Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner of Generations Radio spend pretty much their entire show every day saying things that are abysmally inane. But this exchange is over the top, even for them. They think Sarah Palin is a feminist, but only a mildly bad one. The really bad ones…well, just watch. Right Wing Watch has the transcript.
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.
48 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
vmanis1
January 29, 2013 at 11:17 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I stopped reading about 1/3 of the way through. I did not want my head to explode.
The Stupid is strong in these ones.
dugglebogey
January 29, 2013 at 11:20 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Holy Fucking Stupid…
dingojack
January 29, 2013 at 11:22 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Perhaps these two mouth-breathing knuckle-heads should be endorsed by/endorse the GoP
- that should sew-up the female vote for them!!
@@
Dingo
dugglebogey
January 29, 2013 at 11:22 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
There’s a great Family Guy skit where Abraham Lincoln is complaining to his neighbor about his lawn getting too long, and the neighbor says “Yeah, I used to have a guy for that. Dick!”
imrryr
January 29, 2013 at 11:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Whoa… They’d better be careful around that mountain of straw-women they’ve collected. That’s got to be a huge fire hazard.
*looks at video* Glass houses, my man. Glass houses…
Gretchen
January 29, 2013 at 11:27 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well, yeah….
Not having to have children when you don’t want to, or not have them at all if you don’t want, is pretty nice.
Being financially independent is pretty nice.
Having a spouse only if you want one, and not because you need one, is pretty nice.
Not having to submit to said spouse if you do end up with one is pretty nice.
Having an education– even going as far as grad school, even deciding to stay in academic your whole life if you want, is pretty nice.
Being able to do all of these things even if you’re not attractive according to whatever standard of attractiveness these two idiots have decided is mandatory, is pretty nice.
Being denied any of the above just on the grounds of what gender you are would make any man angry, wouldn’t it?
So….?
rork
January 29, 2013 at 11:27 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m no expert in such stuff, but maybe men not calling all the shots is a disaster. Women we know aren’t doing as they’re told, and ones we don’t know aren’t falling at our feet, and all of them are speaking out when we’d rather they shut up. Let’s lash out a bit. Or as audience, feel better while the speakers lash out.
baal
January 29, 2013 at 11:28 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well, that was revolting.
They are bending over backwards to create a narrative that allows for flat dismissals of facts, arguments and public policy. They invoke disgust of wanting an equal place in society for women and use a host of straw people and emotional flame throwers to denigrate them.
Mr Ed
January 29, 2013 at 11:30 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Catch-22, get a job, to get welfare so you don’t have to get a job
John Hinkle
January 29, 2013 at 11:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And then there are the ugly, self-centered MRAs that can only get jobs as insignificant jaw flappers on a two bit, backwards Xian radio station.
Jasper of Maine
January 29, 2013 at 11:33 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
As a feminist, I’m not sure how this applies to me.
Okay, that must be it… minus the family part.
Gretchen
January 29, 2013 at 11:36 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Women not needing men = fucking terrifying, apparently.
Kevin
January 29, 2013 at 11:41 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sadly, not just wingnuts. Three names just popped into your head right now, not wingnuts.
John Pieret
January 29, 2013 at 11:48 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
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?
So, in other words … get married early, stay pregnant and, at all costs, be ignorant so you have no choice but to stay under the thumb of your equally ignorant husband (if he’s anything like these two).
Yep, that a real formula for happiness.
glodson
January 29, 2013 at 11:50 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I can only imagine that reasoning like this is the result of repeated head trauma. Someone should get these poor, injured men to a hospital for a cat-scan.
Raging Bee
January 29, 2013 at 11:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
They could have had Dick to the Dawks on to do his “Dear Muslima” schtick…but I guess that would have meant admitting there were some women somewhere who really did have problems worth getting uppity about. Gotta be careful not to hit too close to home…
Raging Bee
January 29, 2013 at 11:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I can only imagine that reasoning like this is the result of repeated head trauma.
Simplistic, but not that far off — I’m willing to bet that a lot of these sad losers were abused by their fathers (which is where they got their merciless authoritarian mindset), and not at all helped by their equally powerless mothers (which is where their contempt for women came from).
Gretchen
January 29, 2013 at 12:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
They sound like this person on Miri’s blog, who turned out the awesome quote:
Michael Heath
January 29, 2013 at 12:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed writes:
IIRC Sarah Palin thinks of herself as a feminist, doesn’t she? I realize her she doesn’t have all the attributes that make up the definition, e.g., she’s anti-abortion rights; but doesn’t she self-identify as one? From that perspective I agree with these idiots on this minor premise though perhaps a “bad one” for reasons different than their own.
Kevin Swanson:
This nicely illustrates my point in a comment post in another of Ed’s posts today. Where I noted the leaders of conservative Christianity who like the idea of unplanned pregnancies by late-teen/early-twenty-something females in order to suppress young people from pre-marital sex, in spite of restricting their educative and career potential.
The rest of this screeching appears focused on trying to distinguish themselves in a sea of hatred and nuttery, where they project their own worst qualities on other people, especially female politically active feminists.
Modusoperandi
January 29, 2013 at 12:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
David “Chronic Masturbator”* Buehner: “The best kind of feminist is the strong, virile woman who says what we say and supports us in every way, even though she should be in the kitchen.”
Kevin “Serial Rapist”* Swanson: “Like Sarah Palin. But what about ‘The Others’?”
David “Chronic Masturbator” Buehner: “So, there are basically two types of feminists. There are the hot ones, who sleep their way to getting what they want.”
Kevin “Serial Rapist”* Swanson: “And the other type?”
David “Chronic Masturbator” Buehner: “Woof, amirite?”
* Descriptions brought to you by Glancing at Their Pictures.
No One
January 29, 2013 at 12:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Poor butt-hurt little boys. The world is changing in ways that they can’t even begin to understand and adapt to. Poor ;ittle puppies.
DaveL
January 29, 2013 at 12:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
See also: having lots of birth control and lots of abortions, plus not needing men for anything to boot!
cptdoom
January 29, 2013 at 12:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So, let’s get this straight. Sarah Palin is an “OK” feminist because she’s “hot” (as a gay man, I just don’t get her appeal physically) and has a husband, so it’s all right that she went to college. Perhaps it’s all right for her to have gone to college because it took her so many tries to graduate?
Also, did Conservatives, during last year’s election, think the childless educated career woman who fornicated with her boss was a great option for GOP First Lady?
Moggie
January 29, 2013 at 12:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s like these guys have never actually spoken to a feminist.
oranje
January 29, 2013 at 12:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Kevin: Nope, no names through my head, though a lot of names I want to call those morons.
@Moggie: They wouldn’t know one if they met one. They’re assuming that feminists all fit the caricature of “wymynists” from the film PCU.
Sastra
January 29, 2013 at 1:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Reading this conversation, I found it hard to believe that it wasn’t transcribed in a bar, and that it wasn’t coming out of the mouths of a couple guys whose wives had just left them.
“Yeah, she run off. Who needs a cotton-pickin’ husband? Who needs a family? That’s pretty much the worldview that’s dominating, my friends. I tell yuh, all of them want to be free from the family. They want to be free from the husband. Who needs a stinkin’ husband? Got nuthin’ to do with ME. It’s the goddam culture, goddam feminism.”
“Yeah, I hear yuh. burp. My Charlene took off last year. Goddam feminism.”
Modusoperandi
January 29, 2013 at 1:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
cptdoom “(as a gay man, I just don’t get her appeal physically) and has a husband, so it’s all right that she went to college.”
So…”Put your freedom in my liberty! Oh! Oh! You betcha! You betcha!” has no appeal to you?
Taz
January 29, 2013 at 1:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
All they’re saying is that feminists don’t love their children.
You people are so sensitive!
Nepenthe
January 29, 2013 at 1:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@27
Jesus Modus, it’s lunchtime in some parts of the world.
matty1
January 29, 2013 at 1:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
But I’m a man and that’s my goal, does this make me secretly an unattractive woman?
kenbo
January 29, 2013 at 1:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If you read it like a Saturday Night Live skit with John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd, it is actually kinda funny. Or maybe I just need to put down the bong.
grumpyoldfart
January 29, 2013 at 2:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
They’ll get their come-uppance when nobody tunes in to the broadcast tomorrow. The American public will never support such nonsense.
Gretchen
January 29, 2013 at 2:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
No, see, the rule is: women who want things men currently enjoy are feminists and therefore bad. Wanting something men have but women shouldn’t doesn’t make you an honorary ugly woman any more than enjoying a nice walk in the sun makes you an honorary prisoner.
SallyStrange: Elite Femi-Fascist Genius
January 29, 2013 at 2:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“I don’t think women should be able to vote, but I’m a feminist!”
No.
Rip Steakface
January 29, 2013 at 2:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Modus, if you don’t already have artistic ability, find an artist and start up a webcomic. You’re too damn funny to just stay on one blog’s comments section.
Not only that, but the more sex you have, the more birth control you need! It’s only Logic™!
d.c.wilson
January 29, 2013 at 3:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Who uses the word “fornication” in 2013?
Modusoperandi
January 29, 2013 at 3:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Rip Steakface “Modus, if you don’t already have artistic ability, find an artist and start up a webcomic.”
How about Uncyclopedia instead?
“You’re too damn funny to just stay on one blog’s comments section.”
I would blush if I wasn’t already. Because I’m so bashful, you see.
ildi
January 29, 2013 at 3:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You and Shelby:
scienceavenger
January 29, 2013 at 4:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Where to start…
“The College”. Do you find that with “the google”?
By these guys standards, I’m a flaming, pinko feminazi, a phrase I’d never EVER have thought could be tossed my way.
Oh, and why is it all these bozos going on about women who are “attractively challenged” need to look in the mirror? Hey guys, guess where attractively challenged men work? On radio, right Rush?
Dicks.
baal
January 29, 2013 at 4:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
#@21 “Poor butt-hurt little boys.”
“Little boys” is not an appropriate insult. I have a son and he’s nothing like these assholes. For that matter, “butt hurt” sounds close to a rape joke. Find another way to express your condescension.
laurentweppe
January 29, 2013 at 7:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Really? I always thought “butt hurt little boy” came from the image of a boy taunting a dog until poochie lost patience and bit back.
chilidog99
January 29, 2013 at 8:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It sounds like those two are trying to justify why they never get laid.
Michael Heath
January 29, 2013 at 11:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Me earlier:
SallyStrange in response:
I googled your Palin quote and came up with nothing. I understand you may be paraphrasing and justifiably conflating two assertions made at different times, but I still came up with nothing on her position on protecting women’s voting rights. Do you have a cite?
I did find this Palin gibberish:
No Ms. Palin, the 19th Amendment doesn’t give women the right to vote. Their rights are inalienable, instead the 19th Amendment obligated the federal government to begin protecting women’s right to vote equal to that of others. Something the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause already did but was ignored.
Ms. Palin needs to stop getting her lessons on the Constitution from Sean Hannity.
democommie
January 30, 2013 at 7:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Ms. Palin needs to stop getting her lessons on the Constitution from Sean Hannity.”
I think that the Wasillabilly’s resistance to taking instruction from ANYONE is pretty much a given.
abear
January 30, 2013 at 12:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
One of the problems with the feminist label is that any crackpot from Sarah Palin to Valerie Solanas can call themselves a feminist. The internet is full of people that discredit the term feminism by using it to further their need for attention seeking and/or goofy socio-political agenda.
Gretchen
January 30, 2013 at 2:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Anyone from Karl Rove to George W. Bush can call themselves a civil libertarian.
Is that a problem with the label “civil libertarian”?
abear
January 30, 2013 at 3:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gretchen@46; Potentially it’s a problem with any label that gets distorted by improper and false usage. If for example people get called “Nazi”, although they don’t really fit the true definition the term eventually loses its’ meaning.
When people can’t understand what they are saying to each other I would call that problematic.
Michael Heath
January 30, 2013 at 5:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gretchen writes:
I think there is. It’s an attribute of liberalism to support that which is referenced by using the term civil libertarian – without all the baggage we must consider when people use the term libertarian. So liberal does nicely.
Use of the small ‘l’ libertarian sends a signal we’re in a for a whole bunch of contrary thinking and shuckin’ and jivin’ because of that. Specifically – support for a particular right as if no other existing rights also exist and frequently must be considered when considering how government must act.