A 30-year-old poses as a 23-year-old, chooses a Catholic University to attend at $65,000 per year, and cannot afford ALL the birth control pills she needs... so she wants the US taxpayers to pay for her rampant sexual activity. By all accounts she is banging it five times a day. She sounds more like a prostitute to me. She must have an gyno bill to choke a horse (pun intended). Calling this whore a slut was a softball.
--Pamela Geller, losing her fucking mind.
Look, I don't expect anyone who identifies as a conservative to answer for the most chronically unhinged among themselves (a distinction in which Geller really has few peers), and I know some people just really don't think they should have to pay for contraception for a variety of moral/philosophical/political reasons, some of which I am even vaguely sympathetic with.
But if you're going to go all-out ad hominem on someone like this you should at least make an attempt to get your facts straight. If you are using them properly, you take just as many birth control pills if you have sex once a month (or hell, once a year) as you would if you were "banging it five times a day". (Which naturally means you really should have as much sex as possible in order to maximize the marginal utility of each pill. But I digress.)
I operate on the quaint notion that woman is defined by a great deal more than how and whether she chooses to make use of her uterus. I guess that makes me a feminist. I hope that makes it easier for you to ignore what I have to say next, if need be. Wouldn't want anyone to lose sleep over this.
I'm honestly perplexed by the fact that otherwise decent people (by which I mean conservatives who don't make their living spewing venom for venom's sake, i.e., most of them) seem so willing to pile on a woman about whom they know nothing of substance for having the temerity to testify before Congress about a policy she would like to have changed. To slut-shame, to call her a liar, and to line it all with pious talk about "protecting womanhood", whatever the fuck that means. I really don't know what they are seeking to accomplish, other than to enjoy some good old-fashioned self-congratulation about how righteous they are, and how they won't let basic civility get in the way of the all-important goal of undermining political correctness.
There's being politically incorrect. And then there's just being a raging asshole. And they really aren't that hard to tell apart.
Seriously. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves, here.
7 comments:
we are something like 9 trillion in debt, being pushed into a war to defend an ally of little/zero real significance minus the trouble their existence creates, sick people are being persecuted by the administration, high unemployment, high gas prices,...
yet, the sex life of an immature coed is a national conversation.
I prefer Uri Geller.
Gino--exactly. And why is that?
Anyway, in the matter of la Fluke, I'd say this. I've written twice, tangentially, on the matter. I don't care about her sex life. I do think her political views are fair game, though, especially since she decided to get into the arena.
The first question isn't whether Fluke uses birth control, or how birth control is used generally. For all I know, she might not even use it. The question is whether the government can compel a Catholic institution to provide it, as Fluke seems to demand.
Secondarily, she started with the usual cant about how Limbaugh's words were used to silence people. That might have been true at one point, but in 2012 it's ridiculous. At this point she is famous, although eventually she'll become a trivia question.
Finally, she is now claiming that sex change operations ought to be covered by insurance policies. Perhaps they should, but reasonable people can disagree.
I think to challenge Ms. Fluke on her views is a form of respect.
Oh, and what Gino said, too.
...her political views are fair game, though, especially since she decided to get into the arena...to challenge Ms. Fluke on her views is a form of respect.
I don't disagree with a word of that. That's rather different from calling her a slut, a whore, and a liar.
If the shoe doesn't fit, you need not wear it.
and i want to add:
pam gellar's website is the hustler magazine of neoconservatism.
If the shoe doesn't fit, you need not wear it.
Yep. Nor are you cobbling any shoes, to your credit. And as you rightly point out, it is a distraction from larger issues. I just find the whole exercise tiresome. And it would be good if the Pamela Gellers of the world would deal with the substantive arguments. Alas, I don't think she's capable of it.
Post a Comment