One week before I'm about to fly home to the States for a visit, and all I hear coming from that side of the Pond is Herman Cain, Herman Cain, Herman Cain.
Looks as though the Republicans really do have their very own Bubba.
When Politico broke the story a mere couple of weeks ago (although it seems like longer), my first thought was Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. I tweeted as much to the political blogger and satirist GottaLaff, and she agreed with me.
At first, there were stories of two separate allegations of sexual harassment, then three; finally, the fourth one talked. As this progressed, instead of Clarence and Anita, I thought more and more of Bill Clinton's woes, both during his campaign and his subsequent Presidency - Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones (who introduced the world to Ann Coulter) and, of course, Monica Lewinsky. But as my Facebook friend Maria McGowen rightly points out that the difference between Clinton and Cain is simply that Clinton's female prey were either willing participants (Flowers) or actually initiated the association (Lewinski). The jury's forever out on Jones. Cain's problems were the sort which no woman ever wants to encounter, either in her private life or at work. He foisted inappropriate behaviour, allegedly, on certain women who didn't seek such behaviour nor were they willing to respond in kind. They made accusations and he paid up for a peaceful mind.
As Michelle Goldberg, writing in The Daily Beast reiterates:-
Since these accusations started spilling out, Cain's response has been to deny, deny and deny again. Also of significance is his wife has not made any sort of appearance at all in his campaign, and, notably, not now, to stand by her man or even pejoratively reference this, unlike the current Secretary of Staten did when she was also the wife of an aspiring Presidential candidate almost twenty years ago.
Nuh-uuuuuuuuhhhh.
Herman Cain doesn't remember any of these women. Doesn't remember their faces. Doesn't remember the way he acted or the way they acted when he acted the way he acted.
Nope. Never happened.
Maybe he figures that if he says it didn't happen enough, like all lies (if it be one), it will eventually be accepted as the truth. Of course, his contingency plan is already in action: Blame the opposition. These are smear tactics - either the fault of "the Democratic machine" (as in, the opposite of "vast Rightwing conspiracy") ... or it's Rick Perry's fault.
Go figure.
Oh well, Perry used to be a Democrat.
What's been particularly surreal to watch is the Republican party, circling their wagons around theirpet Negro candidate, and tying themselves in excrutiating nots to uphold his innocence.
You see, at the end of the day, it's all the woman's fault; and that really is a step backwards in time. I know the GOP is in retro mode, and I know some Republican governors require rape victims to pay for their hospital rape kit, but this attitude reminds me of the way rape was handled in the 1970s.
I was in college then,in a town where the University hedged around the borders of townieville, in an institution where women on Grounds was still a new thing, so streets weren't so well lit nor dormitories so secure. There were rapes. Troublingly, there were many rapes which didn't get reported, primarily because of the attitude of the police. How was the woman dressed? Did she wear hot pants? Did she do anything to unconsiously entice the perp? Was she a virgin? Always, always it was meant to be the woman's fault. Reporting a rape was an ordeal in proving a woman's innocence.
Arguably, the worst offender was, as per usual, Rush Limbaugh, who did everything from intimating sexual innuendo with the pronunciation of Sharon Bialek's name to incorporating her into the tawdry and disgusting Penn State pedophile scandal.
If you can stomach it, here's Limbaugh's performance:-
And, as with Limbaugh's unrelenting and disrespectful snark towards the First Lady, whereby it's never enough to revile the mother without involving a child, Limbaugh, lately, has taken to rubbishing Sharon Bialek's son, who encouraged her to make her story public.
Herman Cain's woes aside, women seem to be getting short shrift lately - rather, for awhile, I'd say. On one end of the scale, you have deadbeats like Joe Walsh ranting at his constituents and, in particular, a female constituent, who's subjected to him screaming in her face; at the other end of the spectrum on the Right, you have various organisations wanting to prohibit a woman's right to choose and outlaw any attempt she might make in family planning. Birth control would be outlawed. Abortion would be murder. A zygote would have more rights than the owner of uterus in which is was lodged.
And, finally, there's the story sourced in Heilemann and Halperin's Game Change, the one about 2008 Presidential candidate and war hero, John McCain, referring to his wife as a "cunt."
Ah well ... Thank goodness for the Democrats and the Left. Pro-choice, responsible birth control, women's rights.
But then, the Left has given us this:-
Under the tag line "A Slut and Battery," Keith Olberman remarks that Paris Hilton's had worse in her face. That's the same Keith Olbermann, who also said this:-
That's a man who, not only retweeted the names and links to Julian Assange's alleged rape victims, but also sat with fellow liberal misogynist, Michael Moore, having a fit of shits and giggles over how the Assange rape claims and victims were hooey. So much grief from real rape victims and women in general did Olbermann receive on Twitter, that - like the moral coward he is - he shut his account down temporarily.
Or how about this other well-known liberal talk show host, Ed Schultz:-
To his credit, Schultz gave a much-chastened and heartfelt apology on air to Ingraham before he was suspended for a week, whilst Olbermann hypocritically tweeted that you can call a woman a liar, attack her policies, but you shouldn't call her a "slut." Well, Keith did.
In 2008, Hillary Clinton was accused by MSNBC's David Schuster of pimping out Chelsea. Nowhere did Hillary get harsher treatment than MSNBC. So negative were both Olbermann and Chris Matthews, that MSNBC removed them from anchor duties for elections and debates.
Bill Maher called her a cunt, whilst his Jocasta figure, Arianna Huffington, purred appreciatively, as she was consumed almost to madness with Hillary Derangement Syndrome.
Maher, himself, is probably the worst offender, when it comes to open misogynism. First, there was the "dumb twat" remark levelled at Sarah Palin. However, that was just HBO. Bill leaves the heavy stuff about Palin for his live stand-up. There, she gets called the full monty: a cunt.
"There's no other word to describe her," smirks Bill.
Well, sorry, there are several, and "cunt" doesn't even come close. I leave it to the Guardian blogger, Melissa McEwen to respond to Maher's hateful and hate-filled remark, a remark which, when used by a man to describe a woman (and even another man) is especially despicable, pejorative and ugly.
I would not only challenge Maher, I'd also challenge his good buddy, sparring partner and serial sexual harasser, Bill O'Reilly. I'd challenge the attitudes of Chris Matthews and Michael Moore, who have wives and daughters, of Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann and their hypocrisy.
I wonder how much of a woman problem the men of both political equations have, and I wonder if it's simply nothing more than fear.
Looks as though the Republicans really do have their very own Bubba.
When Politico broke the story a mere couple of weeks ago (although it seems like longer), my first thought was Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. I tweeted as much to the political blogger and satirist GottaLaff, and she agreed with me.
At first, there were stories of two separate allegations of sexual harassment, then three; finally, the fourth one talked. As this progressed, instead of Clarence and Anita, I thought more and more of Bill Clinton's woes, both during his campaign and his subsequent Presidency - Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones (who introduced the world to Ann Coulter) and, of course, Monica Lewinsky. But as my Facebook friend Maria McGowen rightly points out that the difference between Clinton and Cain is simply that Clinton's female prey were either willing participants (Flowers) or actually initiated the association (Lewinski). The jury's forever out on Jones. Cain's problems were the sort which no woman ever wants to encounter, either in her private life or at work. He foisted inappropriate behaviour, allegedly, on certain women who didn't seek such behaviour nor were they willing to respond in kind. They made accusations and he paid up for a peaceful mind.
As Michelle Goldberg, writing in The Daily Beast reiterates:-
Herman Cain is currently leading the Republican polls. If he wants to be treated as a serious candidate—something that’s not entirely clear, given his lack of a campaign staff in Iowa and New Hampshire—he’s going to be subjected to serious scrutiny. When a major presidential candidate has been accused of sexual harassment, and when his accusers have received financial settlements as a result of their complaints, that’s news. Indeed, that’s so obvious it seems absurd to have to write it. Just imagine, after all, how much decorousness we could expect from Fox if such a scandal were discovered in Obama’s past.
Since these accusations started spilling out, Cain's response has been to deny, deny and deny again. Also of significance is his wife has not made any sort of appearance at all in his campaign, and, notably, not now, to stand by her man or even pejoratively reference this, unlike the current Secretary of Staten did when she was also the wife of an aspiring Presidential candidate almost twenty years ago.
Nuh-uuuuuuuuhhhh.
Herman Cain doesn't remember any of these women. Doesn't remember their faces. Doesn't remember the way he acted or the way they acted when he acted the way he acted.
Nope. Never happened.
Maybe he figures that if he says it didn't happen enough, like all lies (if it be one), it will eventually be accepted as the truth. Of course, his contingency plan is already in action: Blame the opposition. These are smear tactics - either the fault of "the Democratic machine" (as in, the opposite of "vast Rightwing conspiracy") ... or it's Rick Perry's fault.
Go figure.
Oh well, Perry used to be a Democrat.
What's been particularly surreal to watch is the Republican party, circling their wagons around their
You see, at the end of the day, it's all the woman's fault; and that really is a step backwards in time. I know the GOP is in retro mode, and I know some Republican governors require rape victims to pay for their hospital rape kit, but this attitude reminds me of the way rape was handled in the 1970s.
I was in college then,in a town where the University hedged around the borders of townieville, in an institution where women on Grounds was still a new thing, so streets weren't so well lit nor dormitories so secure. There were rapes. Troublingly, there were many rapes which didn't get reported, primarily because of the attitude of the police. How was the woman dressed? Did she wear hot pants? Did she do anything to unconsiously entice the perp? Was she a virgin? Always, always it was meant to be the woman's fault. Reporting a rape was an ordeal in proving a woman's innocence.
Arguably, the worst offender was, as per usual, Rush Limbaugh, who did everything from intimating sexual innuendo with the pronunciation of Sharon Bialek's name to incorporating her into the tawdry and disgusting Penn State pedophile scandal.
If you can stomach it, here's Limbaugh's performance:-
And, as with Limbaugh's unrelenting and disrespectful snark towards the First Lady, whereby it's never enough to revile the mother without involving a child, Limbaugh, lately, has taken to rubbishing Sharon Bialek's son, who encouraged her to make her story public.
"You think Obama doesn't love hearing this?" Limbaugh said. "A 13-year-old tattle-tale. I mean, that is a brownshirt preview here. Exactly what big government types like."
Herman Cain's woes aside, women seem to be getting short shrift lately - rather, for awhile, I'd say. On one end of the scale, you have deadbeats like Joe Walsh ranting at his constituents and, in particular, a female constituent, who's subjected to him screaming in her face; at the other end of the spectrum on the Right, you have various organisations wanting to prohibit a woman's right to choose and outlaw any attempt she might make in family planning. Birth control would be outlawed. Abortion would be murder. A zygote would have more rights than the owner of uterus in which is was lodged.
And, finally, there's the story sourced in Heilemann and Halperin's Game Change, the one about 2008 Presidential candidate and war hero, John McCain, referring to his wife as a "cunt."
Ah well ... Thank goodness for the Democrats and the Left. Pro-choice, responsible birth control, women's rights.
But then, the Left has given us this:-
Under the tag line "A Slut and Battery," Keith Olberman remarks that Paris Hilton's had worse in her face. That's the same Keith Olbermann, who also said this:-
That's a man who, not only retweeted the names and links to Julian Assange's alleged rape victims, but also sat with fellow liberal misogynist, Michael Moore, having a fit of shits and giggles over how the Assange rape claims and victims were hooey. So much grief from real rape victims and women in general did Olbermann receive on Twitter, that - like the moral coward he is - he shut his account down temporarily.
Or how about this other well-known liberal talk show host, Ed Schultz:-
To his credit, Schultz gave a much-chastened and heartfelt apology on air to Ingraham before he was suspended for a week, whilst Olbermann hypocritically tweeted that you can call a woman a liar, attack her policies, but you shouldn't call her a "slut." Well, Keith did.
In 2008, Hillary Clinton was accused by MSNBC's David Schuster of pimping out Chelsea. Nowhere did Hillary get harsher treatment than MSNBC. So negative were both Olbermann and Chris Matthews, that MSNBC removed them from anchor duties for elections and debates.
Bill Maher called her a cunt, whilst his Jocasta figure, Arianna Huffington, purred appreciatively, as she was consumed almost to madness with Hillary Derangement Syndrome.
Maher, himself, is probably the worst offender, when it comes to open misogynism. First, there was the "dumb twat" remark levelled at Sarah Palin. However, that was just HBO. Bill leaves the heavy stuff about Palin for his live stand-up. There, she gets called the full monty: a cunt.
"There's no other word to describe her," smirks Bill.
Well, sorry, there are several, and "cunt" doesn't even come close. I leave it to the Guardian blogger, Melissa McEwen to respond to Maher's hateful and hate-filled remark, a remark which, when used by a man to describe a woman (and even another man) is especially despicable, pejorative and ugly.
Maher's certainly not the only public humorist who pulls the same shtick, but one of of the particulars about the frame of his comedy is that he's a rational, thoughtful, intellectual guy. And he quite observably is smart enough to understand how institutionalized prejudices like sexism work, but chooses to utilize perpetuating language anyway.
Someone as clever as Maher cannot be confused about why it's problematic for a girl to be born into a world in which a powerful woman can be demeaned as a twat, bimbo, and cunt by people who disagree with her.
Someone as clever as Maher cannot be mystified by the concept that a misogynist slur against an individual works specifically and only because institutionalized sexism is directed against the collective; its power comes from the narrative that women, as a whole, are less than.
Someone as clever as Maher cannot be bewildered by the fact that calling Palin a cunt does not happen in a void, but in a culture that continues to marginalize women's voices across the political spectrum.
Someone as clever as Maher cannot be ignorant about what he's doing when he calls a woman (or a man) a twat or a cunt: If you're turning a (typically) female body part into a slur to insult someone, the implication is necessarily that twats/cunts are bad, nasty, less than, in some way something that a person wouldn't want to be or be associated with. That's how insults work. When twat/cunt is used as a slur, it is dependent on construing a (typically) female body part negatively—and it thus inexorably insults women in the process.
Someone as clever as Maher, who writes and talks for a living, also probably has other words in his vocabulary that he could use, if he needs to express his contempt for Sarah Palin—words that aren't inherently misogynistic, words that don't demean other women in the process of discussing a particular woman.
I challenge him to use those words, and prove to us he's actually as smart a guy as he thinks he is.
I would not only challenge Maher, I'd also challenge his good buddy, sparring partner and serial sexual harasser, Bill O'Reilly. I'd challenge the attitudes of Chris Matthews and Michael Moore, who have wives and daughters, of Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann and their hypocrisy.
I wonder how much of a woman problem the men of both political equations have, and I wonder if it's simply nothing more than fear.
No comments:
Post a Comment