Bad advice from awful women

First up: marriage advice from Michelle Duggar, because when I think of the term "happy marriage," I immediately think of an empty-headed baby factory whose husband is so gay that he makes sure to impregnate her every time they mate so that he doesn't have to do that again for at least 9 months!

Michelle Duggar’s Tips For A Happy Marriage: ‘Husbands Are Commanded To Govern Their Wives’

 

Is it just me or do they look an awful lot alike?

So, yeah, her advice is pretty much as creepy as you might expect:

A Husband Needs A Wife Who Accepts Him As A Leader And Believes In His God-Given Responsibilities”: Husbands are commanded to govern their wives; God works through a man’s decisions — good or bad; Bad decisions reveal his needs and allow the wife to appeal and demonstrate Godly character; The more a wife trusts her husband, the more careful he will be in giving her direction; Never ask others for counsel without your husband’s approval; reassure your husband that you understand and believe that he is your God-given leader.

 She even has some sort of a workbook with fill-in-the-blank questions about being a good Stepford wife:

I. A HUSBAND NEEDS A WIFE WHO RESPECTS HIM AS A MAN.
A MAN WANTS TO PROVE HIS MANLINESS.
HOW DOES A WIFE DESTROY HER HUSBAND'S MANLINESS?

Although, one might amend  that to read "A painfully insecure man wants to prove his manliness.

HOW DOES A WIFE DESTROY HER HUSBAND'S MANLINESS?

A._____________________________
1. Physical
2. Spiritual
3. Mental
4. Emotional

And some are just weird:

B._____________________
1. ____________________is killed by self-sufficiency.
2. Whoever controls the _______________controls the ______________ . 

(insert your own filthy sex joke here)


 And some area little frightening:

A wife may avoid temporary consequences by taking matters into her own hands, but doing so will ultimately cause destruction (Proverbs 14:1).

DESTRUCTION!!!!!
Okay, I'll bite, what does Proverbs 14:1 say?

Every wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands.

Huh?

Reading this passage from a sane perspective, as I am wont to do, it seems to be saying that women should try to be, you know, wise. And not foolish. Which seems like good advice for women or men.  I don't see anything here about not taking matters into one's own hands. In fact, I would venture to say that based on this passage, a wise woman should take things into her own hands, but a foolish one should probably not.


And then some is just sad:

A husband needs a wife who will continue to develop inward and outward beauty: How can you become more of the wife of your husband’s dreams?; discover and  conform to your husband’s real wishes; explain your hairstyle to others on the basis of your submission to your authority

 

Of course, if this was my hairstyle, I'd try to blame it on my husband too.

So, yeah. Discover and conform to your husband's real wishes. Because why be who you are? Why have a personality of your own, when you can just be some sort of sad puppet?

If you have a strong stomach, you can read the whole thing here: http://www.radaronline.com/sites/radaronline.com/files/Seven%20Basic%20Needs%20Of%20A%20Husband.pdf



Then there's Suzanne Venker, the author of How to Choose a Husband and Make Peace With Marriage, which is an odd title, since someone who is looking to choose a husband has probably already made her peace with marriage, or else why the search for the husband?



Suzanne describes herself thusly:

I am a wife and mother who writes. A lot. I’ve spent the past thirteen years, while at home with my children, examining the culture and its social agendas as it pertains to sex, marriage, gender roles, and the work and family dilemma.

 

Because the best possible place to do this kind of sociological research is at home with a bunch of dumb kids!

 And who knows more about the "work and family dilemma" than a stay-at-home mom? 

The purpose of my work is to offer a perspective I believe is commensurate with the way most women think and feel about their lives

com·men·su·rate

[kuh-men-ser-it, -sher-] 

adjective

1. having the same measure; of equal extent or duration.

2. corresponding in amount, magnitude, or degree: Your paycheck should be commensurate with the amount of time worked.

Before I became a writer, I was a teacher. I was so shocked by what I witnessed in public schools that I quit and wrote my first book, or started to anyway (my first marriage was falling apart at the time, so the project fell by the wayside),

That marriage and motherhood has been so devalued in this country is the reason I took to the computer once again. All of my books examine the demise of the American family since the 1960s

 

So, your marriage failed. So obviously it's society's fault for de-valuing marriage and allowing the demise of the American family. 

So you may be wondering by now "is this a book that I really need? Well, thankfully Suzanne has a handy quiz to help you determine just that. If you answer "yes" to 5 or more of these questions, damn right you need her stupid book!

1. Deep down, do you feel superior to men?

2. Are you nicer to your girlfriends than you are to your husband or boyfriend? (Another way to answer: Is your behavior and demeanor the same with your guy as it is when you’re with your girlfriends?)

So, if you're a rude, arrogant lady you're already 2 for 2 in the needing the book score.

 4. Do you secretly believe you deserve to be married to Brad Pitt? And that if you were, your life would be better?

Suzanne's book is ideal for the extremely delusional!

 6. Do you have sex very quickly when you’re in a relationship? Or when you’re not in a relationship at all?

Buy my book, you whore! Otherwise you'll just keep on enjoying your sexuality all over the place and won't have time to read awful self-help books.

9. Be honest: Are you looking for tall, dark, and handsome as opposed to smart, stable, and kind? Or perhaps all of the above?

Do you have standards? Are you not eager to settle for short, pale, and ugly? Because that's the only man you deserve, not one that you're attracted to! Because as we've already established, you're a rude, arrogant whore!

10. Are you open to the idea of living with a man?

Whore!

 

 If you're still not sure whether this book is right for you, just click on the "read an excerpt" link

 

Which takes you to this gem:

Read an Excerpt From How to Choose a Husband

Coming Soon

 

Sure, she's already all over FOX promoting this book, but it still seems like it might be a bit too early to post an excerpt.

 

Finally, here is the book description from Amazon.com presented without further comment:

It's been forty years since the sexual revolution, and the women of America have everything they want. Everything, that is, except a husband. Women may be schooled in the art of sex, but they have failed in the art of love.

That isn't surprising. The modern generation is living in a culture that isn't the least bit interested in helping them get hitched. For decades women have been taught to sleep around indiscriminately, to pursue an education and career at all costs, and to never depend on a man. As a result, women delay marriage indefinitely or ignore it altogether -- as though marriage has no bearing on their happiness. As though it were a nice idea, or nice accompaniment, to an otherwise satisfying life.

This is an unprecedented worldview. Until recently, women have always mapped out their lives according to what they considered their most important role: wife and mother. Today, women plan their entire futures around big careers. Husband and children come last.

In How to Choose a Husband, social critic and bestselling author Suzanne Venker says American women need a detox. If they want to be happy, or just plain satisfied, they must do a 180 when it comes to their attitude toward sex, courtship, and married life.

If they do, marriageable men will reappear -- and women will find the love that eludes them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you ever wondered what Winnie the Pooh would look like in a bikini?

Yes, you have, liar!

Well, wonder no more!




Fabulouuuuuuuuuus!!!!!!!!!!

Bizarre Qoute of the Week

It's Bill O'Reilly commenting on Christianity:

"Mr. Silverman, it is a fact that Christianity is not a religion.  It is a philosophy," O'Reilly stated

I don't even have a joke here. I don't know how to respond to such an odd statement. Christianity not a religion? Boy, all the Christian churches out there are going to be pretty upset to learn that they're going to lose their tax-exempt status.  Because they're just what, philosophy clubs now?

And of course, because it is Bill O'Reilly, he prefaces this bizarre interpretation of Christianity with the ludicrous phrase "it's a fact," as if it's just common knowledge that despite all the churches and ministers and missionaries and all these religious trappings Christianity is just obviously not a religion! Everyone knows that!

Stupidest Election Analysis So Far

The horrible Washington Post Op-Ed section had someone write a piece about what a great campaign Mitt Romney ran. It was written by one Stuart Stevens who was, um, Mitt Romney's chief campaign strategist because, you know, objectivity!

Opinions

Mitt Romney: A good man. The right fight.

Yeeeeeahhhhh.... Mitt Romney may be a lot of things, but a "good" man? I've seen no evidence of that.

Over the years, one of the more troubling characteristics of the Democratic Party and the left in general has been a shortage of loyalty and an abundance of self-loathing.

 

 It would be a shame if we Republicans took a narrow presidential loss as a signal that those are traits we should emulate.

Narrow?

 



I don't know how you define narrow.

 I appreciate that Mitt Romney was never a favorite of D.C.’s green-room crowd or, frankly, of many politicians

Or of anyone.
Pretty much everyone hates him, but only because he's kind of a horrible person.

That’s why, a year ago, so few of those people thought that he would win the Republican nomination.

Everyone knew Mitt Romney was going to be the Republican nomination. No one wanted him to be, but he was the only one who didn't seem crazy


Or retarded



Or weird



Or all of the above




He was the default nominee since the 2008 campaign ended.

But that was indicative not of any failing of Romney’s but of how out of touch so many were in Washington and in the professional political class. Nobody liked Romney except voters. 

They liked him so much that they flitted from Bachmann to Cain to Gingrich to Perry, only finally settling on Romney after each and every one of them had imploded.

 What began in a small field in New Hampshire grew into a national movement. 

What began? Nothing began in any small field in New Hampshire. It began in Karl Rove's "American Crossroads"boardroom.

It wasn’t our campaign, it was Romney. He bested the competition in debates

Yeah, that must have been tough!

  

OOPS!

and though he was behind almost every candidate in the GOP primary at one time or the other, he won the nomination and came very close to winning the presidency.

He was behind all the other candidates because the voters loved him so much!

In doing so, he raised more money for the Republican Party than the party did. He trounced Barack Obama in debate. [sic]

In debate. Yes, he won A debate. One out of three. And only because Barack Obama didn't show up for the first one.

He defended the free-enterprise system and, more than any figure in recent history, drew attention to the moral case for free enterprise and conservative economics.

Using his Bain capital experience as a good object lesson, he sure made a moral case for something, but it wasn't for "free enterprise" or "conservative economics." It was more of a moral argument for tar and feathers.

When much of what passes for a political intelligentsia these days predicted that the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan meant certain death on the third rail of Medicare and Social Security, Romney brought the fight to the Democrats and made the rational, persuasive case for entitlement reform that conservatives have so desperately needed.  

And with Paul Ryan at his side, he won the elect. . . .oh, wait! Maybe the intelligentsia had apoint?

And there is nothing rational or persuasive about Paul Ryan's position on Social Security or Medicare.

The nation listened, thought about it — and on Election Day, Romney carried seniors by a wide margin.  

So the people who would not be affected by the future slashing and burning of SS and Medicare voted for the boring white guys over the scary black man? Well, I'm certainly convinced!

 

It’s safe to say that the entitlement discussion will never be the same.

No, it will always be the same tired lies trotted out again and again by the Ryans of the world.

 

On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income.

Hmm, the affluent voted Republican?  You don't say!

 

 But having been involved in three presidential races, two of which we won closely and one that we lost fairly closely, I know enough to know that we weren’t brilliant because Florida went our way in 2000

Mainly because it really didn't?
Although, getting away with that level of chicanery could be described as brilliant, in a way.


 Nor are we idiots because we came a little more than 320,000 votes short of winning the electoral college in 2012.

Really?

Obama Victory Margin Grows

As the votes keep coming in, David Wasserman notes President Obama's national lead over Mitt Romney is now 50.9% to 47.4%. 

Losing is just losing. It’s not a mandate to throw out every idea that the candidate championed.

 Yeah, it kinda is.

In the debates and in sweeping rallies across the country, Romney captured the imagination of millions of Americans

 

Pictured: millions of people, sweeping rally.

 

He spoke for those who felt disconnected from the Obama vision of America. 

The vision of a country where people can get medicine when they're sick and we still make cars? The horror!

He handled the unequaled pressures of a campaign with a natural grace and good humor that contrasted sharply with the angry bitterness of his critics. 

Natural grace? Good humor? Are you kidding? Mitt?

 

That's either Mitt Romney or Cary Grant!

 

There was a time not so long ago when the problems of the Democratic Party revolved around being too liberal and too dependent on minorities. 

  

Yeah, when the Democratic party was really liberal, they totally had lots of problems!

Obama turned those problems into advantages and rode that strategy to victory. 

Maybe if they can be ridden to victory, they don't really qualify as "problems?" 

 

 But he was a charismatic African American president with a billion dollars, no primary and media that often felt morally conflicted about being critical.

 

  

Yes, he could never survive a primary!

Yes, the Republican Party has problems

  but as we go forward, let’s remember that any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right. When Mitt Romney stood on stage with President Obama, it wasn’t about television ads or whiz-bang turnout technologies, it was about fundamental Republican ideas vs. fundamental Democratic ideas. It was about lower taxes or higher taxes, less government or more government, more freedom or less freedom. And Republican ideals — Mitt Romney — carried the day. 

I'm not sure which day that was, but it sure as hell wasn't Election Day!

 

On Nov. 6, that wasn’t enough to win. But it was enough to make us proud and to build on for the future. 

Worst Book-Ad Blurb Ever

This blurb caught my eye in an ad on Wonkette:

"Cooch takes us on a special-ops thrill-ride. Buy your tickets now!" -Admiral James Loy

This is the book he's plugging:






It's by Robert COOK. But Admiral James Loy would rather talk about "Cooch."

Understandable.