Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: What do women want in a husband? That is a story from CNNMoney.com. (interruption) Oh, yes, they do. Yes, they do. They do answer it, and it is not the money section. What do you think the answer is? It’s CNNMoney.com. In a question, “What do women want in a husband?” What do you think the answer is? (laughing) What do you think it is? (interruption) Isn’t it interesting, Snerdley, you’re “72,” I’m 63, and the subject still fascinates us, right? What do women want more than anything in a lifelong mate? The answer is — dadelut dadelut dadelut — for the guy to have a steady job.

Solid employment is the number-one priority women are looking for in a husband, more than compatibility and raising children, and more than moral and religious beliefs. And this is all according to a Pew Research Center study that was released late yesterday. Having the same education or racial ethnic backgrounds are far lower on the list. Now, this is good news for Democrats. You might think, “Wait a minute, Rush, that doesn’t make any sense. How is this good news for Democrats?” Well, follow me on this. What do Democrats want? Forget for a moment what do women want. We now learn that women want their man, their husband, to have a steady job.

But the Democrats, the War on Women is aimed at who? Single women, right? Well, the reason this is good news for the Democrats is because they want more single women. We now know what keeps women single, guys who don’t have jobs, and the Democrats have taken care of that. There aren’t any jobs to be had. See how this works? This is perfect. This is made to order for the Democrat Party. Single women are their number-one demo in the War on Women. Now we learn that women’s number-one requirement for a husband is a guy with a job, but because of Obama there aren’t any jobs for guys to have, therefore there are no potential husbands, therefore single women will remain large in number and vote Democrat. See how this works, folks?


RUSH: “Solid employment is the number-one priority women are looking for in a husband, more than compatibility in raising children or in moral and religious beliefs,” much more than even being listened to. Some people probably answer the question, “What does a woman want in a husband?” with “She wants him to listen to her.” But even that is overshadowed by the desire that women have that their husbands hold a steady job.

And as I say, “Good luck with this in the Age of Obama,” unless you’re willing to settle for a guy with a part-time job or a couple or three part-time jobs. This is gonna keep more women single if this is true. Men have different priorities, of course. Their main concern is having similar ideas about having and raising children. (Ahem.) Now, the Democrats are not all that happy about this, as I think they should be.

I mean, really, they have conquered the employment problem, meaning we have more people not working than ever before. The labor force participation rate’s at an all-time low, and there’s no sign of it getting better. There’s even more data today from another survey showing American attitudes about the economy. It’s even worse than we reported yesterday.

Economic news relating to employment and economic growth is also not good.


RUSH: I just discovered something that I had yesterday that I did not get to, and it dovetails with the CNNMoney.com story that what women want in a husband is a guy with a steady gig — which, again, benefits the Democrats. Single women are their number one demographic in the War on Women. Married women tend to vote Republican.

Especially of late, the polling data shows married women are more and more aligning with the GOP, which, more importantly, that is its anti-the Democrat Party. So the news is that what women want in a husband is steady jobs, steady employment. But there aren’t any jobs to be had. So there’s no threat, really, that single women are gonna be getting married, which redounds positively to the Democrat Party.

But I just found something we had here from the New York Times yesterday. This story, as it turns out, was all over the morning shows yesterday — Today show, Good Morning America, CBS This Morning. The headline of the story: “Marriage Rates Keep Falling as Money Concerns Rise.” So, unbeknownst to me, I had the forerunner of today’s poll result yesterday, and because of the vagaries of the way the program unfolded, I didn’t get to it.

Here are the main details of this story. Let me make sure I’ve got the next page. I do. “Of all the milestones on the road to adulthood, Americans are increasingly forgoing one of the biggest: marriage. Twenty percent of adults older than 25, about 42 million people, have never married, up from 9% in 1960, according to data in a Pew Research Center report published Wednesday. The trend has been consistent for decades.

“Since 1970, each group of young adults has been less likely to marry than the previous generation. Although part of the trend can be attributed to the fact that people are simply marrying older, Pew projects that a quarter of today?’s young adults will have never married by 2030, which would be the highest share in modern history,” and the primary concern here, the primary reason given by people refusing to get married is — in one way or another — money.

It’s somewhat fascinating.

“In many ways, the retreat from marriage is the result of evolving gender roles. But the decline in marriages is also a result of the country?’s deepening socioeconomic divide. Until a few decades ago, marriage was mostly an economic equation, as the Nobel-winning economist Gary Becker described: Men earned money to support a family while women ran the household.”

You’ve heard of that. (interruption)You remember those days? (interruption) You do? (interruption) You remember those days? (interruption) You do? (interruption) You have an active memory of “men earn[ing] money to support a family while women ran the household”? (interruption) That happened when you were alive? (interruption) Wow. (interruption) Well, yeah, I do. My mom and dad and so forth.

But, I mean, the feminists came along in the seventies, they nuked that. Remember? “But with the rise of the birth control, household…” Listen to this paragraph here. (laughing) Get this. “But with the rise of birth control, household technology and women in the work force, marriage became less about economics and more about love, as the historian Stephanie Coontz said in her book, ‘Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage.'”

So we’re being told here that only recently, only recently has love been a factor in marriage; that prior to that, the number one factor was always economics — which, if you believe it, was rooted in what? Women had to get married because they needed a breadwinner. That’s what they’re trying to say here.

Do you remember the old adage…? (chuckles) Get ready, Media Matters! (laughing) I love taunting these people. Do you remember the old adage, “Women marry up”? Well, what did that mean? (interruption) And if you… (interruption) Yeah, that’s right. Yeah. Exactly. That was the economic… That was the way this economic thing the New York Times is talking about is referred to, is women “marrying up.”

It was an economic thing. Well, it wasn’t that long ago that you say that to a feminist, man, and here came the claws. They knew it was true but they resented the heck out of it. It was one of the reasons why the modern era of feminism was birthed. Well, it wasn’t birthed, and it wasn’t born ’cause they don’t believe in that. (interruption) Hatched! Exactly right. It was hatched.

It wasn’t birthed and it wasn’t born. Those are fighting words to feminists. Excuse me. Pardon me. “Educated, high-income people are still marrying at high rates and tending to stay married, according to economists and demographers who study the issue. Remaining unmarried is more common among the less educated, blacks and the young, Pew found.” I guess what we’re worried about here…

The reason why this is a story at the New York Times is they didn’t like the old idea that women married a breadwinner. That’s so old-fashioned. That was subjugating women. It was subordinating women to the home and the housekeeper role. Can’t have that. So then feminism came along and women didn’t have to marry up because they, too, were in the career force and the workforce and earning their own and didn’t need a man.

But then what suffered? Well, there wasn’t any love in the relationship, wasn’t any marriage. Feminists were told, “Don’t saddle yourself with a relationship with a man. Don’t have that be your primary ingredient for happiness.” Now we’ve gone full cycle. Now we’re back to money as being a factor of why people do or do not get married, which means that feminism is sliding back.

Once again, it’s a temporary result for feminism, and that’s why this story. That’s why they’re worried that money is all of a sudden now becoming a factor in marriage again. That is looked at by feminists as not a solid development. (interruption) “Spinsters”? (interruption) Do I remember the word “spinster”? Yes, of course I remember the word “spinster.” (interruption) Well, I’m gonna tell you something.

Snerdley ask asked me if spinsters “were what the feminists were back then who were unhappy about being spinsters.” I don’t know, but I’ll tell you something that surprised me. I have had a number of women, over the years, tell me that one of the biggest fears — it’s not a lot, and I don’t know if this representative of any kind of a wide swath of women or not.

I’m just stunned at the number of women I’ve heard from that one of the biggest fears they had was growing old and basically becoming a bag lady, which is your word for “spinster,” right? (interruption) Same thing? (interruption) I’ve been stunned at the number of women. That was one of the biggest fears they had. So now with the economy in the tank, and with jobs scarce and career jobs even scarcer…

With the Democrat Party running around telling everybody who will listen, “This is it! This is the new normal. Don’t expect to do better than your parents.” I just can’t tell you how that irritates me. Because, A, it isn’t true. It’s what the Democrats want people believe so they will live that way. The biggest enemy the Democrat Party has is self-reliant, self-sufficient people.

If you convince more and more people there’s no reason to work ’cause it isn’t gonna matter because America’s best days are behind her — if you convince more and more people of that — you’ve created a dependent voter bloc, which is what they want. It’s really… It’s like the story we had from the Denver school the other day about capitalism.

The students said they didn’t want to hear about capitalism. They wanted to hear about equality and all this stuff. The stuff that’s being taught to kids these days about their country! They’re being taught to resent it, to not believe in it. There’s Obama up there yesterday at the UN apologizing again. Can you believe he actually compared what happened…? He mentioned Ferguson, Missouri, in a passage talking about terrorism around the world!

He’s talking to these thugs at the UN about how we all have to work together on terrorism to wipe it out and get rid of these militant jihadists or whatever and said, “By the way, I understand that we can’t preach from virtue here. We’ve got our own problems.” And he talked about Ferguson. Comparing it to the same kind of thing that he was railing against, i.e., terrorism. So you have this never ending leadership apologizing for the country and acknowledging, quote, unquote, acknowledging all of our weaknesses or blights or what have you.

I’m telling you, to people who are loyal to the Democrat Party or who believe that presidential leadership never lies to them or whatever, if they hear over and over again that this is the new norm, expect unemployment of around 10 or 11 percent, expect 30-hour work weeks. People hear this over and over again, and they’ll believe it. You know, people easily believe negatives. It doesn’t take much to turn people into pessimists. Many people most naturally are pessimists. It takes effort to be an optimist. And so if you have pessimism — it’s a combination of pessimism and optimism.

The Democrats’ version of America is, “Yeah, the best days are behind us, but you can do okay by voting for us.” So the optimism they present is constant Democrat leadership. That’s the optimism. That’s the alternative to the pessimism of a normal, everyday life in America now. And that’s just obscene. It’s absurd, it’s insulting, and it isn’t true. This is still a place on earth where, if you really love something, if you really have a passion and you’re willing to devote yourself to it, you can score. You can make a name for yourself. You can become profoundly successful however you define it.

It’s happening every day. And instead of that serving to be as a role model for people, we’re turning those people that succeed into suspects. And we’re telling people, “Don’t be like that. Those people are not paying their fair share. They’re stealing from other people. They’re not really earning it. They have connections or something.” It’s being impugned. Success and accomplishment are targets now. It just really burns me up to see this kind of. It’s so unnecessary. And now you see it manifesting itself in these stories about marriage and money. All of this, every bit of it, is political.

This New York Times story is totally political. It’s written with the overall attitude: how is this gonna help or hurt the Democrat Party? How is this gonna help or hurt the War on Women? How is this gonna help or hurt Democrat efforts? I just get tired of it every day. All that seems to matter is, is it gonna help the Democrats, hurt the Democrats, help Obama, hurt Obama. What about the people? Everything has just become so politically dominate here that it’s hard to get through to the truth of anything.


RUSH: Here’s Lois in Naples, Florida. Hi, Lois. I’m glad you waited. I really appreciate that. Welcome.

CALLER: Oh, I’ve just had a college course in patience and listening to the news.

RUSH: (laughing) You need that. You definitely need that if you’re gonna do that.

CALLER: Yes. Well, why I was calling, all the polls that you were talking about today, and the first poll that you mentioned about what a woman would want in a man, husband.

RUSH: Steady job, it says.

CALLER: And I think that poll was given mostly to the younger women, because I think when you get over 70, it’s quite different.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: My poll would say that I want a man that would talk to you, commune with you, and love you.

RUSH: Are you in that age-group?

CALLER: I’m over 80.

RUSH: You’re over 80?


RUSH: Well, let me ask you, and I’m not trying to pry; I’m trying to learn.


RUSH: You’re 80; do you have a man who listens to you and loves you?

CALLER: I have it most of the time. (laughing) There are a few times I have to work at that.

RUSH: Yeah, see? He-he-he. It’s never solid, is it?

CALLER: No, but —

RUSH: No, it’s never. You always have to keep manipulating things to get it the right way.

CALLER: I know, but this is our second time around, and it’s been 38 wonderful years.

RUSH: You married the same man twice?

CALLER: No, I married one for 21 years, and then I married again.

RUSH: Oh, it’s a new husband.

CALLER: New husband.

RUSH: Well, 38 years, but it’s the second husband.

CALLER: Yes. And loves to travel.

RUSH: Oh, well, that’s great. That’s great.

CALLER: We’ve been all over the world, and it’s a wonderful world, but still the United States is one of the best.

RUSH: Now, does your husband have a job? Do you all still work, or are you retired?

CALLER: No, he was 30 years with the LA city fire department.

RUSH: Los Angeles city fire department?

CALLER: Yes. Yes.

RUSH: You’re in Naples, Florida. So he’s retired.

CALLER: Yes, he is.

RUSH: So him having a job doesn’t matter ’cause you’ve got the retirement. Okay.

CALLER: You know what they got to do? He got to go to Washington, DC, with the veterans the other day.

RUSH: No kidding?

CALLER: Oh, that was a wonderful thing that they did for them.

RUSH: I can imagine how meaningful that was.


RUSH: Well, look, Lois, thank you for the perspective. It makes total sense in your demographic area that you would want love and somebody to talk to. Totally understand it.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This