Monday, March 05, 2012

Misogyny in politics

I thought that Rush Limbaugh's rants against Sandra Fluke was crass and tasteless. There are plenty of ways to attack her argument that the university should fund its students' contraception needs at the extraordinary projection of $1000 a year without having to call her names. That might be Limbaugh's shtick, but it is counter-productive. The focus of the story then became about him and his personal attacks on Sandra Fluke and, predictably, the Democrats have made hay by turning the story into attacks on Limbaugh rather than the policy. As Talleyrand reportedly said once, "It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder."

If we return to the policy argument, Debra Saunders points out that the demand of feminists has moved from asking for the freedom of choice in their sex lives to demanding their entitlement to have that paid for. Why should the government demand that contraception be provided for free by insurance companies when they don't make that demand for other prescriptions. Why is contraception the priority prescription and not heart or diabetes medicine? If the argument is that contraception pays for itself by saving the costs of a pregnancy, surely pills moderating blood sugar or blood pressure or any of dozens of such preventative medicines are equally worthy?

And of course, all of this avoids the real issue which is not contraception but government impositions on religious institutions. It would be the same argument if government were requiring Orthodox Jewish employers to open their businesses on Saturday or Muslim and Jewish employers to fund their employees' pork consumption.

Meanwhile Kirsten Powers, a Democrat herself, then reminds us that the liberal media has its own misogyny against those whom they oppose liberally. She gives example after example of ugly attacks by liberal media against conservative women and even Hillary Clinton. And note that there hasn't been a scintilla of the outrage against those media personalities that we've all heard about for Rush Limbaugh. Debbie Wasserman Schultz purports to be justly outraged at Rush Limbaugh's language but she has no problem going on Bill Maher's show despite his having used much worse language about Sarah Palin. If the language is ugly when a conservative speaks it, shouldn't the standard be the same for liberals? Of course not.


tfhr said...

Good for Kirsten Powers. I enjoy her generally fair-minded efforts on Fox panels when she appears. Juan Williams can be a little partisan at times but in his line of work, he is a rare, fair-minded voice from the left. We would do well to have more like them and less that would stand quietly on the side and say nothing in the face of slurs hurled by the likes of the Mahers, Schultzs and Olbermanns of the Progressive gutter.

Which brings me to others that accept or ignore more than just the foul, misogyny of a man like Bill Maher. Our beloved icon of Hope and Change, Barack Obama just received a "gift" of $1,000,000 from Maher for his reelection campaign. Should Obama return that money? He can keep it because Maher has a right to say whatever he wants. And we have the right to think whatever we want about those that associate with him and his money.

LarryD said...

"If the argument is that contraception pays for itself by saving the costs of a pregnancy..."

It would be cheaper to just sterilize her.

I also vaguely recall something about an implantable time-release contraceptive good for three years, what ever became of that?

mark said...

No, Barack Obama did not receive a gift of 1M. A superpac did. As Romney explained, Obama can't do anything about it. Why, he'd get thrown in the big house.

tfhr said...


As ineffective as Obama has been as President, I can see where you might think that he is incapable of doing anything about that or anything else, but he can certainly speak out against Maher and he has not. He can certainly tell people that he think's Maher's money isn't welcome, but he has not. If he were in office in Alaska, mark, you could file a suit and harass him either way but it's up to Obama to do the right thing and he won't. Kind of reminds me how he said he'd accept public financing for his campaign in 2008 but then went back on his word. Money means more than his word to him, no? It certainly means more to Obama than common decency or respect for women.