RUSH: There’s been a study that was conducted. They wanted to find out what’s better, happiness or being right. “Is it better to be right than to be happy?” Well, here’s what happened on this. “It was part of an unusual experiment –” “spearmint,” for those of you in Rio Linda. Yes, this is a study of marital relationships. “Is it better to be right than to be happy?”
Now, hang on here. Just hang on. You might be in for a little bit all of surprise here. “As part of an unusual experiment, the husband was instructed…” In the survey, in the test, in the laboratory test, “the husband was instructed to ‘agree with his wife’s every opinion and request without complaint,’ and to continue doing so ‘even if he believed the female participant [his wife] was wrong,’ according to a report on the research that was published Tuesday by the British Medical Journal.”
You know, I once spoke to Charlton Heston.
I think he was the first interview for the Limbaugh Letter, and at the time I spoke to “Chuck,” as he became known to his close friends, he’d be married for 50 years right around the time we were doing the interview. I asked him what the secret was. He said, “I mastered four words.” I said, “What are they?” “Honey, I was wrong.” I said, “That’s it?” He said, “Yep. If you want to stay married 50 years, you have to learn to say, at every moment of strife, ‘Honey, I was wrong.'”
Well, that’s what they’re putting to the test here. “The husband and wife were helping a trio of doctors test their theory that pride and stubbornness get in the way of good mental health. In their own medical practices in New Zealand, they had observed patients leading ‘unnecessarily stressful lives by wanting to be right rather than happy.’ If these patients could just let go of the need to prove to others that they were right, would greater happiness be the result?” That’s what they wanted to find out.
“Enter the intrepid husband. Based on the assumption that men would rather be happy than be right,” and so, as part of the test, this guy, “was told to agree with his wife in all cases.” No matter what, she was right. She was not in on it. The wife had no idea that this was a test, that this was a research project. “However, based on the assumption that women would rather be right than be happy, the doctors decided not to tell the wife why her husband was suddenly so agreeable,” because one day, the husband was agreeing with everything.
Whatever she said, whatever request, whatever command, he did it. Whatever opinion she expressed, he agreed, and they wanted to find out if that would promote marital harmony. If the man… Notice upon whom the burden falls here. If the man would simply subordinate what he thinks is right to what his wife thinks is right, the theory is, everybody’s be happier. So they put it to the test.
“Both spouses were asked to rate their quality of life on a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being the happiest) at the start of the experiment and again on Day 6.” They were supposed to rate and record their quality of life on the 1-to-10 scale. “It’s not clear how long the experiment was intended to last, but it came to an abrupt halt on Day 12. ‘By then the male participant [the husband] found the female participant to be increasingly critical of everything he did,’ the researchers reported.”
Despite the fact he was agreeing with her every time something came up. He was doing everything she wanted. Every request, from “take out the trash” to “do the dishes” to, “Why don’t you do this?” whatever, she was always right, and he agreed with it, and there wasn’t one challenge — and she became increasingly critical of him as time went on. It did not promote the harmony that they all expected.
It did just the act opposite. She became so disagreeable, so critical, that he “couldn’t take it anymore, so he made his wife a cup of tea,” and on day 12 he revealed that they were part of a research study that she hadn’t been let in on. “That led the researchers to terminate the study.” The whole thing’s blown. When the wife knows what’s going on, the whole research project is blown.
“Over the 12 days of the experiment,” spearmint, for those of you in Rio Linda, “the husband’s quality of life plummeted from a baseline score of 7 all the way down to 3. The wife started out at 8 and rose to 8.5 by Day 6. She had no desire to share her quality of life with the researchers on Day 12, according to the report.” By day 12, this couple practically hated each other. The wife had lost all respect for the husband; the husband was miserable.
Remember, the test was he’s just to agree with her, ’cause the premise here is if you take a lot of friction out of life, you’re happy. Forget about being right, forget about being dominant. Just whatever. Just be bipartisan. Just try to make the other person like you. Don’t disagree at all. Don’t have any argument. Don’t have any bickering. Whatever the other side wants, agree with them. Compromise!
It led to utter disaster and near divorce in 12 days.
Because the wife, rather than be made happy by a constantly agreeable husband, began to nag him even more. No matter what he did, it wasn’t good enough. No matter how strenuously he agreed, she didn’t believe it. No matter what was going on, every effort the husband made to remove any friction whatsoever, all it did was add it. “[T]he team was able to draw some preliminary conclusions. ‘It seems that being right, however, is a cause of happiness, and agreeing with what one disagrees with is a cause of unhappiness,’ they wrote.”
Now, there are real huge lessons here.
Now, folks, here, look. This is a little harmless thing that they did with man and wife here, but this little research survey has all kinds of extrapolational meanings. Because what did they survey? They surveyed, “Okay, let’s just try to get along. Whatever. Just subordinate, compromise what you think. You know, broom it.” If you have to subordinate what you think is right to something you know is not right, will that make you happier?
You agree with somebody that’s important to you, like your wife in this case. No matter what, you’re wrong. No matter what, you compromise. No matter what. The wife practically wanted to divorce the guy after 12 days. Now, let’s expand that to the Republicans and Democrats in Washington. The Republicans are subordinating everything they believe in for “bipartisanship” and for “compromise” and for “reaching across the aisle” and for “doing deals,” and what is happening?
They’re losing their base.
The Democrats don’t respect ’em. They’re laughing at ’em and mocking ’em. They’re not getting anything done, and they’re not really gaining a whole lot of respect. I think it’s fascinating.
RUSH: So Snerdley tells me that he got a text from an infobabe, a female infobabe he knows who wanted to know if the survey was done by an all-male research team. Who cares? The results are the results. No, no. It doesn’t matter. The opening premise was universal. The opening premise was what defines happiness, being right or being agreeable? What’s more important to people, being right or being happy? And of course the premise is that sometimes you can be happy by acknowledging that you’re not right even when you are. And so they put it to the test in a marriage.
But you can apply this, I think, to any relationship, large or small. That’s my point here. So just to review, they did not clue the wife in to what was happening. They just told the husband, “Whatever happens, she’s right. You don’t have to say you’re wrong, just she’s right. Whatever she wants you to do, you do it.” The assumption is she knows everything and you are just a willing servant, because that’s what will make her happy. If you sit around and get into arguments with her over who’s right, you’re not gonna be happy.
That’s what they wanted to test. And they found out in this test that the guy acquiescing to his wife on everything, she became more miserable than he was. She lost respect for him. In day 12 they were practically ready for a divorce, and they ended the research study. It was supposed to go on much longer than that. And what they found was that the guy not standing up for himself — this is not a male-female thing. I mean, it is in this particular thing, the arena they tested, the marriage, but you take this to Washington, folks, and it applies.
What do you have? You have the Republican Party convinced that the world hates ’em and that they can’t be happy standing for what they stand for. They’ve got to agree with the Democrats because the majority of people — this is the premise — support the Democrats. The majority of people support Big Government. The majority of the people support the welfare state. You Republicans know this, you may as well just acknowledge it and agree to it and portray yourselves as supportive of it, and that’s what they’re doing. That’s what bipartisanship is, is compromising what you believe, bipartisanship as defined by the establishment.
Bipartisanship is not compromise. Compromise is defined as Republicans caving on everything. The Republicans are never right. In this research, we extrapolate this to Washington politics: Republicans are never right, but they’re trying to be happy. Republicans are never right, and as such, they’re trying to be loved. The Republicans are told that they’re hated ’cause they’re too extreme, they argue too much, they’re too partisan, they’re unwavering, blah, blah, all that.
And the Republicans are then told, “The way you’re gonna get along, the way you’re gonna win elections again, is by agreeing with us. You’ve got to stop these things you believe in. You’ve gotta get rid of this business of closing down the border. You’ve gotta get rid of this rigid position on women that you’ve got. You’ve gotta get rid of all these things you believe,” and the Republican Party, by golly, by gosh, is in the process of doing that.
Are they happier? Are their voters happier? Do the Democrats like them any more? Is there really bipartisanship going on? Is there genuine compromise going on? No. The Republicans are losing the respect of the Democrats like the husband lost the respect of his wife. The Democrats don’t respect ’em. They think they can kick ’em around and get whatever they want out of ’em. The Republicans are running around doing everything they can to make the Democrats think they agree with ’em. And it’s their own party the Republicans say they’ve got a problem with, the Tea Party people. I mean, it’s right in front of us here.
And so the result is standing for what you think is right is a more substantive route to happiness than caving on what you believe just to get along. Which is really what this was about. Whatever you have to do to get along, and in this case give up what you believe, and that’s how you’ll be happy. That’s what they wanted to test. And it turned out that when the husband gave up his core, he wasn’t respected, he wasn’t happy, and neither was his wife. And I maintain to you that this is exactly what’s happening in Washington, and it’s the same trick.
The Democrats are responsible for this belief system that the Republicans are hated and despised because they’re on the wrong side of all these issues. They’re extreme and their base is a bunch of Looney Toon, kook extremists, and you guys are never gonna win another election as long as you keep standing for whatever it is, standing for getting rid of the deficit, you want to cut taxes, you gotta understand, people are gonna hate you. So the Republicans are trying to make everybody who hates them like them. In the process, they are abandoning they’re core principles and beliefs, in the hope that they’ll be liked, loved, there won’t be any friction, and instead what is the real result? It’s worse than ever.
The Republicans are getting shellacked on everything. There is no respect. There’s no bipartisanship going on. There isn’t any compromise. You have the Republicans here playing the role of the husband, just subordinating everything he believes for the sake of happiness or contentment. So don’t focus on the results here strictly in this marriage. I think the results are applicable throughout any relationship, you as an individual or group you’re a member of, could have with another group. I don’t think there’s any question about it.
RUSH: Bottom line, what’s the lesson? You believe it, stand up for it. If you’re right, by God, stand up for it. Believing in yourself is a route to happiness. Confidence in yourself is a route to happiness. Feeling embarrassed about yourself, or having to subordinate who you are because there’s something wrong with you? There’s no way you’re gonna be happy doing that. And that’s the lesson here. If a guy says, “Look, we’re running a little test here to see how you get along with your wife. You are always wrong no matter and you gotta shelve what you believe, just put it aside for the interest of compromise and comity and so forth.” It doesn’t work. It just doesn’t, because nobody can be happy, nobody can be happy not being who they are, unless they’re psychotic, which does describe some on the left.
But you get the point here. It’s far more satisfying to be who you are, find out who that is, stand up for it, be proud of who you are, proud of what you believe in, ’cause you know it’s right, and do try to persuade people. You’re gonna be much happier and you’re gonna be much more self-satisfied and you’re gonna end up being much more confident, because the bottom line is that compromising who you are, giving away who you are, subordinating who you are is not gonna get you any more respect, or any respect, and it isn’t gonna make you happy, and it isn’t gonna solve any problem in any relationship, unless you’re dealing with somebody pointing a gun at you. You can always come up with exceptions to rules here. But in the civilized ebb and flow of things, I don’t think there’s any question about it.
RUSH: Jane in San Jose, California. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. How exciting to talk to you.
RUSH: Well, I’m glad you got through.
CALLER: Wow. Hey, listen, I wanted to follow up on the study that you were discussing this morning. I thought it was great psychological savvy that you apply that to the parties. I think it’s absolutely true. But I’m a psychologist, and I think it is a male-female thing. Let me tell you how.
RUSH: Okay. I mean, fire away.
CALLER: Okay. So men and women both need love and both need respect, but men are fed from respect. They’re sourced and they’re fed by it and they feel better about themselves when they’re respected, and women primarily feel better about themselves when they feel loved, and so if you had reversed that study and had that woman being respectful of that man for 12 days, I think their marriage would have gotten better.
RUSH: Well, now, wait just a second. “If you had reversed the study and the woman was being respectful the man…” That’s what they were trying to do. She was supposed to respect him more, love him more, like him more, as he became less confrontational and more agreeable.
CALLER: No, because he was being quote, “respectful” to her, but he was being chronically deferential, and I’ve never seen a witchy woman get nicer from a guy being deferential like that. They don’t do it. The opposite happens. But if she had done what he did to her, he would have felt better about himself. He would have been more loving and sweet to her.
RUSH: Okay. Let me run something by you here, Jane. You know me. I love stereotypical things, humor, like mother-in-law jokes and that kind of stuff. They’re old-fashioned. They’re not considered funny anymore. They’re considered offensive, such as, “Do you know what real conflict? It’s seeing your brand-new Cadillac go over the cliff, but your mother-in-law’s in it.” That’s an offensive joke today. Back in the old days, that was perfectly fine to laugh at. There was a phrase back in the old days, before the feminist movement. It went like… How old are you? No, I shouldn’t ask that. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to ask that.
CALLER: That’s okay.
RUSH: You might not have heard this. I hope you have. “The man who thinks…” By the way, you tell this to somebody today and you say you admire this, and you will be hated. “The man who thinks he married someone…” I’m trying to get the exact wordage of this. “The man who thinks he is smarter than his wife knows not how smart she really is.” Now, you know what that means, right?
CALLER: I do.
RUSH: It’s just what you said, that the man is happier when the wife subordinates. “Yes, honey.” She respects him. He’s the man. He’s the big, tough protector. He’s the provider. He’s the great. He’s always right. When the woman is deferential, you said — if she had been deferential — he may have had felt better about himself. Their marriage would have been fine and dandy, and she would have been okay with it.
CALLER: Because he would have been, in turn, then more loving which is what she’s really hungry for.
RUSH: Oh, does that always work?
CALLER: Not always, but mostly. Mostly.
RUSH: So are you saying, Jane, men being nicer to —
CALLER: To dominating, mean women, that does not work.
RUSH: Of course it doesn’t.
CALLER: I know. It’s not news, though, but seems to be.
RUSH: No, no. It’s a tenet of the feminist the movement today.
CALLER: I know. But I have people in my office that are miserable because of that tenet.
RUSH: That’s what they were trying to get at here. They just went at it the other way around.
CALLER: Yeah. But they missed the other half of the study, which really would have been much more revealing, and I think it does apply to the parties, because I know a ton of Republican women now, and none of them have respect for the Republican Party ’cause it stands for nothing. The Democratic guys and leaders are mean, right? They’re going for it. They have cajones. The Republican leaders are getting wimpy.
RUSH: No, please. Please, don’t tell me that.
CALLER: Sorry, but it’s true.
RUSH: Is that how…? Oh, jeez, it’s worse than I thought.
CALLER: They don’t respect our leaders.
RUSH: Are you telling me that Harry Reid is seen as a real man?
CALLER: I’m telling you that he has those people’s back because he will go — he’s vicious.
CALLER: I’m not saying it’s becoming, but I’m saying the Democrats know that the people in the Democratic Party know that those Democratic leaders are gonna take it to the next level, that they’re gonna fight, and the Republicans don’t fight for us.
RUSH: That’s true. I can’t —
CALLER: It’s hard to respect that.
RUSH: Exactly. Well, in a way you’re confirming the survey. You wanted to focus on it though clinical purposes, in the male-female relationship, but as you extrapolate this to the world of politics, you’re acknowledging it, that it’s right.
CALLER: Yeah, absolutely.
RUSH: ‘Cause the Republicans are the man in that study.
CALLER: That’s right. I totally agree.
RUSH: And they’re wusses.
RUSH: And they don’t even seem like they respect themselves.
CALLER: They don’t, and that he isn’t attractive.
RUSH: It isn’t.
CALLER: It’s not attractive.
RUSH: They’re even afraid to say what they really believe.
CALLER: That’s right, and the Democrats aren’t.
RUSH: Well, yes, they are.
CALLER: Well, yeah. They don’t tell you they’re socialists.
RUSH: What the Democrats do is constantly trash and demonize the Republicans. The Democrats never are honest about what they’re really gonna do.
CALLER: Right, I agree that they’re not honest, but they’re willing to get dirty, and frankly, that’s what we need. We need, you know, people who are willing to go for the fight.
RUSH: Yeah, I tell you —
CALLER: And it’s hard to respect people for long.
RUSH: Jane, I’m glad you called. She’s right on the money.
RUSH: Mother-in-law joke. Stereotypical humor. “Bob was having dinner at a restaurant with his mother-in-law when, unprompted, she said, ‘I’ve decided I want to be cremated.’ He said, ‘I’ll go get the car.'”
Here’s an observation for you, folks. The left attacks Republicans daily. The left attacks conservatives. The left attacks black conservatives, female conservatives. The left attacks Republicans every day, without fear. Can you think of a group the left never attacks? Can you think of a group that the left actually bows down to and acquiesced to? I can. The Muslim community. The Muslim community is stridently anti-gay the left never attacks them. The left never attacks the Muslim community.
Their brutality in the Middle East toward gays? The left never says a word about Islam and women and gays. Not a word. Why is that, do you think? They make up things about Republicans and gays. They make up things about Republicans and women. They make up things about Republicans and minorities — and they do it every day, and they get away with it because the Republicans are afraid to stand up and challenge it and refute it.
But they don’t say a word about Islam and gays, Islam and women. Do you wonder why that is, folks? Might you be able to come up with an answer to that question? Hmm. Why do the Democrats fear criticizing Islam? They don’t fear criticizing the Catholic Church. They don’t fear criticizing any denomination or aspect of Christianity. They don’t fear criticizing certain Jewish organizations or people at all. They don’t fear that.
They’ve made careers trying to destroy the Catholic Church.
But they keep their distance from Islam.
Why, do you think?
Do you see Islam going out of its way to moderate, to conform, to be “dragged kicking and screaming into the real world,” as the estimable Piers Morgan describes the Catholic Church as doing? You don’t, do you? Do you hear the left or the Democrat Party ripping into them for it, ever? No, you don’t. Why are they afraid of it? Do you see Islam compromising, expressing an interest in bipartisanship, getting along? Do you see Islam willing to change what it believes in order to get along with Democrats?
Do you see that?
You don’t, do you?
I wonder why.
Here’s Dave in Boston, as we head back to the phones. Dave, it’s great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Hey, Rush, I think I have the reason why that study — that experiment — failed, and I’m pretty soon I have the solution to what would make it work.
CALLER: When you say, “Honey, I think you’re right,” you’re giving too much away. What’s gonna happen is, sooner or later, consciously or subconsciously, she’s gonna catch on to it to the fact that you’re just appeasing her. It’s like, ever try the words, “Yes dear” all the time with your wife? Does that work?
RUSH: Wait a minute. Let me ask you a quick question. Are you married?
RUSH: Do you think, if you wanted to conduct this experiment — say you wanted to — just for one week. You were gonna always agree with your wife. You’re never gonna disagree. You’re not gonna tell her she’s wrong. Do you think you could do it in a way that she didn’t think she was being appeased?
CALLER: Well, that’s the solution I have. I’ve been doing it for 20 years. It’s simple. All you do is say, “Honey, maybe you’re right,” and they never catch on.
RUSH: Well, you’re just giving it up now. Now they’re all gonna know.
CALLER: Everybody be happy now, because when you say “maybe you’re right,” you’re not conceding that she’s right or that you’re wrong.
RUSH: Look. I’m sure that the man in this survey was not instructed to say all the time, “Honey, you’re right.” “Oh, yes, I totally agree with you, sweetheart.” “Oh, absolutely.” “What, take out the trash again? Sure! What else?” I don’t think it happened that way. I think he was simply instructed not to argue, not to stand up for what he believed. It wasn’t that whatever she said, he said, “You are so smart. Oh, you’re so great!”
Of course she’d see through that.
According to the research, what put her off was that she knew that the guy wasn’t being who he really was. It wasn’t that he was pandering to her. At the end of it all, when you strip away all the ancillaries and you get down to the salient, the point was that the guy agreeing with her so that there would never be any arguments — the guy agreeing with her and doing what she wanted so there wouldn’t be any confrontation, so there wouldn’t be any friction… The test was: Will that make you happy?
Will that make anybody happy? Will it make the man happy? Will it make the woman happy? In this case they were studying will it make the man happy — and it didn’t, and what they were shocked to learn was, it was the wife who was the most unhappy. They were studying the man, happiness for the man. What they found is that the woman became miserable, and it’s not a mystery why.
I mean, this is human nature.
“Boy chases girl ’til she catches him.” It’s another one of these. You say that to a feminist, and they’ll want to string you up. That is a line, a lyric from a song that was popularized by The Vogues. What was the title of the song? I don’t know. But the opening line was, “A boy chases a girl ’til she catches him.” You run around and you say that to a feminist today, and you’ll be accused of being a stereotypical sex predator and all kinds of things.
You know, I didn’t talk about it enough, but I got this piece here. Camille Paglia had this piece in TIME magazine this week. “It’s a Man’s World, and It Always Will Be.” It’s always going to be a man’s world. The piece is extraordinary because Camille Paglia is a well-known feminist. She’s a lesbian. She’s a sexologist, a sex expert. She’s an art critic. She really a brilliant woman in her own right, and she goes back and she chronicles this, aspects of American history, things that women could not have done, that women could not have built.
There’s no criticism involved here. It’s just an acknowledgement of fact, an acknowledgement of the differences, an acknowledgement of who did what and who wielded power, who had power, and how it was used. Men liberated women with appliances, like Walter Williams. For his wife’s birthday, he got her a vacuum cleaner or some such thing. Or a washing machine, to make her life easier. You say that to a feminist, she’ll blow her gasket.
But there are some time-honored, irrefutable truths for human beings, men and women, and the feminist movement and all of liberalism has spent the last 40 years trying to change them. They have taken what is basic human nature and they’ve found out that they’re not happy with what nature bequeathed to them. So they have embarked on this crusade to reverse and change basic human nature. You can’t.
You can artificially turn guys into wusses for a while, and you can see to it that no men want to go to college anymore, and you can see to it that there are more single mothers and single parents and so forth. You can make all that happen, but there’s nothing good in it. Feminism has been a wrecking ball in most of American culture. Because feminism, in order to accomplish its aims, has necessarily set out to blame men for everything that women are unhappy about.
Then the biggest mistake the modern feminists made was trying to be like men. Dress like men, have careers like men, be stressed out like men. That’s how modern feminism defined itself: Changing the way the world works, acquiring power and so forth. They wanted to join all-male clubs. They wanted to get in on all this action they thought they were being denied, and they did not establish a separate identity for women.
They simply tried to become men. It’s one of the biggest mistakes of the modern feminist movement, if you ask me. We’re living with the results of this, and it’s not good. It’s not good for anybody, and Camille Paglia tackles it head on. I mean, it’s amazing. It’s an amazing piece. I wish I could have time actually to read the whole thing, but I don’t (and I can’t, obviously), but it is in TIME magazine.
RUSH: Here’s Nirvana in northern Florida. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hello, Mr. Rush. How are you?
RUSH: I’m fine. Very good. Thank you very much for calling.
CALLER: Thank you. Thanks for having me. I called about a couple months ago and I was talking about the modern day feminist and my mom being part of the old time feminism where it was basically a lie, and you had asked me at some point in there where —
RUSH: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait just a second now. ‘Cause I’m vaguely remembering this. Your mother, you said, was part of the old time feminism. Did you say your mother realizes now it was a lie or is she still committed to it?
CALLER: She’s committed to it. I’m the one that’s saying basically it is a lie.
RUSH: Yeah, okay, that’s right.
CALLER: She said, “Well, when are you gonna get a real job?” when I chose to stay at home with my kids.
RUSH: Oh, that’s right. I do remember this now like it was yesterday.
CALLER: You have a better memory than I do.
RUSH: Imagine that. Imagine, a parent, “When are you gonna get a real job instead of staying home with the kids?” Wow. See, that’s the kind of anger and controlling mechanisms that these feminists engage in that’s really off-putting.
CALLER: Yes, sir. But I had called, you had asked me a question about what was, if I vaguely remember, what was so off-putting, what was the issue that women had with you. I’ve been thinking on that, and basically it’s you are painted in a very sexist way. You know, your opinions, you’re anti- whatever, anti-women, anti-women having control of their own reproduction, yada yada yada. I just found that that wasn’t the case. I mean, so often people have said, “Oh, he’s this, this, and this.” And when I actually listened to you I didn’t find that was the case at all. I found that you’re very opinionated, and you weren’t afraid to say things, which kind of goes back to that survey thing. I don’t want a guy that is weaker than me. He better be at least as strong as me. But, you know, I didn’t find you sexist at all. I just found that you were straight up, to the point. If you didn’t like it, well, you weren’t very politically correct, that’s their own problem.
RUSH: I remember you. I do. You’re from Jacksonville, right?
CALLER: Yes, sir.
RUSH: Yeah. Yeah. She called back in August and —
CALLER: Yes, sir.
RUSH: — and at the time, after talking to you, I said, we needed a new category, stay-at-home feminist, because that described you. Because you’re firm in your beliefs, you’re not a wallflower, you’re not wimpish, you’re not frightened or anything, but you are very proud to be a mother. You want to stay at home. You don’t have any regrets, and you don’t feel less of a woman for it. So we coined a new category for you, stay-at-home feminist. And I did ask you why you thought 25-year-old women were afraid of me.
CALLER: Because it was how the media portrays you.
CALLER: And they do that purposely because if they can discredit you then they can discredit anybody that opposes their viewpoint.
RUSH: You are so right. See, that’s the key. The demonization of anybody they consider a threat. They can’t beat me in the arena of ideas, Nirvana, they can’t beat us, so what they do is try to discredit people they think are leaders, opinion leaders.
RUSH: So they’ll go after Sarah Palin. They’ll go after Clarence Thomas. They’ll go after whoever. I mean, they’ll tell you who they’re frightened of by who they try to destroy.
CALLER: And I want to bring that in, “Oh, you’re just a mom, you don’t know anything.” Well, I was also a CD. I did construction, you know, I had a career, but that was what was so important about the feminist movement now is we have the choice; I chose to get out of the military and raise my kids because I felt they were more important.
RUSH: Right. Choice is what I always thought the feminist movement was about. But, boy, if you chose the wrong thing, they would drum you out of it just like you were a conservative.
CALLER: Pretty much. And then once again it’s like, “Oh, well, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re dumb or you’re just ignorant or you’re a bigot,” or whatever.
RUSH: Nirvana, how old are your crumb crunchers?
CALLER: 10, six, four, and two.
RUSH: Well. I tell you what I’m gonna do. I gotta go because of the time here, but I want to put you on hold, Snerdley will be back to get your address in northern Florida, ’cause I want to send you some books for the kids, Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims and —
RUSH: Yeah, I’ll send you one copy of the audio version for the youngsters that can’t read yet. It’s the least I could do. I’d be thrilled to do it. (singing) “So don’t hang up. Just don’t hang up.” Fifties group. Can’t think of it. Anyway, don’t hang up. Snerdley will be there, get your name, give us a FedEx address and we’ll get the stuff out to you as quickly as we can.
RUSH: It was The Orlons that sang the tune “Don’t Hang Up,” and it was late fifties, early sixties, ’62, The Orlons. “Don’t hang up. No No.”
RUSH: Kevin, South Carolina, great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Thank you, Rush. Dittos, self-employed dittos from down here in the land of milk and honey.
RUSH: Well, nothing better than that.
CALLER: No, sir. You were talking about why Muslim — or Islam, I guess — doesn’t get criticized for their anti-gay agenda.
RUSH: Why? Why doesn’t the left rip into them like they rip into the Catholic Church or other Christianity for anti-gay, anti-female beliefs?
CALLER: Well, I was sitting here thinking about it. The obvious answer is that they are afraid of the violence. Only 1% of them are violent, as they say, but they’re very violent, that segment of them are, and so if you criticize ’em, they do strike back out.
CALLER: So that seems like the obvious answer.
RUSH: Yeah. It is.
CALLER: I think that’s not quite all of it.
RUSH: Well, what is the rest of it?
CALLER: Well, because they are so fervently anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, anti-Western religion. That has to be the real reason why they get very little criticism. They’re on the same side.
RUSH: When you say “they’re” so fervently anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, who are you talking about, the media or Islam?
CALLER: Islam. There can only be… When you boil it all down, there can only be one religion according to them, and that is Islam. Everybody else is infidels.
RUSH: Well, when you get right down to it, that’s true of all religions. Some just have more courage in saying it publicly than others.
CALLER: Right, but they seem to be more violent.
RUSH: That’s why there’s a controversy over, “You don’t have to be a Christian to get to heaven.” That’s new to a lot of people.
CALLER: Yeah. But I just think that, you know, it is odd, and I have often pondered that question. I mean, ’cause this year alone, six reporters were killed in northern Iraq.
RUSH: Look, it’s real simple. They’re scared of militant Islam. They’re not afraid of the Catholic Church. They’re so unafraid of the Catholic Church, they’re making the Catholic Church pay for and give away contraception, and they’re delighting in doing it. They’re not afraid of ’em, and they don’t respect them, and they’ve declared them an enemy. They have not done any of that.
When Islam gets going they conduct seminars, “Why do they hate us?” They never ask, “Why does the Catholic Church disagree with us?” They don’t care. “Wipe ’em out! Islam? Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah! We don’t want to make ’em mad.” The answer’s obvious. (interruption) No. That better not be controversial. It just happens to be the truth. There’s nothing controversial about that. I mean, look, this all started, folks… If you missed the beginning of the program, I like to have some context.
It all started with a story. A bunch of researchers tried to find out if a husband could be made happy by a peaceful relationship with his wife based on never disagreeing with her, or if he had to be right in order to be happy. So they had a guy (unbeknownst to his wife) just agree with her all the time. Whatever she wanted, he did. Whatever she said was right, he accepted — and after 12 days, they were ready to divorce. That’s what got all of this started