The video of Venker’s interview with Fox & Friends is now available online from here. She seems to have backtracked on her earlier article; she’s not advocating traditionalism at all, just a kinder slavery of men.
Some observations:
She did not do a shout-out to the manosphere as some thought she might.
Second, she looks like a typical ballbuster. The short, masculine haircut, business-like button-up shirt, and hard, unpleasant expression. She does not seem like the type of feminine women you’d hope for from someone arguing that women are becoming less feminine.
She doesn’t seem to be agreeing with us, but rather seems to be suggesting, as Dalrock has written, that men should be women’s servants, but treated a little bit better so they remain compliant servants.
The male host said almost nothing, but what little he did say was generally good.
Also, take a look at the hamster running itself ragged in the female host:
3:15 – Angry women angrily talks about women not being angry: Makes Venker’s point.
5:04 – She argues her kids and marriage are the most important things in her life; which is why she abandons them to work.
6:10 – She asks: Could it be that women are angry because they’re taking on masculine roles, but men don’t desire to take on feminine roles?
Your thoughts?
Free Northerner 
November 29th, 2012 at 02:27
You can see her book talk (the flip side of feminism) on cspan’s booktv: http://www.booktv.org/Program/12308/The+Flipside+of+Feminism+What+Conservative+Women+Know+and+Men+Cant+Say.aspx
I watched it a while ago. It wasn’t bad but I did wonder why a sort haired woman was anti-feminism.
I’ve heard nothing but good things about her co-author, Phyllis Schafly.
November 29th, 2012 at 13:50
It’s about the best you’re going to get, I think. Any woman that is going to be prominent enough to be in the public eye like that is going to be similar — Venker is about as far as you’re going to get, I think. The women who are more traditionalist aren’t generally writing books and magazine articles and being in the public eye. She said herself, that part of her deal in marriage was being able to have a cushy writer’s job due to her husband’s income — but writing books is time consuming, pretty much as time-consuming as a full-time job. It just isn’t a great way to earn a living for most people. So she’s pretty much a working professional woman like the others — she just doesn’t work in an office.
November 29th, 2012 at 18:48
[…] See Free Northerner’s take on the Fox & Friends interview in his post: Venker Backtracks […]
November 29th, 2012 at 20:59
[…] A wandering professor once posited that we had reached peak feminism. That is, the movement as political agitation is at its nadir. There will always be instigators, but diminishing returns will neutralize the ability to mobilize numbers. Kerfuffles such as the recent saga of Suzanne Venker support this. Or not. Yeah, probably not. […]
November 30th, 2012 at 02:40
@ TIm: From what I know, Schafly was a great voice for traditional ways back; it’s too bad her partner has succumbed to the feminist hive mind.
@ Brendan: Yeah, probably. Those women raising a family probably wouldn’t have the time or inclination and wouldn’t get much media attention even if they did.
November 30th, 2012 at 04:07
Phyllis Schlafly is Ms. Venker’s aunt. We owe a debt of gratitude to Mrs. Schlafly for the invaluable work she did to defeat the ERA. I read Ms. Venker’s book, the Flipside of Feminism, several years ago (pre-red pill) and thought it was clever. I’m sad to see that she is not what she first appeared to be.
December 1st, 2012 at 07:43
i tried to be optimistic, but am not surprised. she tried to be honest, and got ripped apart.
sad.
December 4th, 2012 at 03:42
[…] a weak interview that doesn’t address any of your original thoughts, but it’s obvious she steps tracks and makes the whole thing a laughable way of how men can halfway claim their masculinity; but only […]
February 7th, 2013 at 22:47
The male host was 100% scripted. Contact me, and I’ll explain why. Further, his words were almost 100% innuendo.
February 7th, 2013 at 22:49
You wrote, “3:15 – Angry women angrily talks about women not being angry: Makes Venker’s point.” Yes, Fox News hates men.
June 9th, 2013 at 00:02
[…] solid and this book is not one of those concern-trolling books that pretends to be pro-men, but is just arguing for a more comfortable slavery. I regret saying the negative things I’m saying, because what Helen produced here is great […]