Slut: An Insult Reserved for Conservative Women
By David C. Stolinsky | March 8, 2012 | 0 Comments
The mainstream media and politicians from President Obama on down have been strident in condemning Rush Limbaugh for calling 30-year-old law student Sandra Fluke a "slut." Fluke testified before Congress that health-insurance policies should be required to cover contraceptive pills and morning-after pills. The latter are considered by many to be a form of abortion.
Why do liberals, who incessantly push "safe sex," expect us to pay for a woman's unprotected sex? This question was not answered, because it was not asked. Note that if contraceptive pills were prescribed to regulate periods or for another medical reason, they would be covered by insurance − and not opposed by the Catholic Church.
It appears that Ms. Fluke is a liberal activist who agitates not just for coverage of contraceptive pills and morning-after pills, but also for coverage of sex-change surgery. Of course, if these and other items were added to health insurance, premiums would rise even higher, and fewer people could afford insurance − which is the plan. Secretary of HHS Sibelius states that private health insurance is in a "death spiral." That sounds like more like a threat than a lament.
Limbaugh went too far and apologized. But what about "fairness," which is so beloved by liberals? How did these people react when Sarah Palin was called "slutty" by Dave Letterman? Was there an outcry from politicians and the media? Did Letterman lose sponsors as Rush has? Are you serious?
Letterman insulted Gov. Sarah Palin, who had visited New York to participate in a charity event for autism. Letterman "joked" that Palin "bought makeup at Bloomingdale's to update her slutty flight-attendant look."
If a man is good looking, he is called "handsome." But if a woman is good looking, what she is called depends on whether the speaker likes her. If he does, she is called "attractive," "sexy," or "hot." If he doesn't, she is called "slutty" or "skanky." And in this era of politics über Alles, it depends on whether the woman is liberal, when she is "attractive," or conservative, when she is "slutty."
How can we justify varying the description of a human being, depending on whether we approve of her politics? How can we vary her description, depending on her socio-economic status? Would Letterman have compared Palin to a "slutty attorney"? No, an attorney would be "hot."
But he views flight attendants as servants, to whom "upper-class" men should not be attracted, because they would not make "suitable" wives. So they can't be "attractive," which implies that he is attracted to them. They are merely "slutty." He adds classism to sexism.
Still, Sarah Palin is an adult well able to take care of herself. Letterman could fob off his abuse of her as "political humor." But what about the then-14-year-old Willow Palin? She was not a public figure. She was not an adult. She was not able to take care of herself.
In his monologue, Letterman said:
One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game, during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez…The toughest part of her visit was keeping Eliot Spitzer away from her daughter.
Later, Letterman issued a non-apology, claiming he was referring to 18-year-old Bristol Palin, who was not present at the game, rather than 14-year-old Willow, who was. He claimed he never would joke about having sex with a 14-year-old girl. But that is exactly what he did.
Note that Spitzer was forced to resign as governor of New York for frequenting prostitutes. So Letterman's "apology" did not include apologizing for clearly implying that Palin's daughter is a prostitute.
Is that a permissible way to refer to an 18-year-old girl, much less a 14-year-old? Is publicly shaming young people now acceptable behavior? If so, can we look forward to similar "jokes" about Obama's half-brother and his problems with young girls, or about Sasha and Malia Obama? Of course not. If Letterman ever uttered a similar "joke" about them, the network would fire him the next day. But after trashing the Palins, Letterman's ratings rose, and unlike Limbaugh he lost no sponsors.
Why is disgusting "humor" tolerated, even applauded, when directed against conservatives and their children, but it never would be tolerated against liberals and their children? What does this tell us about the moral level of liberals versus that of conservatives? Why do liberals condone callous, nasty behavior that conservatives find unacceptable? When did it become "liberal" to degrade women and sexualize children?
Recall that Letterman married his long-term girlfriend six years after she gave birth to their son. So Bristol Palin is a "slut" and a "prostitute" because she got pregnant at 17 and decided to raise her baby, but Letterman and his wife are above reproach? Really?
Of course, if Bristol had an abortion, it would have been her "choice" about "her own body," and no liberal would dare criticize her. The anger is evoked by her decision to let the baby live, and by her mother's conservative politics. How revealing.
But even worse things were said, including the disgusting allegation that Todd Palin was having incest with his daughters. Note the plural daughters − to include 14-year-old Willow and perhaps even 7-year-old Piper. This skit ran on "Saturday Night Live" − not on talk radio like Limbaugh, not on the Internet, not on cable, but on NBC-TV. And the reaction to this nauseating episode? There wasn't any.
When liberal talker Ed Schultz called conservative Laura Ingraham a "slut," not only was there no negative fallout, but participants on "The View" laughed it off. And note that "Michele Bachmann slut" yields 3,770,000 hits on Google, while "Michele Bachmann whore" yields 6,430,000. And when Congresswoman Bachmann was introduced on "Late Night," Jimmy Fallon's band played "Lyin' Ass Bitch."
Meanwhile, conservative columnist Michelle Malkin was called a "Manila whore," insulting both her gender and her ethnic background. Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was called a "female impersonator," as was commentator Ann Coulter. And what did gay activists say about these insults? Perhaps I missed it.
We define ourselves by what we tolerate − and what we don't:
● Who made endless "jokes," in the worst taste, about how old John McCain is? Who called him "confused" and "joked" that he forgets where he lives when he goes out for the paper? Who "joked" that he forgets to put on his pants when he goes out? Who "joked" that he accuses nurses of stealing his sox, and that he needs Viagra because of impotence, and diapers because of incontinence? Who ridiculed him for having difficulty using a computer, though it is common knowledge that the function of his arms and hands is impaired by war wounds?
● Who went so far in their contempt for the disabled as to tell Sarah and Todd Palin that their baby with Down's syndrome should have been killed? This anger goes so deep that "Abort Sarah Palin" bumper stickers appeared in liberal areas. To "abort" a born human being means to murder her. Is this drawing normal political dialogue? Is hitting a woman in the face, knocking off her glasses, and knocking out a tooth an example of liberal thought? Is it "pro-choice" to threaten to beat up a woman for making the "wrong" choice?
Liberals tolerate all this. They tolerate Letterman and his bitter, unfunny, political "humor." They tolerate sexist, classist "humor." They make cruel "jokes" about children, the disabled, and the elderly. Fairness? We don't need no stinkin' fairness. We're liberals!
Liberals continue to spew anger, though current events should make them joyful:
● They see their friends in control of the White House, the Senate, many of the courts, most of the schools and universities, and almost all of the mainstream media.
● They see the economy, from banks to automobiles to health care, being socialized faster than they thought possible.
●They see roadside bombers in Afghanistan being Mirandized like teenaged shoplifters in Omaha.
● They see terrorists from Guantanamo brought to the U.S. for trial, where they will be accorded all the rights of citizens.
● They see pictures released showing Muslim prisoners being abused, but they are indifferent to pictures of jumpers from the Twin Towers on 9/11; indifferent to pictures of Daniel Pearl being beheaded; indifferent to pictures of shredded bodies of men, women, and children after homicide bombings; and indifferent to pictures of U.S. contractors mutilated and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.
Liberals boast of their "sensitivity," but it is oddly one-way. Photos of prisoners in Abu Ghraib with panties on their heads? Print them on the front page for 32 consecutive days. But photos of abused Americans? Ignore them. Call conservative women "sluts" and even worse? No problem. But hear a liberal woman called a "slut"? Feign outrage and demand punishment.
People used to talk about the death of civility. But now that word sounds archaic, like something from Shakespeare. Now we worry about the death of common decency. We must deal with calling a conservative beauty contestant a "dumb bitch with half a brain." We must deal with sexualizing children, especially girls and even babies − in music, in clothing, on film, and in school. If people laugh at a "joke" about raping the 14-year-old daughter of a governor, why would we expect them to be upset by films depicting the rape of a 12-year-old or mimicking the masturbation of a baby?
Media bias and disgusting "jokes" are the symptoms. The disease is callous insensitivity masquerading as "tolerance," and contempt for political opponents masquerading as "diversity."
Rush Limbaugh's mistake was not that he called a woman a "slut," but that he called a liberal woman a "slut." To the liberal establishment, some sluts are sluttier than others, and conservative women and girls are the sluttiest of all.
Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact:
[email protected]. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.
www.stolinsky.com
