Patheos

BuddhistCatholicContemplativeEvangelicalGeneral ChristianHinduJewishLatter-day SaintMuslimNew VisionsProgressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Patheos

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Love, Joy, Feminism

Right-Wing Radio Hosts Discuss Man-Hating Feminists

Last updated on: January 29, 2013 at 11:44 am   by Libby Anne

Right-Wing Radio Hosts Discuss Man-Hating Feminists 2013-01-29T11:44:48-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Jessica, a writer for Friendly Atheist, has a fascinating post up today in which she analyses  and responds to a conversation about feminism that took place between two right-wing radio hosts. This piece is instructive as well as maddening, because the radio hosts, Swanson and Buehner, employ essentially every anti-feminist stereotype and straw man out there. Here is the clip:

If you don’t have a moment to listen, don’t worry, because Jessica took the time to transcribe the entire thing. I’m going to give you an excerpt from Jessica’s post, follow with a short summary of the rest of the conversation, and finish with some of my own thoughts on Swanson and Buehner’s comments.

I’m going to go ahead and walk you though the crazy:

Kevin Swanson: And remember the goal is that these women have to be independent.

So, off to a strong start here. ”The goal is that these women have to be independent”… I guess that’s fine, right? Independence is great! Even though he said it with quite a bit of snark, I am all for independent ladies!

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 will help a lot.

Wow. Okay, um, I guess the birth control goal is sort of close to true, right? I mean, I’m usually into quality birth control over quantity. (Same for fornication.)

But… the abortion thing? What? The goal is abortion? And if that’s the goal, the morning-after pill will not be too helpful at all.

So, if you’re keeping score, here are the feminists’ goals so far:

  1. Independence
  2. Lots and lots of birth control
  3. Lots and lots and lots of fornication
  4. Abortion

We continue:

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.

So, as a woman, I want a job so that I don’t need a husband so that a corporation with government-mandated insurance and welfare will take care of me.

So I need a job… so I can get welfare? And if I did have a husband and went on his insurance plan, how would that make the corporation less fascist?

And that, my friends, is what The CollegeTM is all about!

Dave Buehner: Because her feminist professors have told her [that] 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.

What classes is this Fictitious Feminist gal taking? I kinda want in on it.

So instead of getting married, all of us single feminist ladies are going out and literally prostituting ourselves. Seriously, I barely ever missed classes in college. I cannot believe I missed the entire “Your Husband Will Hold You In Slavery” unit.

[read the rest]

Swanson and Buehner go on to say that there are two groups of feminists. The first group are the attractive ones who use their looks to get a leg up in the business world and the second group are the ugly ones who get angry and go into academia. Both groups dispense with both husbands and children. Swanson and Buehner go so far as to say that feminists not only don’t care about having children but also have actually ceased to love either children or husband. Buehner concludes by saying that feminists are “selfish, narcissistic, family-destroying whores.”

Jessica does a great job taking these guys down, especially regarding their constant talk of birth control and welfare, but I wanted to take a moment to add a few things.

First, while I wholeheartedly endorse the decision some women make to not marry or not have children (decisions that are far from selfish or narcissistic!), the vast, vast majority of women who identify as feminists do marry and do have children. Swanson and Buehner’s suggestion that being a feminist means that I don’t love my children or my husband is incredibly offensive. Given the absolutely unrealistic nature of Swanson and Buehner’s straw feminist, I’m wondering if they’ve ever actually met any feminists. But then, I suppose that if they were to meet me they might well simply assert to my face that, because I don’t stay home with my children, I don’t love them. Do you know how annoying it is to be telling that you believe one thing while they insist that, inside, you really actually believe something else? Yeah, it would probably be like that.

But that leads into the next point. If a desire for financial independence and a career means a woman can’t love her husband and children, what does that say for men? In Swanson and Buehner’s world, men are to be financially independent and have careers—but wouldn’t that mean men can’t love their wives and children? I mean, if I can’t have a career and earn money while also loving my spouse and children, why would Sean magically be able to do both? (Perhaps Swanson and Buehner think Y chromosomes are some sort of magic.)

One final note. Did you catch just how focused Swanson and Buehner are on women’s looks? This annoys me to no end. Can we stop dividing feminists into “attractive feminists” and “ugly feminists” already? Can we stop assuming that whether a woman is considered attractive or not by a given person might not be the most important thing about her? Can we stop assuming that a woman’s attractiveness or lack thereof governs her success in life and her happiness? And can we stop assuming that there is one standard of attractiveness? Honestly this is one reason I’m glad I blog under a pseudonym: this way I don’t have to worry about people on the internet discussing at length whether or not I’m attractive, as though that was some sort of critical question!

And having said that, I’d like to encourage you to go read Jessica’s post.

Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism

Feminism

Patriarchy

gender

stereotypes

Previous Post



January 29, 2013

Guest Post: Is Contraception "Emasculating"? Sean Responds

Next Post



January 29, 2013 A New York Times Op-Ed on Illegal Abortion


Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011


Follow Us!

Follow Us on Facebook Follow Us on Twitter



TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the first Christian martyr?

Select your answer to see how you score.

James Paul Peter Stephen

Related posts from Love, Joy, Feminism

Nonreligious

Maybe Let's Not Read More Puritans

Love, Joy, Feminism

Nonreligious

Feminists, Repent!

Love, Joy, Feminism

Nonreligious

"So Your Problem with Christianity is the Jesus...

Love, Joy, Feminism

Nonreligious

The "Man Code"

Love, Joy, Feminism

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious

Dethroning Jesus and Enthroning Yourself

Jesus Never Asked to Be Worshipped. He Asked to Be Understood. Christianity...

Why Most Christians are Really Paulians and Jobians

I Don't Care, But It Matters Let's get this out of the...

Essential Tips to Successfully Navigate the Selling Process

Selling a house can feel overwhelming, but it doesn’t have to be....

To Make Remote Work Effective, Think About Others

The COVID-19 pandemic forced many companies to rapidly transition to remote work....

Flexibility Is Key to Solving Problems of Tomorrow

The world of work is undergoing a dramatic transformation. The COVID-19 pandemic...

view all Nonreligious blogs

Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Copyright 2008-2026, Patheos. All rights reserved.

Subscription Support Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube