Kirsten Powers has written an article in which she claims that the American Left has a double standard when it comes to calling out public figures for misogynistic attacks on women:
[I]f Limbaugh’s actions demand a boycott—and they do—then what about the army of swine on the left?
During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a“bimbo alert.”He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a “bimbo” for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.
Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.
[W]hen it comes to high-profile campaigns to hold these men accountable—such as that waged against Limbaugh—the real fury seems reserved only for conservatives, while the men on the left get a wink and a nod as long as they are carrying water for the liberal cause.
David Frum sinks his teeth in:
The cases that conservatives cite as somehow equivalent to Limbaugh’s tirade against Fluke by and large did bring consequences for their authors.
After David Letterman for example made an ugly joke about Sarah Palin’s daughter, he delivered an abject seven-minute apology on air. (To which Palin responded by refusing the apology and insinuating that David Letterman was a child molester.)
When liberal talker Ed Schultz nastily called my dear friend Laura Ingraham a “slut” on his radio show, MSNBC responded by suspending Schultz for a week without pay from his TV show. Schultz likewise apologized in person on air. (Ingraham accepted the apology with grace and humor.)
The exception to the general rule is Bill Maher, who never apologized for calling Palin by a demeaning sexual epithet. But…Limbaugh’s place in American public life is in no way comparable to that of David Letterman, Bill Maher or Ed Schultz.
Letterman is not a political figure at all; and while Maher and Schultz strongly identify as liberals, neither qualifies as anything like a powerbroker in the Democratic Party. I’m sure the Barack Obama re-election effort is happy to have Maher’s million-dollar gift, but I sincerely doubt there is a Democratic congressman who worries much whether Maher criticizes him. A word of criticism from Limbaugh, by contrast, will reduce almost any member of the Republican caucus to abject groveling.
There’s even more to it than that though: To the extent that liberal male commentators are getting a pass for misogyny, it’s probably because they otherwise advocate for policies that are beneficial for women. Ed Schultz has been a staunch supporter of Women’s reproductive rights. Bill Maher has satirized Republican attempts to mandate medically unnecessary sonograms before seeking an abortion. Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, has a long and rich history of opposing the “projects” of women’s rights organizations, and trivializing their political struggles with rank condescension and cavalier sexism.
The reason why Rush Limbaugh’s latest comments were so poisonous is because he wasn’t just insulting women: his comments potentially caused real harm. Limbaugh’s comments were based on a fundamental misunderstanding of reproductive health issues that is extremely detrimental to women; namely, the fact that birth control is not only prescribed for contraceptive purposes.
Birth control is frequently prescribed to treat medical symptoms unrelated to sexual activity. And in the case of the link above, it involves a 16-year old girl who was bleeding profusely due to an irregular menstrual cycle, which was accompanied by psychological distress and crippling pain. This is who Limbaugh was calling a slut. This is who Limbaugh was implicitly asking to make a sex tape so he could masturbate to it. These are the kind of issues that Rush Limbaugh fundamentally does not get. And by extension, his listeners don’t get it either.
Unlike Ed Schultz, Letterman, or Maher, Limbaugh was not simply taking a cheap shot at an ideological adversary by exploiting a gendered pejorative. He was denigrating the very real human suffering of women and girls who are in no position to defend themselves from his bilous remarks. Laura Ingraham cannot claim that Ed Schultz made her life more difficult to live when he called her a slut. As bad as it may have been, Schultz simply does not have enough influence on the left to make an impact on the thinking of large groups of people. And Schultz’ remarks immediately offended a large portion of his audience. The same cannot be said of Rush Limbaugh.
That’s why this time was different. That’s why there’s no equivocation between Rush’s vile assault on reproductive rights, and the alleged double standard that gets applied to liberal commentators. There was much more at stake, from a public policy standpoint, in Rush’s comments than there was in the counter-examples from left-leaning commentators. That’s why it was a big deal this time around.
In which a male author neatly summarizes what male privilege looks like in his particular sphere.
I’m not sure what it means that I found myself silently crying after reading this blog post. Other than, of course, that I think you should go read it, too.
The irony of the last point in the context of the number of notes on this post is not lost on me.
and … guess who is about to read everything by this author?