Quantcast

«

»

Feb 05 2013

The Worldnutdaily Has Some Advice for the Ladies

For all my female friends who are constantly told that they should be raped (or that they’re too ugly to be raped, depending on the asshole responding to them) or that they should stop worrying their pretty (or ugly) little heads over being called a bitch or a cunt for acting like anything other than a doormat, the Worldnutdaily has some advice:

Worldnetdailyheadline2

And the article is written by a woman, for fuck’s sake. And it’s all based on a new book by Suzanne Venker, Phyllis Schlafly’s niece and the woman who thinks there’s a “war on men.” She also believes that the problem is that “women aren’t women anymore.” And if they’d just stop sleeping around, they’d be happy like her:

“Women lowered their standards,” she told WND. “They did this by changing the way they approach sex. That’s the No. 1 biggest issue. They’ve lost any sort of reasonable modesty or holding high standards and having a lot of self-respect in terms of the way they carry themselves and dress and how quickly they have sex.”

She added, “It’s funny, this whole ‘empowerment’ idea was supposed to make women better and give them greater self-esteem. ‘Empowered’ is a great word, but it’s totally misused by feminists. Sexual empowerment does not mean sleeping around. In fact, the message is quite the opposite. It shows that you don’t think very much of yourself, that you don’t think you’re worthy of waiting for or committing to. Honestly, I think a lot of women have no idea that that’s how it works between women and men and that their behavior and attitude has driven men into a different direction.”

But how can women find men who are good husbands, fathers and providers? Don’t look to feminists for the answers, Venker warns.

“The way we do that is to happily depend on what men bring to the table, their masculinity, their desire to provide for and protect their woman,” she explained.

“If you want him to step up to the plate and become a family man, you need to respect and honor his career path and really get behind it because it will be what carries you if you choose to have children.”

Venker said the feminist movement has taught women to stop needing men – for anything in life – from companionship to financial support or even childbearing.

“Men have been hearing for years that women don’t need their money,” she said. “They don’t need anything from men. Men have just sort of given up. They just stop trying because you don’t need their money, you don’t need them as husbands and you’re sexually ‘empowered.’ There’s just a whole different set of circumstances that women created, and that’s why men are the way they are.

Yeah, we men have all given up because women aren’t available for purchase because they have jobs and almost-equal rights and stuff. It was so much better in the old days when women had to stay with abusive assholes out of financial dependency. Even the nostalgia was better in the old days.

26 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    scienceavenger

    Sexual empowerment does not mean sleeping around

    That’s exactly what it means. With birth control, and financial independence, women are now free to experience their sexuality without the risk of disease and unwanted pregnancy that plagued women until VERY recently. It doesn’t mean they think less of themselves, quite the opposite.

    Venker is just another nitwit locked in a 1950′s time warp. She can’t even get her slurs right: If you are being a bitch, you aren’t sleeping around, that’s what sluts do. /snark

  2. 2
    nightmoves

    I wonder if Venker will catch any flack for for her “if you chose to have children” line. Aren’t women supposed to be mindless baby factories in this bonkers world-view?

  3. 3
    Gretchen

    No, scienceavenger, she’s right– sexual empowerment doesn’t mean sleeping around. It means deciding for yourself what your sex life will be like, which includes sleeping around if you feel like it. Or not, if you don’t feel like it. A woman who won’t be called a whore if she opts not to sleep around, and decides it just isn’t for her, is just as empowered as a woman who decides that sleeping around sounds like a great idea and doesn’t get slut-shamed for it.

  4. 4
    Sastra

    But how can women find men who are good husbands, fathers and providers? Don’t look to feminists for the answers, Venker warns.

    I think Venker’s main problem here is that the definition of “good husbands, fathers, and providers” varies from individual woman to woman. The kind of man who would be attracted by the tactics she suggests women adopt is not necessarily the kind of man the single woman wants to attract.

    *News flash* — not every woman wants the same thing. They don’t “all” want careers; they don’t “all” want marriage; they don’t “all” want to be housewives; they don’t “all” want to remain financially self-supporting. Dependency and independence are slippery concepts with a lot of gray areas and couples make mutual arrangements for living in all sorts of ways .

    And guess what? I suspect nobody much cares what you, as an individual woman, wants to choose to do as long as you don’t get up on a soapbox and insist that there is one Ideal towards which we should all strive or we suck at being a woman. Nor should you suggest that there is but one kind of Manly Man out there and we’re all in competition for that guy. Families — and lives — come in different varieties. Don’t just assume those which aren’t yours must all be “miserable.”

    Venker needs to get over herself. And I say this as both a feminist and a housewife. Don’t look to anti-feminists for answers, either. You have to at least understand the question.

  5. 5
    eric

    Venker said the feminist movement has taught women to stop needing men – for anything in life – from companionship to financial support or even childbearing.

    “Men have been hearing for years that women don’t need their money,” she said. “They don’t need anything from men.

    IMO that’s a feature, not a bug. I don’t want my partner to need me in the financial sense. I want her to be with me because she chooses to be with me. Love is being able to walk away and not doing so; being unable to walk away can, in many cases, color the entire relationshiup.

  6. 6
    scienceavenger

    Gretchen – we agree, but you are using the terms in their strict sense, and I was using them in the sense people like Venker do (I guess I should have made that clearer). In her mind, “sleeping around” means having a sex life at all, regardless of what kind you choose to have. The fine distinctions you draw don’t exist for her. In her world, there are the good girls who save themselves for marriage, and all those other whores.

  7. 7
    glodson

    Wow. I knew this was going to be bad. But I just had to click this article. I had to get it full force.

    And I still come back to this thought: people believe her!

  8. 8
    baal

    I do so dislike binaries. While there probably is a definite Ms.Vender’s right way, the other side isn’t either ‘just feminist’ or the feminist preferred female sexuality covers a range of behavior.

    “Honestly, I think a lot of women have no idea that that’s how it works between women and men and that their behavior and attitude has driven men into a different direction.”

    Right. Ms.Vender’s direction supports rape culture. Consider women who are willing to have sex and women who aren’t. Under Ms.Vender’s model, both look exactly the same to men. The proposed solution is for the man to ignore whatever signals he’s getting and to push endlessly*. Men pushing endlessly without regard to what the women is saying or doing is a very near neighbor to rape and is certainly enabling of rape.

    Women should signal if they are willing or not depending on how they choose (clear non-cryptic signalling) and men should then respect that signal.

    *The other solution is rigid abstinence until Church approved marriage but that frequently fails.

  9. 9
    Abby Normal

    Men have just sort of given up.

    Only on you.

  10. 10
    d.c.wilson

    Venker is just another nitwit locked in a 1950′s time warp. She can’t even get her slurs right: If you are being a bitch, you aren’t sleeping around, that’s what sluts do. /snark

    According to the old joke, a slut sleeps with everyone, but a bitch sleeps with everyone but you./snark

    But the implicit assumption in both the joke and the article is that women should define their sexuality in terms that please others.

    If a woman chooses to sleep around or not to sleep around, it should her decision alone. She shouldn’t have to worry about being labeled a slut or a bitch just because someone else chooses a different path.

    What truly kills me about this article is that the central message is “Women, you can’t find a man because you’re a slutty slut who sluts around to much.”

    Um, and who exactly are these women having sex with? It’s the oldest double standard in the world. If a woman sleeps around, she’s a slut, but if a man sleeps around, he’s just being a man. As a man, I find that incredibly insulting because it implies that not only do men have no self control, but that we shouldn’t even be expected to. No matter what happens, it’s always the woman’s fault.

    Is there anyone in the Schafly family who isn’t batshit crazy!

  11. 11
    oranje

    You should value yourself and deny yourself and your partner because you’re worth waiting for, eh? Be happy by not allowing yourself to have the things you want? She sounds Catholic.

  12. 12
    Gretchen

    scienceavenger said:

    Gretchen – we agree, but you are using the terms in their strict sense, and I was using them in the sense people like Venker do (I guess I should have made that clearer). In her mind, “sleeping around” means having a sex life at all, regardless of what kind you choose to have.

    I know. My point was that the empowerment is not in doing precisely the opposite of what Venker wants, but in making the decision for oneself, and having the room to do so.

    This is an important distinction to make because sometimes in all of the sex positivity, people tend to forget that it can also be sex-positive to not have sex, if the choice is your own.

  13. 13
    bradleybetts

    @Sastra #4

    I think Venker’s main problem here is that the definition of “good husbands, fathers, and providers” varies from individual woman to woman.

    I think her main problem is she’s still stuck in a world where men are always the providers. The world is no longer like that and, like most conservatives, change scares her so she rails against it without thinking through the implications of said change. It’s a simple, knee-jerk “Things weren’t like this when I was growing up! I don’t like it!”.

  14. 14
    Alverant

    I’m amazed she thinks there are “good guys” on WND. I would think that anyone who reads, and believes, what is reported there automatically disqualifies them from being good.

  15. 15
    The Lorax

    “The way we do that is to happily depend on what men bring to the table, their masculinity, their desire to provide for and protect their woman,” she explained.

    … I threw up a little…

  16. 16
    Gretchen

    The expression “sleeping around” really needs to go away, btw. It’s like “putting out”– it suggests that it’s just something you do or don’t. Like there’s an on/off switch. Either you sleep around, you put out, or you don’t. You don’t discriminate, and you don’t change.

    Screw that.

    It’s not useful, and actually very misleading. Almost nobody is truly indiscriminate. Some people are more discriminating sometimes, less discriminating other times. The sheer number of people you sleep with doesn’t say how discriminating you are….especially, you know, if it’s over a lifetime. There are a lot of reasons why a person might sleep with more or fewer people, and it isn’t just limited to their demanding only the “best” (whatever that means).

  17. 17
    bryanfeir

    @d.c.wilson, #10

    Is there anyone in the Schafly family who isn’t batshit crazy!

    Well, Roger seems to have moments of clarity, at least when he’s trying to tell Andy that physics doesn’t work that way. Which just means that he’s only 90% living in his own world rather than 100%. And John Jr’s a bit of a black sheep.

  18. 18
    jnorris

    Suzanne Venker shows why Bristol Palin can’t get a husband, even the father of her son won’t marry her.

  19. 19
    Modusoperandi

    “Women lowered their standards,” she told WND. “They did this by changing the way they approach sex.”

    I fail to see how Reverse Cowgirl “lowered standards”. If anything, I think this proves (yes, proves!) that I misread the entire story.

  20. 20
    matty1

    Speaking as a single man I don’t find the idea of woman as property at all appealing, if I’m going to spend my life with someone I want it to be someone I enjoy being with, which includes being able to talk as equals and her being an interesting person with a life apart from me.

  21. 21
    Bronze Dog

    Women lowered their standards

    Wut? Quite frankly, I’ve seen feminism as a force for raising standards for both men and women. The men who complain about feminism pretty consistently display all sorts of inadequacies and blame women (and often men like me) for not being willing to put up with their childishness. Women who complain about feminists seem to demand that other women be willing to settle for less than the basic standards of adulthood. They don’t seem to understand men who have different tastes in women, either.

  22. 22
    d.c.wilson

    Women lowered their standards

    To be honest, when looking at some of the women I know in meatspace and the kind of men they’ve dated/married, I think there might be something to this. I know several women who do need to raise their standards. Not in themselves, but in the men they go out with.

    What some of my fellow men have gotten away with. SMH

  23. 23
    Gretchen

    Women lowered their standards

    Wut?

    Translation: They’re giving the milk away for free.

  24. 24
    Abby Normal

    I was thinking about the revered past that Suzanne Venker longs for so ardently, when I should happen upon this letter by noted abolitionist and feminist pioneer Sarah Grimké, written in 1837. I wonder what Suzanne would think if she really did find herself in the America it describes. It’s a bit of a long read, but well worth it. Excerpt below:

    Fashionable women regard themselves, and are regarded by men, as pretty toys or as mere instruments of pleasure; and the vacuity of mind, the heartlessness, the frivolity, which is the necessary result of this false and debasing estimate of women, can only be fully understood by those who have mingled in the folly and wickedness of fashionable life; and who have been called from such pursuits by the voice of the lord Jesus, inviting their weary and heavy laden souls to come unto Him and learn of Him, that they may find something worthy of their immortal spirit, and their intellectual powers; that they may learn the high and holy purposes of their creation, and consecrate themselves unto the service of God; and not, as is now the case, to the pleasure of man.

  25. 25
    frog

    This was the bit that stuck out for me:

    …that you don’t think you’re worthy of waiting for or committing to.

    The underlying assumption there is that a woman is a commodity.

    It would never occur to dimwits such as Venker that women might want to have sex because they want to have sex. Sex is fun. It can involve deep emotions, it can involve simple friendship, it can involve an exchange of money. The only requirement it should have is that everyone involved be there by free and informed choice, and be at least reasonably respectful of what the other person(s) are expecting from the situation.

    One would assume that Venker and her ilk are not in favor of prostitution. How do they resolve that with the idea that sex is something a woman provides to a husband in exchange for financial support? “It’s not prostitution if you only have one john”?

  26. 26
    WMDKitty -- Survivor

    I’m thinking I’d rather be a “bitch” than a doormat/fuck-toy.

    No.

    I know I’d rather be a “bitch”, because I’ve been the doormat/maid/fuck-toy, and it sucks!

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site