Bennett, Robertson Don’t Like Women in Power

Bill Bennett went on the 700 Club with Pat Robertson and they agreed that having women in positions of power, like having them run companies, is blurring gender roles and will have a terrible effect on society. Right Wing Watch has the video and transcript:

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.

Really? IBM is now led by a woman and that has something to do with confusing gender roles? That can only be true if you take the position that men should be in charge of everything and women should just shut up and do what they’re told. And if you believe that, you’ve pretty much ruled yourself out of serious conversation.

24 comments on this post.
  1. Michael Heath:

    William Bennett is another example of the type of faux-intellectualism conservatives are attracted by. Mr. Bennett has always reminded me of Harold Bloom, especially given their mutual dependency on avoiding experts’ primary arguments and instead knocking down strawmen of their own creation or those asserted by powerless fringes. Here we see Bennett relying on a strawman, ‘we don’t need men to take responsibility’ [paraphrased].

  2. Marcus Ranum:

    I’m trying to figure what’d be wrong with a matriarchy.

  3. becca:

    except, of course, women like Michelle Bachman or Ann Coulter, I suppose.

  4. MikeMa:

    becca, those two certainly would get passes but what about Sarah? How quickly she is fading.

  5. D. C. Sessions:

    What I find most interesting is the unveiled projection: they’re terrified of the prospect of women having even a slight weakening of the social bias against women, because without it men won’t be able to compete — and then women will oppress them.

    They truly can’t conceive of any relationships that aren’t dominance based, and if they weren’t doing so much harm [1] I could almost pity them. But only almost.

    [1] Well, no. Also because they’re <expletive> <expletive> <expletive>s

  6. schism:

    I’m trying to figure what’d be wrong with a matriarchy.

    That it’s prejudiced in a particular demographic’s favor?

  7. sceptinurse:

    Are any of these people capable of coherent sentences? My head hurts every time I read one of these transcripts.

  8. fifthdentist:

    Shouldn’t Pat have harangued Bill for being a hell-bound Pope worshiper?
    Oh course, Pat could have had the same conversation with an iman and, on that issue at least, they would have been in complete agreement.

    Also, what D.C. Sessions said

  9. John Hinkle:

    @sceptinurse

    I had the same impression (incoherent sentences). It’s like a flow of words littered with buzz words and catch phrases. The signal to noise ratio is indeed very low.

  10. Larry:

    Gentlemen, we must not have a gender gap!

  11. fifthdentist:

    Obviously in #8 that should have read imam. I have no idea what the model Iman thinks about the issue.

  12. jameshanley:

    MikeMa @4,
    what about Sarah? How quickly she is fading.

    Funny, I was just thinking about that this morning. Her determination to ride the “will she, won’t she” bus as long as possible appears to have been quite rational, because while obviously she never really could make a serious run for president, the moment she publicly said she wouldn’t she immediately dropped of the radar screen. She is of almost no interest to the media anymore.

    It’s Palin’s worst nightmare–she’s a “has been.”

  13. Aquaria:

    Bennett: I think it can hurt society, maybe grievously. Interestingly the feminists are not celebrating this Pat, they want men too.

    Evidence, or STFU. IBM may not be the company it once was, but it’s still a major business.

    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.

    Except the lesbians, right, Bill?

    Sorry, maybe you need to get out more: I’m a feminist think it’s great that this woman is in charge of IBM. And it’s none of your scumbag business if I’m a lesbian or not.

    Rail against–is that the new “screech hysterically?”

  14. raven:

    bennet/robertson:

    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.

    Well gee, what do men want? Sheep? Blow up sex dolls?

    This level of deepity makes them sound like two morons babbling. Hmmm, well they are two morons babbling.

  15. D. C. Sessions:

    Well gee, what do men want? Sheep? Blow up sex dolls?

    Is that “men,” or is that “Real Men™?”

    Quite a few “men” want partners — someone with enough in common to share a life, and enough differences to be fill in the gaps. Most of all, a peer to look eye-to-eye across the breakfast table.

    “Real Men™,” on the other hand, seem to want Stepford wives.

  16. cptdoom:

    England and the later United Kingdom have been ruled by women for nearly 200 of the roughly 525 years since the end of the Wars of the Roses, and both the Elizabethan and Victorian eras saw profound increases in the nation’s power and prestige. The whole female leadership thing seems to have worked out well for them.

  17. Gretchen:

    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.

    Well, Mr. Bennett, here’s something true: wanting men does not mean wanting moralizing blowhards like you to tell us what men and women should be. Women want men for a lot of things– heck, men want men for a lot of things– and amazingly, those things vary. But I suppose people like you will never grasp the concept that getting rid of enforced gender roles doesn’t require getting rid of genders.

  18. dingojack:

    A few days ago, here in Australia, the Monarch (Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia), the Governor General (Her Excellency, Quentin Bryce), the Monarch’s representive, and the Prime Minister (The Honourable Julia Gillard), the highest elected offical, met.
    All of them women*.
    My sense of gender got so blurred I couldn’t tell wheter I was Arthur or Martha. Thank-you Pat for straightening (so to speak) that out for me.
    Maroons!
    Dingo
    —-
    * If the old Queen had come to Sydney, the meeting might have included the Queen’s representive in N.S.W, Her Excellency, Dr Marie Bashir, too! Four women! I think Pat’s head would have fundie’sloded on the spot.

  19. shay:

    They want men for that strong arm, they want men for that protection, they want men for a partner in marriage

    And to skoosh bugs. Real men skoosh bugs.

  20. Noadi:

    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.

    Well he is right on one thing: (straight) women do want men. What he doesn’t understand is that want and need are two very different things. We no longer need men to support us or to protect us. We’ve got that covered all on our own. A true partner is a much better and more special thing than the patriarchal notion of a proper husband he has in mind.

  21. The rip in time « Decrepit Old Fool:

    [...] think it would be fair to say he’s a Conservative role model. So here he is sharing a stage with Pat Robertson, and talking about the horrifying fact that IBM now has a female CEO: Robertson: Well you know [...]

  22. Raging Bee:

    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…

    I’m hearing this lie a LOT from the “men’s rights” morons: feminazis want to exterminate all men!! There’s a particularly persistent hateful troll named DavidByron who’s been flogging that old lie at ERV for MONTHS now.

    Oh, and did you notice none of these people seemed to have a problem with HP’s owner and CEO Meg Whitman? Gee, I wonder why…?

  23. Area Man:

    I recall a study not long ago (going from memory, so take this with a grain of salt), that women CEOs on average out-performed men, but the highest performing CEOs were all men. This is because the variance in male performance was much higher; men presumably took more risks, and those risks either paid off and the company did spectacularly well, or they failed and the company went down in flames. Women on the other hand kept an even hand on the tiller, and their companies prospered boringly.

    If that study’s findings are true, I would much rather have women in charge of the country’s businesses. And Congress for that matter.

  24. Pinky:

    Bill Bennett & Pat Robertson. May they live long and produce many irrational quotes.

    At least those two lack enough guile to lie. Unlike conservatives who will soporifically sing an oleaginous lullaby as they adjust governance to suit themselves.

    For example; where did our right to habeas corpus take off to? Have you seen it, I haven’t and I’ve looked everywhere.

    Imagine how further along society would be (philosophically, intellectually, technically, etc.) if 100% of the available talent was allowed to develop. We could have all positions filled by the women and men who are best qualified. Instead we muddle along with almost all key spots filled by men, some who are qualified, but unfortunately many could not pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.

    Since religions began to fearfully denigrate women, we have been denied 50% of the ability and intelligence that could have rocketed society forward. Instead religion has purposely held women back, even demonizing them to prop up the dark side.

    The Bennetts and Robertsons would like to continue the dark ages. They would retard civilization so they may remain in power.

    Don’t be thinking we have reached the pinnacle of sexual equality. Feminists; get off your tired asses and on your dying feet, it’s been a long and tough campaign so far, but we have miles left to go.

Leave a comment

You must be