antifeminism

Todd Starnes Warns Of Anti-Duck Dynasty Violence, Links Same-Sex Marriage To Healthy Food Initiatives

In an interview last week with talk show host Jeanne Dennis, Fox News commentator Todd Starnes predicted that conservative Christians will soon organize acts of civil disobedience and street demonstrations akin to the Civil Rights Movement to protest their purported oppression.

Starnes specifically cited Phil Robertson, who was briefly suspended from the A&E show “Duck Dynasty” for making racist and anti-gay remarks in a magazine interview, as a victim of “persecution.”

He even said that criticism of Robertson will lead to violence: “If you can take someone like Phil Robertson and say, ‘Phil Robertson is preaching hate,’ or, ‘He’s speaking hate,’ eventually that is going to justify violence against those kinds of people.”

Later in the interview, Starnes linked same-sex marriage to feminism, which he said is waging “an attack on men” and “putting limitations” on women, and to Michelle Obama’s healthy diet and living initiatives, which he feared would lead to a ban on Nutter Butters and cheeseburgers.

Starnes said that feminism, same-sex marriage and the first lady’s health advocacy are all part of an attempt to “tear down the family unit” and make the government “control everything.” He finished by making a joke mocking transgender people.

Jesse Lee Peterson Warns 'Fascists In Pantsuits' Are 'Destroying Our Nation'

Jesse Lee Peterson, the conservative pundit who regrets that the U.S. gave women the right to vote, writes today in WorldNetDaily that feminists are “fascists in pantsuits” who “are on the side of evil.”

He accuses feminists of “destroying our nation” and “restrict[ing] our freedoms” by hurting the “feelings of men,” warning that growing concerns about the risks of concussions in football are actually part of a nefarious feminist plot to emasculate and “soften boys.”

Liberal women have been given a free pass for years, and now they’re out of control.

A recent example is the Hobby Lobby case. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in favor of the arts and crafts store barring the government from forcing small companies with religious objections to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs and certain birth control devices has caused uproar among liberal Democrats and feminists.

Liberal women make up the ideological core of the Democratic Party. The party is attempting to resurrect the “war on women” narrative to motivate its base for the upcoming elections.

Feminists hold powerful positions in government, academia, business and in entertainment. They’re passing laws and rolling out policy that is harming traditional families, shutting down free speech and destroying our nation day by day.

Since feminists have gone unchallenged for decades, many have become fascists in pantsuits who tolerate zero dissent.



The feminists’ fake outrage over what men say is absurd. How about the rights and feelings of men? We’re hurt when our jobs are threatened with false accusations of “misogyny.” We have the right to express our views without being shut down.

Women who love their fathers have a logical way of thinking and they want to protect and build, not destroy. They typically become conservatives.

In contrast, the “love” of liberal feminists weakens and damages. They’ve softened sports with Title IX rules that strip funding from boys’ athletic programs with a gender quota system.



This feminist mindset to soften boys and sports is in operation in the White House. Obama recently held a “Healthy Kids and Safe Sports Concussion Summit” and announced $76 million to help athletes “compete safely.”

Feminists are also weakening the military by overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (the former ban on openly homosexual soldiers) and allowing women in combat.



These liberal women are insecure, and they cannot win against a strong, sensible opponent.

We’re allowed to criticize liberal men, but feminists and homosexuals are beyond reproach.



We are fighting a spiritual battle of good versus evil. Strident feminists who push to restrict our freedoms are on the side of evil.

One thing is clear: Liberal feminists need an intervention. Let’s give it to them!

WorldNetDaily Pundit Says Men Should 'Shy Away From Women' To Avoid Feminist 'Harridans'

WorldNetDaily columnist Patrice Lewis, who previously called on wives to submit to their husbands in order to free themselves from feminist oppression, is out today with a new diatribe defending sexist comments posted in response to a separate WND article on rape.

Lewis claims that the people who left such comments are the real victims and are just “tired of being stigmatized merely for possessing a Y chromosome” by feminists who have “made men fearful to be men.”

“[W]omen hold the trump card in our feminized society, and men know it,” Lewis writes. “If I were a man, I’d shy away from women too. What a horrible, twisted, mixed-up world.”

Recently, WND posted an article entitled “You won’t believe new campus rules on ‘rape’” on the subject of how “rape” is being reclassified as any sexual conduct, no matter how mutually consenting.

But it was the blistering commentary that followed the article – well over a thousand comments – that was educational. What astonished me was the level of anger from men. And I mean pure sputtering fury – fury at the arbitrary and unfair feminist societal standards that have been imposed on men to worsening degrees over the last 20 or 30 years. These standards have denied men the ability to be MEN and have turned women into harridans. In short, there was a lot of pain in those comments, much of it from men who are tired of being stigmatized merely for possessing a Y chromosome.



Feminism has made men fearful to be men. It denies them the ability to fulfill their biological programming as protectors and providers, because to do so is “sexist.” Women can, and do, ruin men at the drop of a hat – trash their reputation, deprive them of their employment, rip away their children – all because of an errant word or deed women deem contrary to the feminist mantra. It’s getting to the point where many men hate women because of this.



Feminism has poisoned women against their biological inheritance as nurturers and child-bearers. To be feminine is now anathema to a feminist. To embrace being a wife and mother is betraying the sisterhood. To like men – to genuinely appreciate manly qualities – is tantamount to heresy.



Feminists, having taken over everything from court systems to universities to government, have become drunk with power. Men have learned the hard way what happens when they challenge a feminist. Bluntly put, a man’s life can be ruined by women. A woman can remove his beloved children from his care; she can have him jailed with an unsubstantiated accusation of rape; she can ruin his career by crying harassment because he “looked at her sexually.” And frequently the damage done isn’t limited to just the man under attack. All too often, it’s children who are caught in the crossfire. Children are ripped apart by unnecessary divorce, children are indoctrinated into feminism, boys are treated as criminals because their bodies create testosterone, girls are treated as heroes merely for having two X chromosomes.

In short, women hold the trump card in our feminized society, and men know it. If I were a man, I’d shy away from women too. What a horrible, twisted, mixed-up world.

Concerned Women For America Lauds Closure Of School's Women Studies Department

The University of South Carolina-Upstate recently announced the closure of its Center for Women’s and Gender Studies following several attacks from Republican politicians who threatened to cut funding from the school over an LGBT comedy event.

Naturally, Concerned Women for America head Penny Nance applauded the move:

“Congratulations to the University of South Carolina Upstate for having the courage and good sense to eliminate a course of study whose sole purpose is to indoctrinate young women in leftist ideology.

“We applaud the University of South Carolina Upstate (USCU) for closing the Center for Women’s and Gender Studies (CWGS) and allocating those funds to teach America’s founding documents. The decision puts the South Carolina college in compliance with state law requiring those documents be taught and also gives these women a chance at actual employment upon graduation.

“As American women, we strongly support equal opportunity and are glad USCU will instead concentrate on courses that will prepare its young women for jobs instead of joining their other women’s studies sisters in the unemployment line.

“It is surely more beneficial to learn the history of our country then to take part in pointless gender “victimology” lessons. Clearly, they will miss the “I Need Feminism” campaign and CWGS’s 2014 Bodies of Knowledge Symposium that included “Trans, but Not Like You Think”, and planned to include the play How to Be a Lesbian in 10 Days or Less. We think they’ll be fine.

Leftist feminists love to make fun of home economics, which none of us in the CWA national office actually majored in, but we can’t argue with Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler that it teaches useful life skills. In fact, it’s far more useful than studying Passages of Appearing: Arendt and the Existential Politics of Transgender Liminality.

“In researching this issue we looked to see how many of the women who have degrees in these women’s studies programs are actually employed. Let’s say they weren’t bragging on their post-graduate employment numbers.

“Of those who are actually employed, we surmise most of those jobs would result in other women’s studies professors. Good news for those jobless feminists though, there may bea chance at employment on the horizon if the Senate joins the Republican establishment in the House of Representatives to push for the Left’s hopeful shrine to abortion, the National Women’s History Museum. (emphasis ours)

“But back to the point. Well done USC Upstate! Women’s studies majors may in fact more clearly understand their “rights” and whether they are actually being violated after a thorough reading of the Constitution. We encourage other universities to follow suit and hope other states will adopt similar policies.”

Sandy Rios Wonders If Feminists Only Care About Nigeria Kidnappings Because They Don't Realize Victims Are Christians

Last week on her radio show, Sandy Rios speculated that the only reason the State Department and feminists care about the kidnappings of hundreds of girls in Nigeria is because they don’t realize that many of the girls targeted by Boko Haram are Christians.

Rios, the American Family Association’s government affairs director, said she was just asking the question about whether feminists would care about the kidnapped girls if they knew about their religion.

The Department of State is offering a reward of up to $7 million leading to [Abubakar Shekau’s] location, of course it’s because he’s kidnapping girls, I guess he did the wrong thing now, it’s not that they’re Christians, it’s that they’re girls, and now the feminists are — I wonder if the feminists know that these girls are Christians because maybe they wouldn’t be so upset. I don’t know. That’s how weird this is getting.

Making Men Head Of Household Is True Women's Liberation Because It Makes Life Easier

If feminists truly want to liberate women, says author and WorldNetDaily columnist Patrice Lewis, then they should simply make their husbands head of the household so they can be free from making tough decisions.

Lewis writes today that giving her husband “the final say” is “freeing” because it “makes life easier for both my husband and me.”

The real oppressors, of course, are feminists: “If there is a dissenting opinion between us, and unless I can demonstrate why my position is superior, then I defer to his guidance. Oooh, sacrilege to the feminist cause. Feminists, presumably, must always have the last word, which I interpret as meaning feminists try to make their husbands submissive and subservient.”

In the wake of some feminist headlines this week (such as this and this), I am going to confess something so shocking, so appalling and so outrageously backward to the progressive cause that I’m certain feminists the world over will faint in horror.

Ready? Here it goes: My husband is the head of our household.

Yes, really. Here, some smelling salts will revive you.

In today’s world marinated with progressive morals and ideals, it’s tantamount to heresy for a woman to freely admit that her husband heads the household. But let’s face it: It makes life easier for both my husband and me.



As much as feminists want to deny reality, the fact remains that men and women are biologically different. (Scandalous, I know.) I like to think that God in His divine wisdom came up with the spiffy concept of a division of labor for the sake of efficiency. Divisions of labor are utilized the world over in the workplace to increase efficiency. Why not try it at home as well?

Feminists call this oppression. Homemakers call it freeing.

Why is it oppressive or subservient to look to one’s husband for guidance and strength, rather than to feminists? Why can’t it be a freeing thing for a woman to lean on her husband? Unless she’s unmarried, it’s comforting when a woman doesn’t have to “do it all.”



I am the Heart of this household, and as everyone knows, a body is no good without a heart, just as a body is no good without a head. We need both, and the fact that I view my husband as my Head in no way diminishes my importance as his Heart. But someone has to have the final say in a house for peace and order to prevail, and that job goes to my husband.

A wise Head takes advice and counsel from his Heart. My husband and I discuss all household decisions and mutually agree on nearly everything. But if there is a dissenting opinion between us, and unless I can demonstrate why my position is superior, then I defer to his guidance.

Oooh, sacrilege to the feminist cause. Feminists, presumably, must always have the last word, which I interpret as meaning feminists try to make their husbands submissive and subservient.

Kevin Swanson Sees The Hunger Games, Disappointed 'Little Girl Anarchist' Katniss Became A Leader

Pastor Kevin Swanson took two of his daughters, paper and pen in hand, to the movie theater to see “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire,” and made them take notes about the movie to discuss later on his Generations Radio program. Swanson, a leader in the patriarchal fundamentalist homeschooling movement, naturally was aghast at the portrayal of “Hunger Games” heroine Katniss Everdeen as an icon of the rebellion against the tyrannical Capitol.

Swanson said that the fictional Panem’s main problem was a lack of male leadership (aside, you know, from its president).

“Think about the men,” Swanson said. “They were tyrants, they were wimpy, they were led around by the nose by women. Peeta is a puppy dog, he was cute, he was nice, he was fluffy and he did everything that his mistress told him to do. He was the puppy dog.”

“Girls, if society is so broken down and there are no fathers left, probably no sheriffs with courage and guts to defend the people from tyrants, what do you get when you don’t have any men?” he asked. “I guess you get Katniss, and Katniss is going to save society. It’s also interesting that the most popular movies that people watch are movies about witches, about vampires and about little girl anarchists, revolutionaries.”

Swanson: Hillary Clinton Will 'Obliterate' Society By Helping Women; Obamacare Leads To Death Camps

Following his rant against lesbian-indoctrinating, abortion-loving Girl Scouts and their “wicked” cookies, Kevin Swanson of Generations Radio criticized Hillary Clinton for boosting efforts to empower women in developing countries by helping them procure cows.

The Colorado-based pastor was upset about a Bloomberg Businessweek article which linked economic development to more liberal divorce laws. He warned that efforts backed by Clinton to improve women’s economic status will “destroy the nuclear family” — and society at large — by convincing a woman to “divorce her husband and walk away with her own cow.”

“What does it do when Hillary Clinton buys a cow for an African women so that she can have her own cow and ‘the heart of her husband will not safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need to spoil’ (Proverbs 31:11). In the end what happens when Hillary Clinton buys 100,000 cows for 100,000 families in Kenya so that the woman can own her own cow and the family economy will be obliterated in Africa.”

Swanson also argued that Obamacare will inevitably lead to the introduction of North Korean-style death camps to the United States.

America is more and more turning towards a tyrannical state my friends and if you want to know the end result, take a look at North Korea and China, find out where we’re headed. If you want more government, total government in America, and we’re moving that direction with Obamacare, everybody in the Democrat Party [sic] will tell you we’re moving towards more government, we want more government in health care, we want the government to control a higher percentage of the gross national income, they’ll tell you that; the liberal Republicans will tell you that is what they accomplished, that was the goal they wanted.



Don’t tell me that the apostates that run this country today who have abandoned a Christian world and life view can’t become the same kind of tyrants that happen in North Korea that now has been whipping out tens of thousands of people in some of the largest massacres we’ve seen in the last decade, anywhere in the world, and of course the horrendous, tyrannical torture of women and children, entire families, in the death chambers of North Korea. This is the kind of thing that the Republicans and Democrats are setting for the vision of America as our future. This is the direction we’re headed if we’re embracing more government, socialist government, Marxist government, totalitarian, draconian governments; the sorts of things that North Korea and Russia promise their people of course.

Swanson Links Gay Kiss and Women Wearing Hats and Pants to Colorado Forest Fires

Last week on Generations Radio, Colorado pastors Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner addressed the forest fires hitting their state. They wondered why God was punishing Colorado with the fires, and specifically targeting the heavily conservative city of Colorado Springs.

The two ultimately determined that the forest fires were linked to the state’s liberal abortion laws and the recent success of civil union legislation. Swanson added that a Denver Post photograph of State House Majority Leader Mark Ferrandino kissing his partner also played a role in inviting God’s wrath.

Buehner: Why Colorado Springs? Understand that Colorado itself is a state that has been begging for God’s judgment. How did we do that? Well, we were the first state to make abortion legal; you could murder your baby as long as it’s in your womb.

Swanson: 1967.

Buehner: Gov. Love, a Republican.

Swanson: Two ironies there, not just one, the man’s name was Gov. Love and he’s responsible for killing more babies than probably anybody in the history of this country because he’s the guy who started it.

Buehner: Our legislative session opened up this year and their very first order of business, their most pressing order of business—

Swanson: They could hardly wait, they could hardly wait.

Buehner: Like the very first day, was to pass a civil union bill, which is an uncivil bill.



Swanson: When you have a state where the House leadership is performing a homosexual act on the front page of the Denver Post two months ago? Does God read the Denver Post? Do you think He picks up a copy of the Denver Post? He gets it. God gets the Denver Post.

Buehner concluded that Coloradans should be glad God “hasn’t destroyed the whole state yet” as “an act of grace.” But why were the fires concentrated in Colorado Springs, Buehner asked, “Why not wipe out Boulder or Denver” where all the Democrats live? He answered his own question: “Judgment begins in the House of God.”

Later, Swanson elaborated on the point, saying that Christians have not done a good of a job resisting cultural trends pushed by television shows and fashion. He described a particularly disturbing plane ride he took back from Australia, in which he was forced to look at other people’s airplane TV sets. “I’ve never seen so many breasts in all of my life,” he reported. “Every form of aberrant sexuality and women’s breasts are shown in front of me almost nonstop for fourteen hours.”

After saying that he was a victim of “oppressive” breast exposure, he criticized young men for “doing the metrosexual thing with the skinny pants and the little fairy shoes” and not growing out their facial hair as God commands. But feminism is also to blame, he said, as too many Christian women have embraced feminist fashions like hats and pantsuits.

Buehner: Colorado is asking for judgment and God is delivering it in little pieces. He is very gracious that He hasn’t destroyed the whole state yet; I think that’s an act of grace. But then the question is: of all of Colorado, why Colorado Springs? I mean, Colorado Springs is the Christian mecca. Why not wipe out Boulder or Denver? I mean those people are in more radical rebellion.

Swanson: Oh yeah, they’re Democrats up there.

Buehner: And the answer is: judgment begins in the House of God.



Swanson: Coming back from Australia, I’m stuck in fourteen hours of these visual presentations, sitcoms and stuff, on seventeen screens in front of me and I’ve never seen so many breasts in all of my life. The immodesty going on in our society is far worse than it was back when Cheers, Family Ties and The Cosby Show was playing. I mean every form of aberrant sexuality and women’s breasts are shown in front of me almost nonstop for fourteen hours. It’s just such an oppressive, horrible, horrible world and so many of our young girls in our Christian churches are running down to Wal-Mart and buying the same clothes. These are the sorts of things that I’m bringing out in front of God’s people, I’m saying: how are we going to repent of the sexual sin that is paraded in front of us in the wider culture? Why do we have to submit to theses sexual sins again and again?

I brought up androgyny and how many young boys are running out and doing the metrosexual thing with the skinny pants and the little fairy shoes. They’re working on the gender blender for themselves and they don’t want to look like a man and God is just so upset, He hates it when man are not manly in their approach. 1 Corinthians 6 speaks about homosexuality and feminine behavior and feminine dress for men. God does not want men to be androgynous and feminine like in their approach; He gave them facial hair for a reason.

These are the sorts of things that I preached yesterday because I said, you could just say, ‘well all of the unisex, homosexual, metrosexual stuff that’s out in the world is so bad but we’re not going to repent of anything, we’re not going to look any different, we’re not going to bear any fruits of repentance in the way that we dress and the way that we interact.’ Then I brought out the whole thing on feminism and how feminism has corrupted our women today. I brought out this quote from Forbes magazine, July 27, 2012:

It’s hard to deny the key role that fashion has played in the women’s movement…Ms. Magazine points to New York City women garment workers in the early 20th century who wore hats to signify that they were earning their own money, and thus financially independent. Women in the 1980s adopted a male style of dress—ties, tailored skirt suits, shoulder pads—in order to gain a foothold in the male dominated world of business. And Carol Moseley Braun, the first African American woman elected to the U.S. Senate, wore a pantsuit on the Senate floor in 1993, ending the Senate’s ban on women wearing slacks there.

My question was: Do you resist feminist trends? Do you argue with it? Do you find ways to oppose it? Or do you just succumb to it and just kowtow to feminism? Dave, I’m afraid this stuff is all over the place in our nice little evangelical, reformed, conservative, fundamentalist churches.

Buehner: Kevin my main text this last Lord’s Day: God is a consuming fire.

 

Buchanan: Opening Combat Roles to Women Makes US Less Civilized than Nazi Germany

Just when we thought we were done hearing Nazi comparisons today, Pat Buchanan is now arguing that the new military policy opening up combat and special unit roles to women is so wrong that even the Nazis wouldn’t have considered it. In his column, “The Pentagon’s Surrender to Feminism,” Buchanan argues that “even the Third Reich in its dying hours did not send women into battle.”

He writes that putting women in combat positions “violate[s] common sense” and “thousands of years” of human civilization, even insisting that “the Pentagon’s salute to feminist ideology” will encourage rape and displace men. He also cites mass murderers and violent criminals to prove his point that “men are bigger, stronger [and] more aggressive” than women.

This decision to put women in combat represents a capitulation of the military brass, a surrender to the spirit of our age, the Pentagon’s salute to feminist ideology.

This is not a decision at which soldiers arrived when they studied after-action reports, but the product of an ideology that contradicts human nature, human experience and human history, and declares as dogma that women are just as good at soldiering as men.

But if this were true, rather than merely asserted, would it have taken mankind the thousands of years from Thermopylae to discover it?

In the history of civilization, men have fought the wars. In civilized societies, attacks on women have always been regarded as contemptible and cowardly. Even the Third Reich in its dying hours did not send women into battle, but old men and boys.



Sending women into combat on equal terms seems also to violate common sense. When they reach maturity, men are bigger, stronger, more aggressive. Thus they commit many times the number of violent crimes and outnumber women in prisons 10 to 1.

For every Bonnie Parker, there are 10 Clyde Barrows.

Is it a coincidence that every massacre discussed in our gun debate – from the Texas Tower to the Long Island Railroad, from Columbine to Fort Hood, from Virginia Tech to Tucson, from Aurora to Newtown – was the work of a crazed male?



Undeniably, some women might handle combat as well as some men. But that is true of some 13-, 14- and 15-year-old boys, and some 50- and 60-year old men. Yet we do not draft boys or men that age or send them into combat. Is this invidious discrimination based on age, or ageism?

Carry this feminist-egalitarian ideology to its logical conclusion, and half of those storming the Omaha and Utah beaches should have been girls and women. Is this not an absurdity?

We have had Navy ships become “love boats,” with female sailors returning pregnant. At the Naval Academy, three midshipmen, football players, allegedly raped an intoxicated classmate. For months, she was too ashamed and frightened to report it.

An estimated 26,000 personnel of the armed forces were sexually assaulted in 2011, up from 19,000 in 2010. Obama and the Congress are understandably outraged. Such assaults are appalling. But is not the practice of forcing young men and women together in close quarters a contributory factor here?

Among the primary reasons the Equal Rights Amendment, the ERA, went down to defeat three decades ago was the realization it could mean, in a future war, women could be drafted equally with men and sent in equal numbers into combat.

But what appalled the Reaganites is social progress in the age of Obama. This is another country from the one we grew up in.

Solomon: Obama Is Gay and a Wannabe Drag Queen

Stan Solomon interviewed antifeminist icon Phyllis Schlafly last week to rail against the women’s movement. When Schlafly repeated her claim that feminists “control the Obama administration,” it gave Solomon the opportunity to go one step further: “Barack Obama is a wussy guy who throws a ball like a girl, who everyone knows was involved in homosexuality and I think he is the stereotypical—if he could get away with it he’d be in drag. I don’t think he’s a man at all and he leads a whole group of men that are that way.”

Schlafly, whose son is gay, didn’t address Solomon’s, er, colorful claims, but criticized Obama for “catering to the gay political agenda” and said that an unsuccessful marriage equality bill in Illinois was a “defeat for the gays” and their fight against “real marriage.”

Watch:

Robertson Bewildered by Women in Combat, Blames Feminists

On today’s 700 Club, Pat Robertson took issue with the military’s plan to allow women to begin training for the Navy SEALS and Army Rangers. After CBN reporter Lee Webb noted the failure of four women to pass the Marine’s training course in Quantico, Va., Robertson commented: “Well, I was trained at Quantico; I didn’t think it was all that demanding but I’m not a lady…. The SEAL team training is ungodly difficult, why would a woman want to go through that?” But Robertson knows who is to blame for women in combat training: feminists.

“The feminists are going to have their way,” Robertson lamented, while co-host Wendy Griffith warned that the sexual attractions between men and women could distract service members from their objective of protecting America.

Watch:

Swanson: 'Women Do Not Love Their Children' and Society is Coming to an End

Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner of Generations Radio issued a grim prediction for the future of the family last week. The pair cited the results of the recent Pew Social Trends Survey on the rise of “breadwinner moms” as evidence that “women care less about their children” than men do.

Swanson easily explained this apathy. For more than half a century, he said, the “feminist zeitgeist” has been berating women with the message, “You do not love your children, you kill your children,” and, “You get out of that house, you do not raise your children.”

What’s the takeaway message? “Women do not love their children as they used to,” and it’s all Margaret Sanger’s fault.

Swanson: Because there are so many women in the work force, the women’s hearts are not home. There are far more men who say it would be better if moms could stay home because apparently the dads still care about the kids. The moms, it’s a lower percentage Dave, 45% say it’d be better if moms were home, 67% of men say it would be better if moms were home, meaning there are far far more women- or far far more men- who say that it’d be better if moms were home because women care less about their children and about the influence they could have on their children because Dave I think they’re already in the work force and they certainly don’t want to say it’d be better if I were home. That’s the issue.

Buehner: Well Kevin this may run contrary to the social narrative but the social narrative is wrong. Think about it. The vast majority of divorces, they’re filed by women. The vast majority of children who are killed in the womb are killed on the sole discretion of a woman. So when we get this idea in our social narrative that women love children more than men, women love family more than men, are more protective, the data is absolutely the opposite way. That’s why you end up with more men who think it would be good if their children had a functional household and mom was there to raise them.

Swanson: They’ve been the recipient of a culture, a Margaret Sanger culture, Dave, that has told them ‘You do not love your children, you kill your children. You do not love your children, you kill your children. You do not love your children.’ The Betty Friedans have said, ‘You do not love your children. You get out of that house, you do not raise your children. You do not love your children.’ They have been under that nonstop for the last 50 to 60 to 70 to 80 years. The feminist zeitgeist has been incredibly powerful in working in the hearts and minds of so many tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of women in the Western world. Friends, women do not love their children as they used to.

Swanson later took on an apocalyptic tone, asserting that the rise of the career woman also equals “the end of manhood,” “men,” and “fatherhood.” The rise of the female breadwinner means more than unloved children. It also means the demise of society.

Swanson: Here’s the most telling story of all. From the Pew Research, Pew social trends survey that came out just this week. Friends, this is the most telling story of all. We’re going to look at the millennial generation alright. We’re going to put aside the baby boomers, the ‘Gen-Xers’, we’re going to look at the millennials who are 18 to 30 years of age. Here’s the most telling story of all: 78% of moms are working outside of the home amongst the millennials.

Buehner: I’m sorry how many?

Swanson: 78% of moms are working outside of the home. 17% dad is the primary breadwinner. 61% the mom is the primary breadwinner. 29% are single moms. Okay, there it is. That’s it. 17% of dads, 61% of moms. Friends, it’s over. It’s over, it’s done. That’s it. That’s the end of it. It’s the end of manhood, it’s the end of men, it’s the end of fatherhood, it’s done, we’ve gone over the cliff. 61% of moms are primary breadwinners, 17% of dads among the millenialls, and 78% of moms are working outside of the home. It’s over. There will be no more mothers and of course there are no more fathers. It’s over. And that’s the way that the average Christian, Christian homeschooler, Christian public schooler, that’s the way they’re raising their kids. They’re raising their kids such that 61% of their daughters will be the primary breadwinners and 17% of their sons will be primary breadwinners. Those are the numbers and that’s the numbers that came out from the Pew Research last week. And this is not going to last another generation friends. This is the last generation. You all understand, this is the last. Our society, our social systems are not going to last for another generation. This is the end of it. When there are no more dads, no more fathers, it’s over.

Schlafly: Gay Rights Violate Free Speech; Feminism 'The Most Destructive Element In Our Society'

Todd Akin isn’t the only one urging the Republican Party to move even further to the right. In an interview with Policy Mic, Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum says the GOP should put more of an emphasis on social issues and look to conservative firebrands Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Mike Lee as their role models. She blamed Mitt Romney’s loss on a “tremendous” drop-off in white voters, even though according to exit poll data white voter turnout was about the same as the last presidential election and Romney out-performed John McCain among white voters.

Schlafly, who also revealed that she is writing a book entitled Who Killed the American Family?, called feminism “the most destructive element in our society” and claimed feminists would “really like to get rid of” all men, while insisting that the Constitution has never been a sexist document and people should “stop complaining” about a lack of female candidates for office.

She also made the absurd claim that the government didn’t play a role in fighting the Great Depression and that Mexican immigrants aren’t becoming Americans because they are too comfortable with the welfare state and not voting Republican. Schlafly called the Senate immigration reform bill “suicide for our country” and said Mexico will use it to take over US territory.

On the topic of gay rights, Schlafly said that she continues to oppose marriage equality despite having a gay son, but also seems to be under the impression that same-sex couples can already get married: “Any gay couple can get married— all they have to do is find a preacher or justice of the peace who will perform the ceremony. There’s no law against that.”

She maintained that gay rights advocates are really pushing “an interference with our free speech rights” and warned that “homosexuals are teaching their ideology in the schools, and kids are learning it.”

When asked if President Obama should be impeached, Schlafly claimed that the recent IRS controversy is far worse than Watergate, which she called “just an ordinary little break in to an office,” and added that Obama could also be impeached over his opposition to the Defense Of Marriage Act.

Sagar Jethani: Reflecting on Mitt Romney's defeat in November, Senator Lindsey Graham said "If I hear anybody say it was because Romney wasn't conservative enough I'm going to go nuts. We're not losing 95% of African-Americans and two-thirds of Hispanics and voters under 30 because we're not being hard-ass enough." You disagree.

Phyllis Schlafly: Lindsey Graham is one of the establishment Republicans. They picked Romney, and they have to defend him. There were many, many things wrong with the election and the campaign in 2012. One of them was that establishment Republicans really don't have a ground game. They really don't know how to relate to grassroots Americans. Romney appealed to the people who are well-to-do and traditionally Republican, but there wasn't any outreach from that. And the real block that he failed to get was the white voters — his drop-off from white voters was tremendous.



Who represents the future of the GOP?

People like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee who are not establishment candidates.

What about Marco Rubio? Wasn't he a grassroots candidate?

Originally, Marco Rubio was until he went over and joined the establishment and became their salesman for unlimited amnesty.



Republicans are often criticized for wanting to dismantle the safety nets people depend on. Do you think the government has a role to play in helping those who struggle to get by?

I grew up during the Great Depression, and didn't have any of these government handouts, and we grew up to be what was called the Greatest Generation. The idea of an enormous number of people getting food stamps? Nobody's hungry in the United States. I think we need to build more self-reliance. We need to build the nuclear family, in which the father is the provider and the mother is a mother.



You recently argued against amnesty for undocumented immigrants, saying it would be suicide for the Republican Party because they would all vote Democratic. You don't think that Hispanics resonate with Republican values?

I don't see any evidence that Hispanics resonate with Republican values. They have no experience or knowledge of the whole idea of limited government and keeping government out of our private lives. They come from a country where the government has to decide everything. I don't know where you get the idea that the Mexicans coming in resonate with Republican values. They're running an illegitimacy rate that is extremely high. I think it's the highest of any ethnic group. We welcome people who want to be Americans. And then you hear many of them talk about wanting Mexico to reclaim several of our Southwestern states, because they think Mexico should really own some of those states. Well, that's unacceptable. We don't want people like that.

What do you make of the Gang of Eight's bill on comprehensive immigration reform now making its way through Congress?

It is suicide for our country, and not just for the Republican Party.

...

According to Gallup, the number of Americans who consider gay or lesbian relationships morally acceptable has shot up from 38% in 2002 to 54% today. Is it time for conservatives to get with the program and start supporting gay rights?

No, it certainly isn't. The polls are very defective. If you look at the polls, most of them ask the question: Are you in favor of banning same-sex marriage? Now, we have no law that bans same-sex marriage. Any gay couple can get married— all they have to do is find a preacher or justice of the peace who will perform the ceremony. There's no law against that. What they are demanding is that we respect them as being OK, and that's an interference with our free speech rights. There's no obligation that we have to respect something we think is morally wrong.

Republicans oppose gay marriage by a large margin, with only about 25% supporting it. But if you break down the results by age, you find that young Republicans are much more accepting of gay marriage, with about 40% supporting it.

What you say is certainly substantially true, but I think it's a result of what they're taught in the schools. They've been teaching in the schools that homosexuality is OK for years. So the kids who have been taught that have grown up, and they've been made to believe it. The homosexuals are teaching their ideology in the schools, and kids are learning it.

Your own son, John, is gay. What do you say to those who argue that your view on gay rights prevents people like him from enjoying the same rights that heterosexual Americans possess?

In the first place, I'd say it's really none of their business. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. My son is very supportive of my work. In fact, he works for me in the Eagle Forum. He's a fine, honorable man. It does not cause any problems in our family.



You don't think feminism has done some good in raising the status of women?

The feminist movement is the most destructive element in our society. It has done nothing but damage. It has not done anything good for women, whatsoever. The worst part of it is the attitude that breeds in young women in making them think that they are the victims of the oppressive patriarchy. That is so false. If you wake up in the morning thinking you're a victim, you're probably not going to be happy or accomplish anything.

Don't women in this country still have a long way to go in terms of enjoying the same rights that men have held from the beginning?

American women are the most fortunate class of people who ever lived on the face of the earth. We should rejoice in the great, wonderful country we have. Women have always been in the Constitution. There is no sexist word in the Constitution. It is written for We, the people and every word in it is sex-neutral, like person, citizen, elector, and Senator. I don't know what they're complaining about. You can do whatever you want.

Yesterday, Chris Jankowski, president of the Republican State Leadership Committee, said that it's hard to recruit women to run for office because Republicans don't value women as much as men.

What you said is ridiculous, and the guy who said it has been influenced by feminist propaganda. I can tell you why it's hard to recruit women. I have run for office. I ran twice for Congress. Women don't like to do what you have to do to get elected in the same proportion that men do. It's just plain tough: eat all those bad chicken dinners, travel all the time, expose yourself to attack by the other side all the time. And if you get elected to Congress, you may live a couple of thousand miles away from home. There will never be a large proportion of women who choose that lifestyle as compared to men. So stop complaining.

You argue that radical feminists have pushed for easier divorce laws to destroy the traditional family unit.

Of course, radical feminists push for divorce. They think men are not necessary, and they'd really like to get rid of them. The easy divorce law should be called unilateral divorce: it means one spouse can break a contract, and get out of solemn promises made in public before witnesses without the consent of the other party — without any fault on the side of the other party. That is so contrary to American constitutional law. Our Constitution is supposed to uphold the sanctity of contracts, but it doesn't.



We've seen a few scandals unfold in the past couple of weeks — the IRS targeting conservative groups, and the Justice Department secretly monitoring private communications at the Associated Press, Fox, and other news organizations. Do you agree with Steve King and Michele Bachmann that these scandals are worse than Watergate?

Well, of course the IRS scandal is much worse than Watergate. Watergate was just an ordinary little break in to an office. The harassment by the IRS, particularly of those who use Tea Party or Patriot in their titles, is just a total outrage. These groups had every right to get their status approved in a couple of weeks. Instead, they were harassed for years.



Do you agree with those on the right who say the recent scandals merit impeachment proceedings?

I think there are many reasons why Obama could be impeached, but I'm not leading that battle. I think the best way is for Congress to stand up and stop a lot of the mischief that he's doing which may be illegal. The Constitution makes it the duty of the president to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. He's got Eric Holder trying to overturn a law that was duly passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses and signed by Bill Clinton — namely, the Defense of Marriage Act. He's not taking care to see that the laws are faithfully executed. That's just one of his offenses.

Phyllis Schlafly Lashes Out At Sheryl Sandberg: 'Feminism Is at War with Mother Nature'

Eagle Forum head Phyllis Schlafly, unsurprisingly, is not a fan of Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg’s new book, Lean In. Schlafly dedicated her last radio alert to criticizing Sandberg’s “feminist arguments” for being “at odds with what most women really want out of life” and starting a “war with Mother Nature.”

The media have given a lot of attention in the past few weeks to a new book called Lean In by Facebook's Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg. Of course she is a feminist, and she makes the typical feminist complaint that not enough women are CEOs and in other important business and political positions. However, there is a lot in her book that shows what's wrong with feminism. Sandberg is troubled by what she views as women's lack of professional ambition. She thinks women "sabotage" themselves by not pursuing career opportunities as aggressively as men do.

However, Sandberg's feminist arguments and conclusions are at odds with what most women really want out of life. A lot of smart women have different priorities and they make trade-offs to order their lives around marriage and children. Sandberg is disappointed when she sees women making career decisions to fit with having a family. But smart young women know they will probably want to work fewer hours in order to be at home with their own babies.

It's smart to plan ahead and not do as feminists and women's studies courses advise which is to plot a career without any space for husband and children. Too many women come to their senses only after age 40 and then find it's too late to have a husband or children. Feminism is at war with Mother Nature, and Mother Nature is still winning.

Harvey Denounces Girl Scouts for Supporting 'Homosexual Lifestyles' and 'Suspicion Toward Males'

It’s that time of year again when Girl Scouts sell cookies… and right-wing activists attack the Girl Scouts. Today, Linda Harvey of Mission America took offense that the Scouts support “radical feminists” and “homosexual lifestyles” and “feature prominent female homosexuals in some of their materials.” She alleged that they dismiss “authentic morality, Christianity, conservative viewpoints and just plain old motherhood” and “sexual self-restraint” while at the same time promoting “an attitude of suspicion toward males.”

This is not at all the way the organization started, but Girl Scout materials and programs support role models like radical feminists Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan, they support homosexual lifestyles and feature prominent female homosexuals in some of their materials. At the same time virtually absent is respect for authentic morality, Christianity, conservative viewpoints and just plain old motherhood. It’s one more way that girls are being taught that unless you have an attitude of suspicion toward males in general, unless you bring home a paycheck and unless you have a worldview based on self-indulgence with never a notion of sacrifice, you as a woman are really diminished in worth, sexual self-restraint or restraint of just your own female pride should be avoided at all costs.

Schlafly: 'We Need to Train the Men' to 'Stand Up to the Feminists'

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly spoke earlier this week to Sandy Rios of the American Family Association about the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which Schlafly called a “terrible” law that “would have been an excellent place to cut” spending. She lamented that “Republicans are just scared by the feminists” when “they ought to stand up and show how really vicious they are.”

Schlafly: It’s a terrible bill. At this time when we’re talking about the sequester and trying to cut here and there, that would have been an excellent place to cut.

Rios: You know I’m sure that you’ve heard Phyllis that Eric Cantor, it’s been reported by conservative Republican aides that in a private meeting he threatened conservatives that there would be civil war if they didn’t allow this to be brought out on the floor for a vote. They are so concerned that the press and the country is going to think they don’t like women because they’ve been so burned through the last campaign. If they had listened to you what would you have said to them about that?

Schlafly: Well the Violence Against Women Act was a payoff to the feminists for endorsing Bill Clinton and the Republicans are just scared by the feminists, which is very unfortunate, they ought to stand up and show how really vicious they are.

At the end of the interview, she told Rios that “we need to train the men” how to fight feminists: “It isn’t natural for men to fight women and it’s just very hard for the men to stand up to the feminists” and their “many nutty ideas.”

Schlafly: We need to train the men. It isn’t natural for men to fight women and it’s just very hard for the men to stand up to the feminists. But the feminists control the Obama administration and they have so many nutty ideas. They’ve been trying to tell us that there really isn’t any difference between the genders, they are interchangeable, but then when it comes to the matter of domestic violence they enforce all these stereotypes and it’s just so wrong.

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.

Who's Worse: Feminists or Gays?

Robert George, the founder and chairman emeritus of the National Organization for Marriage, appeared on Saturday’s edition of Eagle Forum Live with Phyllis Schlafly to “explain why redefining marriage as merely an emotional bond is a very bad idea.” George warned that legalizing same-sex marriage “would be a disaster for children, for communities, for society as a whole” because marriage would lose its “direct link to procreation and children.”

Schlafly, the arch antifeminist, added that while gays are out to ruin marriage, it is actually the feminists who are the bigger threat. She said feminists are “the cause of most of our problems” because they don’t want men “to have any authority.”

George: What’s at stake is whether we’re going to retain that understanding of marriage with its link to procreation and children, its essential and direct link to procreation and children, or whether we are going to just ditch the idea of marriage altogether, replace it with a different way of organizing social relationships, transform what was known as marriage into mere sexual, romantic, domestic partnership, companionship, which the state would not have any interest in and then reassign the label marriage to that relationship. That would be a disaster for children, for communities, for society as a whole.

Schlafly: In the normal course of human behavior with men and women around these helpless little creatures do appear who could not possibly take care of themselves, isn’t marriage the answer for dealing with that problem?

George: Here’s the way I see it Mrs. Schlafly, I’m borrowing here a thought from my friend Maggie Gallagher who is a great pro-marriage campaigner, when a child is born it’s a pretty good bet that there’s going to be a mother somewhere in the vicinity. Nature provides for that. The real question, one that every culture has to face is: will there be a father around who will help that woman to raise the child? To raise the child in a bond of commitment between mother and father and who will provide the distinctive contributions to child rearing that fathers provide.

Schlafly: That’s exactly why I think the cause of most of our problems are the feminists who don’t want the father around, they want to kick him out, they don’t want him to have any authority and they just don’t think men are necessary.

Later, George responded to a caller asking how “this homosexual thing” will “bankrupt America” with warnings about “big government” and “financial catastrophe.”

Caller: I think that this homosexual thing is not to have equality of people but to bankrupt America by destroying the family.

Schlafly: Well it is true Professor George that when you get rid of the father and you break up the family, the welfare rolls increase and that contributes to destroying our system.

George: Yes it’s an invitation to big government, it makes big government inevitable for the two reasons I articulated: one, the provision of social welfare services; and two, the provision of security, both of which expand with the breakup of the family. Of course, big government eventually means financial catastrophe and bankruptcy because as Mrs. Thatcher famously said, ‘sooner or later you run out of other people’s money to spend,’ and that’s the condition that we find ourselves in and I again would broaden the blame here.

Schlafly Says 'Feminist Ideology' Unfairly Blames Men for Sexual Assaults

As the Obama administration continues to be a complete nightmare for antifeminist activist Phyllis Schlafly, the Eagle Forum president is out with a new column attacking Defense Secretary Leon Panetta over his decision to end the ban on women in combat. She claims the policy shift is “lacking in common sense and it is toadying to the feminist officers who yearn to be 3- and 4-star generals based on the feminist dogma of gender interchangeability and on their desire to force men into situations to be commanded by feminists” and even makes a bogus analogy to the NFL.

Schlafly said that the rate of sexual assaults “will skyrocket” if the ban is removed and also attacked the “feminist ideology” for blaming men for such incidents: “Only men will be deemed at fault because it is feminist ideology that men are innately batterers and women are victims.”

In a newsworthy act of political cowardice, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta ran through the Pentagon’s exit door as he announced he is striking down the 1994 Combat Exclusion Law. His timing means his successor, presumably Chuck Hagel, will inherit the task of defending the order to assign women to front-line military combat.

Of course, Panetta doesn’t want to be grilled about his order. It’s lacking in common sense and it is toadying to the feminist officers who yearn to be 3- and 4-star generals based on the feminist dogma of gender interchangeability and on their desire to force men into situations to be commanded by feminists.



Military women are already complaining about increased sexual assaults, and of course those problems will skyrocket. Only men will be deemed at fault because it is feminist ideology that men are innately batterers and women are victims. [emphasis added]



How do you answer the fact that women do not have an equal opportunity to survive in combat situations, and did you consider the fact that women in the military get injured at least twice the rate of men? Please explain why the National Football League does not seek diversity or gender equality with female players.



A lot of people have a very sanitized view of what battlefield fighting is all about. They seem to think it means a quick gunfight and then returning to the base with separate shower and toilet facilities and a ready mess hall.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious