Man it's true: Run a turd up a flag pole and watch people salute.
What has been completely spun out public consciousness is not that Limbaugh called a woman a slut for wanting contraception.
But rather that in his egregious opinion she should essentially sell herself into defacto sex work to obtain them by doing porn for Rush Limbaugh to enjoy.
Why does no media channel mention this amazing tid bit? That statement is a deeply offensive but well thought-out conceptual position not glossed over by his non-apology and not an "unfortunate word choice."
This statement reveals that he thinks ALL women are worthless whores who have to earn the pittance they get by pleasing him sexually.
The media has allowed to completely re-frame this into an argument about religious choice and contraception by omitting this crucial offense.
If this analysis of Rushbo's audience is correct, locals will probably have to boycott gun stores and western wear outfitters - not places frequented by your average Slog reader:
Meh. Rush's listeners love that he calls women sluts and whores openly. They actually do believe that all women are worthless sex objects and that minorities should either leave the country or just shut up and submit to white, male, christian authority. I don't know if Rush actually believes that shit, but it doesn't matter, his listeners do, and they'll keep supporting him and keep him in business so they can hear their own evil thoughts spoken publicly.
The standard approach you're using there, where you reframe a misogynist's remarks as "all women are whores" (instead of "all unmarried, birth-control-using women are whores") doesn't really get you anywhere in the debate, I don't think— the woman-haters will just respond "that's not what he said at all," and dismiss you.
I think we might find better footing in the debate with the critique of privilege. In this framing, Rush isn't attacking all women— he's attacking anything that might oblige him to see the world in the same way women are forced to see it.
@4 "How is this current controversy any worse than calling a 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton "the White House dog"?"
Twitter. Twenty years ago, we caught a whiff of Rush and thought "Fucking hell! I should write some of his advertisers and complain that I hate them now, but who would notice?"
Now that millions can get enraged simultaneously by the sudden viral infamy of one event, and know that the others in those millions are also outraged and that they are actually taking action right now (and the "action" is the trivially easy sending of emails to corporate websites), it's way more dangerous for famous slander-mongers to piss of the crowd. Knowing that there is a bandwagon is the first step to getting on the bandwagon.
http://www.spockosbrain.com/about/
That's great that advertisers are pulling their support now, but what about the money they've given him for the past three decades?
What has been completely spun out public consciousness is not that Limbaugh called a woman a slut for wanting contraception.
But rather that in his egregious opinion she should essentially sell herself into defacto sex work to obtain them by doing porn for Rush Limbaugh to enjoy.
Why does no media channel mention this amazing tid bit? That statement is a deeply offensive but well thought-out conceptual position not glossed over by his non-apology and not an "unfortunate word choice."
This statement reveals that he thinks ALL women are worthless whores who have to earn the pittance they get by pleasing him sexually.
The media has allowed to completely re-frame this into an argument about religious choice and contraception by omitting this crucial offense.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-study/101319…
But hey, nice idea in theory.
The standard approach you're using there, where you reframe a misogynist's remarks as "all women are whores" (instead of "all unmarried, birth-control-using women are whores") doesn't really get you anywhere in the debate, I don't think— the woman-haters will just respond "that's not what he said at all," and dismiss you.
I think we might find better footing in the debate with the critique of privilege. In this framing, Rush isn't attacking all women— he's attacking anything that might oblige him to see the world in the same way women are forced to see it.
Twitter. Twenty years ago, we caught a whiff of Rush and thought "Fucking hell! I should write some of his advertisers and complain that I hate them now, but who would notice?"
Now that millions can get enraged simultaneously by the sudden viral infamy of one event, and know that the others in those millions are also outraged and that they are actually taking action right now (and the "action" is the trivially easy sending of emails to corporate websites), it's way more dangerous for famous slander-mongers to piss of the crowd. Knowing that there is a bandwagon is the first step to getting on the bandwagon.