The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

What is going on in this climate of going after women, just because you disagree with them politically? Begrudging them their dignity and even their basic respectability just because you disagree with their political positions?

Maureen O'Dowd has had it!

Quoting from this link (Have You No Shame, Rush?):

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/opinion/sunday/dowd-have-you-no-shame-rush.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

AS a woman who has been viciously slashed by Rush Limbaugh, I can tell you, it’s no fun.

At first you think, if he objects to the substance of what you’re saying, why can’t he just object to the substance of what you’re saying? Why go after you in the most personal and humiliating way?

Then, once you accept the fact that he has become the puppet master of the Republican Party by stirring bloodlust (earning enough to bribe Elton John to play at his fourth wedding), you still cringe at the thought that your mom might hear the ugly things he said.

Now he’s brutalizing a poised, wholesome-looking 30-year-old Georgetown law student as a “slut,” “a prostitute” and “round-heeled” simply for testifying to lawmakers about wanting the school to amend its health insurance to cover contraception....

OK, what do you all think has happened? What has caused not just Rush Limbaugh, but many of us, to act like barbarians with dirty fingernails?

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

I disagree with his statement which was also on the news. In my opinion, this was too harsh and too inflammatory of a statement to make in public or private.

But Rush has always referred to women as "Femi-Nazi's," to HUGE approval.

What's so different now?

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

1st -- posts like this & articles like Dowd's would be more inclusive if there was a consistency by the left in their outrage -- Bill Maher is a sad example of the male species -- he in intolerant of Christianity & women -- the way he described Sarah Palin goes far beyong what Rush did yet all you heard from the left was crickets...

had you included Maher & that Ed Show cat in your post, it would be deemed by me as balanced -- you chose not to -- that's telling imo

i agree with the logic behind Rush's main argument yet disapprove of what he said

Fluke is a pawn -- this issue has NOTHING to do with women's health -- it's all about getting Obama elected -- if Fluke can afford Georgetown, she's not hurting -- or @ least won't be once she graduates -- if she has time during law school to fly x-country to appear on numerous shows, she has time to hit up Planned Parenthood for FREE birth control

my hunch is Rush let his emotions get to him over the absurdity of this whole debate -- he apologized -- can we not forgive?!

or do we only accept apologies from the left? (e.g., the Ed Show host)

incorrect -- he uses the term to characterize feminists, not all women -- most women have sense & are not feminists

Why is it OK to refer to women as Femi-Nazi's, then?

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

i personally do not have a big problem with that term tho it is shock-jock hyperbole & not the way i would frame the group

again, it is not "women" that are called that but feminists -- do you not understand the difference? -- if you claim words matter (& i agree they do) then choose yours more carefully please

My point is that calling women (even Feminist women) Femi-Nazi's robs people with whom he disagrees of their dignity and is an "Ad Womanem" attack. Yet for decades people have cheered this barbarian on! The assumption is that Feminists deserve to be controlled and regarded with contempt (Nazi). I merely suggest that the moment that he referred to an ordinary, not particularly feminist woman as a "slut" was inevitable, because Rush has been practicing Ad Womanem attacks for decades, and good Christians have cheered him on. You people know who you are, but I have attended church with these people for decades. They never saw anything wrong with calling (feminist) women femi-nazi's, either.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

Assured -- you are not listening & are too quick to type your responses, ignoring my points

i tend to avoid Rsuh & other talk radio hosts opting instead for sermons -- it's a much better use of my time -- occassionally i listen to talk radio as a change of pace but it's the exception -- i would encourage you to do likewise

Fluke is a known activist & fits my idea of a feminist -- she's a far cry from some random, girl next door innocent -- nevertheless, she didn't deserve Rush's attack

start complaining about Bill Maher & i'll see your views as coming from a person w/o blinders

your leftist rants grow wearisome to me because you do not present both sides &, more importantly, you refrain from posting on doctrinal issues -- hence, you keep me @ a distance -- i don't appreciate that

Jesus did not rail against the Romans...if that's your shtick then have @ it -- but i'm tired of walking that path with you

Same here. The only time I know what Rush Limbaugh is saying is when outraged leftists tell me. almost the same for Pat Robertson, although I started to hear so much about him in some other forums that I tuned in just to see what all the fuss was about.

_________________
Not all those who wander are lost.

Limbaugh's ad womenem (like the term!) attacks are deplorable.

But if you're going to condemn him (rightfully), you've got to condemn in at least equal terms Bill Maher and the other liberals who throw the same thing — and worse (using words I wouldn't even type) — at conservative female political figures.

If it's wrong, it's wrong in both directions. But it's perhaps even more wrong coming out of the mouths of 'feminists' like Maher.

The poll seems to have already been closed, so I could not vote. If I had been able to vote, I would have voted "I Disapprove of Rush Limbaugh's Remarks". I think these kinds of remarks are ALWAYS out of line regardless of who said it, which party to which the speak belongs, and regardless of what has already been said by the other side. It is because these kinds of statements are too often made by Rush that I cannot stand to listen to him.

That being said, I can't help but notice the hypocrisy of those on the left who are so infuriated by the statement made by Rush (as they should be), but could not care less about statements that are as bad or worse than anything said by Rush directed against conservative women like Sara Palin when they are made by those they support. Even the article you chose to quote here demonstrates a bias that shows the outrage is based on nothing more than the political views represented by Rush and not the words (as inappropriate as they were) that were said. How else does one interpret this statement "Then, once you accept the fact that [Rush] has become the puppet master of the Republican Party by stirring bloodlust." Clearly the author of the article you presented isn't interested in dealing with the issue in regards to what Rush said but rather is simply wanting to use this issue a spring board to launch an attack against the entire Republican party.

Now I am able to vote.

No one is defending Bill Maher (although I certainly agree with his politics - you knew that).

But the problem with going after WOMEN, specifically is that this is the tactic of a bully - going after someone who is already vulnerable (women are known as "The Weaker Sex for a reason). It is the fact that the last taboo - publically insulting a "lady," has been violated. IOW, the gloves are off, now.

This is not our finest moment, fellow Christians (because people lump all of us together)!

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

What is sad is that you do not seem to realize that "the gloves" have been off for years when we consider the words of liberal spokesmen spoken against the women in the conservative movement; it is not something that has happened "NOW," it is only something that has NOW offended the sensitivities of liberals.