Rush Limbaugh Isn’t the Only Media Misogynist

That's right, there are a bunch of other ones. Like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, Ed Schultz and, most of all, Bill Maher.

Limbaugh deserves the pounding his fat ass is taking, but why not pummel these other creeps too? Think they're not guilty of "warring on women," as the phrase du jour has it? Then this column by Daily Beast columnist Kirsten Powers is required reading. One nugget from it:

But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don't show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!

Predictably, Powers took plenty of heat for her column. Here she responds to them. One nugget from it.

President Obama has seen fit to wade into the Limbaugh kerfuffle, even telling reporters Tuesday that Limbaugh’s behavior was an attack on everyone’s daughter and “I do not want them attacked or called horrible names.” Speaking of daughters, do you remember when Bill Maher said that the real name of then-20-year-old Bristol Palin’s book should be “Whoops, There’s a Dick in Me?”

“But Maher doesn’t have sponsors like Limbaugh does!” cry the left-wing Maher enablers. Yes, but he does have an endless stream of high-profile liberals parading through his studio. In fact, it was reported that none other than David Axelrod, who on Wednesday attacked Mitt Romney for his insufficient outrage over Limbaugh’s sexist rant, is set to visit the Maher show to kiss the ring of the Misogynist One. Also, I’m no genius, but doesn’t HBO run his show? Couldn’t liberals boycott HBO?

 

 

 

Filed under: Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Tsk, Dennis. You do not recognize the familiar Lib-Prog disorder of "Selective Outrage"? It usually goes hand-in-hand with those who have "Chronically Offended" Syndrome.

    The only cure known to those who have Selective Outrage at media figures is to turn the dial, flip the page or change the channel. But the Chronically Offended are asking government assistance as that is too difficult.

  • Chris Matthews a misogynist? That's a stretch the size of the Milky Way.

    BTW. Last time I checked Bill Maher is a comedian, and a racy one at that. Limbaugh is the inviolable conscience and oracle of the Republican Party.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Aquinas.... Rush is on one hand an "entertainer" and on the other hand is the "oracle" of the Republican Party. Not that he claims either. But...you cannot have it both ways. So he either matters or he does not.

    And...last I checked a word is a word is a word, whether voiced in jest or not.

  • The point being missed here is , Rush Limbaugh's 3 day 9 hour sustained attack was on our national airwaves. To have heard your quotes of Maher you would have purchased a ticket and attended his stand up act. To hear more of Maher you have to subscribe to a cable or satellite network and wait until at least 7pm for his 1 hour weekly show. To hear the other personalities you referenced again you must subscribe to cable or satellite networks to hear their 1 hour shows. In short it is an intentional choice. This is not the case with Limbaugh. Many of us find his attacks on our president and our government deeply offensive, but we are unable to insulate our children or ourselves from his incendiary diatribe. Our neighbors listen to him in their backyards, our coworkers and bosses listen to him at work, and local businesses have him on daily.
    Some words are profane depending on context. Slut, bastard, bitch, and whore are profane when used as personal insults. Some of us don't care to have our children hear these words in any context..
    Limbaugh's attack on Sandra Fluke included profanity, sexually explicit language, and solicitation of pornography.
    I urge all decent hearted people to file complaints with the FCC. Let's move this slim-ball to a satellite station where he belongs.

  • phaid4dad -- Another case of Selected Outrage. What about Mr. Ed Schultz, popular Lib-Prog radio host on the public airwaves, calling another, conservative woman host a "radio slut". Well, I suppose not too many people listen to Schultz, so hearing him on your neighbor's radio is not too likely.

    I do supposed you were outraged about the attacks on GWB, which were hateful and personal? Oh, wait, you have Selected Outrage, I forgot.

    The same children whose ears you want to shelter are hearing far worse in school, viewing far worse on the computer in your den, and, I imagine, have even heard far worse from your lips.

    Their is help for the Chronically Offended who suffer from Selected Outrage: but only you can do it. It involves action on the dial or clicking a new page or turning it off completely.

    Better, turn on NPR: it is guaranteed to cause slumber and its audience consists of mainly the Chronically Offended with Selective Outrage. You will feel no pain. If your children listen they will not need a bed time story to go to sleep.

  • Wow. Even I didn't think the left would find these kinds of excuses. I think that you -- Phaid and St. Thomas -- have proven Powers' point.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    It's simple minded, hypocritical partisan nonsense, Dennis. All you hear from the left is support for outrages they commit and utter condemnation for any ill perceived or real (and usually just perceived) from conservatives. Any time a left-winger acts up with his faux outrage I simply laugh as I know they've approved of far far worse and do so on a daily basis. Andrew Breitbart had one word for such anti-American creeps: WAR. He was right. War to the hilt is all they deserve.

  • Bill Maher is a comedian on a cable station and intends to be foul and vulgar.. that's the audience. He's not on our publicly funded airwaves on a daily basis. I find him repugnant, as I do anyone who resorts to that level of discourse.

    The guy on WLS from 10-2 on the other hand should be sitting in a cell. Maybe the hate and anger will blow up his heart like it did Mr. Breitbart. I don't defend cretins, but feel free to continue your defense of that poor excuse for a human. You guys have the blinders on as usual here. Pretty pathetic.

  • In reply to jtithof:

    Umh, I not defending Limbaugh, in case you didn't note. The guy's a jerk. The best thing going for liberals that want to discredit all conservatives. As for sending him to jail for what he says, let me refer you to the First Amendment. And as for wishing him dead...well, I guess that's not very nice.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    First they came for Limbaugh, then they came for.....

    Liberals will discredit ALL conservatives, no matter if they are Rush or rush-lite. No points are scored with them by assigning Limbaugh to the "jerk" column. You are Rush as I am Rush as we are all together -- at least in the eyes of liberal fascists.

    Liberal fascism. It's real and coming to a country near you.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    He should have been convicted on the doctor shopping, not for hate crimes.

  • In reply to jtithof:

    jtithof... repugnant is wishing somebody's heart to explode, no matter what their ideology or what they say on the radio. Speaking of hate and anger, you need to take the plank out of your own eye. Look at the hate you just wrote.

    Not surprising, though, for the Chronically Offended.

    Be pro-choice, jtit...turn the dial.

  • fb_avatar

    These comments are amazing. Growing up, if I had said this about ANY woman, my mother would of washed my mouth out with soap, paddled my behind and put me in the corner.

    Now, it is apparently acceptable depending on the political ideologies of the speaker, the target and the audience hearing it. I guess this is the "progress" in progressive.

  • The fake - or genuine - outrage on choice of words from either side is really not the point in the Rush Limbaugh / Sandra Fluke case.

    It's the double-standard that is being exercised; women are somehow less than virtuous for wanting to have sex while their male counterparts - as usual in all matters that involve reproduction - get a pass on their "behavior".

    Access to birth control has little to do with sexual promiscuity. It is all about choosing when and if to bring children into the world. Since that burden falls squarely on women, it's a women's health issue. Period.

    The counterpoint to this - and the pure hypocrisy on the social conservative side - is Viagra and Cialis. These products don't exist because we need men in their 50's, 60's, and 70's to continue to "go forth and multiply". These products exist for pure sexual recreation for older men whom nature (read: their God) no longer intended to procreate.

    Why should an insurance policy pay for an old guy's boner pills? Explain a single, pro-family, God's will-based reason why a man who likely won't live to see his offspring graduate from high school, should be "paid to have sex"?

    This is the hypocrisy. Old white men defending their right to have paid-for erection pills while denying women the right to have paid-for birth control pills.

    That's the misogyny that's on debate - not the free speech rights of either Rush Limbaugh or Bill Maher.

    One other thing - like the entire Affordable Care Act - this is about health insurance reform. Health insurers would rather pay for birth control than maternity - it's in their best interest. Unless the health insurers object to being mandated to pay for birth control, how is this even an issue?

    This is both a war on women's rights (not their behavior) and yet another attack against the Affordable Care Act (I refuse to call it Obamacare). It has nothing to do with freedom of religion, either, since an insurance company is a business - not a religious institution.

    All of these false equivalencies are nothing but deflection from the real issue - the Right has no respect for a women's right to determine what is best for her own health. That's pretty much the definition of misogyny - a man telling a woman what she can or can't do.

    All this "well he said something like that too" discussion has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

  • In reply to Brent Cohrs:

    The question of insurance coverage for treatment of erectile dysfunction keeps--excuse me--popping up. It's not as simple as yes or no. If it's for a married couple that's trying to have a child, I'd say, yes, it should be covered. But "boner pills" for old guys is a definite NO.

    That would be for Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage, and my old guys policy does not cover it. (Not that I need it, hee, hee.) Or, check out this link, which is for United Health Care Medicare Advantage coverage: https://www.unitedhealthcareonline.com/ccmcontent/ProviderII/UHC/en-US/Assets/ProviderStaticFiles/ProviderStaticFilesPdf/Tools%20and%20Resources/Policies%20and%20Protocols/UnitedHealthcare%20Medicare%20Coverage/Impotence_Treatment_UHCMA_CS.pdf
    The relevant section is: "Prescription or injectable medications for the treatment of erectile dysfunction are not covered. Examples include, but are not limited to:
    a. Alprostadil urethral suppository (MUSE)
    b. Viagra
    c. Testosterone patches
    d. Caverject
    e. Papaverine f. Regitine"

    However, "Diagnosis of sexual impotency is covered," which is not necessarily the same as erectile dysfunction.

    (If the above link does not work,go to https://www.unitedhealthcareonline.com and search for "erectile dysfunction.)

    The question remains: What will the Affordable Care Act require? As a fan of Obamacare, you must know that government bureaucrats will decide for all of us. Good luck with that.

    One thing for sure, though. The playbook answer from the left that "insurance covers Viagara" is vastly over-simplified. As if that should surprise anyone.

  • In reply to Brent Cohrs:

    Thank you for your remarks. Did you also know that HIV/AIDS men receive viagra through public health? I was shocked at first until I read some medical studies that suggest the practice actually lessens the incidence of spreading the disease. I'm not sure I agree. It seems like we are providing bullets for a potentially lethal weapon.

  • Disparaging women (on either side of the aisle) is both misogynistic and cowardly. Men who do that should have the balls to go after their real enemies (usually other men) and leave us out of it.

  • Brent-- again not seeing the forest through the liberal trees.

    Who is telling whom what they can and cannot have covered in health insurance policies: Obama and Congress. Period. Birth control is readily available and purchasable. There are few health insurance policies that cover mens Viagra, by the way.

    The real discussion is freedom of choice. The liberal fascists want to direct every aspect of lives, including what goes on in the bedroom. No conservative is saying that contraception shouldn't be available; what they ARE saying is that it shouldn't be paid for by everybody, when it is already available for a relatively low price. If some insurance companies are covering "boner pills" it is because they want to or it has, again, been mandated by the state. Either way, it shouldn't be.

    The entire Fluke thing was staged by the Democrats to change to focus of the debate from the rancid economy and high gas prices to the non-issue of birth control.

    Of course, the simpering amongst us turn it into a man vs woman thing, when it is a state vs individual thing. Obama has been invited into the bedroom -- hope it is good.

    What the state decree the state can rescind. That is why it is an issue. To quote a famous Dem, sort of, "it's the mandate, stupid."

    Now eat your peas, orders from Dr. Obama.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    You like to throw the liberal word out there again and again. You have convinced yourself that if people do not agree with you they must be categorized as such. You sir are speaking as a ditto head, just regurgitating the same BS.

    I'm a moderate Republican who voted for Bush twice and his father twice and Bob Dole. Most of this nation is comprised of people in the middle, not to the extreme right or left, despite the unfortunate trend of putting those types of zealots in office due to the pandering of the candidates who know how to exploit stupidity. And I'm talking about on both sides of the aisle.

    Do not assume that people who disagree with right wing extremists, the type that foment hate that the likes of Timothy McVeigh gravitate towards, are liberals or left leaning.

    You sir, as you continue to demonstrate in your words are wrong.

  • Dennis, you never did give evidence that Chris Matthews is a misogynist. I don't think you have any.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    St. Tom, that's what links are for. I'll save you the trouble. From the column:

    "Chris Matthews’s sickening misogyny was made famous in 2008, when he obsessively tore down Hillary Clinton for standing between Barack Obama and the presidency, something that Matthews could not abide. Over the years he has referred to the former first lady, senator and presidential candidate and current secretary of state as a “she-devil,” “Nurse Ratched,” and “Madame Defarge.” Matthews has also called Clinton “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “uppity” and once claimed she won her Senate seat only because her “husband messed around.” He asked a guest if “being surrounded by women” makes “a case for commander in chief—or does it make a case against it?” At some point Matthews was shamed into sort of half apologizing to Clinton, but then just picked up again with his sexist ramblings.

    "Matthews has wondered aloud whether Sarah Palin is even “capable of thinking” and has called Bachmann a “balloon head” and said she was “lucky we still don’t have literacy tests out there.” Democratic strategist Jehmu Greene, who is the former president of the Women’s Media Center, told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in 2011 that Matthews
“is a bully, and his favorite target is women.” So why does he still have a show? What if his favorite target was Jews? Or African-Americans?"

  • As far as Sarah Palin's cognitive acuity, didn't Steve Schmidt have good reason to question it too?

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at www.dennisbyrne.net

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

    • Thanks for sharing. The upkeep price should even be taken care of earlier than taking any resolution. Best Battery For…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • According to Scott Galloway, the whole search was a big scam. The real reason for Amazon's split decision was Bezos's…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • Illinois law does allow sample ballots in polling places and voting booths, according to the Illinois State Board of Elections.…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • And why were all the other sites rejected too?
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • fb_avatar
      You forgot some other factors for Amazon dumping Chicago as a possible site. First, the company would…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement: