Cam Newton Opines About Women Who ‘Can’t Cook’ and ‘Don’t Know When to Be Quiet’

New York Post ^ | April 11, 2022 | Jaclyn Hendricks

[nickcarraway]

SNIP

“I had a perfect, a perfect example of what a man was in my life by my father. My parents have been together for 36, 37 years now and it’s a beautiful thing,” Newton said, according to Mediaite. “I grew up in a three-parent household. My mom, my father, and my grandmother. And I knew what a woman was, not a bad xxxxx.”

SNIP

“A bad xxxxx is a person who is just, you know, ‘Girl, I’m a bad xxxxx, I’m doing this, I’m doing that. I look the part but I don’t act that part.’ And there’s a lot of women who are bad xxxxxxx, and I say xxxxxxx in a way not to degrade a woman, but just to go off the aesthetic of what they deem is a boss chick,” Newton said.

“Now, a woman for me is, handling your own but knowing how to cater to a man’s needs right? And I think a lot of times when you get that aesthetic of, ‘I’m a boss xxxxx, Imma this, Imma that.’ No, baby. But you can’t cook. You don’t know when to be quiet. You don’t know how to allow a man to lead,” the former first-round pick continued.

SNIP

[FormerFRLurker]

name two women who take care of all their own needs.

Every widow, divorcee, or otherwise single woman, obviously.

Funny how a lot of these men claim to be for traditional gender roles when it suits them, but completely ignore the fact that the traditional role of the male is to be strong, stoic, and silent. Not airing his marriage/relationship problems to the whole Internet.

[rb22982]

Always a fine line between looks and other things for most folks to varying degrees. While you and I would obviously prefer marriages, a lot of the country no longer cares, especially among blacks

[cport]

And the traditional role of the female is to stay home, make babies, and be irrational emotionally. Do you really want to go back there? It was better before suffrage; all that stoicism and strength in government replaced by nurturing and feelings to provide charity for all those in need.

[MinorityRepublican]

It could be that Cam was afraid of getting a concussion.

[cport]

FormerFRlurker said...is to be strong, stoic, and silent. Not airing his marriage/relationship problems to the whole Internet.

or, shut up, rake the yard and make some money, and don't tell anyone about how you think I'm a xxxxx. Women always love the part in Ephesians 25 where men are commanded to treat their wives like Christ treated the church by sacrificing His own life, but always balk at the part about serving their husbands by submitting. Actually, not all women, shouldn't generalize.

[Glad2bnuts]

One thing I would be a million dollars on, is black females do not have either a volume control, nor a mute button. They are loud azz ******s.

[FormerFRLurker]

Do you really want to go back there?

Not really, just pointing out the hypocrisy of guys like this Cam Newton character.

It was better before suffrage

Better for whom? Certainly not for the women who paid taxes, but had no say in who represented them in government. I assume you are aware that taxation without representation is un-American tyranny. In fact, our Founding Fathers split off from Britain because of it.

[ocrp1982]

“75 million dollars can’t buy happiness, or this guy wouldn’t be taking up bandwidth whining about women.”
He’s not whining about women. He’s stating his expectations about his relationship with women. If you read the report he specifically states his perspective is based on the relationship he experienced with his own mom and dad.
It is a very Biblical Relationship where women are honored and respected but, they are not granted permission to be loudmouthed overly demanding lIBERAL Bitches.
If your idea of tolerance and respect is allowing that behavior that’s your issue. Not his.

[cport]

Because women were a significant source of revenue? I don't think there was a butter and egg stash tax enacted by government then. Truthfully, most were doing the important responsibility of society by raising children to become productive adults and keeping the nuclear family intact. The anti-suffragist Josephine Dodge argued that giving women the right to vote would overburden them and undermine their privileged status. There were quite a few anti-suffrage organizations starting in the late 19th century that became increasingly prominent as the suffrage movement became more militant. No coincidence that the Russian revolution in January of 1917 happened before the great march by the suffrage movement the next year.

There were many respected and highly regarded women involved with anti-suffrage, and made intelligent and logical arguments for their case, within the framework of the constitution of our republic. Helen Kendrick Johnson's Woman and the Republic (1897) was a well received discourse on the reasons against women's suffrage. Ida Tarbell, a well respected author and journalist considered to be a pioneer of "investigative journalism" wrote The Business of Being a Woman, in which she proceeded to show that the tasks of child rearing and maintaining a home were, "far from being narrow, tedious, and unworthy of an emancipated being, are of the noblest, the most absorbing, and the most rewarding kind, requiring all the added culture and power which woman’s freedom has bestowed" ( C.D. Warner, et al, 1917). Although men were involved in these movements, they were dominated by women such as these. Suffrage support was not the massive majority that is presented today; only with the infiltration of our government and other Western countries by the progressive left via early Russian communist influence (many Western governments where going though their own version of suffrage during the same period) did these amendments and laws pass.

Now be a dear, and make me a sammich.

[cport]

Isn't that his lament? He had relationships with two women (currently still with one), and had children with them. It seems he was searching for a woman to have a relationship with, but seeing as he is worth millions, was maybe cautious about putting a ring on it. The whole premise of his statement is that there aren't women like his mother around anymore. Seems to me he tried, but was smart enough to wait until they revealed themselves as the xxxxxes they are. Do a little research. He has fathered 5 children, 4 with his previous girlfriend, and one with his current. The other two come from him acknowledging his exes child from her previous relationship, and his currents previous child as well as his being his children too. Picking up the slack for other deadbeat dads seems pretty noble to me; maybe he learned that kind of thing from his parents.

[antceecee]

🤬

[antceecee]

Bullcrap. Quit defaming all women! These all encompassing generalizations insult a vast majority of conservative women right here on FR!
Yes there are absolute crazy females, but also the crazy lib males and trans as well! Maybe think and help support conservative women on FR?

[wardaddy]

80 percent of the drama in my life family and extended family is women originated

Maybe it’s just me

They do make the babies though and birth them

And for a time they are absolutely delicious

So there is that

But yes they are problematic with very tight orbits

I still love them and protect and care for them

I can’t help myself

Fair enough Cam

[Penelope Dreadful]

Cam is right. I am a woman and I have a lot of contempt for most other women. The average American woman is a wh@re, with stupid bad tattoos, and too many piercings. Maybe 15% of women, at best, should be employed outside the home, and the rest should be home, raising kids and taking care of their husbands, and no work outside the home until the kids are in junior high, if then. However, they will need lessons on how to take care of anybody but themselves, because they have no clue. No wonder men do not want to marry us.

[FormerFRLurker]

Because women were a significant source of revenue?

Working class women have always worked outside the home as well as in it, and therefore have paid income taxes where applicable. Upper class women paid taxes on whatever property they owned. If I'm paying taxes to support my state and federal government I get to have a say in how they are spent. Otherwise we may have well just stayed a British colony and enjoyed their insane gun-control laws.

The anti-suffragist Josephine Dodge argued that giving women the right to vote would overburden them and undermine their privileged status. There were quite a few anti-suffrage organizations starting in the late 19th century that became increasingly prominent as the suffrage movement became more militant...There were many respected and highly regarded women involved with anti-suffrage, and made intelligent and logical arguments for their case, within the framework of the constitution of our republic. Helen Kendrick Johnson's Woman and the Republic (1897) was a well received discourse on the reasons against women's suffrage. Ida Tarbell, a well respected author and journalist considered to be a pioneer of "investigative journalism" wrote The Business of Being a Woman, in which she proceeded to show that the tasks of child rearing and maintaining a home were, "far from being narrow, tedious, and unworthy of an emancipated being, are of the noblest, the most absorbing, and the most rewarding kind, requiring all the added culture and power which woman’s freedom has bestowed" ( C.D. Warner, et al, 1917).

So they could choose not to vote for themselves. They don't get to make that decision for me. I'll be the judge of whether voting overburdens me or not. 99% of this country's problems could be solved if folks of both sexes would stop using the heavy hand of government to force their lifestyle choices on others. As Thoreau said, "The government that governs best is that which governs least." The government is there to protect us from foreign enemies, enforce contracts, and prosecute crimes which harm others physically or financially. Not to tell us how to live our lives. I don't want a right-wing nanny state any more than I want a left-wing nanny state.

Now be a dear, and make me a sammich.

Sure thing, as soon as you attend to the half-dozen car and yardwork-related things that my husband's been procrastinating on ;) No such thing as a free lunch, you know.

[2nd Amendment]

Finally something I agree with Cam about

[cport]

I think I am in love with you ;) I'm actually pretty handy around the house. PSST don't tell Mrs. cport

I can see where this viewpoint is disagreeable to the modern post 2nd wave feminized American woman. Remember, most American women were Christian during this time, and I don't mean checking off the box "Religious Affiliation" kind of Christian. Also remember, their husbands were too. This relationship, if practiced how Ephesians 25 is written, demanded that the man sacrifice and love, the woman defer and respect. This relationship also carried into the political arena, and was also in place when the constitution was written. Proper Christian husbands did not lord over their wives (and still don't), put their lives on the line in a rough agrarian and wild America (there is a reason women lived longer than men and still do), and provided the best life possible for them and the children. Their wives provided comfort, family backbone and security, worked their butts off domestically, and advised their husbands, both spiritually and in other matters. To deny the immutable differences between the sexes is to lie to oneself. Each has a different role in the nuclear family, but without one or the other the family is destroyed (with exceptions).

Were they treated like chattel through most of history? Yes, especially by less enlightened cultures, which is also why the Enlightenment period is so important. The concepts of religious freedom, individual liberty, and natural law that were part of Enlightenment were important, both for women and Christians; organized religion (the Catholic Church) would no longer be the authority, both politically and spiritually, allowing post-reformation Christians to have a say in society and reflect the more Christlike concepts of the New Testament by providing a more scripture based Christian faith instead of a dogmatic, doctrine driven religiosity that imposed its will at the tip of a spear. Challenging the Church's rule no longer lead to being jailed and/or executed for being a heretic. This of course took some time to reverse the prevalent attitudes towards women (and slavery), but without the undeniable post-Enlightenment Christian influence of our founders, the Constitution would not be.

Now that my Holiday Inn Express version of history is over, let me try and make this relevant to our conversation. My statement about how suffrage ruined the country is less about denying women the vote and more about decrying the need for women to vote. Yes there have always been women that have owned business, worked for wage, and possessed property, but not in significant amounts, and were not taxed any differently than men. When there were significant amounts of female participation in these aspects of economy in a society, it was almost always an indication of a society in decline, and usually due to war and/or plague and famine. In other words, when men were killed off in vast amounts, women had to work. North American suffrage did not get into full swing until some years after the civil war; there is the requisite male death that opened the door for women to join the economy. This is important, as women were forced into this to survive and keep their families intact. Now, this could have, and did, correct itself in a generation, as male children matured Note that there was a higher amount of Anti-suffrage women organized than suffrage early on; they preferred the way it was, which was the point of Dodge's book. This response to natural law, the taking care of hearth and home and not dealing with the hostile world of economy and politics, knowing the tremendous responsibility and power of being the only sex that could repopulate society, this is what Dodge was talking about when she referred to "privileged status". Why "overburden" themselves with the mundane world of men and politics, when they had the most important job. Conservative men of foresight and intelligence realized this, and recognized and appreciated this status of privilege. As "progressive" thought took advantage of the political instability post civil war and gained a foothold in the political stage, it sought to devalue the this status of privilege (sound familiar?), encourage them to play the role of victim, and give them political validity and power. Hence, the rise of organized suffrage. Or, I'm talking out my toxically masculine ass.

[cport]

PS Thank you for the olive branch, encouraging my more civil participation in this matter.

The government that governs best is that which governs least.

So, with that in mind, would you not agree that government exponentially increased after the dust settled? Were their not huge increases in regulation, social spending, and other "nanny state" devices? Does this mean you are pro-choice? Different privilege status conferred by government such as the privilege to terminate life and receive socio-political perquisites and funds doesn't seem at all fair to me either. The privileges that Dodge spoke of are at least a product of a covenant between man and wife, or even in grander scale, men and women.

There was a choice...work or starve. Once progressive earworms whispered promises of this and that that could be, but only if you get the vote, well then they could very well band enough together and vote themselves a check. And then teach their fatherless boys to do the same.

I realize I speak in generalities, and that not all women, or men, are the same. But these particular generalities are rooted in natural law for the perpetuation of species. I once a gain refer back to the roles of Christian men and women, and actually, it is not limited to Christianity. Men are called instinctively to sacrifice his own life and comfort for the perpetuation of species; we are expendable to a point. Women are called to protect their family in a different way; their nurturing, care, and instruction are all geared for the immediate (present) protection of family. They vote the same way. Most women don't vote like you. You vote more like a man (I assume) in that you would sacrifice immediate discomfort for the perpetuation of our republic; cutting spending as opposed to raising taxes for example. You being knowledgeable and a member of this forum should know how a majority of American women vote; gibmedat and don't be mean.