Former CNN Pundit Schneider Analyzes Gender Gap, Jokes 'Men Are Stupid'
Appearing as a panel member on Sunday's Melissa Harris-Perry show on MSNBC, former CNN political analyst Bill Schneider undermined the judgement of men versus women while analyzing the gender gap in American politics as he ended up joking that "men are stupid, they take stupid risks."
He also labeled President George W. Bush as a "great risk taker" whose drive to cut taxes and invade Iraq were "big risks."
After recounting that since 1980, women have tended to vote more Democratic than men, Schneider asserted: (Video at bottom)
There's a reason for that, and I think it has to do with the word, phrase "safety net." Women count on the safety net provided by government much more than men do. Men believe government interferes with them. Women believe government is there to protect them. And they've only begun to achieve economic independence in this country in the last 20 years or so. And they feel vulnerable in the marketplace.
He tied in President Bush as he continued:
It's the safety net issues that appeal to women because, at the risk of sounding stereotypical, women are more risk-averse than men are. George Bush was a great risk taker - the war, the tax cuts, big risks. He came from the world of sports and business where risk-taking is rewarded. Women worry about risk.
Schneider concluded by bringing up men who commit crimes and go to prison:
The evidence for that is simple: Ninety-some percent of the prisoners in America are men because men are stupid. They take stupid risks.
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Thank god...
Submitted by rgallegos on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 12:58pm.
for stupid men....you idiot! (What a tool!!!)
By Schneider's logic women are stupid
Submitted by frank14 on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 6:28pm.
They gave us Bubba and Obama!
Schneider is a...
Submitted by AgentAmerican on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 1:06pm.
"sock" puppet for the Democrats...and that's not a hand in there either...
Bush cut taxes during a recession and corporate accting scandal?
Submitted by merly1 on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 1:27pm.
What a risk taker! There was a Dem Senate in 2001-2? What risk takers they were!
He's right, as far as the point he's making.
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 1:35pm.
While I generally disagree strongly with any "women are smarter" argument, he's right, as far as his example goes....more men than women take stupid risks. He does say women are more "risk-averse."
Think about it: how many women do you see on the old "Jackass" or the current "Dumbest Stuff on Wheels" ??
risk-averse women
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 1:39pm.
But women do like the bad-boy in general and take many risks to change him.
By that same logic, Schneider is an idiot.
Submitted by Trix Rabbit on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 2:02pm.
Schneider is an absolute idiot. And as such, why does his idiotic opinion matter?
For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me. As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
Ian Anderson "Wind up"
Sometimes the truth comes out by accident*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 2:05pm.
What he says is partly true. The reason marriage is still important in our society is based upon a real assertion. Why do you think women are called "the better half"..??...;-)
and women do "civilize"
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 3:27pm.
and women do "civilize" men.
They are having problems in China because of too many young men with no prospects of marriage and family (hoist on their "one-child" petard).
Caj and MB,
Submitted by Trix Rabbit on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 4:23pm.
I couldn't agree more. I firmly believe that women are genetically superior to women - two x chromosomes compared to and xy.
Having said that I just say that Schneider is a complete idiot because he is a hand-wringing demi-guy.
For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me. As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
Ian Anderson "Wind up"
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Submitted by liberalsarefunny on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 2:36pm.
betcha he sits down to pee....
What a fruitcake
Submitted by russedav on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 2:44pm.
If men didn't take risks and if women didn't support them and advise them there could be no civilization, which of course is what spineless effeminate degenerate lawless fascist feminazi scum like him want, vile traitors promoting every evil obscenity our Founders and great servicemen fought to the death. If this were a civilized country they'd have been executed for their lives of crime long ago. No danger of that.
Criminals By Definition
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 2:49pm.
are stupid.
Extrapolating the stupidity factor of all males from the prison population subset is stupid. In essence, this logic requires that all women be stupid as well since women are in prison too.
I am not in complete disagreement with all his points. Men do take more risks. However, the tax cuts were not as big a risk as he makes them out to be based on historical performance and there was risk in not going to war to kill and disrupt our mortal enemies. Those points were gratuitous Liberal bias rehashed - Bush bad, Bush's fault. So was his thinly veiled appeal to women watching the program to vote Obama (safety net) over any Republican (risk taker) by juxtaposing Bush (male, risk taker, stupid) with female need for security.
The poor man's Alan Alda.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 3:18pm.
Next he'll be standing up at some leftwing charity dinner loudly proclaiming he's really a lesbian trapped in a man's body and his mom once told him he was 1/156th Inuit.
Without smart men taking risks,
Submitted by ThisnThat on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 4:16pm.
But yet, we are now led to believe that smart men are now the root of all evil, and therefore should be condemned, spit upon, and told to go away. Become metrosexuals and worry about our hair, or something. What a crock!
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Hey Bill: speak for yourself
Submitted by rbosque on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 5:08pm.
Hey Bill: speak for yourself moron.
I knew I wasn't the first to say those words. I'm only...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Tue, 05/29/2012 - 3:54am.
surprised more people didn't say it. Your added word of "moron" adds a nice touch.
comfortably numb
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 5:18pm.
Without risktaking men we would still be living in caves.
Neither sex is superior to
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 5:37pm.
Neither sex is superior to the other because they are not separate entities. They are two parts of one union. Wonder why Gay men have such debauched lifestyles? No women to tame them down.
We start out as dependant children and slowly grow into adulthood. Living with the opposite sex is a design by nature to finish the maturity of being a fully actuated human being.
Marriage to the opposite sex, living and struggling together, and raising a family produces a completely different person than does being a single person or part of a same sex couple. The challenge of living with the opposite sex creates a different society than does one where people are living other lifestyles.
obama stupid?
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 5:46pm.
You mean to tell me that obama's 'great risk' and bravery to 'get' bin Laden was stupid?
nothing ventured nothing gained
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 5:55pm.
No group of women have ever created an empire or a nation.
Women have always had influence but have never had the actual power.
Real power comes from taking risks up to and including losing your life.
Hey Mid*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 9:35pm.
I had to agree with you only partially. There have been throughout history women that have indeed had great power. But you may be thinking in terms of physical and political strength. There is many differences between men and women for lots of reasons. Women are very much risk takers. They give their heart and lives and future to a man they hope will become a union. A pairing designed by a higher power to able us to grow as individuals and as a unit. That "union" is intended to help the offspring be nurtured, guided, in order to fulfill themselves .
If you measure "risks" as a major difference between men and women, then why is it that it is women who give birth? Birthing a child is damn risky business and requires that womans entire devotion and interest for at least 18 years hoping that her efforts at child rearing gives her child an opportunity to be fulfilled, independent and successful even with all of the negatives in our society that surround our children. The mother who gives her body, her heart, her eternal love and devotion to that child til he becomes an adult is the greatest risk of all. Ask your wife what she thinks. Ask your mother.
Caj
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 9:37pm.
It reminds me of the saying, having a child is having your heart walking around outside your body.
Hi Caj
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 9:52pm.
You point out the very thing that limits womens power in the wider world. Nature has designed women to give birth and nurture children into adulthood. This is a very necessary task for survival, and yes very risky. It used to be that childbirth was a major killer of young women.
But in the wider world of political and military power women are not inclined to risk it all because their number one instinct is for their children (whether they have any or not). Men can have ten children and risk everything for mere thrills.
Power is not something someone gives you. It something you take. You have to be aggressive, relentless, and willing to defeat your opponant, even to the death. That takes testosterone not estrogen.
MidAmerica
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:01pm.
So, are you saying Hillary Clinton has more testosterone than estrogen?
From the pictures I've seen lately I wouldn't be surprised.
got me
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:08pm.
Hillary has become a mystery. I don't if we should ignore her, fear her or pity her.
Mid
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:20pm.
I pick the first two. I can't pity her because she made a deal with the devil when she married Bill. I don't think there has been much between them but ambition for years. You get what you pay for.
Hey Mid*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:14pm.
You forgot something again. Women are not always controlled by "estrogen". There is a point in our lives where that is "paused".
http://www.nndb.com/people/140/000023071/thatcher-1-sized.jpg
http://jwa.org/media/feminism-america-still-image
Just to name a couple of women. Once the children are grown and on their own, the focus for women is the future, the future of their grandchildren. The world that will provide safety, opportunity, and growth is our focus. That is why the political powers that be are currently fighting over the vote from women. There are a multitude of active women's groups throughout the country fighting to make a difference on many issues. Some of these groups do have varying agendas but all with the same end in mind. Women will fight, and can be very dangerous when our children and grandchildren's lives and futures are threatened. Have you never heard of "mamagrizzlies"? Women are careful when they decide to fight. That does not mean they will fight or give their life only to protect their child, they will also give their life to protect that childs future.
however
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:06pm.
Men will get together, do a war dance, travel to a neighboring village where they will bash in the heads of the other village's men, carry off the women and when they get back home have another dance to celebrate their great achievement.
When women are capable of that level of action then they will have true power.
Well Mid*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:19pm.
With your last post, I have decided time to end this discussion. G'night
MidAmerica
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 9:45pm.
Elizabeth I
Cleopatra
Eleanor of Aquitaine
Isabella of Castile
Catherine the Great of Russia
These are just a few women who have led their people. There are many fewer than men because of the inherent differences in men and women. Men, by nature, are the warriors. The protectors, the food getters, the stronger and the faster. Women, by nature, are the nurturers. The care takers, the life givers, and the keeper of the home. Both roles are vital, but different. It's difficult to be a leader and a nurturer, which is why the most successful female leaders weren't good mothers, on the whole.
Neither is superior as a whole, because neither can continue the human race on it's own. The lack of respect men/fathers are given in the entertainment industry is appalling. I have no doubt it's adding to the confusion and breakdown of families, as no one knows anymore who the leader is supposed to be. After all, we can't all be chiefs. Someone's gotta be an Indian.
Well said Ms Rad*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 9:59pm.
Its not just men who can carry a sword....
http://www.serialno3817131.com/images/02.jpg
or play football, or fly a plane, or repair cars, or work as a clerk in a 7/11. Men and women have different strengths and skills to fill the void of the other. Women are not often "visible" power brokers but give society, cultures, and human kind in general some thought and you can see women are indeed very powerful and absolutely necessary....;-)
battle of the sexes
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:04pm.
I knew I might raise some feminine eyebrows with my comments.
I learned a long time ago that if you want to get on the wrong side of a woman it's to tell her she can't do something because she's a woman.
I had already thought about your question. But the women you are pointing out were leaders for a time over MALES. The military and political power behind these women is always male. If these women had been leaders of a government comprised of females, an army comprised of females and the men stayed home and took care of domestic duties then yes, I would agree that women can be as powerful as men. But that scenario has never happened.
Mid
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:08pm.
What I disagree with is that you made it sound as if women never ruled or led a nation. My point is that yes, they have. With the exception of Isabella of Castille though, they were not nurturers, or good mothers. In other words, they acted more like men to be successful. Which, sadly, is what we are teaching our daughters to be now.
Add to my list:
Joan of Arc
Empress Maria Theresa of Austria
yes...
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:13pm.
There have been exceptions and there have been individual women who became strong rulers. But that is not because they were a woman but in spite of being a woman.
sorry Mid*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:25pm.
But now you are starting to sound like a misogynist. Stating that women who are strong rulers or powerful is because they act more like men. Forcing women into a particular role in society is a danger clear in other societies, ie, Sharia Law. The opposite is happening here. Women are for "reproductive" focus. Contraceptives so women can be sexually active without responsibility sounds like a guy thing to me. Abortion being a right again is changing the role of women to suit an agenda of irresponsible behavior. Most women are confident in themselves to know their own goals and challenges. Many of them post here at NB...;-)
women's lost world
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:31pm.
One of the societal losses we have had in the last hundred years is the devaluation of "home and family". Women used to wield great power by their devotion, instruction and care for the next generation. Now too many women have fallen for the Liberal mantra that home life is forced servitude to males. Proper childrearing has almost become a lost art.
I grew up in a rural area and when I was young the old farmers such as my grandpa were raised in the late 1800's, I can remember dinners with some of these people who came from another time. The husband may have control over the outside but when he entered the house he took off his hat and he spoke politely and with deferance to his wife because he was now in her domain. I remember one occassion sitting at a dinner table and the old farmer got too carried away with his talk and swore a very slight off color word. He immediately apologized to his wife.
Change is not always progress.
Mid*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:45pm.
Whether we like it or not, the world changes. Some are good changes, some bad. My grandmother worked in the fields, raised her own vegetables, raised chickens. She chopped wood for her wood burning stove to cook the meals for her family. I cook on an electric stove with comfort from air conditioning. I worked a full time job while raising two daughters. I saved enough money so that both of my daughters went to college and now both of them have masters degrees. It was very difficult to raise children under the circumstances in my grandmother's world. We had to give up certain things in our lives in order to have more comfort but you are correct.
Liberals have decided that families role in our society should be less of a chore with philosophical "advances" as our lives have changed with advances in technology. The men in my family have learned never to wear a hat at the dinner table in my house. Holding on to some of our values and traditions is important to remain strong as a family and society regardless of the strengths and weaknesses from men or women. THAT is why most of us call ourselves.....conservatives..
Of course men are stupid. The evidence is overwhelming.
Submitted by CO2Maker on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 6:03pm.
Turn on your television.
Starting with every TV commercial and sit-com out there, men have been the butt of jokes and objects of derision and scorn for decades. For example, the Chase advertising campaign of "What's in Your Wallet" marauding Vikings. From the beginning ten years ago, the Vikings appeared when the doofus husband pulled out the wrong card and the wife eye-rolled and tongue-clicked at his stupidity. Or Tim "The Tool Man" Allen. Oh yeah, there was a complete putz, a cross his wife always had to bear with forbearance and pluck. The other examples are legion.
Men take it.
But when real life intrudes, people fall back on the old ways of thinking, which includes admiring men for being strong and brave. That's what happened on December 22, 2001, when Richard Reid tried to detonate his shoe bomb and was subdued by a number of men passengers. The other passengers and cabin crew, including a number of women who were interviewed on TV, were gushing with praise and thanks for what they did. (Sorry I can't find an on-line news video to link to, but I have a clear memory of seeing the news report.)
Like!
Submitted by ThatDude on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 8:21pm.
You hit on a very good point here. Men and women are different in a way that is mutually compatible. While women are more inclined to action (for better or worse) women are more likely to waffle on decisions and wait (also for better or worse). Both men and women make bad decisions, but the active ones are the most noticeable.
Camille Paglia
Submitted by CO2Maker on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:37pm.
Camille Paglia is a feminist whom clear thinking people can appreciate. Read chapter 1 of her book, "Sexual Personae," for a long appreciation for the work men do and contributions they make to society, which women cannot do.
You can read it online at Google Books:
Long link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=8Fx2yBkLIqoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=sex...
Short link:
http://snipurl.com/23potvr
"Risk Averse"?
Submitted by Chris Norman on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 8:37pm.
Isn't this called "pandering" to women by a craven liberal male commentator? Some women, as leaders, aren't "risk averse" - on a positive note, Margaret Thatcher certainly wasn't "risk averse" and she reversed Britain's slide into a third rate socialist nanny state. On a negative note, Nancy Pelosi certainly wasn't risk averse - she charged ahead with Porkulus and ObamaCare without nary a "risk averse" thought - saying we would have to wait to find out what was inside the bill. How much less "risk averse" is that?
Regarding risk
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 9:51pm.
One can only say risk is stupid in hindsight. Steve Jobs took many risks, if he failed he would have been called stupid, but he was successful so he's called genius. Looking back, can anyone honestly say they would have known he would be successful?
Women look to the government for a safety net because they look for protection. It's in our nature to look to someone to protect us as we care for the family. Since the women's movement has told men they aren't necessary, men believed it, and many took off. So now some women are looking for surrogate husbands, or caretakers, in the government.
Destroying the family has far reaching consequences.
Weird reasoning
Submitted by Kevin Groenhagen on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:35pm.
The effete Schneider seems to be suggesting that men are stupid because they make up 90% of the prison population. He is also implying that women are smarter because they vote for Democrats at a higher level than men.
Should we explore this silly argument further? On June 30, 2006, an estimated 4.8% of black non-Hispanic men were in prison or jail, compared to 1.9% of Hispanic men of any race and 0.7% of white non-Hispanic men.
Black and Hispanic men are in prison at far greater levels than white men. The former two groups are more likely to vote Democrat rather than Republican. So is voting for Democratic the ultimate act of stupidity?
Speak for yourself Schnieder! I haven't seen this guy on...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Tue, 05/29/2012 - 3:51am.
TV for a long time and guess what? I don't miss him.