Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:56:55 am
Adam Serwer, writing about Huslter Magazine's despicable portrayal of conservative S.E. Cupp, made a great observation:
Where conservatives look at the Hustler "parody" as indicative of liberal contempt for conservative women, feminists see a larger problem about how women are treated that affects everything from health insurance to how much you take home on your paycheck. To have condemned Limbaugh for his sexism in the same unconditional manner would have been a distraction, because the real problem isn't sexism, it's liberals. For feminists, sexism is the problem, period.
David Waldman put it like this:
Another way of putting it is that once again, liberals think we're all in this together, but conservatives say its all about me
The problem with this outlook among certain conservatives, aside from the fact that it's despicable hypocrisy, is that cheering or allowing sexism against progressive women is bound to encourage sexism against everyone, including conservative women. The kind of guys who lash out with sexist attacks against women for having liberal views are the kind of guys who will lash out with sexist attacks against conservative women for other reasons.
As an example, consider Dan Riehl's sexist attack on Joan Walsh, where he said:
I don't mind Joan Walsh getting low, but if she's going to open her mouth, wish she'd do something I might actually enjoy for once!
Riehl later justified his view by saying Joan Walsh deserves to have creepy sexual things said about her because she says stuff that Riehl disagrees with:
Joan Walsh owes an apology, she isn't entitled to one. And she owes too many more than this one for me to care. Don't like it? #SuckIt
This, of course, is the "logic" of sexism. Or maybe worse, as Tommy Christopher points out:
...I would also add that there is an extra dimension to attacks like Riehl's, and Flynt's attack on S.E. Cupp, and the attacks by Playboy Magazine on conservative women that landed me on this site in the first place. The combination of a sexual 'fantasy' with unmasked hostility carries with it an inherent lack of consent that carries these attacks beyond objectification, beyond dehumanization, and into violation.
Tommy Christopher reached out to Breitbart.com to comment on the despicable behavior of their blogger. The site, however, like typical conservative tribalists who don't care about women if those women commit the "sin" of being liberal, refused to respond. In fact, aside from a condemnation from Larry O'Connor and mild encouragement to "just stop" from Mike Flynn, the site's editors refused to say anything remotely critical of Riehl's comments.
And guess what? Encouraged by the silence of Breitbart.com, Riehl went on to make a sexist comment to a conservative woman who criticized him for his comments! Who would have thought that just because he makes sexist comments to women for being liberal, he'd also make sexist comments to other women for having the audacity to criticize him? Oh, that's right, everybody. Here's what he said:
guess a H J is out of the question 2 RT @aprildgregory: wht the Hell kind of man R U? Telling a woman 2 suck U is utterly detestable.
— DanRiehl (@DanRiehl) May 27, 2012
So there you have it. Breitbart.com encourages sexist attacks via tacit consent, and this leads to sexist attacks against fellow conservatives. Even according to their own warped tribalistic code of ethics, they fail at life.