Loading...
Please write and send praise, critique, interesting links or random musings to touchthehandthatfeedsyou@yahoo.com

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

The Day In "Slut Shaming"

Feb 29th, 2012

It's been a hell of a day in the world of "slut shaming." A hell of a day, indeed. In case you haven't heard yet, Rush Limbaugh savagely attacked Sandra Fluke, the young woman whom House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) refused to allow to testify during his all-male-witness contraception hearing two weeks ago:

"What does it say about the college coed Susan [sic] Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.

"She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps.

"The johns, that's right. We would be the johns -- no! We're not the johns. Well -- yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word.

"OK, so, she's not a slut. She's round-heeled. I take it back." EMPHASIS MINE

via Media Matters


In case you are wondering what set Rush off, Ms. Fluke managed to get her voice heard in a separate hearing held by the The Democratic Steering & Policy Committee. Although House Republicans managed to intentionally prevent her appearance from being broadcast, it wound up being seen by a lot of people anyway. You know how that pesky internet is.



This woman not being effectively silenced altogether was too much for Rush to bear.

Of particular note is his remark today about the quantity of sex a person engages in having anything to do with "contraception."

Beyond a refusal to recognize the fact that a majority of women use "contraception" as an essential component of health-preserving hormone therapies (such as the one related in Ms. Fluke's testimony), this exposes the psyche of the contemporary, self-declared conservative male...
They think this debate is about rubbers and fucking.
Steve Benen raises an eyebrow:

"Behold, the most influential voice in Republican politics.

I'm curious whether GOP officials, including Darrell Issa, are comfortable with the language Limbaugh used today. If recent history is any guide, Republican officeholders are loath to disagree with the radio host publicly, and it'll be interesting to see if GOP lawmakers or candidates make any kind of exception here.

Given that they started this War on Women, it seems unlikely, but here's hoping I'm wrong."


That's a damn good question. And, it should be asked of every single elected Republican in the United States.

Believe it or not, the day got even more depressing.

The National Review published a "hilarious" piece by Charles C. W. Cooke showing just how stupid we liberals are and 'exposing' the fact that access to birth control is a phony issue. His piece, titled "My Contraceptive Haul," (yuk yuk) details how easy it was for him to find condoms simply everywhere in NY City.
"Were one to have listened uncritically to the more hysterical elements in America’s news media over the past month, one would have concluded that contraception is intractably hard to come by in the United States; but a cursory glance at the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s well-appointed website gives quite the opposite impression. There, contrarily, visitors are informed that anyone in need of contraception is somewhat spoiled for choice." EMPHASIS MINE
While poking fun at the "NY Condom App" available for a number of smart phones, he says:
"Never has a society been so precisely and easily led to safe sex."
He even describes how his pockets were "bulging" with so many rubbers. Again, it's all about rubbers and fucking.
"Next time someone tells you that, if the federal government does not force all health insurers to cover contraception without raising premiums, the sky is going to fall, why not take him for a walk in a major urban area? You’ll only have to go a couple of blocks." EMPHASIS MINE
You just read that right.
"Take him."
There are so many things wrong with these two men that go beyond their dripping smarm.

They are speaking for millions of Americans who think that women shouldn't be speaking on this subject at all.

2 comments:

  1. It amazes me that the whole issue and subject has turned from whether the government has the right to tell religions or any other group of people, no matter what they believe, what they belive or don't believe is "irrelevant" If a university doesn't share your own social agenda DON'T GO THERE find another school...just like if your church doesn't fit with your convictions LEAVE you have that right .....But the government having the power or the right to force anybody to act or participate in an action that is contrary to their belief system violates every premiss of our constitution based on "FREE WILL",,, no Rush Limbaugh has no business calling or labeling anybody with any name or improper slur, "glass houses" dude,People shouldn't expect the government to force everybody else to bow to their cause and support them "just because" I for one am fed up with the onslaught of federal regulations dumped on the masses every year....people need to have the options and the determination to "SOLVE THEIR OWN FUCKING PROBLEMS" but stop expecting me the tax payer to pay for their every want If Sandra Fluke wants a health care plan at the law school she attends to cover birth control pills for whatever its needed for(not always is it just birth control) THEN TRANSFER TO A SCHOOL THAT HAS IT quit whining to congress about it

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nonsense.

    The organizations in question, including Georgetown, are not only participating in public and commercial markets, they are also participating in forms of public underwriting.

    If they want to close up shop or stop taking taxpayer money and/or tax breaks altogether, then they can have more latitude.

    That said, if they continue to participate in MARKETS, they cannot impose theology. Period. The separation clause was borne primarily out of concern regarding that era's Anglican Church.

    It's entire essence was to protect the secular FIRST. Not the other way around.

    ReplyDelete