Please listen to a special edition of The John Smart Show that aired earlier today by clicking here.
Recent Comments
conner43 on Screw The First Then Take the… freedomfairy01 on Oklahoma Is Not Ok Tonigh… Lola-at-Large on Simple Answer Propertius on Simple Answer conner43 on 3 Scandals, No Story. Thank You!
Buy This Movie!
On the radio!
Kirsten Powers hits it out of the ballpark on the hypocrisy of the Left when it comes to defending against misogyny:
[Excerpt]
“But if Limbaugh’s actions demand a boycott—and they do—then what about the army of swine on the left?
During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.” He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a “bimbo” for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.
Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.
The grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher.
Left-wing darling Matt Taibbi wrote on his blog in 2009, “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.” In a Rolling Stone article about Secretary of State Clinton, he referred to her “flabby arms.” When feminist writer Erica Jong criticized him for it, he responded by referring to Jong as an “800-year old sex novelist.” (Jong is almost 70, which apparently makes her an irrelevant human being.) In Taibbi’s profile of Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann he labeled her “batshit crazy.” (Oh, those “crazy” women with their hormones and all.)
Chris Matthews’s sickening misogyny was made famous in 2008, when he obsessively tore down Hillary Clinton for standing between Barack Obama and the presidency, something that Matthews could not abide. Over the years he has referred to the former first lady, senator and presidential candidate and current secretary of state as a “she-devil,” “Nurse Ratched,” and “Madame Defarge.” Matthews has also called Clinton “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “uppity” and once claimed she won her Senate seat only because her “husband messed around.” He asked a guest if “being surrounded by women” makes “a case for commander in chief—or does it make a case against it?” At some point Matthews was shamed into sort of half apologizing to Clinton, but then just picked up again with his sexist ramblings.”
More: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html
That’s a great piece, thanks for the link!
Glad you liked it, Flik. Good to see you again.
Oh I’m almost always here, just lurk more often than not! Though I have actually been blessedly busy with work more recently.
Also I’d like to express my awe that you have the energy to even respond to Zal at all.
NES, she started though with this:
Boycotts are reserved for people on the right like Rush Limbaugh
But the right has used boycotts…well, right and left. This is what I posted in one place.
Really? What about the “million moms” ? They urged a boycott of J. C. Penney for hiring Ellen as a spokesperson. Now they’re after Clorox for the “racy” Liquid Plumber commercial. The American Family Association (shudder at the name) is always boycotting some place or some one.
http://www.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147517850
Women help bring this on themselves.
During the feminist liberation period, women burned their bras and tossed out girdles and hairspray and spike heels and pointy toed shoes that deformed their feet and spine. They stopped being sexual objects and started being sexual women who strived to be unashamed and then pleased with a real woman’s body. The psychological changes, in women and also many men, that accompanied these outward changes is what liberation and advancement looks like.
Today they’re back to sexual objects, only more so than before. They reshape their faces with surgery and their bodies with Spanx, fill their breasts with plastic and their hair with dye and extensions. They spend a fortune on pointy toed spike heeled shoes that misshape their toes and hurt their backs, and squeeze into tight mini dresses that push their (or Corning’s) boobs spilling out the top.
Then they call it misogyny when a man mocks a woman’s flabby arms. Well guess who invited the ridicule.
Is Chris Matthews a pig? Sure. Do women have a right to do whatever they want with their bodies? Sure. But this is what consequences look like in the real world.
“Then they call it misogyny when a man mocks a woman’s flabby arms. Well guess who invited the ridicule.”
Looking for a fight, I see. Well, you won’t get it from me because I’m not going to go off the deep end in response to such an obvious attempt to, well, sh*t-stir.
But, here’re some questions for you to contemplate:
– Let’s turn to history for a second, shall we? What about sexism and misogyny in the US before women “invited” it?
– What about misogyny in the Middle East and South Asia? Do women in burkhas also invite it?
I will agree with you on this though, Zal. Women today do little to help themselves and could reasonably be seen as their own worst enemies. But, having said that, that’s no excuse for sexism/misogyny.
No, NES, I’m not looking for a fight. In fact I think it’s a real shame that on most of these blogs by and large the only two options are echo chamber or fight.
We (you and I, and I think most here) agree about fundamentals: social justice, equal rights, access to opportunity, freedom to make our own choices, assistance for our most vulnerable, etc. Well if we are simpatico with those fundamentals, why can’t various views, including contrarian, be expressed and discussed without a fight? Why can’t alternative ideas be presented for discussion? Not all that long ago, okay maybe it’s been a couple of decades by now, liberals loved to sit around having robust lively discussions about events and ideas. Back then observations and intelligent informed opinion –even the unconventional– could drive fun challenging conversation and inspire ideas, whereas these days the requirements of PC and flattery and herd mentality takes all that as an affront that needs to be attacked, and fights ensue.
No, I’m not looking for a fight. I’m looking for a liberal’s discussion.
What about it?
Do I really have to qualify a criticism of women by acknowledging the obvious, that women, throughout history, are among the major targets of white heterosexual male oppression and subjugation and hostility? Seriously??
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/all-about-eve-the-christian-roots-of-the-gop-war-on-women/2012/03/01/gIQAymq0kR_blog.html
Waron,
With all due respect, this is nonsense. Women, just like men, will get out of life exactly what they put into it. Sure there are obstacles, if you want to call them that, because in the end, biology is destiny.
But having to pay for birth control doesn’t deprive anyone of freedom..Our grandmothers would have envied the ‘freedom’ to even buy such a miraculous pill.
,As an early feminist, it slowly dawned on me that the movement had become less about equality, and more about something beyond fairness, and was increasingly on par with just getting one’s own way, and calling everything possible a ‘women’s issue.’ This is not progress, imo, it looks a lot like regression, at least to me.
This is a losing issue for the GOP. That giant sucking sound is the sound of Indie votes going to Obama.