Cognitive Dissonance

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather boa!" - Allen Ginsberg

Posts tagged suzanne venker

66 notes

Diary of a Mansoldier, the Great War on Men

This might be one of the greatest comments posted on the internet in the history of ever. It’s at least in the top ten. I present Jezebel commenter Ari Schwartz: The Dark Lord of Snark summarizing the future from the post "Fox News Troll Returns With a Breathtaking Sequel to the War on Men" — Hint: the troll is anti-feminist Suzanne Venker, darling of the Men’s Rights movement and niece of Phyllis Schlafly. I discussed Venker in depth here already. Anyhow, here’s Ari:

Diary of a Mansoldier, the Great War on Men

I was told once that women are nurturers. That they were the “fairer” sex. Little did us men know that it was all a ruse. A ruse by the Women’s Operations Militia Army and Navy. The forces of WOMAN close in on us beleaguered men by the day. Soon, men will have nowhere to turn but the dark corners of reddit and 4chan.

First they demanded entrance to the universities, to the jobs. We capitulated, unaware that it was just the first salvo in our demise. What could they possibly do with college educations and decent jobs? Besides, they’d all just leave to make children anyway, right? And yet, all those WOMANs were just setting the stage for their war.

Then they got a wonder pill that gave them agency over pregnancy. But we didn’t see the signs. We just thought it was all fun and games. It was so obvious. But for a WOMAN, it was just a way to gain further control.

Then they came for equal wages. But we were told that it was just fair to be paid equally. Raised on a steady diet of “fairness,” we thought that the forces of WOMAN were just demanding what we had.

Then they demanded to be part of the government, and the military. It was so impossibly obvious that they wanted the keys to everything. But what could we do? At that point, we still had enough control left that there wasn’t much to fear. Sure, they had started to earn more than many of us, and sure, they were graduating college more than we were, but it was okay. We were still men, right?

Then it all came crashing down. 2157, the forces of WOMAN came forth, bringing with them decrees of fairness and equal treatment under the law. Men quickly found that being on the same level as a WOMAN caused irreparable damage to their previously unknown macho gland. The macho glands literally shrank away, and men were left changed. Those who did not undergo regular treatments of Tucker Max therapy became known as “pleasant human beings.”

Those of us who are left have migrated to a colony in Texas. There, we practice the manly arts: farting loudly at dinner, wolf whistling at anything with tits, talking about our favorite episode of Family Guy, and calling WOMANs “bitches” for no reason.

Not many of us are left. The war has taken many of us. Some men have even joined the WOMANs in their heartless and cruel crusade for equality and same treatment. Every day our kind grows fewer in number. Every day we grow weaker, less interested in talking about the sizes of our “guns.”

The war on men is won. Now we shall all live as equals. This is a sad day for men indeed. I weep for the future of bros everywhere.

Ari Schwartz, this is for you:

Filed under War on Men this is why we can't have nice things Ari Schwartz Jezebel Suzanne Venker lulz best comment ever WOMEN teh wimenz is coming!

270 notes

Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them. It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.

It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.

So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation. Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.

Suzanne Venker, writing for Fox News about how she’s super mega concerned that feminism makes men not want to get married. She’s currently promoting her book, How to Choose a Husband with statements like: “I’ve accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who’ve told me, in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same. Women aren’t women anymore.” Oh, and she has a quiz to determine if you need this book. Questions include “Deep down, do you feel superior to men?” “As a general rule, do you pursue men (as opposed to letting men pursue you)?” and “Are you a product of divorce?”

A few things: This woman is Phyllis Schlafly’s niece. Schlafly rose to prominence by campaigning against the ERA and is generally a terrible person. I’ll let this 1908, 1958, 2008 exchange demonstrate this:

Could you clarify some of the statements that you made in Maine last year about martial rape?

I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That’s what marriage is all about, I don’t know if maybe these girls missed sex ed. That doesn’t mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery. If there is any violence or mistreatment that can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn’t rape, it’s a he said-she said where it’s just too easy to lie about it.

Was the way in which your statement was portrayed correct?

Yes. Feminists, if they get tired of a husband or if they want to fight over child custody, they can make an accusation of marital rape and they want that to be there, available to them.

So you see this as more of a tool used by people to get out of marriages than as legitimate-

Yes, I certainly do.

Speaking of legitimate, Schlafly also backed Todd Akin. Venker has bought Auntie Phyllis’ bullshit hook, line, and sinker. In defense of Michele Bachmann as a modern submissive wife, she wrote, “Indeed, the opportunities women enjoy today are not the result of a bus load of feminists shouting for change. Rather, it has been a natural progression — aided in large part by men. It’s male engineering, ironically, that has freed women from their former domestic lives.”

Uh-huh.

Here’s Venker reminding us that we women must find a man to support us in this gem from 1911 2011. Because babies:

“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.”

The furor over her Fox News article, quoted at the beginning of the post, forced her to issue a statement on her Facebook page. Venker wrote, “The vitriol spewed forth on the Internet is precisely the reason so many people – men, especially – keep their mouths shut when it comes to gender issues. That’s called thought control, and feminists are the ringleaders… I made a point that’s hard to hear — that women should surrender to their nature — and people chose to extrapolate all kinds of meanings from this statement.” THINK OF THE MENZ WHO CAN’T TALK ABOUT THIS YOU GUISE!

Does it really need to be said that Venker’s views leave no room for anything else other than a conceived-in-perfect marshmallow-fluff marriage between two upper class heterosexual WASPs?

But perhaps the hashtag on her Tweet promoting her article on Fox News explains it all:

Is it any wonder she’s a hero to the MRA charmers out there?

(via cognitivedissonance)

Update: She issued a new explanation to The Daily Beast's David Freedlander today:

"All I can say in my defense is that it can be so hard when you write as much as I’ve written—three books, articles, blogs—you think you have said something but you haven’t. It’s like I am thinking something and I am so clear about it and I think what I have said is that. I don’t know. I don’t know. I didn’t think that much about it…

I am not advocating a strict division of gender roles. I am not suggesting that women can’t compete with men in the workforce or that men can’t handle strong women. People are extrapolating these things because the article is, I admit, rather open-ended.

[Rather], women, once they have children would prefer to work part-time or not at all when their children are young. Their career trajectory will be different than that of men. Feminists don’t like that. They want everybody to want the same thing, career trajectories to be the same. Women may say I really want to exercise or hang out with my friends and have coffee or go shopping and have a cushier life, and your guy will be happy to do that, and go to the office all year long for 40 years to allow you to do that. Men don’t have that option. And there is nothing wrong with having different road maps.”

Ahem. May I give you some practical PR advice? 

Just. Stop. Talking.

Stop. Like now.

Or alternately, keep going. Please. Make sure that no one takes you seriously ever again.

(via cognitivedissonance)

Filed under Suzanne Venker Phyllis Schlafly feminism politics gender gender roles women men men's rights But who will think about the menz? feminine femininity I can't Conservative MRA Republican

270 notes

Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them. It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.

It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.

So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation. Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.

Suzanne Venker, writing for Fox News about how she’s super mega concerned that feminism makes men not want to get married. She’s currently promoting her book, How to Choose a Husband with statements like: “I’ve accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who’ve told me, in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same. Women aren’t women anymore.” Oh, and she has a quiz to determine if you need this book. Questions include "Deep down, do you feel superior to men?" "As a general rule, do you pursue men (as opposed to letting men pursue you)?" and "Are you a product of divorce?"

A few things: This woman is Phyllis Schlafly's niece. Schlafly rose to prominence by campaigning against the ERA and is generally a terrible person. I'll let this 1908, 1958, 2008 exchange demonstrate this:

Could you clarify some of the statements that you made in Maine last year about martial rape?

I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That’s what marriage is all about, I don’t know if maybe these girls missed sex ed. That doesn’t mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery. If there is any violence or mistreatment that can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn’t rape, it’s a he said-she said where it’s just too easy to lie about it.

Was the way in which your statement was portrayed correct?

Yes. Feminists, if they get tired of a husband or if they want to fight over child custody, they can make an accusation of marital rape and they want that to be there, available to them.

So you see this as more of a tool used by people to get out of marriages than as legitimate-

Yes, I certainly do.

Speaking of legitimate, Schlafly also backed Todd Akin. Venker has bought Auntie Phyllis’ bullshit hook, line, and sinker. In defense of Michele Bachmann as a modern submissive wife, she wrote, “Indeed, the opportunities women enjoy today are not the result of a bus load of feminists shouting for change. Rather, it has been a natural progression — aided in large part by men. It’s male engineering, ironically, that has freed women from their former domestic lives.”

Uh-huh.

Here’s Venker reminding us that we women must find a man to support us in this gem from 1911 2011. Because babies:

"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."

The furor over her Fox News article, quoted at the beginning of the post, forced her to issue a statement on her Facebook page. Venker wrote, “The vitriol spewed forth on the Internet is precisely the reason so many people – men, especially – keep their mouths shut when it comes to gender issues. That’s called thought control, and feminists are the ringleaders… I made a point that’s hard to hear — that women should surrender to their nature — and people chose to extrapolate all kinds of meanings from this statement.” THINK OF THE MENZ WHO CAN’T TALK ABOUT THIS YOU GUISE!

Does it really need to be said that Venker’s views leave no room for anything else other than a conceived-in-perfect marshmallow-fluff marriage between two upper class heterosexual WASPs?

But perhaps the hashtag on her Tweet promoting her article on Fox News explains it all:

Is it any wonder she’s a hero to the MRA charmers out there?

Filed under Suzanne Venker Phyllis Schlafly feminism politics gender gender roles women men men's rights But who will think about the menz? feminine femininity I can't Conservative MRA Republican