A while back I saw this item on MMFA. At the time, I just chalked it up to one more nail in the coffin of the Liberal Media bias Myth - even if Liberals are the only ones who actually acknowledge said coffin. But then I stumbled over this piece in the Washington Examiner. Take a read, if you want to either have a good laugh or just something to get sick over. There are several OBVIOUS things wrong with the article's whole premise, not to mention tone: That "the Left" is pissed because of the ad's "strong Christian message," or because it features a successful, home-schooled Christian athlete (I wonder if he can pass a basic science test as easily as he does a football?) when the real problem (as MMFA pointed out) was that CBS refused to air the United Church of Christ's ad, which had a stong message of inclusion and tolerance (ideas that always get the Right's "panties in a twist" even though ANYONE should be able to recognize that they are inherently less controversial than the Abortion issue. (I have many pro-life friends and co-workers who are also pro Gay-Rights, for example.) I'm not sure why pointing out CBS's hypocrisy, have shut out the Religious Left on ostensiblty principled grounds, but welcoming the religious Right while ignoring those same principles, constitues getting your "kinckers" "tangled." If the reverse had been done, we'd be subjected to endless tirades from the Right about Liberal Bias in Media, decaying moral values, blah, blah, blah... So yeah, it was a bunch of the typical RW nonsense. But there was once section in particular that I just felt I could NOT let pass:
Jehmu Greene, head of the Women's Media Center, is leading a drive to punish CBS for airing the ad, which she claims is "sexist."
A little decoding is necessary here.
In terms of Super Bowl ads, "sexist" is code for "anti-abortion." But "sexist" does not apply to parading women around in their underpants to sell beer.
Got it?
Well... the Washington Examiner clearly doesn't. Using women in their underpants to sell beer may be clearly tasteless and tawdry (not that Fox News ever misses a chance to show scantily clad women in their "news" stories, but I digress) but what is MORE sexist: The objectification of women that is implicit in these adds -OR- the explicit idea within conservative religion that women ought to be buttoned up, prissy little virgins until marriage, otherwise they're not worthy of a "good" man, after which they can be subserviant to their husbands, having no say in, or even the right to express, their own sexuality? I realize that Women's lib isn't just about sexuality, but if you really understand what the bible teaches up about women's sexuality, and their role in sex and in marriage, you'll realize that sexual freedom and sexual equality are integral parts of women's equality in general. And yes, unfortunately, that includes the acceptance of occasioanlly tawdry behavior. It's not PERFECT, and I'm not dismissing the negative impact that objectifying women has on society, but Beer ads didn't CAUSE this phenomonon, and even so I still say it's preferebly to the "old world" view of women's sexuality. (Which is to say, that they're not allowed to have any.)
So... here's some "decoding" of my own...
Say that women belong in the home, covered to their ankles and not having ANYTHING but a passive victims role in Sex is NOT sexist.
AND...
Not giving them any say over their own reproductive activity or child bearing is ALSO NOT sexist.
Got it?
('Cause I sure as hell don't!)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
More on Health Care coming next. I was going to do that next (meaing in this post) but that article really pissed me off and I felt I had to say something about it.
Who IS this guy?!
Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017, and has returned for 2021! Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This doesn't excuse CBS, or say that the ad IS appropriate for airing, but are you aware that CBS has gradually changed their views on advocacy ads? It sounds like if the Christian church that previously was denied the right to air their ad tried again, they'd get the chance.
ReplyDeleteOf course, CBS didn't make that clear right off.
And about this ad - it shouldn't air. First off, the mom's story is suspect for a couple of reasons. I can't find a treatment for amoebic dysentery that lists endangering a fetus as a side effect. And more importantly, abortion was illegal in the Philippines while Mrs Tebow was there. It seems unlikely that she would have been told that it was an option by a Philipino doctor when it wasn't really an option. So, her claim that she 'made a choice' isn't an accurate portrayal of what happened. She didn't HAVE a choice.
And on top of that, let's say that she DID have a choice, and she felt so strongly about not having an abortion that she went against medical advice. How is advocating that a woman go against medical advice to opt to not have an abortion anything other than an extreme position to take on abortion? It's not like she's simply saying that she's against abortion - she's against it EVEN with medical advice coaching her to get an abortion in a country that doesn't allow abortions! Since when is it good to direct women to ignore medical advice, and risk their own lives and the health of their unborn fetus to prevent an abortion?
I won't go sa far as to say that the ad shouldn't air - I mean they can air whatever they want, and the people who paid for the ad can SAY whatever they want to IN IT. But yeah, clearly CBS owes the public either a more principled explanation (we've changed our policy, so come one come all) or simply announce they they're on the side of the Religious Right on these things, and face any consequence that happens. (Like Fox does.) Either way is arguably principled and while I may disagree with their position, I can at least respect it. But I can't let them, or Fox, have it both ways: You can't advocate for one side and yet still reap the benefits from the claim of being "balanced."
ReplyDeleteAs for the ad itself? Yeah, it's suspect all right, but so is just about any bit of glurge (see snopes.com) that Religion throws at us. And in any case it's really only a "feel good" story to those who already buy into the nonsense that God REALLY WANTED this guy to be a quaterback.
(I've heard "You my be aborting the next Mozart/Einstien/Jefferson/etc... But I've never heard anyone say "You might be aborting the next Brett Farve!") LOL
All I see is one more guy who's been brainwashed into the disbelief of the scietific method (evolution, global warming, etc...) and been given a completely biased one-sided education overall. He's a guy who cass pass a football but not a science test. And now he'll raise his kids to be every bit as closed-minded. I'm not saying he should have been arboted, of course, but I don't see him as an inspiring figure or story AT ALL.
Thank you to both "Niceguy" Eddie and DellDolly for two of the most lucid comments I've seen on this issue. Most of the comments I've seen from both sides have been a little over the top as always happens when "abortion" enters the conversation. Personally, I think that a woman's body is her own, and each has the right to make their own reproductive decisions without being dictated to by various males who will never have to go through what women do in pregnancy and childbirth. I read a comment by a lady in the Washington Examiner that said if men were the ones getting pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament (rather than a controversy). As a male I found that to be funny, but probably oh so true. As to the argument that someone may be aborting the next Einstein, Salk, Handle, Favre, etc., so what? If the next one was aborted, no one would care because they wouldn't be around to produce anything that anyone would be aware of or miss, and nature keeps right on trying so another genius in the same field(s) will eventually be born and live. Lastly, to paraphrase the Bible, God said to be fruitful and multiply, but do you honestly believe that means we should reproduce endlessly and continuously until the planet is so overpopulated that none of us can properly feed ourselves because we've turned Earth into a dustbowl (as some parts already are), nor can we have space to live because we will have jammed ourselves into every corner of this finite planet? What will you belive in then when that happens, or do you think some miraculous answer will come out of the blue to solve those problems?
ReplyDeletePategp,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. Unfortunately very few people can keep a clear head, and see all sides, when discussing abortion. But the "Pro-Life" side doesn't really deal with the Pro-Choice side's argument. The Pro-Choice people at least have some counter: That there's a seperaton of churhc and state, and that YOUR ideals cannot be forced upon ME. And I'm with the Pro-Choice side in this, because it's NOT about right and wrong. Personlly? I believe abortion is WRONG in all cases but imminently fatal, medical emergencies. But that's just my OPINION. And since I don't live my life under the delusion that my opinon should be made into LAW and forced down everybody's throats, I'm Pro-CHOICE. As in: People have the right to follow (or ignore) their own conscience in these matters as they CHOOSE, and it's none of anyone else's business. The "Pro-Lifer's" think it's about right and wrong, but it's not. It's a matter of whether one person opinion of right and wrong should be forced onto another when that person is doing THEM no harm.
Thanks again for your comment.