You may recall that all-dude panel of “experts” at that recent congressional hearing on contraception. One of the reasons it was an all-dude panel was that congressional Republicans wouldn’t let Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke testify on the costs of birth control. (She later testified at a separate hearing held by Nancy Pelosi.)
Apparently stating publicly how much contraception costs when it’s not covered by insurance is basically the equivalent of pooping on the flag to some misogynistic assholes, among them the always charming Rush Limbaugh, who has denounced Fluke as a “slut” and a whore, saying, at one point, that she
went before a Congressional committee and said she’s having so much sex she’s going broke buying contraceptives and wants us to buy them.
Actually, she didn’t testify about her own experience at all.
Also, does Limbaugh even know how contraception works? Yes, the number of condoms one buys depends on how often you have sex. (Or at the very least how often you hope to have sex. Who knows how many boxes of condoms, purchased in moments of optimism, have quietly expired on the shelf waiting for their purchasers to finally get their mojo working. )
But the costs of many other forms of contraception have no relation whatsoever to the frequency of sex. Women on “the pill” take a pill every day, regardless of whether they are having sex that day or not. Women using IUDs don’t run down to the health center to have one installed every time their vagina expects a visitor.
Birth control, in short, doesn’t work like Oxycontin or Viagra, the two pills about which Limbaugh seems most knowledgeable.
Sorry to belabor the obvious, which apparently isn’t so obvious if you’re a right-wing, woman-hating asshole.
Anyway, now Limbaugh seems to think he’s entitled to watch Fluke having sex:
So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. … We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.
Dude, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Here’s the excerpt from his radio show in which he makes this creepy demand.
Oh yeah, I’m going to go ahead and change the website now before I forget.
IR was so proud of that last comment he made it into a post:
http://ideologuereview.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/lacunar-amnesia/
Indeed, he’s done a whole series of posts based on comments taken seemingly at random from this thread. They are all basically incomprehensible to anyone who is not IR.
IR, communication is about conveying meaning to other people. If the only person who understands what you’re going on about is you, you have failed to communicate.
So let’s go back to the beginning here: what point were you trying to make with the Aryan horse thing?
Once we get that sorted out we can move on to the rest of your comments here.
Oh, and speaking of virgin shaming. Here’s one of the new moderators of the Men’s Rights subreddit doing a bit of virgin shaming:
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/q84dv/what_is_the_opposite_of_a_white_knight/c3vk2cx
IR, are you going to make a post about him too? Seems only fair.
Yeah… Once again, this is just dumb. The more you and try and defend the dumb shit you say, the dumber you seem. I wasn’t sure it was possible. Also, I haven’t been henpecking you, or telling you you’re naughty. “Naughty” does not mean “dumb.”
Then again, you are really, really dumb so I can see how you’d make that mistake.
I think I know why even MRAs don’t read IR’s blog.
I think he has aspirations of becoming a Reverse Manboobz, showcasing terrifying feminist quotes, but it just ends up as “completely random feminist quotes.” I think even other MRAs don’t really know what to make of it.
I’m a college grad working on my second degree while working. I’m also a feminist.
If your head’s about to explode, please step outside; I just cleaned the carpets.
FF is definitely aiming for reverse Manboobz. It’s not working partly because he doesn’t have a good sense of how to quote mine, and partly because most MRAs don’t have enough of a sense of humor to make a website based on mockery appealing to them.
The irony of an MRA calling other people “perpetual victims” is goddamn hilarious, by the way.
And partly because feminism isn’t entirely composed of paranoid, incoherent douchebags.
Also partly because he writes so poorly that even the guys who want to agree with him in principle give up trying to figure out what he’s saying halfway through.
PS – I still want to know what the whole opulent Aryan horse thing was all about.
Aryan horse:
http://tinypic.com/r/10xvpe8/5
Now, gotta go sleep.
This reminds me of a joke I heard back in the 90s.
What’s the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg? One is a flaming Nazi gasbag, and the other was a blimp.
I still want to fucking know what was up with that link, factfinder. Was it meant to be a transphobic attack? I’d like you to explain what the fuck you were doing there.
I’m pretty sure IR baboon does not actually read the links he posts, he may skim the title and first sentence, maybe.
Coherence does not seem to be something he can do, at all.
I am now completely certain the reason he post here is to get someone, anyone to read his blog.
So Romney has officially stated, in response to Limbaugh’s rant: “It’s not the language I would have used.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-responds-limbaugh-controversey-20120302,0,6947896.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+%28L.A.+Times+-+Politics%29
In other words, “Of course she’s a slut but we’re not saying slut.”
I think we all know what kind of person Rush Limbaugh is. Take it away Carlin!
I rest my case.
IR/FF doesn’t read his own links because he doesn’t understand that language might be used to communicate and therefore the pages might in fact have content or meaning.
Translation: I’m afraid or unwilling to actually disagree with this quote, no matter how cartoonishly horrible it is. Hey, look over there!
Translation: Words don’t mean anything any more. If you’re “an entertainer” you can say literally anything and anyone who thinks about the meaning of your words is just a no-funsiepants.
Translation: Hey, look over there! Also, being able to choose whether to use birth control or not is a terribly tyrannical imposition.
Wow…just visited IR’s blog. It’s just…really, really sad. I’m imagining someone sitting alone in a dark room muttering about how he’ll show them all some day–just you wait!
He does seem to have a thing about Cassandra, though. Lucky lady!
I haven’t seen a site that lonely and sad since the Buffy message board that was nothing but the site’s creator responding to him/herself for hours and hours on end.
I knew that Rush Limburger was sometimes odd, even when he was speaking as a shill for the Stupid Party, but his demand for videos for us to watch feminist modern women have sex (YECCH) is just too much! Many, perhaps most, feminists are lezzies, and thus contraceptive questions don’t enter into it, and the ones who are normally hetero are likely to be so unfeminine, revolting, and just plain man-hating that you would do better with a fantasy doll/ figurine/ picture collection, preferably showing women as they once were and should be.
Watching feminists having (hetero) sex? That is weird, even for you, Mr. Limberger! Go back to your support for Santorum or Gingrich,push for G.’s moon colonization or for war with Iran, and then call us Ron Paul supporters “crazy”!
Late breaking news in a world run by women, aka feminists, a world gone mad!
http://www.news.com.au/national/abortion-outrage-mums-should-be-allowed-to-terminate-newborns-say-australian-academics/story-e6frfkvr-1226286841396
It seems women just ain’t happy with slaughtering the unborn. Now they want to kill newborns as well. Let’s be honest here, even the vilest man who ever walked the earth knew it was wrong to kill newborns. He might have even done it but he knew it was wrong. Fast forward to modern day women and they don’t even “feel” it’s wrong. I wonder who could’ve predicted this would happen? Oh yeah, me!
—————–
And here’s an article where women are outraged at an advert of a father bottle feeding his own child.
http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/see-controversial-photo-dad-bottle-feeding-baby-does-155510760.html
Women were so outraged at the sight of a man loving and caring for his own child they rallied and actually had the ad pulled. Isn’t it strange how all the moral, spiritual and good gender, (women) or so were told every minute of every day, constantly claim they want men to share in child rearing? Yet when a father is shown feeding a child, women shriek in horror at the mere sight of a man having anything to do with his own child.
—————-
And here we have law on whose to blame when both a boy and girl are underage and engage in sexual activity.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/boy-facing-sex-trial-as-court-upholds-romeo-and-juliet-law-3030524.html
An exerpt
“He was charged with having underage sex with the girl under the Sexual Offences Act 2006.
Section five of this act states that a girl under the age of 17 will not be guilty of an offence by reason only of her engaging in an act of sexual intercourse.”
It seems, by law, girls are blameless. It’s always the fault of the bad gender, (man/boy).
—————
Feminism is quite the religion. I mean you do derive all your, (haha), morals from feminism. It is your faith. I’m curious? How is it that the good gender, which claims it has no power, seems to have all the power? Or is that patriarchy at work? More feminism is the answer I presume?
—————
You can print this or not, Dave. It’s your show. I mean, I am the bad man, born to the bad gender. Of course I can take solace in the fact I’m not part of the gender where 1 in 3 members of that gender have slaughtered unborn children. Or are trying to slaughter born children as well. Or who shudder in revulsion at the sight of a father loving and caring for his own child. Or who have laws relieving them of responsiblity for their sexual action if they’re underage.
And of course thats just a little tidbit of this weeks news in a feminist world. Now that I think about it, it’s pretty sweet being a mook. In a world where the good gender, (women), are portrayed as infallible goddesses. And the bad gender, (men), are portrayed as demons. I feel pretty good about myself knowing I’m not the good gender.
…Two comments on the whole thing and one of them is from himself. Wow.
Isn’t the other one David?