Fox News Op-Ed Says Women’s Nature Is To Be Dominated By Men
That's a woman?
Fox News has published another sexist op-ed by Suzanne Venker, the author who became infamous for attacking a fictional “War on Men.” In the follow up piece, Venker argues that women are naturally men’s inferiors.
The author believes the crudest of crude gender stereotypes are built into male and female brains, arguing that women “like to gather and nest and take care of people” while men “are hunters: they like to build things and kill things.” As a consequence, she maintains a man’s place is in the office; “his” woman should simply “surrender” to his rule:
[W]omen shouldn’t let their success in the workplace become the biggest thing in their lives. If the ultimate goal is lasting love – and let’s face it: for most people it is – women are going to have to become comfortable with sacrifice and capitulation. …
Surrendering to your femininity means many things. It means letting your man be the man despite the fact that you’ve proven you’re his equal. It means recognizing the fact that you may very well want to stay home with your babies – and that that’s normal. Surrendering to your femininity means if you do work outside the home, you don’t use your work to play tit for tat in your marriage. It means tapping into that part of yourself that’s genuinely vulnerable and really does need a man – even though the culture says you don’t.
In other words, put down your sword. It’s okay if your guy’s in charge. It’s okay if you don’t drive the car. In fact, it’s rather liberating.
These views are not supported by modern neuroscience, which finds that brain differences between men and women are hard to pinpoint and often a result of social pressures rather than biology. Moreover, the reason that many women are unhappy with their worklives is more about institutionalized sexism than some innate need to be cared for by a strong man.
Venker’s justification for unequal gender roles, “men and women are different,” literally harkens back a hundred years: one of the main arguments advanced against women’s suffrage was that it “wasn’t natural” for women to participate in public life outside of the home. And though Venker says with no sense of irony that she believes women are “equal, but different,” views like hers are strongly associated with excusing domestic violence and gender discrimination.
Fox News has a storied history of using its megaphone to broadcast sexism. Host Brian Kilmeade has said on-air that “Women are everywhere. We’re letting them play golf and tennis now. It’s out of control” and that the network hires female anchors by going “into the Victoria’s Secret catalogue and [saying], ‘Can any of these people talk?’”
Despite what the PC police say, there is some truth to this. Men's and women's brains are hardwired differently. That doesn't make one superior sex superior to the other. Nothing wrong with positing that.
I don't even know where to start with this drivel.
Most studies show differences between men and women to be almost statistically negligible. A lot of these so-called innate differences are completely the result of socialization driven be various implicit and explicit, positive and negative reinforcers. Are there differences between men and women? Absolutely. But it's hardly to the degree that most sexists claim.
I'd like to know what this is doing on a gay site.
[quote] These views are not supported by modern neuroscience, which finds that brain differences between men and women are hard to pinpoint and often a result of social pressures rather than biology.
R2, read the above quote, check the research for yourself (there is plenty of peer reviewed work to support it) and shut the fuck up.
Well, genius @ [R5], where do you think this kind of logic is going to go next, hmmmm??? You think it's that far a leap to go from "women are biologically inferior to men, " to "gays choose to be gay and therefore are curable," or some other such nonsense? Need I remind you of the poem that is featured on the Holocaust Museum's wall that begins, "First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist..."
Strangely enough, I think she makes some great points.
Bullhockey, R7, not everything is about being gay.
It's time we stop labeling all of the "isms" separately and start recognizing that they are all an issue of human rights and the inalienable right that every single person on this planet has to them. Period.
[quote]Despite what the PC police say, there is some truth to this. Men's and women's brains are hardwired differently
There is no truth. Even to the small extent that men's and women's brains ARE wired differently, it does not logically follow that women's wiring makes them most comfortable letting men dominate them.
The piece is written by a woman, and American women aren't being legally deprived of human rights the way gays are. Fact.
[quote]Bullhockey, [R7], not everything is about being gay.
Not everything is explicitly about being gay, but pretty much any "logic" that can be used to "prove" men superior to women can also be used to "prove" straight men superior to gay men.
Besides, since everything is not, in fact, about being gay, it shouldn't seem wrong or surprising that gay people on a gay message board might want to discuss a social issue unrelated to their sexuality.
What about women who dominate men?
What about men who like to surrender or submit to women? Is something wrong with their brains?
that stupid aqgenda-driven cunt latinagirl *giggle* is all over this thread.
R13, you're really reaching. It certainly does not follow that male/female gender differences have anything to do with straight/gay differences.
r16, I never said they do have anything to do with each other *in reality.* Nor, in reality, are women wired to surrender to men. But the kind of people who can peddle such bullshit about women as science usually have no problem offering up similarly bogus "scientific" theories about the inherent inferiority of gays.
I'm only interested in what the science of the sexes really is, not what people emotionally want it to be (or not to be). The topic is so emotionally loaded it's almost impossible to study or discuss rationally. And knee-jerking it into being about gay issues because of your own prejudices doesn't help.
Sorry, but why doesn't anyone recognize this Suzanne Venker (or whatever) as the biggest bull-dykiest thing the Republican party has ever produced and placed on Fox?
These twats should really screen out butch women with "pixies" and linebacker shoulders. Seriously. Please.
[quote]I'm only interested in what the science of the sexes really is, not what people emotionally want it to be (or not to be).
Goody for you, but the OP of this thread is about some PSEUDO-scientific bullshit Op Ed in which some woman claims that women are wired to submit to men 'cause that's how she "emotionally wants," or at least politically wants, it to be--so big fucking surprise that that's the topic under discussion here.
[quote]And knee-jerking it into being about gay issues because of your own prejudices doesn't help.
Honey, to be honest, I can barely rouse myself to give a fuck about gay men's issues any more, but if you think there's no intersection, socially and politically, between gay issues and women's issues, you have your head wedged firmly up your ass.
Gender differences and gay/straight differences may have no connection biologically/scientifically speaking, but there certainly IS a connection between women's rights and gay rights in our society. You might "emotionally want" to live in a world where gay and straight men alike can roll around like happy little sexist pigs in shit and never have to concern yourselves with the rights and equality of women, but the fact is that those straight men (and women) who want to keep women in their place want to do the same to gays.
Somebody asked what this topic is doing on a gay site, and that (besides simply, why the hell shouldn't we discuss whatever we want) is why.
I hope that the Republicans/conservatives keep on saying all this stuff out loud. Keep digging your hole, neocons...
[quote]Fox News Op-Ed Says Women’s Nature Is To Be Dominated By Men
Have they ever seen Michelle and Ladybird Bachmann?
[quote]with the rights and equality of women
Women have all legal rights and full equality. Gays do not. Fact.
There are many parallels in the struggles, but they disconnect at that point. All this whining about how hard women have it and what victims they are and how gays should fall prostrate at their feet is such BS. Talk to me about women's "struggles" once gays have full legal equality, not a moment before then. It's women who should be bending over backwards to help gays at this point, not the other way around, obviously. Thanks.
And this "article" is clearly designed to raise the hackles of PC reactionaries in a kneejerk way. Don't fall for it. Here's a hint for you: Don't watch Fox. You're welcome.
Taylor Swift and Katy Perry AGREE!
And when hubby dumps the dumpy housewife who has no education or career for a younger model? I don't know why anyone would watch Faux News. Are people that stupid?
Mostly nonsense, although I do think there is a maternal instinct hard-wired in women.
If child rearing were up to straight males, the survival rate for babies would be in the single digits.
There are a lot more parallels in terms of social equality than legal equality. Women never had to fight for the right to marry, and gay men never had to fight for the right to vote or to be considered independent people in their own right.
Intelligent or powerful women are not popular today. What Showbiz does is show power women as image obsessed, vengeful and frivolous.
Women who are cast as "Doctors" talk about hair dye and emotions, not medical science.
Radical islam is a force because the average Islamic man is downtrodden and poor and has no hope of a better future. A man may be poor and hopeless, but if he subscribes to Radical Islam he becomes a God in his own home, with the power of life and death over the women under his control.
Looks like the American right wing is going to try the same thing.
And again, anyone who will do this to women will do the same things to gay men. Our struggles may not be identical, but we have the same enemies.
[quote]All this whining about how hard women have it and what victims they are and how gays should fall prostrate at their feet is such BS. Talk to me about women's "struggles" once gays have full legal equality, not a moment before then. It's women who should be bending over backwards to help gays at this point, not the other way around, obviously. Thanks.
Good lord, what a whiny little pissant. Talk about projecting your own issues into the conversation. Where has anyone in this thread suggested that you need to fall prostrate at women's feet or bend over backward to help them with their struggles? Someone asked why this topic was here; someone else pointed out that it's of interest to gay men because any world in which women are expected to submit to straight men is not going to be a good world for gay people, either. And that's it. A question was asked, the question was answered, and nobody told you to DO anything about anything.
[quote]And this "article" is clearly designed to raise the hackles of PC reactionaries in a kneejerk way. Don't fall for it. Here's a hint for you: Don't watch Fox. You're welcome.
Here's a hint for you. Take your own advice. You don't have to open threads that don't appeal to you, so if it works you up so badly to see gay men discussing an op-ed about women, don't read the thread.
I'm guessing the new TV show "Wives with Knives" doesn't air on the Fox channel.
"Mostly nonsense, although I do think there is a maternal instinct hard-wired in women."
Not really. Many women, with children or without, don't really have a maternal instinct. They're is a relentless onslaught of motherhood propaganda from the moment a girl is born to be a mother. Women who say out loud that they regret having had children are vilified and crucified beyond belief.
Isn't it telling that all these things women supposedly are "hard-wired" for are detrimental to their psychological, emotional and financial well-being?
[quote] I'm guessing the new TV show "Wives with Knives" doesn't air on the Fox channel.
No, it's on the Discovery ID channel.
[quote] Honey, to be honest, I can barely rouse myself to give a fuck about gay men's issues any more,
That doesn't stop you from going on and on about it
[quote][W]omen shouldn’t let their success in the workplace become the biggest thing in their lives. [bold]If the ultimate goal is lasting love – and let’s face it: for most people it is – women are going to have to become comfortable with sacrifice and capitulation. …[/bold]
[C]onservatives shouldn’t let their success in the sabotaging of liberals become the biggest thing in their lives. If the ultimate goal is a lasting Union – and let’s face it: for most people it is – Conservatives are going to have to become comfortable with sacrifice and capitulation. …
There, Bitch -- fixed it for you. You're welcome.
Some gay men STILL don't get the fact that misogyny and homophobia are TWINS and stem from exactly the same place!
True, R3, they think they can demand Male Privilege, but without understanding its true nature.
Yes, homophobia and misogyny are facets of the same thing, the contempt for the feminine found in all patriarchal cultures. And it doesn't matter how masculine you actually are, guys, if you like dick then the patriarchy dismisses you as feminine and inferior.
Suzanne Venker? never heard of her. I don't know any of the dumb cunts that work on faux news
r20 is correct r18.
You should do yourself a favour and look up intersectionality.
I guess she put her head up her ass and found a time machine. Where do we queers fit into the picture, anyhow?
She might as well convert to Islam and move to Saudi Arabia if she thinks like this. I'm sure she would find many likeminded people there.
Christ -- you guys are just as stupid and obnoxious as straight men.
Then again, I knew that already.
any real scientist with a strong background in animal behavior and ecology would tell you that the majority of animals live in sexual segregation for most of the year until breeding season,after the breeder season is over they separate again,only 7% of the animals species are monogamous and those are the very species whose sexual dimorphism is so low that you can't distinguish one female and a male from each other.
Paternity is only common in some species specially birds and some mammals but the truth is that the majority of the care is done by the female without the help of any male.
the interesting thing about women like the one who wrote the article is that they actually have the cynicism of basically implying that women are entitled to the option of either staying home or going out to work and make money, after all they can have men who can't afford to do that themselves and have to work like a slave to please their wives's whims.