♪"One of these things is not like the others..."♪♫

♪”One of these things is not like the others…”♪♫