Suzanne Venker

Venker: 'Quality' Men Don't Want 'Slutty' Wives Like Beyoncé

The right-wing outrage at Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s performance at the Grammy Awards continues. In a blog post on her website last week, “men’s rights” advocate Suzanne Venker responded to a New York Post article that called Jay-Z “a poor excuse for a husband,” by contending that Beyoncé is also “a poor excuse for a wife.”

“Behaving as Beyoncé does, or anything close to it, will not produce men who are invested in women. It will merely produce more Jay-Zs, or ‘poor excuses for a husband,’” Venker writes. “If women want a quality husband, they might begin by being quality material themselves.”

“Women like Beyoncé aren’t just contributing to the problem—they are the problem,” she adds. “Classy behavior begets classy behavior. Slutty behavior begets a smut reaction.”

We are sure that Beyoncé and Jay-Z appreciate the relationship advice.

Beyoncé a Poor Excuse for a Wife

In an oped for the New York Post, entitled “Jay Z a poor excuse for a husband,” Naomi Schaeffer Riley asks, “What do you call a man who stands there smiling and singing as his scantily clad wife straddles a chair and shakes her rear end for other men’s titillation?”

Answer: I don’t know—a loser? What do you call a scantily clad wife who straddles a chair and shakes her rear end? Or should this question not be asked since it paints a woman in a negative light?

...

There’s no wondering, Ms. Riley. Women like Beyonce aren’t just contributing to the problem—they are the problem. This isn’t a chicken or egg scenario. If women didn’t do what they do in the first place, men like Jay Z would have no opportunity to respond—poorly or otherwise. Classy behavior begets classy behavior. Slutty behavior begets a smut reaction.

Indeed, which means women haven’t really progressed at all—at least not when it comes to their personal lives. On the contrary, they’ve simply traded one kind of power for another. They may know what it takes to be successful in the marketplace, but they are clueless about the power women wield in love. Behaving as Beyonce does, or anything close to it, will not produce men who are invested in women. It will merely produce more Jay Zs, or “poor excuses for a husband.”

If women want a quality husband, they might begin by being quality material themselves.

Venker and Malzberg Explain How 'Everybody Loves Raymond' Is A Tool Of The Feminists

Phyllis Schalfly’s niece and anti-War on Men campaigner Suzanne Venker has been getting plenty of attention lately, most recently for telling a female Fox News host that she should quit her job and get married.

Yesterday, she went on the Steve Malzberg Show to defend herself against criticism of her take on “quote-unquote ‘progress.’”

“If you’re running off the deep end and forgetting to get married and have kids, that’s not really progress,” she told Malzberg. “That’s just shifting one sort of problem for another.”

Malzberg wholeheartedly agreed with her, lamenting that men have been “tossed away and feminized by society” as demonstrated in “Everyone Loves Raymond.”

“How are these men going to gain confidence that they should chase these women and pursue them in traditional fashion for traditional means, when there’s not a lot of indication that women want to be pursued that way anymore?” he asked.

“Nothing is going to happen unless women start to realize that perhaps they have pushed men away,” Venker responded.

Venker: 'Mad Men' Is A Thing Of The Past, And Women Only Have Themselves To Blame

Suzanne Venker, Phyllis Schalfly’s niece and an anti-feminist crusader in her own right, joined the pickup geniuses from “The Art of Charm Podcast” last week to provide an introduction to anti-feminism for lovelorn men.

Venker lamented that feminism is “messing with people’s lives” by egging on women to get “degree upon degree upon degree” who “may be 30 before they’re getting out and even starting their career.”

Which prompted Venker’s interviewer to ask her about Mad Men: “That’s one of the reasons that show’s so fascinating, because guys are watching and saying ‘Was it ever really like this? And where along the lines did these things change? We, as men, definitely look at women way differently than our fathers looked at our mothers.”

Venker shared this nostalgia for a time when women faced limited career options and institutionalized sexism. Women are perceived in “a totally different way” now, Venker responded. “And it’s not a better way. It’s a worse way. And who did that? The men didn’t do that, the women did that, because they followed their leaders.”

Eagle Forum Explains How Feminism Ruined Dating

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly’s daughter Anne Cori guest-hosted this weekend’s edition of Eagle Forum Live, where she got to interview Schlalfy’s niece, Suzanne Venker, about her new book, How to Choose a Husband. Venker, who co-authored The Flipside of Feminism with Schlafly, is the sort who advises women not to become brain surgeons.

It was no surprise, then, that she and Cori blamed the rise of feminism for the problems women face while dating.

Venker denounces feminists for teaching women that relationships should be equal partnerships and that they should have skills for the workforce rather than tools to be a wife.

Cori: Are young women today too competitive when they look at their relationships?

Venker: I do thinks so. I don’t think they know any other way. I think they’ve been raised to have a life in the workforce and they’ve been given absolutely no tools for how to be a wife or how to even be a girlfriend. So they’ve inadvertently brought those tools that they’ve acquired for the workforce into their love lives and it’s not working. Men don’t want to be bossed around so if you’re the boss at work that’s fine but you’re going to have to shift gears at home because that doesn’t work for love.

Cori: You can’t say, ‘tonight’s your time to wash the dishes,’ because that will break a relationship, ‘I washed the dishes last night so now you’ve got to wash the dishes.’

Venker: Exactly. That’s tit-for-tat and that’s a recipe for disaster. That’s what equality demands. If everything is supposed to be fifty-fifty at all times and you’re keeping score, your marriage is going to fail.

She goes on to explain that feminists have corrupted the minds of women by making them think positively about “being single and being sexually free.”

Cori: When you go on a job interview attitude is the most important factor, and of course dating is just another form of a job interview, are single young women today victims of their own attitude when they date?

Venker: They are. You have to remember, this is the generation that was raised to ‘never depend on a man’ and not only never depend on one, really that you just don’t need a man period. So that’s a whole different life than the kind of life women were taught to inspire to in the past. What’s unfortunate about it is that it sounded I guess at some point empowering, I hate the use of that word the way feminists use it because it’s actually a very good word, but they use it to mean that being empowered is being single and being sexually free to do what you want and when you want and not being tied down to anything, but of course at some point that’s going to run its course.

Feminist moms are especially to blame:

Cori: Suzanne, women’s literature is filled with plaintive tales of bad guys or good guys who get away, do women today need happier stories or better role models in the society, or have their mothers just messed up on teaching them these rules?

Venker: Well I do believe it’s the latter. I believe that they came from a generation of baby boomer feminists who’ve taught them all kinds of negative thoughts about men and marriage. What I’m saying in this book, “How to Choose a Husband,” is you’re going to have to — as hard as it is — accept that your mother, if this was your story, doesn’t have the answers that you are looking for and you’re going to have a hard time finding them in the culture as well, which is why I wrote the book.

Right Wing Leftovers - 11/26/12

  • Ralph Reed tells the GOP not to throw social conservatives overboard after the recent election losses.
  • Rick Santorum remains open to making another run for president in 2016.
  • One Million Moms declares victory as the show "666 Park Avenue" is cancelled.
  • So, how long will it be before we see "Two And A Half Men" co-star Angus T. Jones speaking at Religious Right conferences about the dangers of television?
  • An insightful new book questions "whether Obama truly understands authentic Christianity."
  • Finally, Phyllis Schlafly's niece offers exactly the sort of advice to feminists that one would expect from Phyllis Schlafly's niece.

Did Michele Bachmann Destroy Feminism?

When Sarah Palin was chosen as the GOP nominee for vice president, Phyllis Schlafly hailed her as a role model of the non-feminist woman who by her very existence discredited the women’s movement. Feminists “are really spooked by Palin because she’s done everything and she is a success,” Schlafly said, “besides she is pretty and they cannot stand her.”

Now that Palin’s star has significantly subsided and she has become one of the most unpopular politicians in America, Schlafly’s niece Suzanne Venker is crowning Michele Bachmann as the new conservative woman who destroyed feminism. Venker, who co-authored The Flipside of Feminism with Schlafly, told James Dobson that women shouldn’t pursue challenging professions like brain surgery because it might prevent them from having children.

In an article for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch today, Venker lauded Bachmann for showing the bright side of biblical “submission” and proving that the women’s movement has contributed nothing beneficial to society. Venker writes that for “the first time in decades, the liberal feminist establishment is up against something new: outspoken conservative women who undermine the feminist agenda.” But haven’t conservative women, like say, Phyllis Schlafly, been involved in politics for decades?

Venker argues that now Bachmann is being unfairly depicted as “a religious nut and a doormat,” and says a man would never be asked about biblical submission (not so). And even though Bachmann may be one of the easiest GOP candidates for President Obama to defeat, Venker says that she is actually making liberals run scared:

For 40 years, this country has endured a social movement that has been relentless in its goals. Women on the left believe the feminist movement is responsible for liberating women from constricted lives; women on the right see things differently. Feminists are consumed with their place in society; conservative women are not. They are especially uninterested in fighting a gender war. That's why the Submission Question could be asked only of a conservative female candidate. It's women on the right, we're told, who want to keep women in their place. Conservative women are anti-woman.

So what to do when faced with a female candidate who's conservative and popular? Why, portray her as a religious nut and a doormat, of course! Indeed, feminists know most women won't identify with that kind of woman. And they're right: they won't. Women on the left don't appreciate that traditional values, even Biblical values, are not at odds with female empowerment. No matter what you think of Bachmann or Sarah Palin, these women have proved this in spades. No one gets to their position by being oppressed or mousy.

For the first time in decades, the liberal feminist establishment is up against something new: outspoken conservative women who undermine the feminist agenda. Conservative women are supposed to stay home! Conservative women are supposed to lead nice, traditional lives: raise a gaggle of children, be subordinate to their husbands and stay out of the public sphere. Why are they asserting their independent minds?



The implication that Michele Bachmann is a Stepford wife in disguise was a pitiful attempt to bring down a female conservative candidate who has sinned in the worst way possible: She does not carry the feminist torch. And, yet, she still won the Iowa straw poll.

Perhaps feminism really is dead.

Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Brain Surgeons

For the last two days, James Dobson has dedicated his "Family Talk" radio program to interviewing Phyllis Schlafly and her niece, Suzanne Venker, about their new book "The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know -- and Men Can't Say."

While Schlafly was her usual cranky and out-of-touch self, rambling on about how all feminists had horrible childhoods and hate men and babies and husbands shouldn't be expected to change diapers, Venker was the voice of today's modern anti-feminist ... the sort who tells her eleven year-old daughter not to become a brain surgeon because it'll interfere with her baby-making:

The other, very taboo thing to say to young women is "you need to look for a man who can support you." And the reason why you want to do that is not because you're never going to make your own money and go out into the world; it's because you're going to hit a point - particularly in those years when the children are not in school, the first five years - when you are not going to want to be bothered with making an income because you're going to want to be with those babies.

So that doesn't mean you have to find a rich man, it just means you have to find somebody who is ambitious and capable of holding down a job and finding a path that is consistent and where he does not flounder.

Another point is why I say the reality is there are going to be some careers that are probably not going to be good options for you as a woman. I have an eleven year-old daughter and if we got into the conversation of what am I going to be in X number of years and she comes to me and says "Mom, I want to be a brain surgeon," I would ask her "Okay, is there anything else that you want in your life?"

And if she presumably then says "well, I'd like to get married and have children too," I'd say "then you'd probably better pick something else." And here's why: these two things are going to conflict majorly. You're going to spend ten years preparing for this major life as a brain surgeon - which is one kind of life, all consuming - and then right as your body is winding down biologically, you want to get married and have children. That ain't gonna work.

Schlafly Didn't Need Feminism, But She Did Need Domestic Help

Phyllis Schlafly is enjoying a bit of a renaissance at the moment, thanks to the recent publication of the book she penned with her niece Suzanne Venker entitled "The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know -- and Men Can't Say."

The point of the book is that feminism, as Schlafly puts it, has "made women unhappy and it's to make them believe that we live in a discriminatory and unjust society, and that they should look to government to solve their problems."

As Schlafly likes to remind everyone who will listen, she managed to obtain a college degree, a master's degree, a law degree, run for Congress, stop the ERA, and raise six children, all without any assistance from feminism or anyone else for that matter:

MARTIN: How did you manage, though? As a mother of six, as your husband was -certainly had a busy career of his own, and being as significant a national figure as you have been, how did you manage?

Ms. SCHLAFLY: Well, politics was my hobby. And I really spent 25 years as a full-time homemaker before I did any particular traveling around. And by that time the children were well along in school or college. And they were very supportive. My husband was very supportive. I told the feminists the only person's permission I had to get was my husband's.

But, as it turns out, Meghan Daum of the Los Angeles Times got Schlafly's niece Venker to admit that she did, in fact, have help:

I recently called Venker at her home in St. Louis because I had some questions, not least among them: How did Schlafly manage to raise all those kids and pursue such a prominent career? Granted, at 25 Schlafly married an older, well-established lawyer, and granted, she herself didn't go to law school until she was in her 50s, but did she have help? If so, she never seemed to mention it.

Venker seemed to almost despair at the question: "I'm in a pickle because I haven't been asked this directly before," she said. "I'm going to say this the best way I can. She had domestic help.... She wouldn't have called them nannies, but she had people in her home. That's what she chose. Did she mention that fact enough to get her point across to young people about how she managed to do it? No, she did not."

CPAC Leftovers - Peacemaking Pleas and Tea Party Coffee Table Books

A few tidbits from the piles of stuff picked up at CPAC 2011:

The CPAC “Resource Guide,” a spiral-bound booklet with info about sponsors and participating organizations, included several essays, some of which were pleas for peace between libertarian-leaning economic conservatives and social conservatives. Some of the latter, of course, dropped their sponsorships and trashed CPAC leaders over the participation of GOProud, whose leader in turn derided the Religious Right groups as “loser” organizations. Former Reagan official Donald Devine contributed “Why We are Conservatives,” which includes:
 
Western civilization has been a harmony of both. Not a simple uniform tune, but a harmonic masterpiece, not simple libertarianism nor univocal traditionalism but both…The price of a successful conservatism must be a gracious acceptance of the traditional live and let live formula. If the modern scourges of brutal egalitarianism, debilitating fatalism and feckless progressivism are to be transcended, traditionalist and libertarian conservatives must learn again to work together in bold harmony.
 
Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery contributed “Social and Economic Conservatives Have Much in Common,” which notes (correctly) that there is much overlap between the Tea Party and Religious Right movements. And he warned libertarians that they should embrace the social conservatives’ morals-based policies as the only bulwark against chaos:
 
In the West, these principles find their source in the Judeo-Christian moral tradition, and if we lose that collective sense of “oughtness” then individual liberty degenerates into selfishness, and eventually into social chaos. And at that point it is only the loaded gun and the barbed wire fence that can preserve order.
 
On the lighter side, among the countless books available to CPAC participants were “Grandma’s Not Shovel-Ready,” a picture book of signs from 9-12 and Tea Party protests in 2009, and “The New Democrat,” a Dr. Seuss-style parody of “The Cat in the Hat” starring a Marxist-insignia-wearing Barack Obama as the chaos-provoking interloper. The editors of the picture book were clearly not worried about soft-peddling the movement’s message: the book is replete with signs depicting Obama as a Communist thug bent on destroying America and killing off the elderly.  Other signs attack the patriotism of the movement’s targets (“Beware of liberals posing as Americans”) or threaten violent revolution (“A Revolution is brewing. We will not subsidize tyranny. Violate our Liberty at Your Peril.” and “Now Look!! Nice people forced to protest!! This must be serious we came unarmed…this time”). There are a few signs joking about anal sex (“Obamacare. Bend Over. This is gonna hurt.” and “Taxation without lubrication!!!”). The “Cat in the Hat” parody includes explanatory information that Dr. Seuss – Theodor Geisel – was a leftist who injected his progressive polemics into the books on which our current leaders were raised.
 
I haven’t yet had the time (or stomach) to read Phyllis Schlafly’s latest attack on feminism (The Flip Side of Feminism: what conservative women know – and men can’t say written with Suzanne Venker, a columnist for David Horowitz). Not helping is the list of people blurbing the book, which includes Horowitz, Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh, and the shouldn’t-be-treated-seriously-ever-again-after-his-latest-book Dinesh D’Souza.

CPAC Leftovers - Peacemaking Pleas and Tea Party Coffee Table Books

A few tidbits from the piles of stuff picked up at CPAC 2011:

The CPAC “Resource Guide,” a spiral-bound booklet with info about sponsors and participating organizations, included several essays, some of which were pleas for peace between libertarian-leaning economic conservatives and social conservatives. Some of the latter, of course, dropped their sponsorships and trashed CPAC leaders over the participation of GOProud, whose leader in turn derided the Religious Right groups as “loser” organizations. Former Reagan official Donald Devine contributed “Why We are Conservatives,” which includes:
 
Western civilization has been a harmony of both. Not a simple uniform tune, but a harmonic masterpiece, not simple libertarianism nor univocal traditionalism but both…The price of a successful conservatism must be a gracious acceptance of the traditional live and let live formula. If the modern scourges of brutal egalitarianism, debilitating fatalism and feckless progressivism are to be transcended, traditionalist and libertarian conservatives must learn again to work together in bold harmony.
 
Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery contributed “Social and Economic Conservatives Have Much in Common,” which notes (correctly) that there is much overlap between the Tea Party and Religious Right movements. And he warned libertarians that they should embrace the social conservatives’ morals-based policies as the only bulwark against chaos:
 
In the West, these principles find their source in the Judeo-Christian moral tradition, and if we lose that collective sense of “oughtness” then individual liberty degenerates into selfishness, and eventually into social chaos. And at that point it is only the loaded gun and the barbed wire fence that can preserve order.
 
On the lighter side, among the countless books available to CPAC participants were “Grandma’s Not Shovel-Ready,” a picture book of signs from 9-12 and Tea Party protests in 2009, and “The New Democrat,” a Dr. Seuss-style parody of “The Cat in the Hat” starring a Marxist-insignia-wearing Barack Obama as the chaos-provoking interloper. The editors of the picture book were clearly not worried about soft-peddling the movement’s message: the book is replete with signs depicting Obama as a Communist thug bent on destroying America and killing off the elderly.  Other signs attack the patriotism of the movement’s targets (“Beware of liberals posing as Americans”) or threaten violent revolution (“A Revolution is brewing. We will not subsidize tyranny. Violate our Liberty at Your Peril.” and “Now Look!! Nice people forced to protest!! This must be serious we came unarmed…this time”). There are a few signs joking about anal sex (“Obamacare. Bend Over. This is gonna hurt.” and “Taxation without lubrication!!!”). The “Cat in the Hat” parody includes explanatory information that Dr. Seuss – Theodor Geisel – was a leftist who injected his progressive polemics into the books on which our current leaders were raised.
 
I haven’t yet had the time (or stomach) to read Phyllis Schlafly’s latest attack on feminism (The Flip Side of Feminism: what conservative women know – and men can’t say written with Suzanne Venker, a columnist for David Horowitz). Not helping is the list of people blurbing the book, which includes Horowitz, Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh, and the shouldn’t-be-treated-seriously-ever-again-after-his-latest-book Dinesh D’Souza.
Syndicate content

Suzanne Venker Posts Archive

Miranda Blue, Monday 02/03/2014, 6:26pm
The right-wing outrage at Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s performance at the Grammy Awards continues. In a blog post on her website last week, “men’s rights” advocate Suzanne Venker responded to a New York Post article that called Jay-Z “a poor excuse for a husband,” by contending that Beyoncé is also “a poor excuse for a wife.” “Behaving as Beyoncé does, or anything close to it, will not produce men who are invested in women. It will merely produce more Jay-Zs, or ‘poor excuses for a husband,’” Venker... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Tuesday 12/10/2013, 3:19pm
Phyllis Schalfly’s niece and anti-War on Men campaigner Suzanne Venker has been getting plenty of attention lately, most recently for telling a female Fox News host that she should quit her job and get married. Yesterday, she went on the Steve Malzberg Show to defend herself against criticism of her take on “quote-unquote ‘progress.’” “If you’re running off the deep end and forgetting to get married and have kids, that’s not really progress,” she told Malzberg. “That’s just shifting one sort of problem for another.”... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Monday 11/25/2013, 5:23pm
Suzanne Venker, Phyllis Schalfly’s niece and an anti-feminist crusader in her own right, joined the pickup geniuses from “The Art of Charm Podcast” last week to provide an introduction to anti-feminism for lovelorn men. Venker lamented that feminism is “messing with people’s lives” by egging on women to get “degree upon degree upon degree” who “may be 30 before they’re getting out and even starting their career.” Which prompted Venker’s interviewer to ask her about Mad Men: “That’s one of the reasons... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 02/19/2013, 2:20pm
Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly’s daughter Anne Cori guest-hosted this weekend’s edition of Eagle Forum Live, where she got to interview Schlalfy’s niece, Suzanne Venker, about her new book, How to Choose a Husband. Venker, who co-authored The Flipside of Feminism with Schlafly, is the sort who advises women not to become brain surgeons. It was no surprise, then, that she and Cori blamed the rise of feminism for the problems women face while dating. Venker denounces feminists for teaching women that relationships should be equal partnerships and that they should have... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Monday 11/26/2012, 6:35pm
Ralph Reed tells the GOP not to throw social conservatives overboard after the recent election losses. Rick Santorum remains open to making another run for president in 2016. One Million Moms declares victory as the show "666 Park Avenue" is cancelled. So, how long will it be before we see "Two And A Half Men" co-star Angus T. Jones speaking at Religious Right conferences about the dangers of television? An insightful new book questions "whether Obama truly understands authentic Christianity." Finally, Phyllis Schlafly'... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Thursday 08/18/2011, 4:42pm
When Sarah Palin was chosen as the GOP nominee for vice president, Phyllis Schlafly hailed her as a role model of the non-feminist woman who by her very existence discredited the women’s movement. Feminists “are really spooked by Palin because she’s done everything and she is a success,” Schlafly said, “besides she is pretty and they cannot stand her.” Now that Palin’s star has significantly subsided and she has become one of the most unpopular politicians in America, Schlafly’s niece Suzanne Venker is crowning Michele Bachmann as the new... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Tuesday 06/14/2011, 10:48am
For the last two days, James Dobson has dedicated his "Family Talk" radio program to interviewing Phyllis Schlafly and her niece, Suzanne Venker, about their new book "The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know -- and Men Can't Say." While Schlafly was her usual cranky and out-of-touch self, rambling on about how all feminists had horrible childhoods and hate men and babies and husbands shouldn't be expected to change diapers, Venker was the voice of today's modern anti-feminist ... the sort who tells her eleven year-old daughter not to become a brain surgeon... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Thursday 03/31/2011, 4:02pm
Phyllis Schlafly is enjoying a bit of a renaissance at the moment, thanks to the recent publication of the book she penned with her niece Suzanne Venker entitled "The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know -- and Men Can't Say." The point of the book is that feminism, as Schlafly puts it, has "made women unhappy and it's to make them believe that we live in a discriminatory and unjust society, and that they should look to government to solve their problems." As Schlafly likes to remind everyone who will listen, she managed to obtain a college degree, a master's... MORE >