I hope this is true, it was pretty fucked up in the first place.

Wow that guy is a complete idiot talking about male domination in the biological world. This is where science education has failed us.

Science education tried and failed. Faith education tends to be a powerful adversary to it.

I hope it finally gives us a chance to save this country from those horrible working mothers and their productivity! I knew we should've brought foot binding to America back in the 30s!

Yeah those gals should be in the kitchen making sandwiches and babies. How dare they destroy society with their "skills" and such things.

I've been watching a bunch of Downton Abbey lately, and these buncha numnuts sound exactly like Dame Maggie whingeing about the electric lights...

They were saying the same thing about rock and roll and interracial marriage.

WE'RE DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!

When you look back at how people in virtually every generation has said the exact same thing as the next generation comes into it's own. It's stupid then and it's stupid now.

old white men whining that they don't have the power and influence they used to. boo hoo.

http://videosift.com/video/Female-Breadwinners-End-of-Society

You guys are missing the forest for the trees.

Nice panel. 4 dudes that agree with each other. How about add a Woman's view. Or perhaps one of the liberals you're railing against?

This is an issue..? I mean maybe on an individual family basis for some it sucks when there's kids and a mother has to work, etc. But in terms of there being some sort of overall problem to it.. wuuuh?

I don't even understand what there is to discuss. W/E

I feel dirty upvoting this, because it is so full of BS. People who think women having an equal opportunity to earn as much or more money than men are anti-science??? It's the 21st century, people. Try joining us and letting go of the 50s.

These guys are fucked in the head.
Educated, working women, are the PRIMARY KEY to a HEALTHY ECONOMY.

Why tie that to abortions, or high school dropouts, or MALE unemployment? haha...what hegemonistic fucktards.

This is a complete and utter joke, right? Every single society on earth, where you increase female education and employment, you reduce child death rates, injury, illness, and a direct increase to GDP.

Ill try and find the hans rosling video explaining the IMPORTANCE of WORKING WOMEN in developing nations, his bubble graphs are so freakin amazing at showing correlations between these kinds of things..

Sounds like something the Taliban would be talking about not the "freest" nation in the world.

I'm gonna be honest, I couldn't even make it all the way through the video. I got to about the part where the guy starts going on about made up science and I had to shut it off in disgust. This stuff is starting to wear on my sanity.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

Almost the exact point i stopped... but honestly we probably didn't need to watch 5 seconds of it to have a pretty good idea what they were going to spew... i mean did anyone?

apparently, the 4 dudes on the panel are out-earned by their wives.

Wonder what Megyn Kelly thought of this. Better watch it, Dobbs: she has her eye on your chair!!!

Yep. Ignoring the title, as soon as he equates female breadwinners with "concerning and troubling statistics" you know this is pure shite. I can't believe they are seriously airing ths. To my mind, this is just as dumbfounding and despicable as if they had proposed to bring back slavery to improve the economy, or that homosexuality should mean the death penalty. It's insane that this is even a discussion.

No one in the UK would be given airtime for this bollox. What is wrong with America? Why is it so OK to be so bloody idiotic?

Wheres the onion in the corner?

I don't see anyone sticking up for their point of view yet, and this may be the first time that I've agreed with anything from Fox News, but I think these guys may be on to something. They may not be saying for the right reasons but it doesn't mean that they're necessarily wrong.

For a more intelligent, deeply discussed, better presented, well thought out, scientific, and female perspective on this subject try watching this video...

http://videosift.com/video/Fempocalypse

We're unfortunately in a transitional phase where the term "house husband" is seen as a badge of shame and leads to kids being embarrassed by their father and missing their mother.

No kid is proudly going to say their dad cooks and cleans whilst their mum works because society doesn't accept that unit as functional atm - so realistically 4 out of 10 kids at the moment have the potential to become a lost generation.

Give it 50 years and this rubbish may be as obsolete as racism but right now the families saying the wife has better job prospects and the man is better at cooking, cleaning and running the household are unfortunately singled out as weird from nursery (pre-school) plus.

(Source? being a house husband to my 3 kids for 9 years)

...so they basically want them to stay at home, or under-employed and depending on government aid that they want to cut, because having 22% of American children going hungry tonight isn't enough... apparently that is what Jesus wants since that is the people that most Christians vote for believe, better to starve poor children than tax some rich guy an extra 3%... <long rant redacted>

Juan Williams is a liberal. This is not chauvinism or mysogeney. It's recognition that when women are not home being mothers to their children bc they're busy being mothers AND fathers, children suffer. That's an unfair burden, especially bc we're, as women, designed genetically and psychologically to be mothers. When mothers work double bc men are absent for whatever reason, the family breaks down. We reap what we sow. Think for yourself. Do a little research on Media Matters, and follow their money trail.

http://youtu.be/vKPXo0ytRZM

Megyn Kelly's response.

I really hate that they bring in (mostly) unrelated crap like abortion statistics, but the core of their argument here is correct.

Yes, correct, in my opinion.

I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately, and if you are rejecting what they say about female breadwinners out of hand, you are not thinking deeply on the subject.

Certainly, every woman should have the right to do with her life as she pleases. Whether that is career, family, or some combination of the two. But I think in the coming years there will be more and more people realizing that the average woman can NOT have it all. While there will be a few exceptions, most women will not be good mothers to their children while working 40+ hours per week, and ANYBODY who doesn't give 110% to their career will not reach the highest levels of that career.

Women need to be taught young that they need to make a choice and prioritize. If you look at young girls, you will see them fantasizing from a very young age about being a mother. You will see women of all ages fantasizing about marriage. And you will see feminists telling them that they are wrong for doing that. You will see society pushing and pushing and pushing for women to choose career over family while giving nothing but lip service to the importance of family. And if you look at the statistics, you will see this is beginning to have an effect on society. More women are postponing starting a family, and some are even working through the height of their childbearing years to the point where they can no longer find a suitable mate to have children with at all.

And if they do have children, the women are not at home to raise them. Sure, they are home for the first few months to a year, then they're back to work and the children are being raised by strangers. Mom comes home in the evening and asks how everybody's day was, exactly the way dad does (assuming dad is still in the family core).

This is not a popular sentiment yet, but I believe that gender roles existed for a reason. Just looking at male and female biology, it is plain to see that (in general) men are equipped for the tasks that require strength, and women are equipped to raise children. And for most of recorded history, gender roles followed biology. I believe we are beginning to see a reckoning. It won't happen in every relationship. And of course I think we should be very careful about judging others. I think you should take this information and apply it to your own life. What kind of a family do you want? Do you want to have two working parents and kids in day care, or do you want one parent to stay home? Are you going to feel more satisfied staying home with the kids, or leaving every day to earn a paycheck? These are questions that nobody can answer but you. I think that absent a serious internal drive, women should gravitate to careers that will give the maximum flexibility so that they can spend all the needed time with their children. I think that we should be teaching our children that they can do anything, but there are certain traditional roles that tend to bring people the greatest amount of life satisfaction. And I think we need to keep doing research and watching the statistics to verify or debunk everything I have just said, because I am fully aware that it is mostly speculation and gut instinct on my part.

Science damn you, Unified Atheist Alliance!

How important are our biological differences presently? Can gender equality exist if gender roles are inflexible?

Women undoubtably play a very different role now and it is certainly not without problems. Most developed countries have aging populations due to family planning and longer lives, women give birth later in their lives and that creates certain health problems etc. It is important to remember that perhaps women winning bread is as much a product of our developed society as it is a cause. Why should we make ourselves slaves to our biology and chain ourselves to gender roles that have dwindling relavence. Humans are nothing but flexible. Perhaps instead of focusing on what might be lost with women stepping away from raising a family we should consider what society might stand to gain?

Part of my point is that I don't think gender roles are inflexible. There are going to be times when a man is truly happiest when he is at home spending the majority of his time engaged with his children's development. And there are going to be times when a woman is in her element when inundated with business concerns or creative obsessions.

But most of us won't be like that. Most of us, I think, will feel the greatest satisfaction following the guidelines our biology has laid out in front of us. Guidelines, not rules.

This almost belongs in the Comedy channel, cuz I couldn't help but laugh at them.

A few questions...
ANYBODY who doesn't give 110% to their career will not reach the highest levels of that career?
Are you saying that Georgew W. gave 110% to become President? Well, if that what he delivered is what it takes to get the job, it's a shame I can't run for office. I wouldn't even have to put on pants to come across as less idiotic as he did.
Are you really buying into this "Just give everything and you'll get there" myth? 'Cause that's not how the real world works for everyone. Have you ever been denied a deserved promotion? That is not that uncommon, especially for women. Look, giving your best is usually necessary but not always required. Luck, a lack of scruple, intolerance of others, manipulative skills and connections can really propel your career even if you don't work hard enough to deserve it. Just think of the cliché of the woman who sleeps her way on top. She doesn't even have to give 110% there, men are easy to please.

And regarding you biological theories, yes, men are stronger but how strong do you have to be to sit in an office? How much strength does it take to type on a keyboard? I'd say the jobs these female breadwinners we're talking about have are usually not involving tasks of great physical strength.
And why is it automatically the women job to take care of the children?
I mean, we're talking 2 parent families here since single women have no other choice than going to work unless you want to suggest poverty or child labour as viable alternatives.
In todays first world society it shouldn't be such a stretch to consider men as caregivers of the family's offspring. What makes the stronger sex so unsuitable to play that part? Because we're emotional cripples, unable to bond with the little ones like people with real breasts? Because society could point at us and laugh about our mangina? What is it a woman does a man can't do?
Oh I get it, that's just how biology wants it, right? We have to listen to mother nature, it's the smart thing to do. Well, that's at least what I told the cops after I left my house naked. You know, pants don't grow on trees and shirts don't run through the woods, evading capture by predators. It's not natural, not what mother wants. Let's not do this. Right?
We decided to shape the world as we see fit a long time ago. We can't change all behavioural routines in our heads but we are not powerless either. Why stick to role models that are ancient when we can make new ones with more benefits? Humans can't fly; didn't stop them from building planes. This is a question of nurture not nature.

What troubles me the the most, though, is your apparent belief that households with both parents working do it by choice. That is certainly not always the case, especially not in lower income families in America. To avoid that both parents would be forced to work, you need to have minimum incomes that are high enough to feed an entire family. How much is the minimum wage in america and how well can one person provide for a family with it? Would you like to raise 2 kids with only that much money?

Another thing is your idea that "women should gravitate to careers that will give the maximum flexibility so that they can spend all the needed time with their children". What kind of career is that? What jobs allow you to have "maximum flexibility" in terms or worktime? Drug dealing? E-Mail spamming? Porn?
I'm sure such jobs exist but I'd say they're very, very rare. Not a viable solution.

You call it "guidelines not rules" but maybe these guidelines are as antiquitated as ducking under the table when the bomb drops. We live in a brave new world, we need to do better than this. We shouldn't leave potential untapped because grampa doesn't like it. This is the 21st century, let's act like it.

There is nothing that makes women less qualified to bring home the bucks. "Think of the children" is simply a lazy argument against it and only shows the real problems of this debate: sexism and a lack of social security.