First, I find this statement by Ms. Fluke amusing:
In a response to Limbaugh on Thursday, Fluke said, "We are fortunate to live in a democracy where everyone is entitled to their own opinions regarding legitimate policy differences. Unfortunately, numerous commentators have gone far beyond the acceptable bounds of civil discourse. No woman deserves to be disrespected in this manner. This language is an attack on all women, and has been used throughout history to silence our voices."This is, of course, baked wind. Voiceless people don't get quoted in the Hollywood Reporter. And let's be clear: at this point in history, in this nation, there's no way in hell to silence anybody. Birth control may cost whatever Fluke says it does, but the entry cost for Twitter, Blogger and any number of means of communication is zero. Getting an audience is a tougher matter, but anyone can get into the game. And you might notice that Fluke is the one trying to do the silencing, not the "numerous commentators" who might question Fluke's math skills or overall deportment. And, as always, I'd be curious to know what the precise boundaries are concerning the "acceptable bounds of civil discourse," from the law student's perspective. But that would require a follow-up question that Fluke's temporary advocates would prefer not to ask.
Second, what will eventually "silence" Fluke is the same thing that has effectively silenced Cindy Sheehan. Once her usefulness in this matter runs its course, she'll likely lose whatever audience she might have now. Whatever you think of Rush Limbaugh, the reason he has had a 20-year career is that he's found and maintained an audience, one that advertisers find lucrative. You might see a few advertisers bail on Limbaugh temporarily, but he'll have no trouble finding replacements.
5 comments:
Feminists used to know that a man who would bed a woman without at least paying for contraception was a cad. Rush is, whether Ms. Fluke knows it or not, one of her best friends, because he put the admittedly offensive words which, alas, describe well how she's been treating herself.
last nite my wife sats to me:
"if she was really about 'women's health', she would be promoting not having sex."
i thought for moment, and she is right.
(my wife and her then fiance managed to go through college just fine without a need contraception.)
These two comments had me on the floor for an hour! Gino, ahem, I think thy wyfe knows most by wytch she misdeals her chastity. Thou hast been given a hand to play by worried fact. Methinks the crickets chirrup abundantly too unseen.
And M. Bubba, you have completed the exacta of onerous male behavior: perceiving a woman in your squinty brain as simultaneously a whore and a princess. Under this bizarre entirely hetero-male constraint, how in the hell can a woman exist? Only under the watchful restraint of a superior male is my guess as to what you think about chicks. It's the 21st Century and that kinda attitude went outta style with Pat Boone.
Anonymous, since when is a woman under the "watchful restraint of a male" because she insists he cover the cost of contraception if he's going to enjoy the gift of her physical love?
Sorry, what I'm referring to is not Pat Boone, but Gloria Steinem circa 1984.
M. Bubba, I see that I've hit the metaphorical nail right on the head with the horse racing trope: your blinders prohibit you from seeing your own arse. Since when has a woman engaging in the act of carnal congress been deemed a giver of "gift"s? I suppose in this scenario the woman presents her lushness then lies back and thinks of England. Or, if she furnishes her own device to avoid unwanted pregnancy, then she anticipated carnal pleasure and is thus a whore. You have a bi-polar chick problem you make more clear every time you speak.
Post a Comment