HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Fox News On Pro-Obama Wom...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 10:57 PM

Fox News On Pro-Obama Women - "All they have to do is surrender to their nature..."

Fox News commentator Suzanne Venker has an opinion of Fox Nation discussing the "The War On Men."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/#ixzz2DM28ijlI

Just in case it gets deleted, here are excerpts of the opinion on a Maddow Blog post:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/26/15458878-all-they-have-to-do-is-surrender-to-their-nature

Overwhelmingly, women voted for President Obama in 2012. That's a fact. Nonetheless, Fox Nation has a message for those women: you're wrong and what's more, you're angry wrong.

In a nutshell, women are angry. They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly. That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.

Now the men have nowhere to go. It is precisely this dynamic – women good/men bad – that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes. Yet somehow, men are still to blame when love goes awry. Heck, men have been to blame since feminists first took to the streets in the 1970s. But what if the dearth of good men, and ongoing battle of the sexes, is – hold on to your seats – women’s fault?


Also:

Contrary to what feminists like Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men, say, the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has p***ed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family. Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them... It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek. So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation. Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs. If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork.

33 replies, 3488 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 33 replies Author Time Post
Reply Fox News On Pro-Obama Women - "All they have to do is surrender to their nature..." (Original post)
TomCADem Nov 2012 OP
mzteris Nov 2012 #1
Springslips Nov 2012 #30
mzteris Nov 2012 #31
TwilightGardener Nov 2012 #2
JRLeft Nov 2012 #6
NewJeffCT Nov 2012 #11
mzteris Nov 2012 #32
lunasun Nov 2012 #3
Hekate Nov 2012 #5
UCmeNdc Nov 2012 #4
jeanlibny594283 Nov 2012 #28
union_maid Nov 2012 #7
quaker bill Nov 2012 #8
sarcasmo Nov 2012 #15
union_maid Nov 2012 #17
lunatica Nov 2012 #9
yellowcanine Nov 2012 #10
treestar Nov 2012 #12
yellowcanine Nov 2012 #13
Odin2005 Nov 2012 #14
polichick Nov 2012 #16
jcgoldie Nov 2012 #18
Xyzse Nov 2012 #19
LiberalFighter Nov 2012 #20
Hekate Nov 2012 #21
jcgoldie Nov 2012 #22
graywarrior Nov 2012 #23
OnionPatch Nov 2012 #24
Dash87 Nov 2012 #25
hrmjustin Nov 2012 #26
BainsBane Nov 2012 #27
aquart Nov 2012 #29
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 #33

Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:03 PM

1. It's a miracle!

A real live neanderthal female!

(My apologies to neanderthal's - in this context it is being used purely as symbolic of someone so outdated and out of touch as to be (or should be) extinct.

I wish Rachel would have that self-loathing twit on her show so could make mincemeat of her.

(Unfortunately, there seem to be a whole lot of self-proclaimed liberals who also inaccurately embrace the notion that there is something inherently wrong with "feminists". Sad, that.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mzteris (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:02 PM

30. Not inherent.

I don't think there isn't anything inherently wrong with feminist, it is just a small few feminists that make me put out my arms and say "wow, that's crazy."

Then again, there's many things some men say about gender that makes me put out my arms and say, "wow, that's crazy."

Venker also sound crazy as hell here. The. Again, it's Fox.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Springslips (Reply #30)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:44 PM

31. um- then - might I suggest

instead of attributing it to a "feminist" put it down to "that person".

And yeah, some people think any and all feminists have something inherently wrong with them.

That we're all men haters.

That we're all frigid and/or HATE - gasp - sex!

That we're these dried up old prunes with no sense of humour or desire or love or anything.

Truth is - we're all ages and all race/creed/color/religion (or none)/sexual orientation, etc. . . Some are married some not some have children and grandchildren. Some love men some love other women. some LOVE LOVE LOVE S-E-X (you know the consensual kind).

But most of all - we're women who refuse to be "less than" just because we're females and we will fight for equality and the elimination of discrimination whenever and wherever it's found. Even here on DU. which is really sad that it should be HERE of all places.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:06 AM

2. What does "surrendering to our nature" entail? Not sure

what she's getting at--but it's probably not something good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:00 AM

6. I think it means to want women to become Mrs. Cleaver.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:14 AM

11. As Mike Huckabee put it

Women should "graciously submit" to their husband's leadership. I think that is what is meant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:46 PM

32. it's not just their "leadership"

they want them wimmens to submit to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 01:09 AM

3. What kind of shit is this?? and It is Obama's fault too??? OMG

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunasun (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 03:15 AM

5. It's the old "she's a castrating woman" canard, though why that would make us vote for Obama

... I do not know.

FOX breeds a very strange species of female.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 02:11 AM

4. FOX has really lost their way

There was a time when people took Fox propaganda seriously. That train has left the station.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:33 AM

28. +100

 

though i'm not sure if they ever "had" their way..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:56 AM

7. She needs to get a calendar

There were men who were pissed off by the women's movement. In 1972. Some are over it, some are dead. Some are hunkered down listening to Rush and watching Fox. None are of what's generally thought of as marriageable age.

But you know what? Even then, in the real world - not TV or movies - there was one sentence I never heard from these pissed off guys: "No wife of mine will ever work." To a man, everyone I knew who was working or on the modest side of middle class fully expected that when the kids were old enough, wife would work outside the home, regardless of whether they wanted a partner or subordinate in a spouse.

In my son's generation, none of this seems to be an issue at all. You must have to dive deep into the gene pool to find the men this writer claims to be referencing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to union_maid (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:16 AM

8. I believe the concern is over it becoming "not an issue"

She sees the fact that it has become "not an issue" as un-natural. Once women got control of their uterus they became enabled to take on this "un-natural" role. Many young women like having control over their uterus and their career / financial destiny. Young college educated women in the workforce voted for Obama in large numbers. She seems to think if they were behaving "naturally', they would be married, barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen and be letting their husband take care of that "silly voting stuff".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to union_maid (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:16 AM

15. I'M curious, what is the marriageable age window?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarcasmo (Reply #15)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:16 PM

17. Well, you can get married any time of course

But this article seems to be referencing women who want to get married and have a family and so forth. The men I'm talking about who were so opposed to feminism in the 70's would be anywhere from mid-sixties to the far side of 80 now, I'd figure. Not optimal for starting a family by and large. There are, of course, exceptions to everything. Superman comes to mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:40 AM

9. LAUGH MY ASS OFF ROLLING ON THE FLOOR!



That putrid corpse was buried 50 years ago! Even the flies aren't buzzing around it anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:11 AM

10. Wait, so it is the fault of women that men don't want to get married?

Huh, not that long ago this was called "fear of commitment" and rightfully so. Besides, why do I suspect that these are some of the same men who are signing up for mail order brides from Asia? It is not that they don't want to get married, it is that they do not know how to relate to women in their own culture so they are looking for a woman from a culture where women are more "submissive."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #10)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:16 AM

12. Yes, and they believe the immigration issue will give them control

over her. They're using the fact people want to get out of those countries. Russia was a big one, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #12)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:45 AM

13. What they don't realize is that the women who use this means to immigrate are

probably women trying to get away from the norms of their culture. So I suspect some of these men get what they deserve - an empowered woman who ditches them the first chance they get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:14 AM

14. What a steaming pile of crap.

Sadly, I hear this a lot from frustrated RW men in their 30s and 40s, blaming "Feminists" for then not being able to get any dates. maybe it never occurs to them that the reason they don;t get dates in because they are assholes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:38 AM

16. Such willful ignorance is sad beyond words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:29 PM

18. Good grief what year is it?!?

Wheres Betty Friedan when you need her? These people are still stuck in the 50s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jcgoldie (Reply #18)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:59 PM

19. We lost Ms. Friedan a while back

I've met her a few times. She seemed nice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 01:03 PM

20. Some points about this woman and her article

She is the niece of Phyllis Schlafly. Helping to provide for her family. She has a husband or claims to be a wife. She has her hair cut short that is so unfeminine.


They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them.

Why would modern women be tied down to what men tell them to do when they have so many better opportunities that makes them self fulfilling? Depending on the circumstances the woman has freedom that is part of human nature (DNA) to have freedom.

Why is it only the man responsible for providing and protecting the family? So if the house was burning down the mother has to wait until the husband shows up to take the family out of the burning house? The mother doesn't make or help make the decisions on keeping the children healthy? Is it necessary for the woman to call her husband at work for protection when someone might be breaking into the house?

Men want to love women, not compete with them.

Why are these men trying to compete with them in a marriage?

Marriageable men will come out of the woodwork? Really? Could it be that some of these men are too weak for any woman? Even a woman with feminine qualities and DNA from the dark ages?


Here is response by someone regarding Suzanne Venker

Suzanne Venker is a Dolt (Battle of the Sexes Edition)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #20)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 01:23 PM

21. The Phyllis Schlafly connection explains a lot

Ms Schlafly toured the country telling everyone who would listen that women ought to be at home catering to their husbands and having babies, not out in the workforce competing with them. Shame on the feminists!

It always struck me as a but odd that Phyllis herself had a high-profile career that took her out of the home for long periods at a time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #21)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 03:09 PM

22. Schlafly is from my hometown

My mother in law works for her during each election season. She's absolutely miserable. This connection explains a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 03:32 PM

23. Good grief, what's next, making women ride side saddle or wash clothes down at the river?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 09:52 PM

24. If this is true

then why is there a lower divorce rate in more liberal areas of the country? Obviously there are more couples with "feminized" women in these areas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:54 PM

25. Such crap

Let's see: They pull out..

- Evo-psych
- The 'womens' natural role' argument
- men and women were already equal!
- Men's natural role argument
- An example of one feminists' views as the entirety of feminist beliefs.
- Mentioning of feminist history
- Feminists are making men whimps
- Marriage as a necessity for happiness in a woman's life

And much more I'm sure...

It's like every bad argument molded into one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:19 AM

26. They can not figure out how to go forward can they. Just close down the channel for America's sake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:30 AM

27. If I'd only known my true problem in life

Was in not surrendering to my nature, I could have 12 kids rather that worrying about becoming educated and gainfully employed. Society failed me. If only I would have had Fox when I was growing up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:53 AM

29. "Marriageable men"? When was this written? 1962?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:11 PM

33. "I’ve spent thirteen years examining social agendas ..."; 13 years wasted

"As the author of three books on the American family and its intersection with pop culture, I’ve spent thirteen years examining social agendas as they pertain to sex, parenting, and gender roles". And yet she can write this crap. It's as if she was educated in the 1890s, and can't progress beyond that. It certainly doesn't read as if she thinks women are capable of voting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread