Sexism & Subtext in the Fluke-Limbaugh Incident

Cross-posted by request.

Talking about the events surrounding Sandra Fluke’s experiences on Capitol Hill and Rush Limbaugh’s subsequent disparaging comments and complete mangling of the issues is difficult, indeed. It seems that the original issues–women’s reproductive health and the segregation of it, as well as religious liberty–have been all but forgotten as familiar tribes have lined up along their well-trod trenches. The arguments now are about which side is waging more war against the women of the other side. At least we’re getting close to some truth-telling, finally, but I doubt it will do any good. Feminism, progress for women, women’s rights, whatever name you call it by, is now just another set of boxing gloves with which to beat up the other side. Each side is unshakable, unwilling to accept the critiques of their own side while perfectly willing to hurl critiques at the other side, displaying what might in other words be called hypocrisy.

The problem with this is that there can be no consensus, even as both sides seem to be agreeing that calling women sexually charged names and digging into their personal lives to find discrediting information that is wholly unrelated to the issue(s) at hand is a terrible, sexist thing to do, that it’s meant to be intimidating. Meanwhile, the discussion has been happening at the most publicized levels by a group of largely male reporters and commentators, some of whom are themselves guilty of similar disparaging comments and acts. When you look at news aggregator sites like Memeorandum over the last several days, it’s not the articles the women are writing that are populating the top half of the page. And this line of stories has dominated for going on five days now. With the all around intractability of the political classes and their respective bases, can any good come from continuing to rehash it?

I don’t know. There may be something to be said for repeatability, something Cynthia Ruccia has been writing about lately. Maybe if both sides keep screaming at each other, if the likes of Rush Limbaugh keep calling women sluts while the likes of Jerry Brown keeps calling women whores, and we keep being forced into conversations about it, something will change. I’m a bit skeptical, if only because I know how insidious and manipulative the discourse over women’s rights and progress has been for decades. I have been an advocate of the emerging feminism on the right, largely because I believe the battle for women’s progress will necessarily involve women from all walks of life, and because I think that many conservative women model feminist ideals very well, balancing family and jobs, and political duties and activism, and that’s practical and valuable. I also think it has expanded the dialogue about what feminism should mean, specifically to include economic and national security issues, and that strengthens feminism. We can’t keep complaining forever that we are treated with respect to our biology if we continue to frame our progress solely on the basis of biology. But I don’t want a conservative brand of feminism to mirror what’s happened with the close-minded thinking and abusive/coercive verbal style of so many feminists and their orgs on the left (see Malkin’s article for a run-down of examples). And that is, quite frankly, what appears to be happening.

A slew of recent articles by conservative women or those who are sympathetic to conservative women have pointed out the gross hypocrisy of the outrage from a left that created and marketed products like “Bros before Hoes” and “Sarah Palin is a C*nt” t-shirts in 2008, as well as specific and recent examples of controversial comments made by some of the premier cultural contributors on the left, including old stand-bys like Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, and Chris Matthews, as well as the acknowledged leadership of left-feminism such as Gloria Steinem, Patricia Ireland, and Naomi Wolf. And this is all good and well and worth pointing out, but where is the compassion? Why does only Malkin’s article start out with an acknowledgement that what Limbaugh said was wrong, which she promptly takes back by calling Fluke a “femme-a-gogue.” The points would be better made if the articles started out with the argument that, yes, it’s sexist to use verbiage and rhetoric like Rush Limbaugh did, and that’s WHY these examples should resonate with the folks on the left who do care about progress for women. And the lack of denunciation leaves one with a sick feeling that this may be a defense of Rush, instead of an indictment of our commonly accepted sexist discourse.

The left has not been any better. Most of the top articles by males on the left on those news aggregator sites are from sources like ThinkProgress, Media Matters, or In other words, official representatives of the Obama 2012 Campaign. Their coverage dovetails nicely with commentary from leadership about the “GOP’s War on Women.” This is an unsurprising strategy given two facts: women cast way more votes than men do and have for decades, and the GOP experienced a 12-point swing of women voters to their party in 2010. This rightly has the Obama administration scared and paranoid, and wrongly has them employing similar tactics and worse than they did in 2008. The left’s model for progress for women is to tie a random woman to the train tracks of progress, in this case, Sandra Fluke, and then point and snicker at Republicans all the way until they rescue her at the last possible second. Sometimes the woman willingly lies down on the tracks and snickers along with them, and calls this “activism.” The point is, so much of it is theater. They don’t really care and this will not be an issue the next time Bill Maher calls Sarah Palin a tw*t or when this year’s latest sexist-meme t-shirt becomes all the rage. If they really cared, the most salient issue in this debate would be the one being discussed, and that’s the segregation of women’s reproductive healthcare.

But of course they can’t discuss that, because Obama made that segregation permanent. While at first blush  it looks like this move by HHS to require free coverage of female-oriented birth control by the vast majority of insurance companies is a mea culpa to women over signing that executive order, it’s not for a couple of reason. First, the HHS change will not make it any easier or more affordable for working class and lower middle class women to gain insurance. Insurance premiums are not coming down any time soon. What good is a $25 a month freebie if the $200 a month premium is still unaffordable? And that’s the single premium, not the family one, which is what so many, especially single mothers, will require. Also, because of that executive order, this rule will only apply to private insurers. It will exclude Medicaid, which is the program that will be expanded to include some 15 million new people. Those women will still have to use Planned Parenthood for their birth control needs, and pay out of pocket. So another angle in this appears to be manipulating some women into supporting a healthcare bill they might actually oppose if they had the time and peace of mind to really consider it. Which is ironic considering how hard President Obama and the Democratic congress threw women under the bus in the healthcare debate.

There are a number of issues worth considering in this discussion over Sandra Fluke and Rush Limbaugh. Very few of them are being discussed even as powerful and misleading arguments are being advanced in the background. Taking a minute to examine all the arguments and to flesh out your own opinion is worth the effort. I’d love to hear what you think in comments, even if you, or perhaps especially if you disagree. I’ve been unsettled about the whole conversation happening around these events and I’ve articulated some of what is unsettling me, but there may be yet more to uncover. Still in thinking mode.

About Woke Lola

Bitch, please.
This entry was posted in Affordable Care Act, Disingenuous Democrats, GOP Shenanigans. Bookmark the permalink.

87 Responses to Sexism & Subtext in the Fluke-Limbaugh Incident

  1. votermom says:

    Thanks for xpost!
    Imo, Obama is a bigger threat to women’s rights than even Rick Santorum because Obama cloaks his paternalism as “Feminism” and the women Dems actually peddle his BS.
    At least if Santorum were president he would face opposition to his chauvinism. Obama just gets applause.

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      That’s a good point, and one FemiSex is making today as well.

      She goes further with her ire at him than I would, but I do understand it and she makes several valid points. And of course one of my chief complaints, that women are being rhetorically pushed around in order to buy something they don’t want and that is not good for them, is related.

      • votermom says:

        I read that, I think yesterday, and totally agree with what’s going on here. Obama can’t win on issues so he’s forcing a tribal l war.

        By the way, love this in your post:

        The left’s model for progress for women is to tie a random woman to the train tracks of progress, in this case, Sandra Fluke, and then point and snicker at Republicans all the way until they rescue her at the last possible second.

      • gxm17 says:

        I pretty much completely agree with her. Obama has been dismantling women’s rights from the inside out. He’s an anti-feminist Trojan horse. What’s amazing to me is how many self-proclaimed feminists haven’t realized it yet. He’s destroying decades of progress right before their eyes and they still can’t see past the 2008 fairy tale they cling to.

        One scenario I keep coming back to is this, if (and when) SCOTUS throws out Obama’s healthcare garbage, then for all intents the only thing that will have come out of this whole mess are huge setbacks in women’s reproductive rights. Women will have taken a giant step backward for absolutely nothing. But, hey, we elected the first biracial man as president.

    • DandyTiger says:

      Great point. Honk, honk.

  2. DandyTiger says:

    Thanks for cross posting. Still perfect. 🙂

  3. myiq2xu says:

    If the left truly cared about feminism (as opposed to femanism) this would be the perfect moment for some housecleaning unity..

    The left says “Flush Rush”

    The right replies “What about Bill Maher?”

    The left says “Yeah, him too!”

  4. driguana says:

    this may be the best aritcle I’ve read so far on the subject…

  5. votermom says:

    OT. Looks like the obot fainters are back

    RT @sarahbellumd *vomits* RT @markknoller: A person in the audience faints, Pres Obama calls for EMS and says people do that at his speeches “all the time.”

  6. catarina says:

    Obama used Sandra Fluck and she clearly has no clue.

    Who gives a shit what Limbaugh does? He’s a huge pig and an asshole, and proud of it. But I can shun and ignore him. Boycott his sponsors. Throw darts at his picture.

    Obama, OTOH, is the President- and I’m stuck with him.
    Now there’s a PIG.

    His actions can, will, and have hurt women.
    His contempt has been clear all along.
    Women’s issues are above his pay grade.
    He’s had great fun ginning up the contraception controversy and he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the consequences-as long as they help his poll numbers and re-election.

    And PS-no, I do NOT support free birth control for women who can afford it.
    That makes absolutely no sense to me.

    • murphy says:

      Excellent point about how much more significant obama’s actions/inactions are than limbaugh’s.

      Would you carve out insurance coverage for Rx birth control from policies of women who pay for private insurance (and therefore, presumably, could afford to pay for it?)

      • votermom says:

        Rx bc should be like any other Rx – between the patient & doctor. Some insurance policies cover it, some don’t because the employer makes the decision. It used to be just until Obama segregated it.

        And as to free health coverage for anyone, if we are going to get there we have to talk about rationing and what exactly gets covered and who sets the prices.

        • murphy says:


          This really all does go back to obama and his decision to blow women up to see if it would hurt the Republicans in November by skeering their krazies out from under rocks and sending normal people screaming into his arms for re-election.

      • catarina says:

        Not to minimize or excuse anyone’s piggy-ness. They all suck.
        But, the President? The leader of the Dem party? The self proclaimed Party of Women??
        We can’t expect better behavior from HIM?

        He’s enjoying this. Dude’s been walking around with a shit-stirring boner for days. He even mentioned Limbaugh by name yesterday at his press conference.

        People have stopped talking about Iran, unemployment, the fucked up housing market, the evil bankers, Anonymous, Fast & Furious, etc.
        It’s all about vaginas now. Huh??

        To answer your question re birth control, murphy-I don’t think the government should be in the insurance business at all, except to directly provide care for the poor.
        Oh, wait-we do that now. It’s called Medicaid.

        Consumers that can afford insurance should be able to buy the policy of their choosing, not a policy chosen for them by their employer or Obama or creepy Kathleen Sebelius.
        Why not take the employers out of the picture all together? It’s really none of their goddamned business-healthcare is personal!

        There, no daddy bullshit from the Bishops’ Conference, no conscience exemptions.
        Just a consumer choosing the coverage they want.
        This entire discussion is one of the reasons I strongly oppose Obamacare.
        I want to decide on and pay for my own health insurance, just like my homeowner and auto insurance.

        • murphy says:

          Makes sense to me — but would anyone be able to afford it? Health insurance costs more than rent for many people. Auto insurance costs around $1k to $2k a year depending on where you live, your driving history, what kind of car you have etc. Homeowners insurance is in the same ballpark.

          Health insurance costs $15,000 to $20,000 a year for a family. A healthy family. How would people afford to pay for something that might cost 20 times what car insurance costs?

          What about people with chronic illnesses or cancer/heart disease in the family? How would they ever afford it?

          Not saying I disagree with you in principle, but I dont get how it would work.

          (If this is too OT, disregard!)

        • catarina says:

          in 2008, McCain’s plan was to unhook insurance from employers and give an incentive tax credit of 5K to every American.
          It was a good idea that would have given the consumer more control. The market may have self regulated when people were given the responsibility of “owning” their policies.

          The Dems scoff at allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines. They won’t even talk about the litigation/malpractice issue.
          But those are real issues that could be part of a cost control solution.

          Mitt Romney is right about the need for an individual mandate.
          Everyone having basic coverage is one of the keys to affordability.
          But under OCare and in MA, people are forced into expensive policies
          that cover all kinds of crap they don’t want or need.
          Why can’t I buy an inexpensive policy if I want to, and pay high deductibles? Demand for “mini-policies” would drive the market.

          In some countries the health insurance industry is heavily regulated to prevent consumers from being gouged on the mandated coverage.
          Here we let the damned insurance industry-and pharma-call the shots and dictate legislation.

          Government involvement has done nothing to control health care costs.
          All the mouthpieces, including that Gruber tool from Harvard that helped craft Ocare, have conceded that costs will rise for most of us.

          So, yes, health insurance is too expensive and that’s a huge problem. But Obamacare doesn’t solve the problem AND women are getting the shaft.
          There’s a big diff between affordable health insurance and the shit sandwich we’re being fed.

        • angienc says:

          @murphy — it would work because, in theory, if the employers don’t have the cost of providing health insurance for their employees, the salary will be more. People don’t think about it that way, but it *is* true — whatever your health insurance cost is, you should think of that as part of your salary (that you get tax free, btw) because that is, in effect, what is happening. For example, if a person has a salary of $50K plus health care & that health care costs $500 a month, that person is really making $56,000 a year. The main reason for having employers provide it is because being able to participate in a “group plan” does lower the monthly premium compared to what you pay for an individual plan.

    • gxm17 says:

      I really don’t understand this point about “free” birth control. Insurance policies, for most people, require some form of employee payment. Very few companies still have “free” health insurance as a company benefit. Most larger businesses have several plan options and pricing tiers for employees to choose from. In most cases, the employee has money deducted from every paycheck to pay for their insurance coverage. The BC pills are not “free.”

      It sounds like you’re saying that women with the means to purchase health insurance shouldn’t actually be able to use it. Which makes no sense at all.

      • catarina says:

        The proposed “free” birth control would mean a waived co-pay for all.

        Why isn’t the co-pay waived on other prescriptions?

        Elderly people have to pay a co-pay for their meds, but birth control is 100% paid for? Fuck why?

        • gxm17 says:

          Obama is playing a shell game. The birth control is not “free.” It just looks that way to anyone watching the shells.

          The beanie boys said: We won’t pay for women’s reproductive healthcare. It’s against our religion! And Obama said: Fine, leave it out, we’ll give it away! That’s the theater. The reality is that it’s being paid for. Just like when an online store provides “free shipping.” The shipping is not free, the cost is just buried somewhere else. The women will still be paying their premiums and Obama will have legislated gender discrimination. But hey, we get a FREE cookie!

          IMO, the cost to women’s rights and the setbacks to our reproductive healthcare far outweigh the cost of “free” BC pills. The damage being done is frightening to behold.

          FWIW, I think old people, and pretty much people in general, should get free healthcare but that’s because, unlike the current WH inhabitant, I’m a real lefty.

        • JeanLouise says:

          It is waived on other prescriptions that are considered basic health care. No one’s talking about that because this isn’t about cost. It’s about women having sex.

        • gxm17 says:

          You are so right, JeanLouise.

          catarina asked: “Elderly people have to pay a co-pay for their meds, but birth control is 100% paid for? Fuck why?”

          Because the Catholic church doesn’t discriminate against elderly people. That’s the fuck why.

          I don’t agree with Obama’s response to the Catholic church but it was a reaction to their call for sex discrimination. Women were singled out by the church. Obama countered with an end run around. This has nothing to do with “free” birth control. It has everything to do with discrimination and a weak-kneed attempt by Obama to look like he’s supporting women’s reproductive rights when in actuality he is systematically destroying them from the inside out.

          • myiq2xu says:


            President Barack Obama’s decision to require most employers to cover birth control and insurers to offer it at no cost has created a firestorm of controversy. But the central mandate—that most employers have to cover preventative care for women—has been law for over a decade. This point has been completely lost in the current controversy, as Republican presidential candidates and social conservatives claim that Obama has launched a war on religious liberty and the Catholic Church.

            Despite the longstanding precedent, “no one screamed” until now, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law expert at George Washington University.

            In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn’t provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don’t offer prescription coverage or don’t offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC’s interpretation of the law, you can’t offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.

            “It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles,” a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. “All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It’s a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now…There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial.”

            After the EEOC opinion was approved in 2000, reproductive rights groups and employees who wanted birth control access sued employers that refused to comply. The next year, in Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., a federal court agreed with the EEOC’s reasoning. Reproductive rights groups and others used that decision as leverage to force other companies to settle lawsuits and agree to change their insurance plans to include birth control. Some subsequent court decisions echoed Erickson, and some went the other way, but the rule (absent a Supreme Court decision) remained, and over the following decade, the percentage of employer-based plans offering contraceptive coverage tripled to 90 percent.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          That doesn’t make any sense and begs the question: If it was already settled law, then why did Obama/HSS have to regulate it in the first place? If the HHS change was no change at all, then this just adds credence to the narrative that this ginned up controversy, of no use to anyone, and while Republicans may have stepped in it, the shit-taking on women was from Democrats.

      • catarina says:

        Under the new mandate, this price incentive disappears. Insurers will be required to pay for any and all oral contraceptives, without charging a co-pay, co-insurance, or a deductible. This “first dollar coverage” of oral contraception kills the incentive to shop based on price.

        If history is any guide, this significant change will drive up the price of oral contraception. Today, Tri-Sprintec costs $9 a month. In 2020, don’t be surprised if it costs $30. Drug companies will be able to market “branded” contraceptives at premium prices, knowing that women are free to choose the most expensive, designer product because it will cost them the same as the cheapest generic. Prepare yourself for multi-million-dollar Super Bowl ad campaigns from competing manufacturers.

        So rather than “free contraception,” we actually have more expensive contraception, just with the cost being shared, unwittingly, by people not using contraception. And this isn’t about helping the poor — they’re already covered by Medicaid.

      • Lola-at-Large says:

        The argument here, and I’ve seen it before, is that some women don’t want what they perceive as a special treatment carved out for their birth control. I understand that entirely. First, they don’t want to be used as a pawn, and second, they tend to disagree with political give-aways as a way to cull voters. Finally, they fear that special treatment like this will come with a cost, which it usually does. When I stop and seriously think about it, I don’t see why BC pills or other forms of birth control should be exempted from normal insurance policies and procedures. The left always like to trot out the tired Viagra conspiracy, but men aren’t getting that stuff co-payment free. They aren’t getting free vasectomies either. Equal treatment, not special/preferential treatment.

        • threewickets says:

          Equal treatment for same things. I don’t think of Viagra as reproductive care in the same way Rx BC is. And if you require copays for BC, you’re asking women to bear more of the cost than men. Why should that be. In a related analogy, what percentage of single parents today are women, what percentage are men.

        • Three Wickets says:

          Equal treatment for same things. I don’t think of Viagra as reproductive care in the same way Rx BC is. And if you require copays for BC, you’re asking women to bear more of the cost than men. Why should that be. In a related analogy, what percentage of single parents today are women, what percentage are men.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          But Viagra is the analogy that’s always used. If we use a more direct analogy, then no one is able to get condoms for free on their insurance policy either. Since that’s the case, we’re actually not asking women to pay more than men. We’re giving them a freebie that men don’t get, and men end up paying more on average. I really don’t want special treatment. I want equal treatment.

        • Three Wickets says:

          Most plans don’t cover diaphragms either. Closer analogy might be the male hormone contraceptive pill and injection that are in the pipeline.

          In general though, there is too much conflating of the reproductive healthcare issue with the sexual mores/morality issue, imho. They are different things. I’m talking about the debate out there, not here on CH.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          Definitely agree with you about the conflation with sexuality/morality issues. WTF cares whose screwing whom as long as children and animals aren’t involved? And it’s the height of hypocrisy for a bunch of men to be discussing it anyway, as if they have ever shown any kind of sexual control as a group, like, ever.

    • JeanLouise says:

      The mandate is about all kinds of preventive health care and it was put in place because a non-partisan panel of doctors and public health experts feel that free access to those procedures and meds will make the nation healthier, as a whole, which should reduce health care costs. Separating out birth control is wrong. It is the essence of sex discrimination.

      I support Meidcare-for-All but, if we’re going to be stuck with this plan, it needs to treat women equally.

  7. murphy says:

    “The left’s model for progress for women is to tie a random woman to the train tracks of progress, in this case, Sandra Fluke, and then point and snicker at Republicans all the way until they rescue her at the last possible second.”

    lovely point.

    Excellent post. Back to reading it.


  8. murphy says:

    I thought the post by Ann Althouse (conservative law prof/blogger) that Miq2xu linked to the other day was really excellent, and a good example of a voice from the right who condemned Rush and did NOT undermine her criticism by saying, “yeah but Maher,” or “yeah but the C*nt tshirts.” (not that those examples of leftwing misogyny arent important. They obviously are as you so eloquently point out. But many on the right are just playing games with that) Althouse unambiguously condemned limbaugh’s remarks.

    Wouldn’t it be great if prominent bloggers on the left would do the same?

    (other than you and the bloggers here, of course!)

    skip the piggy comments, imo.

    • DeniseVB says:

      Love Ann Althouse as she was the go-to live blogger for the Madison/Scott Walker protests.

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      Good point, I had forgotten to include Althouse. I agree that her article was particularly insightful and worded well.

  9. votermom says:

    OT. This should be interesting

    Obama collegetape being released tonight on Hannity

  10. WMCB says:

    Lola, I agree with the commenter above who said this is one of the best articles I’ve read on the whole issue.

    For me, it’s not all about Rush, or Fluke. It’s about how, once again, an election year is the time for women to be pushed, prodded, made outraged, and manipulated — all for the purpose of getting yet more men elected (on either side) who could give a shit about us IRL.

    It’s all very coldly calculated and predictable, and has nothing whatsoever to do with women’s rights in any real sense. It has to do with elections.

    And I’m sick to death of all of them.

    • jjmtacoma says:

      Me too, I am sick of the ginned up outrage but no real progress.

      It is all, “Elect manly me! Those other guys are so evil, I don’t sell you out half as much. Oh hey, while you are at it, can you “man” the phone bank and hand out these flyers?”

  11. DeniseVB says:

    Death threats against Rush. Stay classy Dems, even BM-HBO is telling you to knock it off.

    BigGov has screen captures and how dumb are these people to use Facebook to make threats?

  12. myiq2xu says:

    Female Democratic lawmakers refuse to condemn Bill Maher:

  13. HELENK says:

    remember backtrack apologized to this and we still have troops trying to keep them free

    hamid karzai’s code of conduct for women

  14. Three Wickets says:

    Awesome post. Thx Lola.

  15. angienc says:

    The left’s model for progress for women is to tie a random woman to the train tracks of progress, in this case, Sandra Fluke, and then point and snicker at Republicans all the way until they rescue her at the last possible second.

    You got that right — and the cowardly white knight it only “rescuing” the woman to get into her pants, not because he actually gives a damn about her.

  16. Great writing!!! I’ve pondering many of the same things. I keep thinking that it is we women who need 40 years in the wilderness. We’ve been conditioned like Pavlov’s dog to react on cue, particularly the women on the left. Ring the bell, say the right code words like a dog whistle, and the lefty women jump up on cue being lead by the party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz. I am so disgusted by it all because it does nothing to break a single glass ceiling. It just leaves women exactly where we’ve been for the past 50 years.

    I agree with one of the writers above that there are many more opportunities with the women on the right who aren’t as segregated in their thinking.

    The idea of repeating something over and over and over again is a marketing idea. Why not use it to create a new way of thinking? After all, most ideas started somewhere and made it to being accepted by alot of repetition and salesmanship. The idea that we women should be running things in proportion to our numbers really isn’t such a revolutionary idea. The revolutionary part of the idea is getting people to really get it that we women haven’t advanced as much as they think we have. And then from there to help people understand that the roadblocks for women are the responsibility of all of us to remove. It doesn’t matter if your are on the left or the right. We all have a stake in letting women succeed—-we’ve all got mothers, many have daughters, granddaughters, nieces, female cousins.

    So we just keep repeating our message.

  17. Three Wickets says:

    Here’s Irin Carmon from Jezebel writing in Salon.

    This week, in the wake of Rush Limbaugh’s atrocious comments about Sandra Fluke, nominal liberal Kirsten Powers suggested that Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi and Ed Schultz are the ones who are truly waging the war on women, and that the left is hypocritical for allegedly failing to properly call them out or organize campaigns against them. She’s wrong, and not only because feminists regularly criticize those men or because they’ve paid a price for what they’ve said.

    Post-wave feminists defending proven Progressive misogynist men. Sad thing to see.

    • myiq2xu says:

      How many times has Joan Walsh appeared on Maher’s show? Has she ever called him to his face out for his misogyny?

      • myiq2xu says:

        While slamming Mitt Romney for not standing up to the “strident voices” on his side, a top Obama advisor is planning to spend some quality time with one on his own, The Daily has learned.

        David Axelrod, President Obama’s senior campaign strategist, is scheduled to appear on Bill Maher’s late-night talk show within the next few weeks, according to Kelley Carville, an HBO spokesman.

        As the controversy over Rush Limbaugh’s comments about Sandra Fluke continued, a former Obama White House official today joined Republicans in pointing out that Maher, who recently donated $1 million to a pro-Obama super PAC, has a history of his misogynistic slurs.

        Last year, he was rebuked by the National Organization for Women for calling Sarah Palin a “dumb tw*t.”

        • Three Wickets says:

          Lol, professional Hillary and Sarah bashers Axelrod and Maher, now batting third and cleanup for team Obama. Good to see Goolsbee calling out Maher. He and Christina Romer were kind of crapped on by Summers and Obama on the stimulus and bailouts.

    • Sounds like Irin Carmon is splitting hairs. Her contention that sexist slurs aren’t really the point is laughable.What about the research that shows that a sexist slur is the best way to ruin a woman’s chance of getting elected, that it makes her approval ratings IMMEDIATELY go down 10 points:–

      sigh—–there is still alot of trouble in the sisterhood. Which is why I always say that the women on the left are practicing a tainted, twisted feminism and they need a 40-year time out in th wilderness…..

      • Lola-at-Large says:

        The reaction from the left has been disappointing to say the least. They’d have far more leverage if they’d just own it and say, you’re right and give Maher his money back. Drain your own swamp before you go talking about the filth of others. Or even as you’re talking about it.

        • no kidding. I keep hearing that, well, Palin, Malkin, Hillary, etc. should expect to be called things because they are public people but that it was even more egregious because poor Sandra Fluke isn’t a public person. I guess they have lost the moral high ground with that message,,,,

  18. votermom says: petition vs BM

    • T says:

      Should be an ethics issue with HBO. If anyone wants anything done about Maher, they’re the ones to go after. So glad I don’t subscribe….

      • Three Wickets says:

        And HBO’s owner Time Warner who also owns CNN the Donna Brazile channel. Time Warner is an Obama network. If fact they’re all Obama supporters with the exception of News Corp – Fox.

        Time Warner CNN
        Comcast NBC Universal
        Disney ABC ESPN
        Viacom CBS Paramount
        PBS NPR Sesame Street 🙂

        Internet is more open. But the leadership at Google, Facebook, Twitter are all big Obama fans.

        It’s a Koolaid Monopoly.

  19. foxyladi14 says:

    I don’t subscribe either 🙂

  20. more on the media sexism, and more on why we can’t let up our talk about it:

Comments are closed.