Allen Quist under renewed fire for 'men are genetically predisposed to lead family' remark

allen quist rect.jpg
Quist and Parry have each uttered their share of preposterous statements.
-- Arne Carlson on GOP U.S. House candidate Allen Quist: He's "really bizarre"
-- Mike Parry, U.S. House candidate, suggests he'd keep troops deployed until economy improves
-- Mike Parry's tweet scrubbed on "arrogant black man" Obama

In 1994, Republican Allen Quist -- then campaigning to oust GOP Gov. Arne Carlson from office -- did a brief interview with Twin Cities Reader reporter David Brauer outside a Country Kitchen in Quist's hometown of St. Peter.

During the interview, Quist uttered his infamous "genetic predisposition" quote. We'll get to the specifics of what he said in a minute, but Quist -- who will square off against Rep. Mike Parry in an August 14 primary to see who gets the honor of competing against U.S. Rep. Tim Walz this November -- says his quote was taken out of context. Questioned about it during a Rochester town hall event earlier this month, Quist said critics were "making things up."

Yesterday, with the help of a microcassette player, Brauer unearthed audio of the interview and published it on MinnPost. Suffice it to say, either Quist isn't properly remembering his "genetic predisposition" comments, or he's gotten in the habit of lying about what he really said during that fateful interview.

Here's a transcript of the relevant passage (emphasis mine):
Joy Reactor
Maybe she has a genetic predisposition.
Brauer: You once criticized a local community education program because it "undermines the natural order of the husband being the head of the wife. It assumes that the husband and the wife have the same rights and responsibilities." Do you believe the wife has less rights?

Quist: I believe that before the law, the husband and the wife are exactly equal. But I think that you have a political arrangement in marriage, similar to any other political arrangement. And when push comes to shove, the higher level of political authority normally -- I think there are exceptions -- should be in the hands of the husband.

Brauer: Because?

Quist: I think there's a genetic predisposition.

Brauer: Not a biblical one?

Quist: I don't know about that. That's not where I'm coming from.
Quist's final comment clearly implies that his 'men are genetically predisposed to lead the family' view isn't (or wasn't) based on scripture, but even with the raw audio now on the internet, he's sticking to his haters-are-making-things-up guns.

From a statement Quist released yesterday:
[The allegation] relates to a statement I made 18 years ago that I believe there is natural order to the family that is part of the genetic code. This negative attack is being taken out of context because I was speaking of religious beliefs, not public policy--beliefs that have no part in political campaigns or political discourse. In addition, I was not speaking of what the Bible says directly, but was speaking of inferences based on the Bible, inferences that others may not agree with. But the point is that the First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees freedom of Religion--a separation of church and state. To attack a political candidate for his religious beliefs is an affront to our all-important First Amendment freedoms. The issue is not relevant to the important issues we face.

In fact, my high regard for women in business, politics, and the community is obvious in many ways, among them my support for Michele Bachmann for President and the prominent and influential role my wife, Julie, has played in Minnesota politics and education activities over the years.
Brauer, in response, tweeted: "Hate to say it, but Allen Quist [is] lying in new email about genetic predisposition. SPECIFICALLY declaimed Bible."

Of course, Quist's primary opponent is no stranger to inserting his foot in his mouth either -- in early 2010, Parry outed himself as a racist when he tweeted that Barack Obama is a "Power Hungry Black Man."

So what will it be, First District Republicans, a sexist or a racist? On August 14, the choice is yours.

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help


to Flora, belatedly, who was: wondering how fewer women than men being surgeons leads to lower pay on averager for female physicans than male physicians...:


OK,  I'll explain this really slowly: salaries of men and women are compared in aggregate categories: so it turns out that under the rubric, "physicians," women on average earn less than male docs. But it's not because of any discrimination against women, it's because female docs tend to overwhelmingly choose to work in fields such as family practice, not much at all in the higher-paying specialities such as surgery. Therefore, on average, female docs earn less than male docs, all things considered.     You could argue we should pay family practice docs as much as we pay heart surgeons, but that probably is a tough argument to make.    Even in more discrete job categories where salary comparisons are more useful between men and women, other factors come in: for example, women tend to not work as long hours as men, generally; so even in a similar management position, women might tend to realize lower pay, partly because they don't spend as much at at work. that's not discirmination as women, that's personal choice. And who is to say who is making a better one; a guy who neglects his family to get ahead at work, or a woman who won't neglect her family to get ahead at work as much as she could?  In most specific cases where men and women hold the same jobs, they usually get the same pay...cops, journalists, nurses, teachers. salary schedules are based on seniority, in general, not gender. the gender differences often reported result mostly from more general, aggregated job categories that include many differences in personal choices that lead to the wage differences: not actual discrimination against women in terms of pay.   


Lot's of unfairness and lack of thoughtfulness in this report and discussion.....

   1.) there's no obvious discrepancy between Quist claiming he's not referring to biblical mandates, but "genetic" ones, and also saying later he thinks there is a connection between the biblical teaching (he sees) and any genetic predisposition....

    2.) it's being assumed, implied, that any assertion of "genetic predisposition" is somehow, prima facie (Latin for "in your face primarily) sexist, etc.....but c'mon; genetic predispositions are what we're all about....the question is what, exactly are they and just how disposable are they?

    giving Quist a little benefit of the doubt, let's assume he meant to describe what nearly everyone of his generation thinks: men are a certain way and women are a certain way and in their relationships they tend to shake out in certain ways which traditionally sees men as taking the lead in many ways, women the lead in other ways.

    The inconsistency of those hammering Quist can be seen in that they would never freak out when women (or men) talk about the superiority, or improvements, of the ways that women lead, in business, politics or other arenas; often the warm terms used are "more collaborative," " aiming at consensus,", or more emotionally aware, etc.... that is, there is no corresponding outrage when women are touted as better leaders than men.  so why all the knickers-twistinng when someone talks about how they think men are better at leading than women, based on genetics.....there's certainly an argument there......

    and remember, Quist could have been referring as much to predispositions among women as among men; i.e., what women would rather do or not do.

   One of the dumb ideas of our age is that every human endeavor should display perfect proportionality, statistical perfection: half of all corporate leaders, or actually, 52 percent, should be women, since that's the demographic split....

but that's not how humans operate; Many of the reasons women don't earn as much, in the average aggregate, as men, is that they choose to work differently and at different jobs, than men, in the aggreggate, on average; which results in overall , aggregate, average, less pay.

   Few surgeons are women: why? Mostly it's the choice of women, not some oppressive system keeping them from being surgeons; but it does lead to, overall, women physicians making less on average than men there really any harm there, or this it just a factoid of human relationships and life? 

   In my case, my wife and I decided long ago that she would be in charge of the minor decisions of our life and I would be in charge of the major ones.

  Fortunately, we haven't run into any major decisions yet in three decades.....

   Lighten up, people.


Nobody was crying "sexist!" when 3 men covered their girlfriends with their bodies during the shooting in Colorado. I did not read one story about the girlfriend covering the boyfriend. This is a difference in leadership. Period.

Brian Mazur
Brian Mazur

I thought this article might be interesting...oh well

TheConservativeJerk topcommenter

Interesting position you take there Alan. 

Let see where could he get ideas like that...


Oh I remember!



63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.

90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.

85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average.  (Center for Disease Control)

80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average.  (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)

71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average.  (National Principals Association Report)

43% of US children live without their father [US Department of Census] 90% of homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes. [US D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census]

80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes. [Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, pp. 403-26, 1978]

71% of pregnant teenagers lack a father. [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services press release, Friday, March 26, 1999]

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. [US D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census]

85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. [Center for Disease Control]

90% of adolescent repeat arsonists live with only their mother. [Wray Herbert, “Dousing the Kindlers,” Psychology Today, January, 1985, p. 28]

71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. [National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools]

75% of adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes. [Rainbows f for all God’s Children]

70% of juveniles in state operated institutions have no father. [US Department of Justice, Special Report, Sept. 1988]

85% of youths in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. [Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Department of Corrections, 1992] Fatherless boys and girls are: twice as likely to drop out of high school; twice as likely to end up in jail; four times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems. [US D.H.H.S. news release, March 26, 1999]


So is society failing because "single mothers"  are more likely to fail at their parental duties?


Charles D. Rhoden III
Charles D. Rhoden III

Why did no one ask Quist what evidence supports his theory that patriarchal dominance is a genetic predisposition? Best as I can tell, his background has NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory so no one wondered - "Why is this opinion even relevant?"


 @mplstim56 Huh?  If there are fewer female surgeons than male surgeons, that leads to the women being paid less than the men?  That doesn't make sense, and, yes, it would be a real harm.


It's silly to cite percentages and then claim that the percentages show that society is failing.  That's just one of many locigal problems with your post.  The biggest problem seems to be that you are, I think, trying to say that Allen Quist is correct in saying that men are (genetically I guess, or maybe biblically) predisposed to be the head of a household.  But if that was correct, then there really shouldn't be fatherless households, because these men should be genetically inclined to stay there and run them, shouldn't they?


And, as mark.gisleson points out, it's hard to raise a kid when there's one parent.  I suspect that there are a lot more fatherless homes than motherless homes (despite the genetic predisposition!), and I bet motherless homes see similar problems.  In fact, I'm not bored enough to check, but I would suspect that several of those studies you cite refer to single-parent homes . . . .


 @TheConservativeJerk Gee, all your stats seem to indicate that men are genetically predisposed to abandon their families.


But I like the way you blame women for not chaining that sumbitch to the bedpost.


Yes, it is harder to raise a kid when there's only one parent. What's your solution? Make sex between unmarried couples illegal? Forced birth control? Imprison sluts who give birth out of wedlock? What's the answer Kirk? Or is it sufficient simply to point your finger and cast blame?



TheConservativeJerk topcommenter

 @Patchy I didn't mean to say "that society is failing". 

Perhaps it's better to say "single mothers are failing", and society should be considering the father as the custodial parent . 


@Patchy Exactly. All those numbers really say is that society has done a pretty terrible job of providing support services to single parent homes, especially single mothers. Those numbers really just make it look like men are genetically predisposed to be worthless, and women are predisposed to stick around and care for their children, despite the lack of support. According to the Jerk's numbers, women statistically care more for their children than men do. I guess he's not the only one who can turn numbers into a far-reaching blanket statement about social ills.


 @mark.gisleson I'm sure he's suggesting that all the nonviolent criminals who are fathers should be released from prisons and penitentiaries, so their children won't live in fatherless homes...

TheConservativeJerk topcommenter

Just pointing out that a mom who thinks 'It will be easier after I kick that son of a bitch to the curb" is kidding themselves.  

Well maybe it's easier for that mother, but that act is purely a selfish one because they are putting that child at risk. 

Hell it's easier for me to throw my kid in the back of the car without belting them in, but that is punishable because of the POTENTIAL risk to the child's welfare.  But wait now, I have NEVER been into a car accident in 20 years. 

There are no easy answers to this, and a "government daddy" clearly is not the answer. 

I'm good with numbers and math in general, and  I have trouble fathoming the approximate amount of money a single mother indirectly costs society.  

And I agree, we can't force things like marriage and commitment on people for the sake of a child, bet perhaps it's time to give the father the upper hand when it comes to custody issues.

Or if you're a "big government" guy because government knows best, perhaps you feel the state should get the child in some custody cases...


@TheConservativeJerk @Patchy You know who would be the first to protest your "custodial parent" rule? All the men who abandoned their families. How about we make family abandonment and failing to pay child support felony crimes with mandatory parental counseling, or better yet, actually put some money into our schools for meals and after-school programs? Your only solution to the obvious problem of children growing up in poverty is to have a law that takes away the right of women to claim the children that passed through their wombs. Asinine.


 @TheConservativeJerk Dummycrap?  So I estimate you're mentally about 4 years old.  Way to present your argument, Kirk.

TheConservativeJerk topcommenter

 @Xenophilius  @Patchy   "women statistically care more for their children than men do" 

That is EXACTLY how the State of Minnesota determines custody cases. 

State Senator Pam Wolf (R) and State Rep. Peggy Scott (R) has put forth a bill to eliminate the "upper hand" women currently receive just for walking into the court room in a custody case.

The bill is called "The Children's Equal and Shared Parenting Act".

By Peggy's account ,The parent must provide “clear and convincing” evidence that the other parent’s actions rise to a level of child endangerment, abandonment, physical and/or sexual abuse, or other disqualifying actions," and without such parents will share custody. 

Gender "fairness" right?

But the democrats opposed the bill and illogical grandstanding took place.  here is one of the statement made by a dummycrap on the MN House Floor  - 

Rep. Melissa Hortman, DFL-Brooklyn Park/Coon Rapids, said the healthful benefits of breast feeding could be diluted by the impracticalities of separating a mother from her child.

Perhaps Democrat Melissa Hartman NEEDS to see some other stats as to the overall stats of that child's future...

Hmmm, I wonder Melissa thinks about two gay men raising an infant.

Now Trending

Minnesota Concert Tickets

From the Vault