Every now again, I have a brainstorm, an idea which just comes to me and it seems brilliant at the time. If it comes to me when I’m driving, I try to remember it so I can scribble it down when I stop. Occasionally by the time I stop, I find that the idea has dissipated and left barely a trace, if that. There’s just the faint recollection of having had an idea.
Sometimes, when I do turn such ideas into blog posts, they generate more interest than pieces I have thought out–or otherwise worked on–for some time. Other times, no one pays them much attention.
I had such a thought yesterday as I was leaving San Francisco, an idea which I tacked onto the end of my last post so I could incorporate the notion into the title, but now, with the idea returning again–even though I haven’t scribbled it down, I’m thinking it deserves a post of its own. Maybe I’m onto something. Or maybe not.
Anyone who has spent any time in gay circles has met the man-hating lesbian, a subspecies of lesbian who seem to love women only because they hate men. Most lesbians I’ve met have no problem with men as long as they don’t have to sleep with us. Over the years, I’ve only occasionally met a gay man who didn’t like women. Oh, I’ve heard stories about a few, but off hand, can only think of two. Most of us not only like women, but seem to particularly delight in the company of strong women.
As I left San Francisco, it struck me how certain gay male bloggers who have led the attacks on Sarah Palin were equally shrill in their denunciations of Hillary Clinton when she was still running for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Back then, now over a year ago, I dismissed accusations against Hillary’s foes of misogyny as just sour groups. I mean, I opposed her because she was so far to the left. Couldn’t others also have principled objections to a female politician?
And yet with the intensity of attacks on Sarah Palin, I began to reconsider my past dismissal of the Clinton supporters’ complaint. It wasn’t just Hillary Clinton–or Sarah Palin–they hated, but instead the very idea of a strong successful woman who commands the attention of men.
With the vicious attacks on Sarah Palin continuing (and perhaps even increasing in intensity) after she lost her bid for the Vice Presidency, we see the rhetorical equivalent of sour groups coming from the winning side. In a good number of circles where I’ve traveled since the election, I’ve encountered gay men as nasty about Sarah Palin as Democrats and MSM were during the campaign.
I’m just wondering if those gay men so obsessed with Sarah Palin are like the man-hating lesbians, unhappy women who don’t just like members of the opposite sex, but have to remind us constantly about the object of their animus. Not only do they hate men, but they can’t shut up about it. And since it’s not PC to vent against women in general (as it is PC for feminists to vent against men), they focus their scorn on a particular un-PC woman. She’s like a godsend to their neurosis.
And so we see certain gay men and Sarah Palin–as if they need her to vent whatever it is they have to vent about the female sex.
So, readers, is this just one of those random thougths that strikes me, but lacks substance. Or, is there something more to this notion than just a random thought?
“If it comes to me when I’m driving, I try to remember it so I can scribble it down when I stop.”
I have that problem too, so I started calling myself and leaving a voicemail. Not as high tech as Jott or ReQall (which transcribe your notes) but it’s free and easy.
As to the Palin phenomenon… it’s as good an explanation as any, especially wrt Andrew Sullivan, who’s become completely unhinged.
I think you have a point there. Andrew Sullivan’s bizarre obsession with Sarah Palin’s uterus is far more pathological than political. Face it, psychologically healthy men do not obsess over bizarre plots that Sarah Palin is not Trig Palin’s mother.
And his comment yesterday… “I sure hope [Sarah Palin’s] family recovers from what she has done to them.”… is beyond asinine. As though it’s *her* fault that left-wing bloggers and media types attacked her kids. What a complete douchebag.
Interesting post, Dan. But I don’t think there is much to Sarah Palin being a woman here. Whether accurate or not, Palin came across as more conservative (and somewhat more anti-gay IMO) than her running mate. Sure, it also doesn’t help that she had the “R” next to her name, which is never a selling point for most gay persons. She also came across as not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Again, maybe that wasn’t fair. But some of the interviews, even when found to be edited, really did not reveal herself to be ready and prepared for higher office in the opinion of not just her critics, but her supporters as well. Yes, even with the gaffes of Obama, Biden, and McCain.
Now when you add to the fact that she is woman (albeit accomplished, strong, family oriented, etc.), unfortunately, that sometimes gets added to the mix. Why that is relevant, I don’t know. And yes, there is hypocrisy of some who insisted that she should have stayed home and care for Trig instead of working.
I imagine some of it is misogyny. I recall about a year or so ago on this blog there was a post about a Republican senator who, on some issue, sided with Democrats. When he gave a speech, he may have sounded like a woman whatever that is supposed to mean. When he was referred, his name was feminized. So what happened was this senator did something that was regarded as wrong by some, so his penalty was to be referred to like a woman, as if being a woman is some horrible thing, and worthy of a man who did something wrong. I don’t think the persons who did this are misogynist, or necessarily think that the namecalling was misogynist. I’m not sure how I would label it. I suggested that it wasn’t right, and got smacked down by some for it.
And how many times have we heard that when a politician or celebrity is being criticized, people also add or joke about their attractiveness, weight, or some other attribute that should be totally irrelevant.
V the K, I also don’t get Sullivan’s obsession and otherwise inexcusable behavior regarding Palin. But I’m not sure what it was to do with her being a woman, aside from the fact that he obsesses on the maternity of one of her children. If Palin was a man, he could have obsessed over his paternity.
Not really, Pat. Sully demanded the release of all medical records relating to Sarah Palin’s pregnancy with Trig. When it came to Barack Obama, a one page note from his doctor was enough. That’s a pretty major difference in treatment.
And if we want to play equals, would you concede for the sake of argument that the conspiracy theories about Trig Palin’s parentage are as far-fetched about the conspiracy theories about Bam-Bam’s place of birth?
All right then. Sully has demanded all of Trig Palin’s medical records, true? So, in fairness, Sully ought to also be demanding Obama’s real birth certificate, his college transcripts, his application to Occidental College to see if he applied as a foreign student, and on which passport he traveled in 1981 to Pakistan with his friend Wahid Hamid.
Sully defends his Trig Trutherism as “just asking questions.” The same defense could be offered of those demanding that Bam Bam prove his birthright citizenship.
You refer to “…some gay men…” and “…certain gay male bloggers…”, but offer no names. I’m aware of Andrew Sullivan, but don’t primarily consider him a blogger, but simply a TV opinionist. I’m sure there are bloggers who are critical of Palin who happen to be gay males, but it’s probably stretching it a bit to assume they represent a vein of misogyny heretofore hidden in gay culture now being exposed at GayPatriot. They’re likely afraid of what they accurately perceive as a strong, conservative woman whose political positions strongly disagree with their own and in this sense, they’re no different than bloggers who aren’t gay males who hold similar views.
As for any similarities with the treatment Hillary received, I just don’t see it. Hillary came to the campaign with a great deal of ethical and political baggage; of the liberals I know, many claimed that if she won the nomination, they would be voting for McCain. (I wasn’t willing to take this at face value, but that these consistently liberal people would even consider such a thing was itself illuminating.) They don’t hate women — they hate Hillary and what she represents: corruption, opportunism, elitism, etc. Obama may indeed represent those same things, but during the campaign he benefited from what was perceived to be a clean slate.
Like it or not, Palin fits a liberal template of ignorant white trash, but ignorant white trash that is smart, capable, and attractive. Hatred for her and her ilk is more likely born of elitism and classism rather than misogyny.
I should add that the attempt to make an equivalency comparison between the respective media attention of Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton is really insulting to Palin.
Hatred for her and her ilk is more likely born of elitism and classism rather than misogyny.
That explains Peggy Noonan and Kathleen Parker, anyway. I’m sure elitism is a lot of it… it’s why you hear so many liberal tools hating on her as a substandard person because she went to state and community colleges instead of the Ivy league. (Makes you wonder why the liberals are so keen to expand public spending on those public colleges, if they’re so worthless?)
But I don’t think you can rule out misogyny as a factor, and not just among gay bloggers. Middle-aged “comedians” offer the same thing. Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, and David Letterman look at Sarah Palin and think “she ought to be bringing me cocktails in the lounge at Hef’s.” Their contempt for her for not being at the station they would have her is pretty transparent.
I have no way of knowing as well as you about misogyny among certain gay men, but I would say heterosexual men are much more to blame for misogyny in our culture. Sure, sexual attraction to women may make a man view women in general as more wonderful and worthy of respect than that man might otherwise view them, but the objectification of women is a huge problem and can allow men to marginalize women, either consciously or subconsciously.
I’m not convinced though that the vicious hatred of Palin has as much to do with her being a woman as it is the result of other things. I think it was primarily motivated by her sudden charismatic, dynamic presence on the campaign against Obama. The Left wasn’t prepared to hate a moderate war hero with a pretty mild campaign against the One. They seemed to view McCain as the guy whom history had picked for the honor of losing to the One, sort of like a boxer for Rocky to fight in one of those movies. You don’t hate the guy who’s just their to play the loser. That changed when Palin was picked. Although few on the Left would probably admit to feeling threatened by Palin now, for a few weeks last September, it looked to many people that the emergence of Palin might derail the One’s rightful place in history, and the possibility that the One could be taken out by a non-IV league with a hick accent surely added insult to injury. Of course, Obama won, but the Left doesn’t forgive easily, especially when they have no one new to hate.
Not really, Pat. Sully demanded the release of all medical records relating to Sarah Palin’s pregnancy with Trig. When it came to Barack Obama, a one page note from his doctor was enough. That’s a pretty major difference in treatment.
V the K, I agree that is a major difference in treatment. The question is, is it due to misogyny on Sullivan’s part, and in general, on anyone else’s part. Sullivan may be a misogynist (among other things) for all I know. But it appears that he is more partisan than anything else now in going after Palin. Heck, he was relentless against Bush, and there is no misogyny issue there.
All right then. Sully has demanded all of Trig Palin’s medical records, true? So, in fairness, Sully ought to also be demanding Obama’s real birth certificate, his college transcripts, his application to Occidental College to see if he applied as a foreign student, and on which passport he traveled in 1981 to Pakistan with his friend Wahid Hamid.
Good question. Again, I think this is more likely because he supported Obama, and disliked Palin. Unfair? Yes. But not necessarily because of misogyny.
Turning the question around, what about those groups who sought after Obama’s birth certificate, etc.? Were they as relentless in finding the “truth” about Trig? And if they didn’t, do we necessarily conclude that those groups are racist?
Sure, you can make the argument that those groups had more of a case. Perhaps so. But in Sullivan’s (warped) mind, he apparently believed (or still believes) that Trig’s maternity is still in question.
Pat, I don’t think Sully was solely motivated by misogyny in his deranged Palin hatred. (Frankly, I think the man is simply deranged, Palin notwithstanding.) I don’t think Sully would admit to misogyny, so a case would have to be made there. And there is evidence apart from his deranged obsession with Trig. For example, he has written at length about the wonders of testosterone. The New Republic speculated about Sully’s misogyny with respect to Hillary. Which you could also explain as being out of love for Obama.
My gut-feeling is that misogyny was one factor among many in his hatred for Sarah Palin; and perhaps it was the the thing that pushed him over from harsh criticism of her to deranged obsession with her. This gut feeling is based on what I recall of his writings before I gave up on him; which had a flavor not of the overt misogyny of a Hefner, Clinton, or Maher who view women as disposable objects of gratification, but more that variety of misogyny peculiar to gay men that tends to discount women entirely because they can not offer gratification.
Um, I think it’s a reflection of a lot of lefties’ misogyny. Palin is the designated scapegoat. The misogyny is there, on the Left, but repressed. (Remember Obama flipping off Hillary, but in a secretive, wink-wink fashion like a fifth-grader, and the other ‘cutesy’ misogynistic, wink-wink slams on Hillary that he that he and his staff came up with?) But it’s ‘politically correct’ to let it out with Palin, so they knock themselves out.
ILC, that’s probably closer to the truth. The left has a lot of misogyny, but they unleash only at right-wing targets. I think the left’s homophobia and racism work the same way.
That, too. These things can have multiple motivations. Actually, hatred for Palin is born most of all of the simple fact that she’s conservative. It’s the fact that she’s conservative which then makes it politically correct for the other hatreds to come out.
That, too. These things can have multiple motivations. For a brief catalog of Obama’s sexist slams on Hillary in 2008, see the concluding Updates to this post: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/10/mccain-ad-lipstick/
Indeed, McCain was pulling ahead in the polls. Then the financial crisis intervened, or became too obvious to ignore. And McCain mishandled it, posturing as a leader but “having nothing” except support for the reprehensible bailouts that have only made things worse. But I digress.
ILC, that may explain why certain McCain campaign operatives have been smearing Palin… blaming her for their failure.
#15: “Actually, hatred for Palin is born most of all of the simple fact that she’s conservative.”
I’m with you, ILC. While many piles of the avalanche of attacks on Palin and her family are misogynist, I don’t think the attacks were a manifestation of any innate misogyny on the part of the attackers. Liberal ideologues and their sheep simply aren’t that complex. Palin is a conservative. Therefore, no attack, no matter what form it may take, is off limits. Liberals don’t care about consistency or hypocrisy either. If Hillary had been their candidate, liberals would have denounced attacks on her as misogynist and simultaneously condemned Palin in misogynist terms. Liberals are passionately opposed to misogyny unless there is a conservative woman to destroy. Liberals are similarly “fierce advocates” for privacy unless there is a closeted gay conservative to out and ridicule for his homosexuality.
Sorry, GPW, but I think your theory gives these idiots WAY too much credit.
Sean and ILC, I think you’re right. Conservatism is what, to the left, justifies the attack. In their world, it is not only acceptable to hate conservatives, it is encouraged… with all out vitriol. Misogyny, homophobia, racism, theophobia, become are part of the arsenal of attacks, but the fact that these weapons are kept so close at hand and are deployed so early in the assault tells you they are closer to the leftist heart than the left is willing to admit.
OMG(osh) that is a GREAT question. I don’t think I can add much to what is being shared here but I read that title and thought, “that’s an awesome question.”
Just thought I would share.
“Andrew Sullivan’s bizarre obsession with Sarah Palin’s uterus is far more pathological than political.”
I suggest that Andrew Sullivan adopt a new battle cry? “The pathological is political!” (No apologies to the campus commies I knew in the seventies and eighties.)
“In their world, it is not only acceptable to hate conservatives, it is encouraged”
Welcome to the liberal embrace of the Two Minute Hate, except that instead of spittle-flecked tirades against Emmanuel Goldstein it’s snide and vicious comments about “Paul Volfovitz” et al.
Actually, the attacks on Palin, in my opinion, are more on the order of knocking down a noncompliant minority who doesn’t obey the Obama Party’s commands than anything else.
In that context, the attacks of Barack Obama and his puppets on Sarah Palin are the same as the attacks of the liberal gay community on gay conservatives, or of Barack Obama on black conservatives.
To expand on that, they’re an object lesson to the minorities on the Obama plantation: “Think differently and watch your family be savaged.”
That’s what really puts the lie to the Obama Party “supporting minorities”. What they support are their slaves — minority members who never question them, who do as they say, and who are absolutely reliable. Have a strong, smart, successful woman like Palin who has succeeded off their plantation, and she has to be destroyed. She represents a fundamental threat to their way of thinking, which is that minorities can only succeed by selling their soul to the Obama Party.
#22: “Welcome to the liberal embrace of the Two Minute Hate…”
“Two minute hate.” I like that, pst314. I think it describes what V the K was referring to in comment #19 when he mentioned liberals keeping these weapons “close at hand.” Liberals are highly skilled at wielding whatever bigoted sword is necessary to protect and advance liberalism (and the media doesn’t call them on it because the media is complicit). The same liberal is perfectly comfortable with racist condemnations of Condoleeza Rice, misogynist attacks on Palin, and homophobic attacks on whatever closeted conservative political operative or candidate that is unfortunate enough to end up in their cross-hairs. And they narcissistically declare themselves to be the most tolerant citizens among us because they supported Obama for the Presidency. But the fact is, they didn’t put Obama in the White House because they are tolerant of minorities. They put him there because they are INTOLERANT of any living soul who isn’t a liberal, no matter what their color, creed, sex, or orientation. Their own actions prove it unequivocally. Again, these people are NOT complex in the least. In fact, they are embarrassingly unsophisticated and predictable.
Sean, I have long wondered if left-liberals don’t have a lot more racial and sexual animosity than conservatives, and if guilt over these feelings doesn’t drive them to over-compensate in supporting the truly insane policies of the racial and sexual grievance-mongers.
I think a lot of gay pundits are gay because of the group identity and not because of the sexual attraction. I think having to deal with a strong, attractive woman like Sarah Palin stirs long repressed heterosexual urges. I think Andrew Sullivan’s hatred of her is in proportion to the level of arousal. Like every other straight guy.
Women hate Palin with intensity unrivaled by any man, except good ol Sully.
Here is an interesting take from a feminist, who is trying to figure out why.
http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2009/07/04/feminists-and-the-mystery-of-sarah-palin/#more-4325
#27,
What?
Can someone translate Ashpenaz to English for me?
Can someone translate Ashpenaz to English for me?
Livewire, I think that Ashpenaz is saying that gay pundits aren’t really gay. They just like to belong to the gay community. And the hatred by Sullivan, and other gay persons, really demonstrates that they are not really gay, but latent heterosexuals. In Sullivan’s case, he also hated Bush, so perhaps, in his case, that makes him bisexual. By the way, I don’t agree with Asphenaz here.
Hefner, Clinton, or Maher who view women as disposable objects of gratification
V the K, I can’t comment regarding Hefner, because I haven’t figured out where he is coming from. Clinton treated women the way he did, because he couldn’t simply be faithful to his wife. I imagine if he was gay, he would have treated men in the same regard. As for Maher, he may be a misogynist for all I know, but he makes jokes that feed on stereotypes of women and black people (including Obama, who he clearly supported). As for Sullivan, I’ll trust your guess on him.
Conservatism is what, to the left, justifies the attack. In their world, it is not only acceptable to hate conservatives, it is encouraged… with all out vitriol. Misogyny, homophobia, racism, theophobia, become are part of the arsenal of attacks,
While this is true for too many on the left, I see this is generally true for any political stripe. I’ve seen similar types of comments and attacks on the right as well. Rush Limbaugh who said that feminism is for ugly women so they can get ahead as well. If that wasn’t a misogynist statement, I don’t know what is. How many times have we seen persons not only criticize a lesbian celebrity for her liberal views, but her eating habits as well, because she is overweight. Or liberal newsreporters and politicians, not just for their views, but to add on how ugly they are, or compare them with a picture of a dog. And as I mentioned above, feminizing a man’s name as punishment for supporting the wrong policy.
So, unfortunately, too often, people on the left and right use misogyny and other hateful tactics as part of their arsenal when criticizing political opponents.
LOL 🙂 A wise man once said, “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem”, roughly “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.” Another once said, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” Another suggested that people should “Keep It Simple, Stupid.”
If a prominent “heterosexual,” such as James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, or the Pope comes out with an attack on gay people, we all assume that it’s latent homosexuality, so why wouldn’t the same be true when Sullivan attacks Palin? I suspect that many gay pundits, as they grow older, discover that they are not so “once gay, always gay” as they thought they were and the loss of identity frightens them.
I’m attracted to the Progressive Insurance woman. Wow–I say it louder.
I don’t think the vitriol is nearly as strong and pervasive on the right as it is on the left. For one, we don’t own the media, so we don’t have a Saturday Night Live, a David Letterman, or a Daily Show to use to bring hate to the masses. For another, conservatives who step out of line get smacked down quickly, while the left’s attacks are defended and/or excused.
Also, I have yet to see any conservative commentator suggesting Obama’s daughters are whores. Crude Photoshops of Obama’s daughters are not posted by official DNC bloggers. No conservative radio host has called them whores, vandals, meth-heads, or dykes. The RNC is not selling T-Shirts calling Obama’s daughters retards.
All of this has been done to Sarah Palin’s children.
We tend to only pick on grown-ups. Rush Limbaugh made one crack about Chelsea Clinton 16 years ago, and the left is still talking about it. Our shenanigans are cheeky and fun. Their shenanigans are cruel and tragic. Which..makes them not shenanigans, at all really.
Also, was Obama’s church set on fire? No. But Sarah’s was… with people inside.
Ah, that’s where you’re going wrong. Your opening assumption is wrong. Fact: “We” don’t all assume.
I suspect that the idea of Sullivan having a single heterosexual impulse anywhere in his body is not only without evidence, it’s unlikely enough to be ludicrous. Sullivan is the classic “straight woman trapped in a man’s body”. (No slur on women intended.)
And Janeane Garofalo proves he was right.
Ok… *backs away from Ashpenaz slowly*
I’d point out that there’s a difference between ‘attack’ and ‘disagree’ I can say that homosexuality is sinful and you should repent. I can say any man looking at Sophie Marceau and doesn’t feel their pulse quicken is dead inside. You can disagree with me w/o attacking me or my family or my dog.
Now if I go from that to “Ash isn’t a real gay guy, he’s secretly Adam Lambert still bitter about losing” That’s an attack. If Adam-er Ashpenaz replies to my ‘it’s a sin’ arguement with “It’s not, here’s why” or “So’s gluttony, so aren’t you sinning too?” that’s not an attack either. “You’re just saying that because you’re a gay in denial,” is.
That’s the problem with the attacks on SP. They weren’t about her policies, they were going for the people who can’t defend themselves.
“I don’t think the vitriol is nearly as strong and pervasive on the right as it is on the left.”
I agree. In my youth I was excruciatingly liberal, but never had trouble with conservatives, who, almost without exception, were civil in how they disagreed and who confined themselves to arguing the facts. Liberals, however, were quick with the personal attacks whenever I or someone else ventured to express any doubt about any item of liberal doctrine. That’s how it was in college and that’s how it’s been ever since. Liberalism: the Beast that Shouted ‘Love’ at the Heart of the World. (Loud-and-nasty liberal Harlan Ellison will hate me for stealing that line for a non-liberal purpose.)
“Two minute hate. I like that, pst314.”
How about “Air America: Two Minute Hate, 24/7”.
Claiming that the treatment of Palin and Clinton is misogynistic is similar to Sharpton’s claim that suspicions of Michael Jackson’s alleged pedophilia are racist. (Notice I wrote similar to, not exactly the same as.)
Ascribing an official psychological disorder to a whole group of people based upon the very thin and entirely inconsistent evidence offered here is all too easy, both for the person making the accusation and the person being accused. These kinds of accusations only serve to debase whatever descriptive power and clinical accuracy terms such as ‘misogyny’ may possess.
Phobias and hatreds exist as does the desire to classify and label. I think their intersection is reached far too frequently, imho.
Whatever.
I don’t think the vitriol is nearly as strong and pervasive on the right as it is on the left.
V the K, I see it about the same. But I’ll agree to disagree on that point.
For another, conservatives who step out of line get smacked down quickly, while the left’s attacks are defended and/or excused.
That’s true sometimes. But when I brought up the feminization of male names, I was the one that got smacked down.
And Janeane Garofalo proves he was right.
Hmmm. Not sure what to say about that. Do you really believe Rush was right? And if so, his misogyny was justified?
I’ll put it this way, I think there is at least a grain of truth in his statement. If you accept the central conceit of feminism — that the world was run by men and that was unfair to women — it’s logical to conclude that in a world run by men, attractive women definitely have an easier time getting ahead. It follows logically that if men were no longer allowed to run the world according to their own prerogatives, unattractive women would better be able to get ahead.
As for Janeane, she’s a bitchy, unattractive woman who has made a fortune in Hollywood by bitching about how unattractive women can’t make money in Hollywood; as such, she epitomizes Rush’s aphorism.
Leah #28 – Great link. Halfway through it and finding it very worthwhile.
“…it’s logical to conclude that in a world run by men, attractive women definitely have an easier time getting ahead”
Except that handsome men also have an easier time…and prettier women tend to do better even in all-female groups…not that we should let a few little mere facts get in the way of our ideology….
Even weirder is feminist hatred of Sarah Palin. Reclusive Leftist has an excellent post on that, with lots of great comments.
I think it has to do with Obama worship and people seeing Palin as a threat to their own sense of identity and status, with misogynist ideas still being readily accessible in the culture, so get used.
The Left wasn’t prepared to hate a moderate war hero with a pretty mild campaign against the One.
In what alternate universe is that even remotely true? Liberals made fun of his age, thought it was amusing to joke about Alzheimer’s, attacked his flying record, maligned him for being captured, maligned him for supposedly becoming a traitor while in the Hanoi Hilton etc.
Which..makes them not shenanigans, at all really.
Hey V, what’s the name of that restaurant you like with all the crap on the walls?
Some of this seems pretty simple to me.
Blacks like Clearance Thomas and Thomas Sowell aren’t allowed to NOT be a Democrat. Women such as Palin and Lynn Cheney Bay Buchannan aren’t allowed to NOT be Democrats. Any minority…..gays, blacks, women are SUPPOSED to be Democrats. If they are thinking, independents, they must be CRAZY! You have to stay on the liberal Democrat plantation. Simple. I love to argue with leftists about being gay and being conservative. It is the easiest thing and so simple minded to be gay and a Democrat. You never have to read, research or think about any issue. Just go along with the straight white adult leaders of the Democrat plantation party. Easy. But not for me.
Hey V, what’s the name of that restaurant you like with all the crap on the walls?
You mean Shenanigans?
#33: “Rush Limbaugh made one crack about Chelsea Clinton 16 years ago, and the left is still talking about it.”
Not only are they still talking about it, V the K, they are omitting the fact that Limbaugh apologized profusely and sincerely for the out-of-line comment on his show the next day. More importantly, they are omitting the fact that Limbaugh felt so bad about the gaffe that he made a promise to himself that if he ever came face-to-face with the Clintons, he would apologize to them personally. Years later, when Rush was at the same event with Hillary (this was around the time she was running for the Senate, I think), he apologized to her for the comment he had made about her daughter and she was gracious about it (Rush told his audience about the encounter–I happened to be listening that day). By that time, after 8 years of the Clintons, Limbaugh had become a talk-radio god worth gazillions. He didn’t have to do that, but he did it anyway because it was the right thing to do.
Politics is a down and dirty business. It didn’t start with Sara Palin or with the introduction of women to the mix. The “boys” have been scrapping at it and each other for some time.
If we have to endure the cries of “misogyny” each time a woman is belted around in the political arena, then the future is going to be very dull indeed.
It has been the cry of the left (yes, with Hillary especially) that when a woman is criticized somehow it is the deep seated fear of strong women, blah blah blah.
But now I am hearing it on the Right, who are TOO QUICK to jump on that bandwagon.
Let us not cry wolf here. When women cry “discrimination” or “misogyny” and it is not justified, then it just makes them look immature.
#30: “While this is true for too many on the left, I see this is generally true for any political stripe. I’ve seen similar types of comments and attacks on the right as well. Rush Limbaugh who said that feminism is for ugly women so they can get ahead as well. If that wasn’t a misogynist statement, I don’t know what is.”
Pat, in your effort to equate conservative rhetoric with the unapologetic, bigoted rantings of the Left, you have either glossed over (or missed entirely) a crucial distinction. Rush Limbaugh does NOT indignantly proclaim himself to be the preeminent, tireless defender of the historically oppressed female sex. Rush does not indiscriminately condemn his opponents as racists, misogynists, homophobes, and nazis while narcissistically regarding himself as possessing a preternatural incapacity for bigotry. Rush has not unilaterally anointed himself the arbiter of tolerance, nor has he claimed himself to be one of the elite class of individuals gifted with a Christ-like love and respect for his fellow man. In contrast, the Left is free to burn rhetorical crosses with reckless abandon because the MSM has armed them with a bullet-proof presumption that they are incapable of bigotry. They are NOT racist, therefore nothing they say or do can BE racist. They are “pro-gay,” therefore nothing they say or do can BE homophobic. THAT is the difference, Pat, whether you will acknowledge it or not.
Rush Limbaugh who said that feminism is for ugly women so they can get ahead as well. If that wasn’t a misogynist statement, I don’t know what is.
Actually, it’s Rush’s Undeniable Truth of Life #24:
What’s misogynist about that? Have you ever seen a remotely attractive feminazi? Would they get any press coverage otherwise? Not only are they unattractive but the garbage they espouse and the company they keep is pretty damn ugly.
THAT is the difference, Pat, whether you will acknowledge it or not.
Sean A, I’ll accept that there is a difference in the misogyny of the left and the right then, fair enough?
V the K, I hardly listen to Rush, or any other talk radio anymore, so I’ll accept your interpretation. But apparently, there are some that take his statement literally, and justify it.
#54: “Sean A, I’ll accept that there is a difference in the misogyny of the left and the right then, fair enough?”
Works for me.
“But apparently, there are some that take his statement literally, and justify it.”
Pat, the only people taking those statements literally are you and other humorless liberals. Why is it so incomprehensible to liberals that Rush has a gazillion listeners because he’s interesting, insightful, and FUNNY. To use the feminazis as an example, Rush can discuss the vile crusade that the feminist movement has pursued for decades and their destructive assault on this country–diminishing the value of families and fathers; putting narcissism and convenience ahead of human life; advocating life choices that leave single women old, alone and embittered–while making light of the fact that these so-called “advancements” for women are being championed by the most shrill, angry, and obnoxious little she-trolls that the American media would dare to put in front of a camera. Again, the difference is that Rush obliterates the MESSAGE long before he ever gets into observations about the hideousness of the MESSENGERS. Liberals cannot engage on IDEAS so they skip right to personal attacks. Paul Begala knew he wouldn’t have had a leg to stand on if he had tried to argue that Katherine Harris had a LEGAL obligation not to certify Florida’s election results in 2000 on the date mandated by law, so he did the best that we can ever expect from a liberal–classless, pathetic Cruella De-Vil taunts.
Pat, the only people taking those statements literally are you and other humorless liberals.
Sean A, I conceded that point to V the K in my post. Also, read the post before my previous one.
Let’s not confuse sexism with misogyny. ‘Misogyny’ might make for a better blog headline, but as this thread demonstrates, such reaching confuses issues more than clarifies them.
What a nonsensical headline. There are many accomplished women in American politics, from both sides of the aisle (frankly, we could use more women as far as I’m concerned). it’s not her being a woman that has caused her problems. It comes down to the veracity of her statements, her lack of knowledge of how our government works as well as her true commitment to the jobs in which she has served. So, from these items, exactly where does the misogyny come in to play? In fact, in reading the post, there’s nothing that appears that has anything to do with misogyny; It’s all about people using the law for political attacks, which doesn’t seem to have much to do with whether the person in question is a man or woman.
Like the proverbial broken clock, Kevin has momentarily gotten something right. It isn’t because Palin is a woman. However, let 60 seconds pass, and Kevin becomes wrong again because he can’t bring himself to close the loop and admit the real reason that Palin has been unfairly persecuted: she’s a CONSERVATIVE. End of story. If Democrats were truly concerned with:
“…the veracity of her statements, her lack of knowledge of how our government works as well as her true commitment to the jobs in which she has served…”
then Joe Biden would be scraping by as a sales clerk in a Wilmington Payless Shoe Source, cramming fat women’s heels into cheap plastic sandals and skating on thin ice at the mercy of a supervisor half his age. Take away the liberalism and he’s Al Bundy, and as long as he’s our Vice President, the Democrats’ talking points about Palin’s qualifications will never be accepted as legitimate or credible. And just this week, now that the election is over, we’ve seen one of the MSM’s own journalists breaking ranks and admitting it:
“In the 2008 election, we took sides, straight and simple, particularly with regard to the vice presidential race. I don’t know that we played a decisive role in that campaign, and I’m not saying the better side lost. What I am saying is that we simply didn’t hold Joe Biden to the same standard as Sarah Palin, and for me, the real loser in this sordid tale is my chosen profession.”
And with regard to the VP debate, Carl Cannon notes that while “Gov. Palin certainly had her sketchy moments that night,” he admits that:
“Sen. Biden, however, was in a place by himself when it came to bogus claims, absurd contentions, and flights of rhetorical fancy. He threw out several assertions that were so preposterous that – had Palin made them – they would have prompted immediate calls for McCain to dump her from the ticket.”
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/08/sarah-barracuda-palin-and-the-piranhas-of-the-press/
The Democrats were more than happy to collude with the media and accept the spoils of their liberal bias, but it comes at a price–even the few objectively reasonable criticisms of Palin’s qualifications and political savvy are presumptively viewed as illegitimate partisan attacks. The reason we are still debating this at all (eight months post-election) is because the liberals CAN’T STAND the fact that Palin has ultimately benefitted from it politically. Ann Coulter’s column about Palin is worth reading this week–she persuasively argues that the MSM is pathetically treating Palin like an ex-girlfriend that they claim they never want to see again, but that they are clearly OBSESSED with:
“Sarah Palin has deeply disappointed her enemies. People who hate her guts feel she’s really let them down by resigning…The truth is liberals are furious they won’t have Sarah Palin to kick around anymore — at least not with Palin’s hands tied behind her back by her public office…On one hand, liberals are enraged at the heinousness of Mark Sanford — whom they didn’t vote for — for not resigning and, on the other, they’re enraged at Palin — whom they also didn’t vote for — for resigning.”
Gay men have been misygonists since the beginning of time — > http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/1421/essays/misogyny.html
I laugh when gay men speak of their ” support ” of women … good riddance … it’s like the same thing with ” gay patriot ” ( why outline the ” gay ” in patriot ??? ) … this so called ” conservative ” HATES those whom are against gay marriage
True conservatives whom are against gay marriage … you are socially liberal and fiscally conservative my dear … it’s the same crap as George W. Bush whom is a social conservative but a fiscal liberal
I’m a social and a fiscal conservative (both)
I’m tired of seeing both types of fake conservatives running the playground
We need return to true conservatism
Not posers like yourself