Feminism

Conservative Radio Hosts Parse Feminists: Some are 'Cute,' Some are 'Ugly,' All are 'Family-Destroying Whores'

Christian conservative radio hosts Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner are not exactly big fans of feminism in any of its forms. So far this month, they have opined that a woman fired for being too attractive shouldn’t have been working for a man who wasn’t her husband in the first place; that “socialist” single women are taking over America; and that Sandra Fluke isn’t “ladylike” enough to be considered for Woman of the Year.

On Tuesday’s edition of Generations Radio, Swanson and Buehner sat down in Swanson’s basement studio to discuss a report they came across that claims “rising college costs are driving a new trend called ‘Sugar Daddies.’” This led to a wide-ranging discussion of the scourge of women’s independence and a new unified theory of feminism.

There are “two forms of feminism,” Buehner argued. There are “cute” feminists like Sarah Palin who will find jobs in the “marketplace” and “get themselves a husband” but  will “never submit to the husband, in fact they will use their power probably to make their husband submit to them.” Then, there are the “ugly” feminists whose “lack of attractiveness has not given them access to power that they wanted in the marketplace.” These “attractively challenged” feminists will only find careers in academia and in government agencies, for instance, “you can run the EPA.”

What all these feminists have in common, Swanson argues, is that “all of them want to be free from the family” and together with “the homosexuals” are “destroying society.” Buehner speculates that in the future, feminism will be remembered as “a time in which women lost the love of their children” and “decided to become selfish, narcissistic, family-destroying whores.”


Swanson: Now remember, the goal is that these women have to be independent. The goal is lots and lots of birth control. The goal is lots and lots and lots of fornication. The goal is abortion. The day-after pill will help. And it will help a lot. Remember, the goal is to get that girl a job because she needs no stinkin’ husband, she’s got the fascist corporation and government-mandated insurance programs and socialist welfare that will take care of her womb to tomb. Who needs a cotton-pickin’ husband? Who needs a family? That’s pretty much the worldview that’s dominating, my friends. That’s what the college is all about.

Buehner: Because her feminist professors have told her her husband will abuse her, she will be like a slave to him. Instead she will just go to the slave market and sell herself, at least sell her body, to the highest bidder. See, that’s much, much better!

Swanson: And Dave, you talk about the two kinds of feminists now, this is your new division, you say there’s two kinds of feminists.

Buehner: There are.

Swanson: All of them want to be free from the family. They want to be free from the husband. Who needs a stinkin’ husband? Who wants to be submitting to a husband and find security in the family when she can find security in the state or a sugar daddy for the four years that she needs to get through college?

Buehner: Right. Actually, you’re talking about perhaps even a third stream of feminism. There’s the Sarah Palin kind of feminism that wants to have a husband, just not one to submit to. And she still wants to..

Swanson: But talk about the two forms of feminism you see that are rising today.

Buehner: Right, there are two forms of feminism, and it actually has to do with a division of how attractive a woman is. So, you have the group that is very attractive, they’re in the sororities, they’re gonna be in the beauty contests. They’re actually going to get the good jobs. They’re going to leverage their attractiveness in the marketplace because it has a market value. Marketing. It helps market who you are. They’re going to proceed, now they will probably some of them become the Sarah Palin-style feminists, they’ll get themselves a husband, but they’ll never be dependent on the husband, they’ll never submit to the husband, in fact they will use their power probably to make their husband submit to them.

Swanson: Okay, so you have the cute feminists.

Buehner: Right, you have the good-looking ones.

Swanson: Well, who are the others?

Buehner: Well, the other ones are those who we should say are, um, attractive-deficient. And they have not been…

Swanson: That’s nicely put. Attractively challenged.

Buehner: Attractively challenged. Optically challenged. These are the kinds that will look for careers mostly likely in academia.

Swanson: Now, just to say, they’re ugly. They’re the feminazis that Rush Limbaugh likes to refer to.

Buehner: Right, right, and they’re generally very angry about it because their attractive…or their lack of attractiveness has not given them access to power that they wanted in the marketplace. So they can get jobs…

Swanson: And they’re certainly not going to get a lot of power sexually.

Buehner: No, but they can get jobs in the government bureaucracy, they can work as an FDA administrator, or you can actually run the EPA if you want, or academia. Academia’s actually the best place because you can be angry, ugly and you can also get tenure. It’s great, it’s the big trifecta.

Swanson: You’re gonna make some people mad about what you’ve just said. There will be some very angry feminists.

Buehner: You mean there will be angrier angry feminists.

Swanson: Angrier angry feminists are gonna come at you for what you just said, and probably from our listening audience, because if we tick anybody off we’re ticking two different folks off, the feminists and the homosexuals, they can’t stand this kind of stuff.

Buehner: Neither one of them have a high regard for the family or for the Word of God.

Swanson: That’s true, yeah, you’re right, you’re right, you’re right. And they’re the ones who are destroying society.

Buehner: The systems we are living in are coming down before our very eyes, the fiat currency won’t last, the corporate economies, they’re going to collapse. What’s going to last will be those who go back to a biblical worldview. I believe history will go back to this period of time and will look at feminism and say there was a time in which women lost the love of their children. They no longer cared about having children, they no longer loved their children, they no longer loved their husbands, where for all of history women very much cared about protecting the family. Now they only cared about themselves. They were riled up into a froth about how they were victims of society, patriarchal society, and they decided to become selfish, narcissistic, family-destroying whores.

Dobson and Passno Mourn that Feminist 'Lies' Have Ruined both Women and Men

For the second edition of James Dobson’s Family Talk program criticizing the feminist movement with former Focus on the Family vice president Diane Passno, the two fielded questions from an audience of young adults. One young woman asked what they would recommend to a person like herself who is “not ready to be a mom and a wife” but does have career aspirations. Passno, who is promoting her new book that criticizes feminism, told her that it is wonderful she has so many “opportunities that women of my era never had,” seeming to overlook the fact that the tremendous growth in opportunities for women is one of the accomplishments of the feminist movement. But she did caution her that she may only have those career aspirations because of what she hears from her parents and colleagues.

Questioner: What is your advice to young women like myself who—I’m not ready to be a mom and a wife and I have aspirations and I do have longings and hopes and desires to do things, is there a balance for that future? What’s your advice to me now as singles who are built with passions to serve the Lord and to do different things?

Passno: It’s wonderful. You have opportunities that women of my era never had and so I can totally understand when you say ‘I’m really not ready for marriage, I don’t even have a boyfriend and actually I’m really looking forward to taking my education and having a great career.’ My caution to you would be this: career isn’t everything and always use discernment in your professional life. Are you doing what you’re doing because you’re getting plaudits from your parents? From people you went to college with? Are you climbing up the corporate ladder because it’s what you’ve been told is important? Just remember to submit yourself daily to the Lord and He will guide you to where He wants you to be.

As Passno and Dobson later explained, the culture has been inculcated with “lies” from the feminist movement, leaving society with unhappy childless women, immature men, and remorseful feminists.

Dobson: You know what’s happening over and over now is that young women hear this message and they either postpone or decide not to have babies and then at 33 and 34 and 35 they start to panic and they realize they’ve missed an opportunity and it’s getting very late and there are many childless women today who would love to hold a baby and they were sold a lie. I resent the lies that are being told to the young women that are out there because in twenty years they will regret it, many of them will regret it and it will be too late.

Passno: I resent the lies that are fed to the young men as well because we have a generation of men who don’t know what it means to make a commitment, who don’t know what it means to protect a family, who don’t know what it means to cherish a woman and remain pure until marriage. The feminist movement has distorted so many things that were precious and that the Lord said in Scripture were precious.



Passno: There are many older feminists who are now looking back at their lives and questioning what they indoctrinated this generation with and they’re questioning it and they’re going ‘maybe I didn’t have all the answers,’ and unfortunately so many of them will never look to Christianity for the answers.

Dobson: And their children are even more confused because they’ve gotten mixed messages and the passion with which the early feminists started has now kind of diminished with time in the present generation.

Obama Administration is a Phyllis Schlafly Nightmare: 'Whatever the Feminists Want, the Feminists Get'

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly yesterday spoke to the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios to denounce the Democratic National Platform’s support for reproductive freedom and marriage equality. According to Schlafly, “the feminists completely control the Obama administration” and “whatever the feminists want, the feminists get,” including endorsements of abortion rights and same-sex marriage. There is “support of everything the feminists want,” Schlafly lamented, “It’s a very destructive force in our society.”

Rios: According to the platform, there is no place for politicians or the government to get in the way of abortions, so they’re saying that abortion—

Schlafly: Sandy, let me explain. The feminists completely control the Obama administration. Valerie [Jarrett] is considered the most powerful person in the country. Whatever the feminists want, the feminists get. That’s why we’re getting support of abortion by the Obama administration, and paying for it, forcing is to pay for it, which is what they want, and support of same-sex marriage, and support of everything the feminists want. It’s a very destructive force in our society.

Rios: It’s certainly not a forward movement, it’s a backward movement, I think.

Schlafly even claimed that progressives want people “to look to the government for everything,” unlike during the Great Depression when “we didn’t look to the government for any solution and they didn’t give us any solution and we grew up to be the greatest generation.” While Schlafly denies that the government didn’t play a role in ending the Great Depression, she appears to forget that there was significant government intervention through the New Deal and other government-driven programs to stimulate the sluggish economy:

Rios: You know Phyllis just philosophically, this is what the left always says, they always say that conservatives are old fashioned, they mock the old sitcoms you know where they had separate beds, twin beds, they mock the sitcoms of the 50s, the Andy Griffith’s, the Dick Van Dyke’s, they think that’s funny and amusing and to be progressive, to be modern, to be in-this-decade—the Constitution is old and outdated too, by the way, that’s what they think—they always make that argument that to be forward moving is to throw off any of the constraints of the past. Can you just from your perspective of life, why would we hang on to boundaries, regulations and rules from the past? Isn’t this a new day?

Schlafly: Because they work. Our Constitution has lasted over two centuries; no other country’s has done that. When our borders are open people want to come in, they’re not trying to get out, I think that’s a pretty good test of whether a country is successful or not. We built a great country of great prosperity and enormous freedom and some people don’t like that, they want to look to the government for everything. I grew up during the Great Depression, we didn’t look to the government for any solution and they didn’t give us any solution and we grew up to be the greatest generation.

Dobson and Passno Deride Feminists for Becoming an 'Exact Replica of Male Chauvinist Pigs'

James Dobson dedicated yet another program on Family Talk to criticizing the “radical feminist movement,” this time interviewing Diane Passno of Focus on the Family, the Religious Right group founded by Dobson. Passno is out with a new book, Feminism: Mystique or Mistake?, which features a foreword by conservative talk show host Janet Parshall. Passno claimed that the feminist movement has “distorted” its Christian past and “is now completely antagonistic to the Christian faith,” and revealed her own unfamiliarity with feminism by arguing that contemporary feminism solely relies upon a “love affair with abortion” and a belief that men are not “necessary.” She told Dobson that women no longer scrutinize “the nonsense that’s being shoved down their throats” and the modern feminist has become “an exact replica of ‘male chauvinist pigs’ of thirty years ago.”

Passno: What’s so tragic about the feminist movement today is that what started as a Christian movement based on Christian principles and the wonderful examples that Jesus gives in Scripture—there’s so many women that are mentioned specifically in Scripture whose lives He touched and whose lives He changed for the better—and a movement that started in that way has become so distorted and is now completely antagonistic to the Christian faith.

Dobson: With a lot of either unintended consequences or consequences that were hidden. The National Organization for Women and what I would call the radical feminist movement really boils down to two issues today; you got them on the tip of your tongue?

Passno: Yes, you can define feminism today really as having two foundational issues. One is abortion, and of course this is a result of their love affair with abortion and so many of our listeners know that and understand that. What is less understood is the fact that what the feminist movement has done it’s gone from wanting equality with men to being a movement that doesn’t think men are really necessary at all.



Passno: I’m terribly disappointed in women today and I’m terribly disappointed that they are so quiet about some of the nonsense that’s being shoved down their throats and they swallow it, never question it. As a result, women, feminists today, are an exact replica of male chauvinist pigs of thirty years ago.

Dobson Pushes Article Claiming the Feminist Movement 'Surrendered Women to Predatory Men'

James Dobson is holding feminists responsible for the objectification of women in American culture, quoting from a 2007 article from Marc Gellman in his latest column that maintains that the feminist movement “surrendered women to predatory men who have taken women’s newfound freedom as the perfect opportunity to surrender all sexual responsibility, respect and gallantry.” He laments that women rich and poor now “become bimbos,” pointing out that he sees “the bimbofication of young girls all the time in my affluent suburban synagogue.” After setting up a false dichotomy between the Taliban’s oppression of women and the “the latest exploits of Paris, Lindsay and Britney,” Gellman says it’s wrong to let women begin “embracing their sexuality in any way they desire” because it “supports porn, which coarsens our culture.”

Anna Nicole was stigmatized as poor white trash. However, it is a cruel illusion to believe that only poor, pretty women must become bimbos, strippers and gold diggers to get out of the trailer park. I see the bimbofication of young girls all the time in my affluent suburban synagogue. Sadly, some of the brightest adolescent girls around the age of 12 suddenly try to dumb themselves down so that they can attract a boy- friend who will not be scared off by their intelligence. I also see echoes of Anna Nicole in the successful twentysomethings and thirtysomethings, whose little black cocktail dresses are meant to both reveal their cleavage and conceal their desperation at the thought that pursuing a career means abandoning the pursuit of love and family. The feminist movement has won important victories for egalitarianism, but it has also surrendered women to predatory men who have taken women's newfound freedom as the perfect opportunity to surrender all sexual responsibility, respect and gallantry. One can rejoice at newfound freedoms without distorting their cost.

The problem with treating women as meat is that many of the solutions offered up are far worse than the problem. The Taliban had an easy and perverse solution, and that was to treat women as prisoners. Completely covering up the female form with a burqa and shutting women out of Afghani public and professional life is even worse than being forced to hear about the latest exploits of Paris, Lindsay and Britney. On the other hand, making the case that there is nothing wrong with women freely displaying their bodies and embracing their sexuality in any way they desire is equally perverse because it supports porn, which coarsens our culture, degrades women and led to the death of a woman whose infant daughter needs her now. We need to find a place between prudes and porn. The future of our culture and the dignity of both men and women depend upon us finding such a place now.

** This post has been updated for clarity. In his column, Dobson didn't note where the quote from Gellman's article begins or ends.

Schlafly's Schtick

Phyllis Schlafly is an all-around right-wing activist who has been around forever. You could say she was Tea Party before her time, railing against liberals and taxes and the UN's threat to US sovereignty. Her 2009 "How to Take Back America" conference was an amazing gathering at which health care reform was described as fascism, President Obama was described by Rep. Trent Franks as an "enemy of humanity," and attendees were encouraged to buy guns and ammo to defend themselves against impending tyranny.

But Schlafly’s real bread and butter is the hostility to feminism that fueled her campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment – and it was her anti-feminist schtick that she brought to George Washington University in D.C. last night.  I use the word schtick because it’s hard to take seriously Schlafly’s caricature of feminists as anti-men, anti-marriage, anti-family, and anti-child-rearing, not to mention claims like these:

  • “Feminists don’t have any role models of happiness.”
  • “They don’t believe that women can be successful. You never hear the feminists  talking about really successful  women like Margaret Thatcher or Condaleeza Rice, they just don’t believe women can be successful…that’s why they hate Sarah Palin….”

What?  Feminists don’t believe women can be successful?  That didn’t ring true to the many GW students, women and men, who politely protested Schlafly’s appearance.  During the Q&A, one challenged Schlafly directly, saying her mother is a feminist, a role model of happiness, and had instilled in her children a love of family.  The student said Schlafly seemed to be having a 40-year old argument with quotes plucked from early feminist writers.

Schlafly did have her admirers.  The young woman who introduced her said Schlafly had given her an example of how to stand up against the emerging “gender-interchangeable society.”  Schlafly returned to that theme later, saying that feminists don’t want equality for women, they want “gender interchangeability.”

Schlafly reveled in the recent flap about Ann Romney never having to work outside the home, since she saw it as proof that feminists have no respect for mothers who choose to answer to a husband rather than a boss.  But Schlafly was not on message with the Romney campaign’s claims that women have accounted for almost all job losses during the Obama administration.  Schlafly, who repeatedly claimed that the Obama administration is utterly controlled by feminists, “proved” her case by saying that feminists had successfully demanded that most jobs created by federal stimulus funds went to women.

Schlafly touched on a few other issues, such as her opposition to marriage equality (though she seemed to say she didn’t think civil unions were worth fighting about).  And she pushed the same theme being pushed by Ralph Reed and other strategists trying to build a broad electoral coalition: you can’t separate fiscal and social conservatism.  She took a shot at Mitch Daniels for seeking a “truce” on social values, something she called “impossible.”

In the end, she told the young women, they should get married before having babies, and they should ignore feminists who might poison their attitude toward life by telling them that women are victims of the patriarchy. She derided the notion of a "glass ceiling" and denied that unequal pay is a problem. Men, she said, are willing to do dangerous jobs that women aren't, because "women like nice inside jobs with carpeted offices." American women, she said, are the most fortunate people who have ever lived.  Why, in Africa, she said, some women have to wash their clothing in the river.  “We have all these wonderful modern conveniences that men have invented for our pleasure.”  

 

Bennett, Robertson Blame Feminism, Gay Culture For Ruining Men

Bill Bennett appeared on The 700 Club today to promote his new book The Book of Man. He and Pat Robertson used the time to lament the rise of women in American society and the supposed decimation of manhood. Bennett claimed that “feminism” and “gay culture” confused and blurred gender lines, and seemed to mourn the fact that women are now taking positions of authority in society once reserved only for men. Robertson cited the promotion of Virginia Rometty, who is succeeding Sam Palmisano to be CEO of IBM, and warned of a pending “matriarchy.”

Watch:

Bennett: What feminism did I think, Pat, was confuse the debate to some extent by saying those expectations we have of boys, the kinds of responsibilities that they will need to take up as men, we’re not sure we need them anymore because we’re not sure we need men any more, well we do need men.

Robertson: Well you know it’s interesting in the news today was the changing of the guard at IBM where Palmisano is changing off and a woman’s taking his position as head of this great corporation, IBM.

Bennett: That’s right and there’s just a ton of that…fine all power to the women and the girls, as long as we don’t confuse roles and the differences in genders. Boys have to wake up! We got to wake them up!

Robertson: What’s this going to do to society, if men don’t take their places as men and suddenly there’s a gap and women and we have a matriarchy. What will this do ultimately to society?

Bennett: I think it can hurt society, maybe grievously. Interestingly the feminists are not celebrating this Pat, they want men too. They might want to rail against this and they may want to talk about stereotypes of man and male domination and so on, but women want men. They want men for that strong arm, they want men for that protection, they want men for a partner in marriage and so it’s something that has got very blurred and what I try to do in this book is remind people of things that are true. And to the boys, as you very well said, the array of things offered on TV and elsewhere is very confusing, from macho stuff to gay culture to all sorts of things. What I got here is a point of view that is time tested, based in tradition that will get boys to manhood.

Mefferd Warns That Pagans Are Using Homosexuality To "Destroy Marriage"

Janet Mefferd yesterday railed against what she sees as an emerging “pagan” movement that is leading to abortion, feminism, homosexuality, and the eventual destruction of marriage. Mefferd, who previously declared that pagans are using homosexuality to “wipe out Christianity,” repeated the claim of her previous guest Tony Perkins that homosexuality is “shaking a fist in the face of God.”

Listen:

Mefferd: But this is the mindset, it’s more of a pagan mindset, I go back all the time to the movement of ancient paganism because it is on the rise. Whether people call themselves pagan or not that’s what is at root here: people challenge the traditional authority of God. And when you challenge the authority of God, what happens next? It’s like a sea of dominoes, one goes over it hits the next one, it hits the next one, it hits the next one. If there is no God, if I don’t go to church, if I reject Christianity, if I reject the Bible, all bets are off; I can do whatever I want. I can go down to the Occupy Wall Street protests and scream about the bankers; I can go out in the woods and beat a drum and worship an owl if I want to; I can have sex with whomever I want as often as I want with no consequences and if I do become pregnant I can just go get an abortion and then I can march in the streets and talk about women’s rights and reproductive health; and eventually, I can talk about how wonderful homosexuality is and how it’s just another alternative lifestyle and it’s all about love.



Marriage may be done for this culture in certain sectors, in certain pockets, but marriage most certainly is certainly not done because it is the God-ordained institution that mirrors the analogy of Christ and His church, it is the human institution that most closely reflects the heart of God the Father in Christ Jesus our Lord. That’s why they’re attacking it, they don’t know that that’s why they’re attacking it, they’re attacking it because they’re looking at all the advances in medical technology. I can have a baby without a man, so why do I need a man? I can earn more than a man, so why do I need a man? You can have a baby by adoption, and you can do it with a same-sex partner, so why do you need marriage? This is exactly what the pagans did, way back when, this is exactly what they did: destroy marriage. It’s shaking a fist in the face of God.

Dobson Rails Against Hollywood's "Perversion"

James Dobson hosted conservative movie critic andanti-gay activist Ted Baehr on Family Talk today where the two raved against Hollywood and the media. According to Dobson, Hollywood promotes “filth and perversion and sacrilege” and is trying to attack “the very soul of your child.”

Listen:

The media is just saturated with filth and perversion and sacrilege that Hollywood is trying to shove down our throats and it really is disgusting and offensive that all this junk, and that’s what it is, it’s junk, is published and produced for both adults and kids. And I think it’s having a devastating effect on our culture and on our way of life.



This is why it is so important for parents to guard what our kids see, I mean do no permit it, even if you have a fight over it, don’t permit it, because you’re corrupting the morals and the values and the attitudes and the beliefs of your own children when you pay money to Hollywood to teach them something you don’t believe.



A lot of these kinds of things will not have eternal significance but when you run up against one like we’re talking about now where the very soul of your child is being invaded by those who deliberately want to destroy the things that you believe in and have taught, you stand like a rock.
Dobson made a similar case in his newsletter to listeners, warning that leftwing politics, feminism and greater acceptance of homosexuality have “flooded” contemporary culture with “morally corrupt influences at every turn.” He goes on to list those purportedly dangerous influences, such as Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction”:
· There are no innate differences between males and females, except for the ability to bear children. To be truly equal, men and women should act and think alike.



· For a girl to become what was once considered "easy" or "loose" is now deemed socially acceptable by peers. Therefore, dressing and acting tough or looking like a prostitute is evidence of confidence and strength. Janet Jackson allowed her bra to be torn off in front of 90 million television viewers during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime extravaganza. It was just a "wardrobe malfunction," said Justin Timberlake, who exposed Jackson's breast. Most of the other female performers in that spectacle resembled streetwalkers. Who can estimate how many girls saw the performance that night and decided to change their persona from wholesome to "bad"? The "raunch culture" was on parade.

· Girls are more likely than ever before to be the aggressors in male-female relationships. The traditional understanding that males are the initiators and leaders has been turned upside down. Now girls do much of the calling. They pursue. They often pay. And they regularly take their male friends to bed.

· Homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality are considered morally equivalent. They simply represent different lifestyles from which to choose.



These are just a few of the concepts that engulfed the baby boomer generation more than four decades ago. Now, the grandchildren of these revolutionaries are growing up to accept and live by ideas that were once celebrated as "the new morality." Behavior that was shockingly racy then has become the pop culture of today. Teenagers are taught its philosophy with an evangelistic zeal. The radicals who set out long ago to "liberate" women and shape the values of their children have been amazingly successful. Most members of the younger generation have no other frame of reference.

Concerned Women for America: Real Feminism Is Serving Your Husband

With conservative politicians and groups trying to ‘reclaim feminism’ for the Right, it is no surprise to see the notoriously anti-feminist Concerned Women for America jumping on the bandwagon. Concerned Women for America claims it was founded by Beverly LaHaye, whose husband is Religious Right leader Tim LaHaye, to counter the National Organization for Women because “She knew the feminists’ anti-God, anti-family rhetoric did not represent her beliefs, nor those of the vast majority of women.”

LaHaye has said, “Feminism is more than an illness. It is a philosophy of death.” But now, CWA insists that it is actually restoring feminism to its original purpose: to better enable women to serve their husbands.

Janice Shaw Crouse of CWA told the Christian Post that feminism was initially a Christian movement until it “was taken over by lesbians.” According to Crouse, real feminist women in the workplace “don’t view their job as a career or they don’t see themselves as career women – they see themselves helping their husbands.”

Incidentally, Crouse is a PhD who has built a career working as an antifeminist – she is an author and former presidential speechwriter and currently directs CWA's Beverly LaHaye Institute. Her daughter is the president of Americans United for Life:

“For many years, both secular and religious feminists operated with the same definition of equality,” says Crouse. “Then somewhere in the last 30 years that changed. Feminism was taken over by lesbians, by those who wanted quotas and abortion on demand.”



“Christian women do not like workplace quotas because Christian women don’t like the idea of being forced into the workplace – Christian women like choice, the option of going into the workplace or not,” says Crouse.

Part of the workplace tension between Christian women and secular feminists relates to how both groups define success. A Christian woman tends not to seek accolades or advancement solely in the workplace but instead views her work as part of her calling as a wife and mother.

“In general, Christian women are not in the workplace for power, they are there because they have some challenge, some very fulfilling responsibility,” adds Crouse. “Many Christian women choose to work part time, to bring in some extra income to help the family, but they don’t view their job as a career or they don’t see themselves as career women – they see themselves helping their husbands. It’s a completely different perspective from modern secular feminists, a fundamental disagreement and a different worldview about what it means to be a woman.”

Barber: Gays Opening The Doors For Pedophiles

Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber has been talking a lot lately about his attendance at a conference put on by B4U-ACT, a group that wants the American Psychiatric Association to drop pedophilia from its list of disorders. B4U-ACT is a tiny, marginal group, and the APA has no plans to de-list pedophilia, but Barber claims the group is part of a larger “sexual anarchy movement” including feminists, gays and lesbians, and proponents of comprehensive sex education. Essentially, Barber’s argument is that since homosexuality has lost its stigma, pedophilia will soon become normalized too.

In an interview this week, he told Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality that the “sexual anarchist movement is the big umbrella and under that umbrella you’ve got the pedophile movement, you have the homosexual activist movement, you have your radical feminists and your pro-aborts and the abortion industry, Planned Parenthood and so forth, they’re all part of that sexual anarchy movement.”

LaBarbera and Barber go on to argue that many people become gay because they were molested as children, calling it the reason why out CNN anchorman Don Lemon is gay. LaBarbera said, “I want to tell him Don, you are not gay, I don’t believe in inherent gayness but even if I did, you are not gay, you are the victim of a predator.”

Barber writes today in WorldNetDaily that feminism and gays and lesbians will open the doors for those who “literally rape children”:

Make no mistake: Children are the target of what I call the "sexual anarchy movement." Whether it's the movement's pedophile wing that seeks to literally rape children, or its radical pro-abortion, homosexualist and feminist wings, which seek to rape the minds of children, the larger sexual anarchy movement has a shared goal: Attack, corrupt and destroy God's design for human sexuality. Children are just collateral damage.

Sexual anarchists know that to own the future, they must own the minds of our children. Hence, groups like B4U-ACT, GLSEN (The Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network), Planned Parenthood and the like utilize academia from pre-school to post-graduate to brainwash and indoctrinate. Still, sexual anarchists are not restricted to the world of not-for-profit perversion advocacy. They also permeate the Obama administration.

Consider, for instance, that the official website for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently linked to "parenting tips" that referenced children as "sexual beings" and suggested that they should experiment with homosexuality and masturbation.



Bolstered by support from the National Education Association, GLSEN has access to your children through sex education curricula it provides thousands of public schools across the country, and via adult sponsored "Gay Straight Alliances," hosted in those same schools.

Alas, we live in a post-Kinsey America wherein our culture, along with our Judeo-Christian heritage, rots in the heat of the day. The stench of sexual anarchy is masked by the soaring, disingenuous rhetoric of "tolerance," "diversity" and "comprehensive sex education."

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.

Bachmann's Mentor Says Women Must Submit To Their Husbands

Michele Bachmann told an audience in 2006 that she followed her husband’s education path because, “The Lord says be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.” Her mentor John Eidsmoe makes a similar case throughout God & Caesar, his book on how Christians should engage in politics and government.

For Eidsmoe, the role of a woman is chiefly second class to her husband: “God’s Word gives women respect and respectability which they had never enjoyed in any other culture, and we must do what we can to preserve biblical standards. But it establishes the man as the head of the house” (p. 125). He writes:

Humans cannot function without leadership, at least not when they must live and work together. And the basic unit of authority in human society is the family. The husband is the head of the wife (1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 5:23), and children are to obey their parents (Exodus 20:12; Ephesians 6:1; Colossians 3:2).

Husbands are to instruct their wives in things of the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:35), and parents are to instruct their children (ps. 115-116).

He goes on to condemn the rise of feminism and criticize feminist scholars, saying that they “violate the normal order” God put in place: “I personally believe there would be no women’s liberation movement today, were it not for the weakness of men. But that is the exception, not the rule. The normal order of God’s institution in the family with the husband and father as its head” (p. 126).

Eidsmoe especially attacks feminists for what he believes is their disrespectful attitudes towards housewives, lamenting that husbands now have to deal with wives who want to have careers of their own:

Many had planned all their lives to become housewives and mothers, believing such a calling would bring meaning and fulfillment to their lives. Now they are told by the feminists that it is ‘demeaning’ and ‘unfulfilling’ to be a housewife, and they don’t know what to believe. They are frustrated as housewives and feel guilty for not being ‘more,’ but don’t feel any inclination for anything else. And the husband, who planned all this life to be a traditional husband and father and thought he was marrying a traditional wife, feels threatened, insecure, and resentful about these changes in his wife. If the wife goes to work, he may resent sharing housework; that wasn’t what he bargained for when he entered the marriage (p. 124).

O'Bierne Speaks to College Antifeminists

Last week, I had the pleasure of attending the sixth annual national conference of the “Network of enlightened Women” (NeW), a college conservative group that “meet[s] regularly to discuss issues relating to politics, gender and conservative principles” – sort of a politically ambitious anti-feminist book club. NeW nabbed a high-powered keynote speaker in Kate O’Bierne, a National Review editor and former VP of the Heritage Foundation. O’Bierne, the author of “Women Who Make the World Worse: and How Their Radical Feminist Assault is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military and Sports,” spent her hour-long speech viciously bashing feminism and trying to disprove the “phoney baloney wage gap.” O’Bierne insisted that “professional feminists” will never be satisfied, and cannot “declare victory and go home” because they have no home to go to and no job to fall back on.

O’Bierne also railed against the liberal media, but noted what she saw as a silver lining: that liberals don’t know that conservatives exist, or more importantly, what they’re saying and doing. She might want to check in with Bryan Fischer.

Meanwhile, a number of NeW chapter presidents spoke about how to thank the gentlemen in their lives for being so chivalrous, how awful it is that “hookup culture” is depleting their pool of marriageable men, and how a “true beauty” self esteem workshop could be improved by adding makeup tutorials.

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.

CWA: Obama Wants Communists To Raise Your Children

Concerned Women for America has led the fight against the U.S.’s ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women since Jimmy Carter first signed it in 1980, and is now ramping up pressure against ratification following a Senate hearing on the treaty. Thanks to pressure from CWA and other Religious Right groups, the U.S. joins Iran, Somalia and Sudan in not ratifying CEDAW, which works to end political, economic and healthcare gender disparities, sex trafficking, and violence and discrimination against women.

In an email to members, Bevery LaHaye writes that ratification will mean that a “twisted ideology of extremist feminism rebelling against God and His law” will allow communist China and North Korea to dominate American society:

Would you trust your children or grandchildren to be raised by Hugo Chavez, the brutal dictator of Venezuela?

Or Hu Jintao, the Communist president of the People's Republic of China?

Maybe Kim Jong-Il, the deranged "Supreme Leader" of North Korea? Of course not! And you and I must act NOW to stop President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and their allies from doing exactly that!



Simply put, CEDAW would give foreign thugs and tyrants dictatorial power over American laws related to:

• The legal rights of wives and mothers,
• the protection of life,
• the definition of marriage,
• and the education of your children!!!



CEDAW backers like Obama, Clinton, and Reid disagree. They mouth high-sounding language about "equality" and "empowerment" as a fog to cloak their dark plans.

But when I read CEDAW, I see anger, bitterness, the breeding ground for generations of conflict, and the twisted ideology of extremist feminism rebelling against God and His law.

Harold Hongju Koh, a State Department aide who is a past Dean of Yale Law and Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, testified in 2006 that allegations from opponents like CWA were “preposterous” and “flatly untrue.” CEDAW is neutral on the issues of legal abortion and same-sex marriage, and many CEDAW-ratifying countries have outlawed both, and the treaty would not lead to international bodies enforcing their laws on the US.

“Our nonratification has led our allies and adversaries alike to challenge our claim of moral leadership in international human rights,” Koh said, “Ratification of the CEDAW by the United States would similarly make clear our national commitment to ensure the equal and nondiscriminatory treatment of American women in such areas as civil and political rights, education, employment, and property rights.”

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."

Right Wing Leftovers

  • FRC talked a big game about how they were going to hold the GOP responsible if they passed another Continuing Resolution that didn't defund Planned Parenthood.  That is just what the GOP did and all FRC can do is thank those members who voted against it.
  • Phyllis Schlafly says she has had a great career and owes exactly none of it feminism ... just relentlessly attacking feminism, I guess.
  • Hey, Stephen Baldwin directed a music video.  You know you want to watch it.
  • Sharon Angle is running for Congress.
  • Richard Land demonstrates that dedication to fighting equality begins at home.
  • We can now add Rep. Tim Huelskamp to the growing list of members of Congress who have no problem associating with Bryan Fischer.

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

Feminism Posts Archive

Miranda Blue, Friday 01/25/2013, 1:28pm
Christian conservative radio hosts Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner are not exactly big fans of feminism in any of its forms. So far this month, they have opined that a woman fired for being too attractive shouldn’t have been working for a man who wasn’t her husband in the first place; that “socialist” single women are taking over America; and that Sandra Fluke isn’t “ladylike” enough to be considered for Woman of the Year. On Tuesday’s edition of Generations Radio, Swanson and Buehner sat down in Swanson’s basement studio to discuss a... MORE
Brian Tashman, Friday 09/07/2012, 12:00pm
For the second edition of James Dobson’s Family Talk program criticizing the feminist movement with former Focus on the Family vice president Diane Passno, the two fielded questions from an audience of young adults. One young woman asked what they would recommend to a person like herself who is “not ready to be a mom and a wife” but does have career aspirations. Passno, who is promoting her new book that criticizes feminism, told her that it is wonderful she has so many “opportunities that women of my era never had,” seeming to overlook the fact that the... MORE
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 09/05/2012, 5:00pm
Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly yesterday spoke to the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios to denounce the Democratic National Platform’s support for reproductive freedom and marriage equality. According to Schlafly, “the feminists completely control the Obama administration” and “whatever the feminists want, the feminists get,” including endorsements of abortion rights and same-sex marriage. There is “support of everything the feminists want,” Schlafly lamented, “It’s a very destructive force in our society.” Rios... MORE
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 09/04/2012, 3:30pm
James Dobson dedicated yet another program on Family Talk to criticizing the “radical feminist movement,” this time interviewing Diane Passno of Focus on the Family, the Religious Right group founded by Dobson. Passno is out with a new book, Feminism: Mystique or Mistake?, which features a foreword by conservative talk show host Janet Parshall. Passno claimed that the feminist movement has “distorted” its Christian past and “is now completely antagonistic to the Christian faith,” and revealed her own unfamiliarity with feminism by arguing that contemporary... MORE
Brian Tashman, Monday 07/09/2012, 3:40pm
James Dobson is holding feminists responsible for the objectification of women in American culture, quoting from a 2007 article from Marc Gellman in his latest column that maintains that the feminist movement “surrendered women to predatory men who have taken women’s newfound freedom as the perfect opportunity to surrender all sexual responsibility, respect and gallantry.” He laments that women rich and poor now “become bimbos,” pointing out that he sees “the bimbofication of young girls all the time in my affluent suburban synagogue.” After setting... MORE
Peter Montgomery, Thursday 04/19/2012, 11:19am
Phyllis Schlafly is an all-around right-wing activist who has been around forever. You could say she was Tea Party before her time, railing against liberals and taxes and the UN's threat to US sovereignty. Her 2009 "How to Take Back America" conference was an amazing gathering at which health care reform was described as fascism, President Obama was described by Rep. Trent Franks as an "enemy of humanity," and attendees were encouraged to buy guns and ammo to defend themselves against impending tyranny. But Schlafly’s real bread and butter is the hostility to... MORE
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 10/26/2011, 1:02pm
Bill Bennett appeared on The 700 Club today to promote his new book The Book of Man. He and Pat Robertson used the time to lament the rise of women in American society and the supposed decimation of manhood. Bennett claimed that “feminism” and “gay culture” confused and blurred gender lines, and seemed to mourn the fact that women are now taking positions of authority in society once reserved only for men. Robertson cited the promotion of Virginia Rometty, who is succeeding Sam Palmisano to be CEO of IBM, and warned of a pending “matriarchy.” Watch:... MORE