What a difference a day makes...

Wow. So… one day after I left what may have been my most provocative comment, in terms of responses anyway, on MMFA, I leave what appears to be by far  my LEAST popular: 6 Thumbs down, 0 up at the time of this posting, to go along with what I believe to be some rather unreasonably scathing comments from Dharmasatya. 
 
I'm not going into the details here. If you're that interested, go there, check out the thread, and then PLEASE come back and tell me why what I'm saying is so wrong!  Seriously.  I think you all know me to be a pretty reasonable guy.  I've admitted I've been wrong before and I've changed my position on certain things as well.  But... Rather than even TRY to persuade me she opted for outright abuse.  That's fine. That's her right. It just doesn't make any fucking sense to me at all! Anyway, sorry, that's the last time I'll mention her.  (As hard as that will be for me.)  I WOULD like to defend my position however.  So if, after rading this, you think I'm  full of it, PLEASE, by all means: let me know where I'm going wrong!

By now, I’m sure most of you caught some of my outrage over Rush Limbaugh calling the NOW “a bunch of whores” [to liberalism.] And as a follow up to that, MMFA gave an example of what the claimed was “selective outrage” (IOW: hypocrisy) on the part of FOX, for being OUTRAGED over one of Brown’s staffers calling Whitman a whore (which is fine – nothing wrong with that outrage) but not being upset with one of Whitman's staffer's saying the same thing about CONGRESS.  And from this point out, since neither campaign has really apologized, I'm going to treat the words as if they come from the Candidates themselves.  Right or wrong, it's juts easier.  Besides, this is more of a PHILOSOPHICAL argument anyway and the details of what REALLY happened, in this instance, aren't actually critical to it.

Now… I claimed that this example was weak tea on MMFA’s part. Now: I love MMFA. But you can take this as proof that I don’t find them to be above critique; and not only for the rare time that they're “not liberal enough.”  LOL.  The claim of hypocrisy in this case is bullshit. Sorry to have to give one to Fox here, but it’s Apples and Oranges. A MAN (such as Limbaugh, or Brown) calling a woman (such as the NOW, or Whitman) a “whore” is unacceptable in any context! It’s off limits! Like I said: Calling NOW a “bunch of whores” is NO DIFFERENT than calling the NAACP a “bunch of Niggers.” Both are wildly inappropriate, and completely unacceptable.  But a woman say the same about a bunch of men?  TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING.

I'll explain...

See... I treat all of these kinds of words (whore, nigger, faggot, etc...) the same going the other way.

For example:  I, as a White person, have no business telling Blacks that they can’t use the word “nigger” however they want to. If they want to call each other “nigger,” either as friendly, male banter, or even in anger, IT IS NOT MY PLACE TO TELL THEM THEY CAN’T! But... If Bill Cosby (for example) doesn’t like it? FINE! Listen to HIM! He has some standing in this discussion! He’s Black! But seeing as how White People INVENTED that word to HURT and SUPPRESS Blacks? HOW DARE we tell them how they can and can’t use it! They can use it however they want!  And we can’t. EVER. And what's more, Whites have no right to tell them that THEY CAN’T.

To me? All this is self evident.  If what I just said doesn't make sense to you?  Either explain to me WHY, or... (just some friendly advice?)  Avoid talking about race issues in mixed company. You'll probably REALLY piss somebody off!

And I'm inclined to treat "whore" the exact same way.

WOMEN can use that word, however they want.  No harm no foul. If one woman calls another a whore? That’s her business. As a MAN, I have no standing to tell her that’s inappropriate. If a woman calls a MAN a whore? Again: NO harm, no foul. And still: that doesn’t give him leave to turn it around. Men don’t get to use the word “whore,” like that, anymore than white people get to use the word “nigger.” Period.

So while it may have been VULGAR on the part of Whitman’s campaign, it simply ain’t misogynistic. Whitman calling CONGRESS “Whores” is one thing. Brown calling WHITMAN a “whore?” Limbaugh calling NOW “whores?” Something else entirely.  So Fox getting mad about Brown, but not Whitman? Not hypocrisy.  (Yeah, it's hypocrisy that they give Limbaugh a pass - but that wasn't the example.)

And I MIGHT be going out on a limb here, by personally? I'm OK with a MAN calling another MAN a "whore." Hey: I've done it. For example... I've (probably) called Dick Cheney a whore to the oil industry, at some point.  (IDK. It sounds like something I'd say, anyway. LOL)  Why is that OK? IN THAT CONTEXT, it is stripped of any feminine connotations!  I'm not suggesting he's a WOMAN; of of ill repute or otherwise. I'm using a colorful metaphor to say that, as a man, he is getting sodomized (METAPHORICALLY) by the oil industry, for MONEY.  Now... I'm not completely heartless here.  If that offends women? (Or MEN for that matter?)  LET ME KNOW!  Just do it in a way that recognizes how much we AGREE ON when it comes to issues of respect and gender equality.  That's all I ask.  Because I tend to respond in kind.  It's human nature, and I'm happy to report that I am very much a human being.  More reasonable than most, but if you attack me unfairly?  I promise you I'm going to get defensive.  But I dont think any of you really think I'm someone that can't be reasoned with.  Shit, that's why I DO this!  It's not just so I can read the sound of my voice! I WANT to be told when I'm full of shit!

ANYWAY... (Sorry.  Still steamed about... she who shall not be named.)

The difference, of course, is, and always will be, CONTEXT. To quote America’s last great Stand-Up Philosopher, George Carlin:

We don’t care is Eddie Murphy or Richard Pryor use the word “nigger” because we know they’re not racist.

How do we know that?

They’re niggers!

  

Now... as I said before: If Bill Cosby wants to take issue with them (or Chris Rock?) using that word? That's fine.  But it is not MY PLACE to say what Black people can and can't say.  And while I’m all in favor of feeling outraged over blatantly misogynistic language, lets at least TRY to make sure it’s well placed!

Because I’m pretty sure Meg Whitman doesn’t hate women. Congress, maybe, but that’s her prerogative.

To recap:

Woman pissed at a man for calling another woman a Whore? PERFECT. Strong woman!

Man pissed at a man for calling a woman a Whore? ALSO PERFECT. Quality man!

Woman pissed at another woman for calling yet another woman a whore? I ain't takin' sides, but... Nothing wrong with that at all: Have it out!

Man pissed at a woman for calling another woman (or another man) a Whore?  Really ought to mind his own fucking business.

Man pissed at a man for calling another man a Whore? Hey, depends on the context, but I'd say he's probably being a bit too sensitive about things.

Woman pissed at man for calling another man a Whore? Again, depends on the context, but if I were that man? I'd treat lightly and acknowledge she might have a point. 

But again: CONSIDER the CONTEXT and reason it out!

Now... Can someone please tell me what I’m missing here?

WHORES?! REALLY?!

Today I posted something on MMFA that got a response many times greater than anything else I've ever posted there. And I'd like to summarize it here, and invite you to comment either here or there.   This was in repsonse to Rush Limbaugh, that great defender of women, *barf*, making the statement that "the NAG'S [his nickname for NOW] are a bunch of WHORES, to liberalism."  Here's the clip:



Now... I am absolutely a defender of equality.  Without question.  I stand against all forms of discrimination whether it be on the basis of race, religion, nationality, sexuality, gender or gender expression.  All HUMAN BEINGS deserve equal treatment and respect.  That being said, NOW's position in this instance? Sure it's debatable.  Shoot, ALL "women's issues" are DEBATABLE: Abortion, Equal Pay, Serving in Combat, Maternity Leave, Societal Gender Roles... all of these things can be debated.  And I might disagree with everything [an asshole like Limbaugh] has to say on the topic,  but I won't deny his right to argue his position. In fact, it is critically important to our national, social and political discourse that we ALL do so! But calling them WHORES?  That's completely and utterly unacceptable.  And that should have NO PLACE in our  national, social and political discourse.

And what really pisses me off? (Unless society closed the gender gap when I wasn't looking?) You watch: This won't even be a news story.  He won't be held accountable by the market for this. You watch: No one will say "boo" about it!

Helen Thomas and Rick Sanchez got fired for making relatively innocuous remarks about Jews.

Don Imus and Laura Schlesinger were fired over very offensive remarks they made about Blacks.

And Mike Savage was fired for making offensive remarks about Gays.

And that's fine!  Thats' exactly as it should be! 

(OK, Thomas and Sanchez both got screwed, actually, but you know what I'm saying.)

But why are we so ready to get up in arms with our collective outrage when it's about Jews,  Blacks,  Gays, etc... (and as I said: that's GOOD) but not when it's about WOMEN?  I know there's a double standard in our society.  I'm well aware of that.  But come on: A guy with the public stature of Rush Limbaugh calling an organization that satnds up for strong, successfull women, in general, WHORES?  Why is that different from calling GLAAD a "bunch of faggots" or the NAACP a "bunch of niggers?"  Seriously!

Why are we so unwilling to feel the same outrage over hateful, abusive language when it's aimed at women?

Hey, maybe we are.  I could be wrong.  I'd certainly be happy to be wrong, in this case.  (Of course, I'm almost never wrong when I'd be happy to be so!)

And this isn't just about NOW. NOW is his target because they're Liberal, but he's talking about FEMINISTS in general.  And even women who DON'T fall in with the Liberal Feminists? Say... Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell or Meg Whitman?  Were it not for the feminists who came before, were it not for the woman's movement in general, were it not for NOW and the hundreds and thousands of sisters before them who stood up to society, THOSE WOMEN WOULD BE HOME MAKING SANDWICHES RIGHT NOW!

It is becasue of NOW, and those that came before,  that ALL women have the opportunity to make of their lives what they choose!  And it's because of assholes like Limbaugh, and the society that tolerates (shit: REWARDS) them that they STILL have to work twice as hard as a man to do so!

And that's REALLY what's going on here.  Who's a WHORE? Anyone who's not some smiling, empty-headed, barbie-doll offering to get their husband something to eat or another beer.  NOW is a symbol of everything that's changed for women.  Of all the social progress that's been made.  Maybe not all women agree with everything they stand for.  That's fine.  But that doesn't give any MAN the right to call them WHORES, without someone calling him out for it!

So... that's what I'm doing I guess.  I'm standing up and calling him out.

I'm calling for Rush to recieve the same treatement, over his remarks about WOMEN that so many others have over their remarks about Gays, Blacks, Jews or any other group.  There should not be a place in our societal discourse for someone to call women "whores" over a political disagreement.

And I'm really getting sick and tired about all these Conservatives trying to make these sorts of things out to be some kind of first ammendment issue!  This is NOT a first ammendment issue! No one is suggesting that the GOVERNMENT pull him from the air.  I'm simply using MY firts ammendemnt rigths - and might moral judgement - to expres my DISGUST at it! 

To that? A bunch off perople told me to "just ignore him" or "just don't listen."

Um... UH-DUUUUUH! I don't! [listen to him]

But telling me that? In this context? Is really just telling me to "shut up." 

Well that's their right, but also it's mine to respond in kind: FUCK YOU.

Or, because NO ONE can fuck with me when it comes to twisting logic, fine, "Don't Listen." "Ignore him." 
Only while they're saying it to ME...  Me, I'm saying tio the whole damned country.  Let's NOT LISTEN. What's more... Let's STOP PAYING HIS SALARY! Let's BOYCOTT HIS SPONSORS!  If Corporations should be allowed to "speak" by spedning money, surely we are allowed to speak by choosing NOT TO, right?  Isn't that OUR 1st ammendment right?
Even calling for his ouster is not a 1st Ammendment issue.  No employer is required to retain an employe who is disceminating a message that they don't agree with, find offensive or that brings ahrm to the comapny.  You can say whatever you want, by not on the comapny's dime.  Free speech never promised anoyone a JOB or a SALARY for it!  Words have CONSEQUENCES.  A the free-market is a BITCH, baby! So do you know what Clear Chanel is saying by NOT taking action? That they endorse his message.  That they think it's OK to call women WHORES if they dare to have an opinon that's different from thiers.  With that thought in midn, it's about time this society sent CLEAR CHANNEL and every other peddler of misogyny a message.  It's about time that we boycott ANY company who sponors ANY SHOW on ANY Clear Channel network or affiliate.

What pisses me of the most?  Is that we won't.  The double standard will continue.

And I seriously CAN'T WAIT to be proven wrong.

But I'm not holding my breath.