Selective Feminism

TemplarKormac

Political Atheist
Mar 30, 2013
49,999
13,428
2,190
The Land of Sanctuary
Have you seen the news over the past couple of years? Sure you have. If you haven't, you've missed a broiling debate on the issue of abortion and contraception, not to mention some deep and wounding misogynistic commentary issued by opponents and supporters of this right passed you by. But enough of that.

In the midst of this heated debate I have noticed something. I have observed how some women treat other women differently than others. I have again noticed how this behavior is widely influenced by political or societal events. I also have taken notice of the hypocrisy that it entails. What I am referring to is known as selective feminism. No doubt you have heard the comments issued forth by the right wing political shock trooper Rush Limbaugh in reference to Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, and the firestorm that ensued afterwards.

In this instance you have Democrats, pro abortionists and feminists all across America crying bloody murder, saying that Limbaugh should be taken off the air for his comments. In fact, they have said things to the extent of "Fluke is just an ordinary woman, how dare he say such mean things about her?", "He should be taken off the air or apologize post haste!" (Which he did not soon after).

These very same people have gone on to say that Republicans only want to take away their rights to contraceptives and birth control pills, and that the men, as well as the government, should keep their nose out from between their legs, which I find odd to say the least, since they want a right only the government itself can provide, and also that they allow certain men to fight for them and their "freedom." Okay, lets jump the fence here, to the other side of the political spectrum. I made reference to Fluke and Limbaugh, now lets examine David Letterman and Bill Maher, both Liberals, and their comments about Sarah Palin In June of 2009, David Letterman was caught on air making reference to Sarah Palin as a "slutty flight attendant," going on to make a less than polite joke about her underage daughter Willow:

"One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game," Letterman said, "during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."

After Letterman's comment, Sarah Palin immediately responded, accusing him of making inappropriate and sexually perverted statements that he would "have never said about anyone else's daughter, and that "acceptance of sexually inappropriate jokes about someone's underage daughter, who could be anyone's daughter, contributes to the atrociously [sic] high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men who use and abuse others," she went on to say. But wait! We then have Bill Maher who, after finding out that Palin had accepted a job as a contributor to Fox News, made this remark about her and her child, Trig, who has Down Syndrome:

“Sarah Palin agreed to do commentary at Fox News, which is actually very similar to her day job, talking to a baby with Down syndrome. Speaking of dumb s**ts, it’s not because they have breasts. It’s because they are boobs."

Once again Palin and the Republican party were outraged. As you know, Sarah Palin is widely known as Republican nominee John McCain's VP candidate, and a Republican herself. In this instance, only the women on the right wing side of the aisle were heard condemning the remarks. Now, here's the kicker, where were the feminists? Where, indeed, were the female Democrats? Not one was to be heard burning her brassiere over these sexually tinged comments, which leads me to my point.

What you saw here was members of feminism being selective of which women to defend, after she is slandered. But then again, a woman is a woman, right? Wrong. Somehow only a Liberal woman is worth defending, but a Conservative one, well, she's on her own. If you happen to be a Liberal woman reading right now, here is a question for you. How come you will defend a woman such as Sandra Fluke, but not ones such as Sarah Palin? They are both women. How can you not be angered when a woman, akin to yourself in all senses of the word, is sexually denigrated by other men? Might it be because she is a conservative? Or maybe it is because she is a pro life advocate? I fail to see the logic in this rationale that one woman is somehow different than another.

If Liberal women (men too, to an extent) are to be angry at Rush Limbaugh for inappropriately targeting Fluke, they should be equally angry when someone like Bill Maher or David Letterman make crude and sexist comments about Sarah Palin, her daughter, or her mentally afflicted son. To ignore it is to be a hypocrite, to defend it is foolish, and to do so is to take part in the act of selective feminism. Come on ladies, where did all the girl power go? Palin has the same set of ovaries and sexual organs you do, so why is she so vastly different? A woman should be quick to defend one of her own, whether be she a Liberal or Conservative, pro-life or pro-choice. If you are going to be sympathetic toward one woman, be so for all of them. If you are going to be outraged at a man who slanders another woman, again be outraged in unison with her and with all of womankind. These feelings should be indiscriminate. A woman is a woman, regardless of what she believes in or what viewpoints she holds to be true. To borrow a couple of verses, love your enemies as yourself. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Finally, take heed readers, that some of this can be said for Conservative women too. Remember, every woman should be in this together!
 
Last edited:
The comments about Palin and her children were in the poorest taste. There was no call for that sort of language.

Limbaugh made a comment that Fluke was a slut. That's all he said. He said it after Fluke, for some odd reason, was testifying at a hearing that was supposed to determine the legality of forcing religious organizations to provide birth control. She contributed nothing to the issue at hand and merely whined about the high cost of her birth control. The price she stated was exorbitant. Some smart people did the math and came to the conclusion that Fluke would not only have to buy pills, but also condoms in order to spend as much as she claimed. And they figured she must have had sex numerous times per day. Since few men can perform every day and several times every day, it was reasonable to assume there were many men helping her use up those condoms. Going by the price Fluke gave and crunching the numbers sure made her look like a slut. Or maybe she was just lying. If she is a smart, strong woman like she claims, I'm sure she can handle the heat. Oh, wait, she couldn't. She went to a Catholic school with an agenda and she should have been smart enough to know that she was putting herself in the hot seat for claiming to spend so much on birth control.

Thing is, Fluke made the claims and Limbaugh responded with one explanation for her spending that damn much on contraceptives. The insult was specific to the claims of the person insulted.

The attacks on Palin center around her baby, her looks and other things. If they want to pick on Palin for things she says and keep the attacks directed at her words or actions, fine. I think it's especially stupid for people to pick on her children and only immature people would even do that.
 
Last edited:
"Feminism" doesn't mean "defending women from attacks".

As to your theme, liberals don't rush to the defense of Palin for the same reason that Conservatives didn't rush to the defense of Fluke.
 
"Feminism" doesn't mean "defending women from attacks".

As to your theme, liberals don't rush to the defense of Palin for the same reason that Conservatives didn't rush to the defense of Fluke.

Isn't that hypocritical? I mean really. You don't need to defend anyone, all a self professed feminist should do is express outrage, the same as they would if someone of similar mindsets as them were denigrated in a way. The fact that either side claims to be for all women but yet won't stand for all women in the face of scurrilous insults and misogyny is hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
"Feminism" doesn't mean "defending women from attacks".

As to your theme, liberals don't rush to the defense of Palin for the same reason that Conservatives didn't rush to the defense of Fluke.

Isn't that hypocritical? I mean really. You don't need to defend anyone, all a self professed feminist should do is express outrage, the same as they would if someone of similar mindsets as them were denigrated in a way. The fact that either side claims to be for all women but yet won't stand for all women in the face of scurrilous insults and misogyny is hypocritical.

First of all, the "sides" can't claim anything. Neither liberals nor Conservatives are hive minds, they're just large collections of people, each with their own values and opinions.

Only individuals can be hypocrites, not loosely defined political movements.
 
Secondly, "Feminism" isn't about defending all women from attacks. I don't know why you keep using that term.

If a feminist claims to be for all women, but fails to stand up for one when she is denigrated by someone, if a feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women, why does she not support that for all women? Should that not translate into defending them regardless of that they believe as well? How can they say "we represent all women" but sit idly by while certain women are degraded and treated with utter contempt?
 
Last edited:
Why would a feminist defend Sarah Palin? She opposes abortion. She opposes women's rights, although she has benefitted greatly from the women's movement herself.

Bill Maher is a mysogynistic asshole, but he's also a comedian which means he is making jokes, as is David Letterman. Both are known to make jokes which are in poor taste from time to time. Liberals don't take comedians all that seriously.

Rush Limbaugh is a conservative leader that Republicans take very seriously. Big difference.

And Clementine, Sandra Fluke is a law student who was paying $4000 per year for health insurance as part of her tuition at a very expensive Catholic University. The student federation elected her to speak on behalf of the female students who would not have birth control covered under the health insurance provided by the university.

The reason it cost so much is because the doctor's visit to get the prescription, as well as the standard tests done at that visit, would not be covered, nor would the prescription itself.

When a Republican leader denigrates and insults a student who the student body elects as their spokesperson, it sends a clear message to women that Republicans don't want their votes.
 
Secondly, "Feminism" isn't about defending all women from attacks. I don't know why you keep using that term.

If a feminist claims to be for all women, but fails to stand up for one when she is denigrated by someone, if a feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women, why does she not support that for all women? Should that not translate into defending them regardless of that they believe as well? How can they say "we represent all women" but sit idly by while certain women are degraded and treated with utter contempt?

"For all women" doesn't really mean anything.

Feminism is about women's rights, and equality. It's not about getting outraged on behalf of every individual woman in the world, every time they are insulted.

There is no "right" to not be insulted.
 
Why would a feminist defend Sarah Palin? She opposes abortion. She opposes women's rights, although she has benefitted greatly from the women's movement herself.

Bill Maher is a mysogynistic asshole, but he's also a comedian which means he is making jokes, as is David Letterman. Both are known to make jokes which are in poor taste from time to time. Liberals don't take comedians all that seriously.

Rush Limbaugh is a conservative leader that Republicans take very seriously. Big difference.

And Clementine, Sandra Fluke is a law student who was paying $4000 per year for health insurance as part of her tuition at a very expensive Catholic University. The student federation elected her to speak on behalf of the female students who would not have birth control covered under the health insurance provided by the university.

The reason it cost so much is because the doctor's visit to get the prescription, as well as the standard tests done at that visit, would not be covered, nor would the prescription itself.

When a Republican leader denigrates and insults a student who the student body elects as their spokesperson, it sends a clear message to women that Republicans don't want their votes.

Why would a feminist defend Sarah Palin? She opposes abortion. She opposes women's rights, although she has benefited greatly from the women's movement herself.

But yet, she's still a woman. Why would what she believes make her any different? Thanks for making my point for me, Dragonlady.

Bill Maher is a mysogynistic asshole, but he's also a comedian which means he is making jokes, as is David Letterman. Both are known to make jokes which are in poor taste from time to time. Liberals don't take comedians all that seriously.

So are you saying that his being a comedian absolves him from any consequences resulting from the jokes he tells in bad taste? Do you hear yourself?

Rush Limbaugh is a conservative leader that Republicans take very seriously. Big difference.

Obama is a liberal leader that liberals take very seriously, your point? I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, and I don't know what other conservatives see in him. But hey, to each his own.

And Clementine, Sandra Fluke is a law student who was paying $4000 per year for health insurance as part of her tuition at a very expensive Catholic University. The student federation elected her to speak on behalf of the female students who would not have birth control covered under the health insurance provided by the university.

The reason it cost so much is because the doctor's visit to get the prescription, as well as the standard tests done at that visit, would not be covered, nor would the prescription itself.

So, should taxpayers be paying for her contraception? Is that it? Yeah about that. We already have religious groups suing over something similar in Obamacare, are you willing to make the same mistake?

When a Republican leader denigrates and insults a student who the student body elects as their spokesperson, it sends a clear message to women that Republicans don't want their votes.

When a Democrat leader forces religious institutions to fund contraceptives, it sends a clear message to them that Democrats don't want their votes. :eusa_shhh:
 
Secondly, "Feminism" isn't about defending all women from attacks. I don't know why you keep using that term.

If a feminist claims to be for all women, but fails to stand up for one when she is denigrated by someone, if a feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women, why does she not support that for all women? Should that not translate into defending them regardless of that they believe as well? How can they say "we represent all women" but sit idly by while certain women are degraded and treated with utter contempt?

"For all women" doesn't really mean anything.

Feminism is about women's rights, and equality. It's not about getting outraged on behalf of every individual woman in the world, every time they are insulted.

There is no "right" to not be insulted.

Then, may I ask, why do Feminists get outraged when a liberal woman, any liberal woman, is denigrated or is broken upon an injustice, but not a conservative one? I never said that people should be protected from insults. I'm merely saying that the outrage over those insults should be applied equally. I have seen examples of such behavior. Also, women are treated terribly in the Middle East, where are these feminists? Nowhere to be seen, they at the sight of a crescent moon disappearing, evaporating into thin air like fairies in the mist.

When Democratic Representative John Salazar instructed women to instead of defending themselves with firearms, "fake a disease" or "vomit" or "soil themselves" to avoid being raped, no feminists spoke out against this perpetuation of ignorance. What did he know of what being raped felt like? Where was the outrage that man was telling women not to exercise the right to defend themselves? Yeah, that type of hypocrisy from liberal feminists is what I'm addressing.
 
Last edited:
But yet, she's still a woman. Why would what she believes make her any different? Thanks for making my point for me, Dragonlady.

Feminism is about beliefs and ideals, not defending all women. That's the whole point of it.

I can't believe what I'm hearing. You say it's about women's rights and beliefs, yet you contend in the same breath that "it's not about defending women." So, which one is it?
 
If a feminist claims to be for all women, but fails to stand up for one when she is denigrated by someone, if a feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women, why does she not support that for all women? Should that not translate into defending them regardless of that they believe as well? How can they say "we represent all women" but sit idly by while certain women are degraded and treated with utter contempt?

"For all women" doesn't really mean anything.

Feminism is about women's rights, and equality. It's not about getting outraged on behalf of every individual woman in the world, every time they are insulted.

There is no "right" to not be insulted.

Then, may I ask, why do Feminists get outraged when a liberal woman, any liberal woman, is denigrated or is broken upon an injustice, but not a conservative one? I never said that people should be protected from insults. I'm merely saying that the outrage over those insults should be applied equally. I have seen examples of such behavior. Also, women are treated terribly in the Middle East, where are these feminists? Nowhere to be seen, they at the sight of a crescent moon disappear, evaporate like fairies in the mist.

When Democratic Representative Joe Salazar instructed women to instead of defending themselves with firearms, to "fake a disease" or "vomit" or "soil themselves" to avoid being raped, no feminists spoke out against this perpetuation of ignorance. What did he know of what being raped felt like? Where was the outrage that man was telling women not to exercise the right to defend themselves? Yeah, that type of hypocrisy from liberal feminists is what I'm addressing.

Most feminists are liberals - they get selectively outraged for the same reason that Conservatives do. It's defending the tribe.

There are also hundreds of women's groups that focus all of their attention on the rights of women in the middle east, by the way.
 
But yet, she's still a woman. Why would what she believes make her any different? Thanks for making my point for me, Dragonlady.

Feminism is about beliefs and ideals, not defending all women. That's the whole point of it.

I can't believe what I'm hearing. You say it's about women's rights and beliefs, yet you contend in the same breath that "it's not about defending women." So, which one is it?

Can you really not understand the difference between defending the rights of women, and defending individual women from personal insults?
 
But yet, she's still a woman. Why would what she believes make her any different? Thanks for making my point for me, Dragonlady.

Feminism is about beliefs and ideals, not defending all women. That's the whole point of it.

I can't believe what I'm hearing. You say it's about women's rights and beliefs, yet you contend in the same breath that "it's not about defending women." So, which one is it?

Can you really not understand the difference between defending the rights of women, and defending individual women from personal insults?
 
"For all women" doesn't really mean anything.

Feminism is about women's rights, and equality. It's not about getting outraged on behalf of every individual woman in the world, every time they are insulted.

There is no "right" to not be insulted.

Then, may I ask, why do Feminists get outraged when a liberal woman, any liberal woman, is denigrated or is broken upon an injustice, but not a conservative one? I never said that people should be protected from insults. I'm merely saying that the outrage over those insults should be applied equally. I have seen examples of such behavior. Also, women are treated terribly in the Middle East, where are these feminists? Nowhere to be seen, they at the sight of a crescent moon disappear, evaporate like fairies in the mist.

When Democratic Representative Joe Salazar instructed women to instead of defending themselves with firearms, to "fake a disease" or "vomit" or "soil themselves" to avoid being raped, no feminists spoke out against this perpetuation of ignorance. What did he know of what being raped felt like? Where was the outrage that man was telling women not to exercise the right to defend themselves? Yeah, that type of hypocrisy from liberal feminists is what I'm addressing.

Most feminists are liberals - they get selectively outraged for the same reason that Conservatives do. It's defending the tribe.

There are also hundreds of women's groups that focus all of their attention on the rights of women in the middle east, by the way.

I realize there are "hundreds" of women's groups addressing on the mistreatment of women in the Middle East. But there's a difference between a women's group and a liberal progressive feminist group (unless of course the terms are interchangeable).
 
Feminism is about beliefs and ideals, not defending all women. That's the whole point of it.

I can't believe what I'm hearing. You say it's about women's rights and beliefs, yet you contend in the same breath that "it's not about defending women." So, which one is it?

Can you really not understand the difference between defending the rights of women, and defending individual women from personal insults?

Uh yeah, I can, but I see the two things going hand in hand to tell you the truth. If you want to defend a woman, you defend her rights to a belief as well as her rights in general no matter who she is.
 
Last edited:
Then, may I ask, why do Feminists get outraged when a liberal woman, any liberal woman, is denigrated or is broken upon an injustice, but not a conservative one? I never said that people should be protected from insults. I'm merely saying that the outrage over those insults should be applied equally. I have seen examples of such behavior. Also, women are treated terribly in the Middle East, where are these feminists? Nowhere to be seen, they at the sight of a crescent moon disappear, evaporate like fairies in the mist.

When Democratic Representative Joe Salazar instructed women to instead of defending themselves with firearms, to "fake a disease" or "vomit" or "soil themselves" to avoid being raped, no feminists spoke out against this perpetuation of ignorance. What did he know of what being raped felt like? Where was the outrage that man was telling women not to exercise the right to defend themselves? Yeah, that type of hypocrisy from liberal feminists is what I'm addressing.

Most feminists are liberals - they get selectively outraged for the same reason that Conservatives do. It's defending the tribe.

There are also hundreds of women's groups that focus all of their attention on the rights of women in the middle east, by the way.

I realize there are "hundreds" of women's groups addressing on the mistreatment of women in the Middle East. But there's a difference between a women's group and a liberal progressive feminist group (unless of course the terms are interchangeable).

"Liberal progressive feminist group"?

Can you give me a list of these groups? Or perhaps a few examples?
 

Forum List

Back
Top