They don't understand SEXISM anymore than they do RACISM

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.