Sunday Open Thread

Totally banal afterthought to the whole brouhaha about contraception, insurance, and Sandra Fluke:

Can you imagine Rushbo or any of those other yahoos suggesting that college men abstain from trying to get laid?  Me either.

What's on your minds on this pleasant Sunday morning?  Don't forget to set your clocks ahead, if you haven't already.

Comments

[Gene O'Grady]

Goes right to my fairly well informed assumptions about Santorum (and apparently his wife as well); clearly the sort of Catholic who partied and got laid without regard to the consequences as an adolescent and young adult and then moved violently to a more Catholic than Wojtyla position after thirty.

Absolutely doesn't sound like the Catholics I've known who tried to follow the Catholic way of life consistently. And in any case, both the before and after Santorums are completely self-centered. As is most opposition to contraception, in case you've never listened to a childless thirty something go on about natural family planning.

[jeanne marie]

Is there even a word for a male "slut"?

[kathy a.]

jm -- "playboy" and "ladies' man" doesn't have the same ring, does it?

gene, whether or not santorum once had a sex life for purposes other than procreation is of less interest to me than his zealotry. the "token conservative" columnist at the SF chron slaps santorum down for talking like an exorcist, and for seeking to gravely limit personal freedoms in favor of imposing his religious views.

[beckya57]

Gene--I think that history gives away that this is all about controlling women. It's ok for men to "sow their wild oats," but women are supposed to be "pure." And from your account it doesn't sound like young Santorum had much concern for the possible consequences to the women he was laying back then.

[beckya57]

And what all of these zealots keep forgetting is that this is a pluralistic country, in which we normally expect that we should allow people to live their own lives by their own values, as long as their behavior isn't destructive to others. They've got THE TRUTH, and think it's perfectly fine to impose it on the rest of us.

[Linkmeister]

jeanne marie, "Rake?" "Cad?"

[beckya57]

"Don Juan?"

[beckya57]

Unfortunately, none of these terms carries anything like the aura of moral condemnation that we usually associate with "slut." Which figures.

[nancy]

I dunno you guys. I think maybe this might more likely explain Little Ricky.

There's no male equivalent to "slut", because if there were it wouldn't be a pejorative. "Lothario" comes to mind.

One fraternity house, filled with such types, I once heard described by dorm women as "Sexual Assault Expected" if one ventured into one of their parties. [And I'm sure this didn't apply to all of its chapters]. I imagine the collegians relished their reputation.

Watching the GOP try to drag us backward in matters interpersonal makes one wonder if we aren't looking at mass arrested development, thinly disguised, and put to political purpose. Good luck gents. How to explain their female co-scourges is harder to say.

[kathy a.]

via balloon juice comments, i ran across this piece at LGN, addressing an economics professor's defense of limbaugh, and then the prof doubling down once he got responses to his nonsense.

it is so astonishing that -- at a time when unemployment remains high, people are still suffering from the economic collapse and austerity measures, governments are struggling to meet their obligations with the predictable bad impacts on the most vulnerable among us -- the domestic issue of the day is "let's re-constitute the We Hate Girlz Club."

the only thing that saves me from profound despair is that it is so phenomenally stupid to target ~50% (or more)of the potential voting public with this vitriol. many of us sluts also have male friends, relatives, and colleagues with functioning brains. even taking away the hideous name-calling, the We Hate Girls measures (defunding PP, ultrasound, "personhood" amendments, trying to limit access to contraception, etc.) are profoundly intrusive, uncaring in the extreme, and they make no economic sense.

so, the party of "freedom" wants to impose its religion on you. the party of "compassionate conservatism" is all about punishing sluts (tr: any woman who uses birth control). the part of "small government" wants to be up in everybody's wombs. the party of "morality" really only cares about what you do in the bedroom; it doesn't care about unwanted children after their births, because that's your problem.

i'm lapsed, but i'm still pretty sure the baby jesus is not rooting for children to lack love, health care, food, housing, personal safety, education, etc.

as i recall, jesus the public speaker did not favor shaming fallen women; his disciple mary magdalene was in fact a prostitute. (his own birth to unwed parents was considered a miracle, was it not? nowadays, mary would be a slut and welfare queen, suspected of illegal activity and a possible national security risk, what with those foreign dudes dropping by to give her money.)

jesus admonished that before stoning an accused adulterer to death, the irate crowd should think -- and only he who was without sin should cast the first stone -- whereupon everybody discovered they had something else to do right then, so they wandered away. he talked about sharing, and caring for one another; he provided food for the many who lacked it. he expressed anger at the money-lenders at the temple, those who preyed upon others in order to enrich themselves.

if we're going to go all religious in this election, it's worth remembering some of these stories -- i'm sure others can remember more of them -- and seeing how the candidates and pundits measure up.

[kathy a.]

nancy wins. i mean, it is pretty freakin' weird to brag you've never sat on a couch with any woman besides your wife.

[nancy]

Normally I wouldn't just drop something abruptly into a thread, but I don't want this on the money piece to get superceded in my mental files. How Sarah Palin Invented Bill Maher's Liberal Excuse for Misogyny.

So true. The last lines describe my women's phone tree for sure in August 2008.

[jeanne marie]

So true. Indeed, nancy.

[oddjob]

(It's an open thread, nancy. Drop in anything you feel like.)

[oddjob]

Today's Doonesbury (March 12) is just brutal, and spot on.

[oddjob]

GOP voters in AL & MS think Obama is Muslim, not sure about interracial marriage.

[paula b]

Kathy@5:58. Beautiful! Thanks for this little Sunday School lesson. We're in Florida, where everyone we visit talks about getting rid of Obama. Very stressful. I'm trying to drop a talking point or two, but it's probably pointless.

[nancy]

oddjob -- So brutal that none other than the Portland Oregonian has made the editorial decision to suspend the strip for the week and publish reruns for the duration. They informed their readers in an editorial. My NoR just summarily replaced the strip even though its placement is in the ad section.

[oddjob]

Interesting.

The Boston Globe has run today's. I haven't read the rest of the paper yet so I don't known if they've indicated what they're going to do about the rest of the week's cartoons or not.

[jeanne marie]

oddjob - it's in the Roanoke Times paper, too.

[kathy a.]

thanks, paula. i've just had it up to the gills with these people [a] trying to shove their view of religion and morality down everybody else's throats, and [b] forgetting that the overall message of jesus was mercy, compassion, caring for even the least among us. there is no way to square that message with the punitive, money-grubbing instincts of today's GOP and their allies.

oddjob -- i don't see what's so brutal about telling the truth.

nancy -- funny that portland's paper isn't running it. but i guess there is some history: after dave barry wrote a column about a supreme court justice's letter informing him of a product called beano, the portland oregonian refused to run the column.

[oddjob]

The truth can be told gently or bluntly. Telling it bluntly can be brutal (albeit it does not change its innate correctness to do so).

[oddjob]

Something on the order of 140 advertisers have asked not to be broadcast on Limbaugh's show.

[kathy a.]

oddjob, these folks pressing this kind of legislation have been pretty straightforward about wanting to shame women out of abortions. and they think it is perfectly fine for legislators to dictate medical procedures, or override medical decisions about what is necessary. i just see any negative response to doonsbury as more of the "how dare you quote us, that's soooo unfair" kind of argument.

[Crissa]

Advertisers specifying not to be slid into his show while being on the same channel or broadcaster (Clear Channel, isn't it?) is very important.

We've not gotten to this step before.

We have to make it loud and clear that it's not free speech. First off, he gets paid to do it, and we refuse to pay him; while secondly the airwaves are borrowed from us, the people.

[oddjob]

i just see any negative response to doonsbury as more of the "how dare you quote us, that's soooo unfair" kind of argument.

I'm not disagreeing. I was making an observation about how Trudeau was delivering his comic, not making a criticism. (Since I didn't offer clear support and the word "brutal" is often taken as a critical comment I see how I could have looked like I was being critical, but that wasn't my intent & I apologize for not being more clear about that. Bluntly & brutally true is not a wrong response with this topic.)

[kathy a.]

not for a second did i think you were being critical of trudeau, oddjob. ;) i'm looking forward to the entire series.

it's such an interesting contrast, isn't it? trudeau just sums up the news. whereas limbaugh tells complete and utterly hateful lies -- about a particular individual, and about the situation with covering contraceptives, and along the way also trashes all women who have ever used contraceptives -- and there he and his defenders are, whining when sponsors pull advertising because this is not what they stand for.

[nancy]

The line between free speech and hate speech seems to have been *allowed* to be crossed on air and overlooked by the toothless FCC long ago, as far as I'm concerned. Rush can stand on a box on a crowded corner and spew interminably with a big honkin' megaphone, but once on the publicly-financed airwaves, his words should bring our laws to that control-booth door that's owned by Clear Channel. I'm no lawyer but when I read the definition of hate speech, I'm seeing Rush.

Meanwhile the pusillanimous free press gets all bothered by Trudeau pointing out the crazy and obvious.

Glad to see the doctor-patient relationship finally getting more attention. And might there be an equal protection problem built into all these mandates -- as in half-the population potentially loses its HIPAA protections?

Another day, another fight. Professor Driftglass saves this one as he often does.

[kathy a.]

excellent link, nancy, on the doctor-patient relationship.

still plowing through the other one, but thanks.

[nancy]

kathy -- I know -- Drifty is long...but he returns to the problem we liberals never seem able to solve. Let a bully into the front room and he/she's going to stay, have a glorious good time, make a mess and up the ante for the next visit. Then we take the high road in response and 'false equivalence' once again becomes the default lament of the reasonable punditry.

Do check the Boss Tweed references at the end of the post in his update. Hey. It was the visuals -- those devastating political cartoons that were threatening serious damage to the Boss who knew that readers were mostly illiterate, but they could understand a penny sketch. Which is what nasty Breitbart, may he rest in peace, exploited. Words, words, words. Meh. But manipulated visuals are so perfect for the righteously and happily-ever-after angry. Forevermore.