The World O' Crap Archive

Welcome to the Collected World O' Crap, a comprehensive library of posts from the original Salon Blog, and our successor site, world-o-crap.com (2006 to 2010).

Current posts can be found here.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

May 17, 2006 by s.z.


I know I should be blogging about the President’s speech about immigration (you know, the one where he announced his plan to smuggle Karl Rove to Mexico, so Karl could be an undocumented day laborer to avoid prosecution), but for some reason, I’m just not that concerned about it. So, instead, let’s check in with Concerned Women for America, and see what’s new with them.
Well, here’s something that might be informative: a column by Janice “Mad at My Mop” Crouse in which she encourages women to be weak and dependent.
Let’s take a peak at it:
Two things about the billboard caught my attention. First, the woman, in her late 30s or early 40s, is a solitary figure whose image takes over the sign. Then, the caption is simple and bold: You Are Powerful.
The advertisement's target audience is obvious. There is tremendous profit to be made by any company that successfully appeals to the more than 24 million unmarried women in the 20-44- year-old demographic.
Yes, since the billboard photo features just one woman, then obviously the advertisers (whoever they may be) are targeting old maids.
They make up 47 percent of all women in this age group (compared with only 19 percent that were unmarried in 1968).
Oh, for a return to the good, old days of 1968, when almost every woman could find somebody who would marry her! But today’s women are failures, who just can’t trap themselves a man. I blame billboards, for encouraging women to be solitary and powerful!
For, as Janice goes on to explain, wanting to be powerful goes along with wanting to be independent — and that’s a mistake, because it means that you will die alone and unloved. After all, nature designed women to be dependent on men (and therefore, married).
The sexual pleasure of the married bed is nature's bait to induce us to accept and enjoy our dependence.
Personally, I don’t consider the sexual fulfillment of beds, be they married or single, to be any of my business.
But what I think Janice was trying to say is that nature tricked her into being dependent by hooking her on passionate, steamy sex. Now she will tell us more about her physical relationship with Mr. “No Wife Of Mine Will Use Sponge Mops” Crouse.
Relationship well-being depends upon touch. In my own experience, the rituals of touch enrich my relationship with my husband. We've been married 44 years, and we still reach out to hold hands during prayer, whenever I exit the car, or when we walk together.
Hot stuff, n’est-ce pas?
And anyway, ladies, the reason you can’t be independent or powerful is that you’re not a grizzly bear. End of story.
In my youth, the supposedly powerful solitary figure on the billboard might have appealed to me. No more. No matter how much our pride -- particularly in our youth -- would have it otherwise, nature dictates that dependency is an inherent, integral part of our existence.
Nature did not equip human females like she did the mighty female grizzly bear, which truly is powerful and independent. The mother bear is fully capable of raising her cub alone without any help, least of all from the male bear.
The human female, on the other hand, is eminently vulnerable, and the development of the human child takes years longer than in any other species.
Take that, all you single mothers out there! You are NOT truly powerful and independent, and you can NOT raise a child without the help of a male bear. And if you did, your offspring would become serial killers, or worse.
With that in mind, we might recall exactly what becomes of the adorable, cuddly, playful bear cubs. The powerful, independent she-bear mother, in her solitary way, produces very deadly predators.
And that’s why you should never trust another billboard.
AddThis

36 Responses to “You Are Powerless”

One thing that always gets me thinking about women like this is what happens when their big, strong husbands die young/abandon them? Crouse would probably explode.
I think they’re supposed to throw themselves on the funeral pyre.
Anyway, I have to say that nature kind of blew it; I mean, really, we don’t have to be married at all to have sex. We can have it when we’re single, too.
So, um, nature’s incentive to get married kind of sucks. I mean, it’s like saying that fresh spring-water is nature’s way of enticing us into marriage. Being married has nothing to do with how much of it you actually get.
It’s pretty clear here that when Crouse talks about “Nature” what she really means is “god”. I’m a little curious as to why she didn’t just come out and say it. Is the word “god” really taboo at CWA?
First, let me just say, I think it’s really important for the voice of women with multiple advanced degrees with successful careers and a history of success running their own business have a voice in the God wants wimmens to stay home and not have money debate, so kudos to Janice, who is also taking a break from talking about AIDS, so it’s all good.
Except for this part
With that in mind, we might recall exactly what becomes of the adorable, cuddly, playful bear cubs. The powerful, independent she-bear mother, in her solitary way, produces very deadly predators.
Is there some way of looking at this where it doesn’t mean that the working mother’s kids are going to have your kids for breakfast?
A certain kind of bear-mother (don’t know about grizzlies) chases her young up a tree, then climbs back down.
The cubs are too small to climb back down–at first. It takes them a while to figure it out.
By that point, mama bear is long gone.
This seems to be the model my mother used with me.
It made me independent (of course, I’m male, so maybe my Y chromosome made me independent), but not predatory. Fact is, I’m a pacifist.
I think we should look to this kind of she-bear as our model.
Of course, male bears kill their cubs to bring the females back into heat and to reduce competition. Sort of a bad example all around.
That woman is a liar. My girlfriend and I had great sex, until she became my wife.
It raises the question: does an independent woman shit in the woods?
I think this woman is totally right – I’m very dependent on my bed, what with its sexy sheets and all. It’s actually a much more appealing place now that my ex-husband’s not in it.
Couple of observations:
- This is sponsored by the Beverly LaHaye Institute. Is that Bev of Tim LaHaye, the creator of the “Left Behind” series?
- Wish she had the nerve to post a photo of the billboard. I would love to see what it REALLY said.
- Touch improves a marriage? Maybe that’s why my ex slapped me all the time!
- Why does this whole “bear-cub” trope remind of the episode of “Married, With Children” where Al is stuck in the country with the family and the Darcies, and there’s all this wildlife outside?
Heydave Says:
May 17th, 2006 at 9:24 am
It raises the question: does an independent woman shit in the woods?

Is the Pope menopausal?
One thing that always gets me thinking about women like this is what happens when their big, strong husbands die young/abandon them? Crouse would probably explode.
Well, some of them use their good education that their fathers insisted on them getting despite their mothers thinking that girls just need good husbands and become bestselling authors to support their 3 kids and now-widowed mom, who (one hopes) now realized that Father did know best when it came to saying that his little girl should be able to take care of herself beyond looking pretty…
Of course, I don’t think Marie de France exists in Janice Crouse’s world.
I believe we may have pointed this out to the Virgin Ben at some point, but science is not a buffet table; you either eat everything that’s offered or go away hungry. So, yes, the human infant is totally dependant for an extended length of time; no, that did not lead to so absurd a solution as natural monogamy. Humans, like our closest relatives the chimps (aptly, genus Pan) lived in promiscuous bands. A simple indication of this is the high testicle/body weight ratio, exceeded only by the chimp, in the human male, despite the obvious dangers this sort of display creates. The harem apes, such as the gorilla, have tiny balls, (although, to be fair, it has also been suggested that gorillas have tiny balls because not many of them can dance).
The permanent sexual receptivity, or lack of a definite estrus, coupled with the permanently inflated breasts of the human female are also selected traits for this sort of mating arrangement, despite the fact that even some agnostics have been known to thank God for them. None of which tells anyone in this day and age how they’re supposed to live, of course. Which is my point.
When will the “Right Behind” series come out.
This one is pretty half-assed.
Apes don’t have permanently inflated breasts, either, Doghouse. It’s just a decorative trait like peacock tails which we manage to indulge in without too much of a penalty survival-wise.
Also, s.z., you might want to remind everyone that Janice “Mops” Crouse is a big fan of Dr. David Hager, which I’d forgotten until just now.
Yes, Mrs. Crouse, lecturing to single mothers is a lot like teasing bears. It’s a lot of fun! Try them both and find out!
Heydave Says:
May 17th, 2006 at 9:24 am
It raises the question: does an independent woman shit in the woods?
Is the Pope menopausal?
Are grizzly bears catholic?
Do catholic menapausal grizzly bears shit in the woods?
Ok, I’ll stop.
Hamsters have really big balls too, but I don’t think that really tells us anything. I’m generally wary of animal-human comparisons, especially since they lend themselves so easily to the “just so” story approach.
Gators and Crocs have loving mothers too. You would think reptilian types praised each other but I see I was wrong. HSssss!
Apes don�t have permanently inflated breasts, either
The other apes don’t. Their breasts are only inflated when they’re lactating. So the permanent inflation in humans, and the lack of estrus, confuse males about receptivity, encouraging them to stick around, and about parentage, discouraging the killing of infants or subsequent births. Functional and decorative, just the way Ma Nature likes it.
With that in mind, we might recall exactly what becomes of the adorable, cuddly, playful bear cubs. The powerful, independent she-bear mother, in her solitary way, produces very deadly predators.
Wait. Is she saying that bears are morally equivalent to serial killers here, and that both mother bears and independent women produce monsters? WTF does she have against bears? They’re damn successful if you ask me.
Rodents in general have one of the highest testicle-to-size ratios in the animal kingdom, and I’ve usually heard it linked to promiscuity. Mate and then go mate with something else, while the female raises her babies alone.
In considering the testicle to body weight ratio and its effect on male female relations within a species, please keep in mind the following empirical data gathered in Germany 65 years ago: Hitler had only one hig ball. Goering had two but they were small. Himmler had something similar, but Geobbels had no balls at all.
(Sorry, I couldn’r resist.)
I think she’s in cahoots with Lewis “Scooter” Libby.
Then again, Doghouse, there are plenty of gregarious species which don’t need to resort to bizarre tricks to confuse fathers out of killing their own offspring and/or nephews/nieces/cousins. Including bonobos.
And humans are *also* harem apes, so your logic falls apart there too. (or should I say shrivels up…?)
And those cute little cuddly bear cubs grow up to be deadly predators and then get shot by Ted Nugent.
The lesson: Married women should depend on the NRA.
Well, sorry, it just happens to be Senior Show night so my wife’s at school all evening, otherwise you could have had the last word several posts ago.
there are plenty of gregarious species which don�t need to resort to bizarre tricks to confuse fathers out of killing their own offspring and/or nephews/nieces/cousins. Including bonobos.
I’m not sure what the difficulty is here. One, there’s no need for “bizarre tricks” to confuse males from killing their own offspring. They don’t, or not typically. They kill other males’ offspring, which in non-social groups would include blood relatives, since they aren’t recognized as such. Bonobos assuredly do “trick” males (the phrase appears to be loaded; it’s not prestidigitation, it’s a reproductive strategy) into not killing infants: they’repromiscuous. Just like P. troglodytes, just like H. sapiens. Males don’t know which infants are “theirs”.
And humans are *also* harem apes, so your logic falls apart there too. (or should I say shrivels up�?)
Sure, I’m a withered stalk, but my science is sound. Humans have never been harem apes. Humans may have, in historical times, sometimes organized societies around a harem, but even then most men did not have harems and people did not live like harem apes. They lived in bands, or societies. The rules we’ve invented to keep sexual peace in patriarchal societies are cultural; they shouldn’t be confused with the half-million years of human pre-history.
Another thing I’ve noticed is that many of these anti-feminists forget that there have been single, working mothers all throughout history. Take the Victorian Times were a lower class woman’s husband ran a huge risk of getting maimed/killed (especally if they worked in the steel industry) due to unsafe factory regulations. Not every woman can snag a rich husband.
Sigh.
Janice was a working mother with a doctorate. She was a Bush scriptwriter and owned her own PR firm before the LaHayes hired her to be a professional traditionalist.
One of her degrees is in Rhetoric, which I love.
I think Crouse is using her bear talk to get Stephen Colbert to notice her.
Cynthia, that’s probably because Crouse doesn’t realize that Stephen isn’t a conservative.
The third excerpt from crazy Crouse is a paraphrase of G.B. Shaws’ observation that the attraction of marriage is that it combines the maximum of temptation with the maximum of opportunity.
In the big ball debate, Doghouse is right. According to Jared Diamond’s The Third Chimpanzee, successful males in species that engage in sex more often need to have bigger testes to produce more sperm. The “harem ape,” the gorilla, has the smallest balls because, while he may have several wives, they are only in heat maybe once each year (so he might only have sex a couple of times a year). Chimps have the biggest balls, because they live in big groups and when a female goes into heat, it is the equivalent of a gang-bang and the male who has the most sperm has the best chance of impregnating her. Humans are in between because while we don’t have to wait for a woman to go into heat (and hence get to have sex more often), we also tend to be more monogomous and don’t have the competition our chimp brothers have.
Scientists are still divided on why human males have bigger penises (penii?) than other primates.
What any of this has to do with female grizzly bears rearing serial killers is anyone’s guess. Crouse probably wouldn’t approve all of this talk about big cocks and balls. Let’s talk about happier animals, like those totally heterosexual penguins. Nature analogies are a bitch.
Julia said:
Janice was a working mother with a doctorate. She was a Bush scriptwriter and owned her own PR firm before the LaHayes hired her to be a professional traditionalist.
One of her degrees is in Rhetoric, which I love.
I noticed when I did a google search on her name, the first five or so all mentioned she was a doctor, but only on the sixth one did it mention what she was a doctor of Communications. I’m not putting that down, but if I were referring to myself as Dr. Mark, I would probably put somewhere I was a doctor in something other than medicine. I mean, technically, anyone who has a PhD is a doctor, but most people assume when you call yourself a doctor you mean a doctor in medicine. I shouldn’t have to read through five bios to find that information.
katrina Says:
May 17th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
I think she�s in cahoots with Lewis �Scooter� Libby.

*COFFEESPIT!*
OK, THAT was funny…
Oh My God ! This woman maybe wingnut of the century.
Relationship well-being depends upon touch.
Does this make any sense to anyone ?..
anyone parked a coil in the woods lately and found that u got no coil foil what do u use?

No comments:

Post a Comment