“A Big Mashed-Up Bag of Meat with Lipstick on It”

Brazen misogyny is alive and thriving at MSNBC, and as usual, Keith Olbermann is serving it up with his signature sneering contempt for women.  While honoring conservative author Michelle Malkin with the “Worst Person in the World” award, the frothing commentator ranted on Tuesday that without her “total mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk, fascistic hatred,” Malkin would “just be a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.”

A big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.

Attacks like these are designed to dehumanize the target by casting her out of her very gender, rendering her less than woman, indistinguishable from a “bag of meat” were it not for the facade of womanhood she paints on with her lipstick each morning. Makeup is deemed the only thing that sets her apart from an inanimate sack of undifferentiated flesh.

Compare Olbermann’s malicious vitriol to the “Bush in a skirt” line used repeatedly to slur Sarah Palin.  “Bush” and “a bag of meat” are essentially interchangeable in the hateful minds of those attacking Palin and Malkin.  And a skirt, like lipstick, confers only the trappings of femininity to the wearer, not authentic womanhood.  The target is portrayed an “it” masquerading as female.

Olbermann’s vile attempt to reduce Malkin to a bag of faux feminine parts was only the latest episode in a career riddled with examples of rank misogyny.  Among the highlights:

Malkin responded to Olbermann’s latest diatribe with thick skin and a sense of humor:

In case you were wondering what kind of lipstick we big mashed up bags of meat wear, I prefer M.A.C. Lustreglass in Ornamental or Lipglass in Spite. Because nothing goes better with fascistic hatred!

Ridicule is a powerful weapon, but mockery alone won’t force Olbermann into the on-air retraction and apology Michelle Malkin deserves.  Here are the email addresses for MSNBC Viewer Services, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and MSNBC president Phil Griffin.  You know what to do.

viewerservices@msnbc.com
countdown@msnbc.com
phil.griffin@msnbc.com

Update: Hot Air, Stacy McCain, AOL News, and Protein Wisdom link.  Thanks, guys.

October 14, 2009 · Filed Under Liberal Absurdity, Misogyny

27 Comments 

Hollywood Royalty and the Embrace of the Vampire Polanski

The reaction of Hollywood’s narcissistic bubble-dwellers to the arrest of Roman Polanski underscores the stark divide between moral relativists willing to romanticize the degeneracy of an artist and the rest of us. The capacity of these entertainment and media industry elites to justify, excuse, and minimize Polanski’s cowardly sexual violation of a vulnerable child is breathtakingly loathsome.

“It was something else but i don’t believe it was rape-rape,” insisted Whoopi Goldberg.

“Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion,” explained Harvey Weinstein, proud signatory of the Free Roman Polanski petition.

“We stand by him and await his release and his next masterpiece,” offered Debra Winger in a statement that criticized authorities for using “minor technicalities” to cause the suffering of the whole art world.

Polanski’s defenders plunged themselves headfirst into the sand, ignoring the plea transcript, refusing to consider his own flippant assessment of public reaction to his crime:

If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!

Among those who have signed the “Free Roman” petition, the sexual predator is the victim, and the innocence and security of a single child stolen in an act of forcible sodomy is a price worth paying for the creation of art. They are unwilling to see Polanski any other way because it would challenge their insular, elite beliefs about the world:

Considered a genius, unencumbered by morality and the complete opposite of what Americans have long considered the ideal, Polanski challenges society in real life the way Dracula challenges Victorianism in Stoker’s novel. Were they better read, they would perhaps see Polanski not as the Gary Oldman version of Dracula, a tortured loved-starved creature punished by a hostile and puritanical God, but as I see Polanski. He is like the Don Juan of Tirso de Molina’s The Trickster of Seville, sinister, spiteful and ultimately damned. But to see that in Polanski is to look past the European trappings and artistic prestige, and to see the man as equal to all others and thus worthy to be judged. This is a step these self-appointed elites cannot take, lest they admit they too can be judged by their true equals, their fellow Americans.

We have our own royalty in America, the celebrities we build up and tear down as part of our entertainment industry. But there is something seductive in the royalty of Old Europe, the idea that a person could be considered worth more than another and never really have to prove it. We all have such pretensions if we admit it, and the best of us cast off this burden to meet the world and all in it as equals, and rise and fall according to our abilities, our sweat, and our blood. Polanski represents for some the easier way, the illusion of class and worth, the comforting lie of elitism. For those who embrace that outlook there is no action too wicked to defend if it props up the lie and reinforces the artificial distinctions between us.

Especially if it happens to those of us they consider beneath them.

Read the complete Dracula analogy in the Red Alerts piece, Elitism, Europhilia, and Roman Polanski.

Big Hollywood has the names of every morally bankrupt Polanski supporter who signed the “Free Roman” petition, as well as a counter-petition for those in the entertainment industry who believe Polanski should be held accountable for his crime.

In addition, The New Agenda has organized a boycott of all films the pro-Polanski “signatories have directed, produced, acted in or otherwise participated.” A Jail Polanski Petition is available on The New Agenda home page.

Have Hollywood elites finally alienated those who line their pocketbooks?

October 1, 2009 · Filed Under Celebrities, Liberal Absurdity, Misogyny

5 Comments 

An Insulting Question and a Pointed Reply

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked the following question by a Congolese student during a town hall event in Kinshasa yesterday:

Mrs Clinton, we’ve all heard about the Chinese contracts in this country. The interference is from the World Bank against this contract. What does Mr. Clinton think through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton and what does Mr. Mutombo think on this situation? Thank you very much

Responding to what turned out to be an unfortunate mistranslation of the student’s question, our nation’s lead diplomat replied:

You want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not the secretary of state, I am. You ask my opinion I will tell you my opinion, I’m not going to channel my husband.

Watch the exchange here:

YouTube Preview Image

These remarks were followed almost immediately by a blogospheric uproar about Clinton’s “unprofessional” “temper tantrum.”  But I’ve watched the video more than once and I don’t see a “hissy fit” or “meltdown.” I see the highest ranking cabinet member demanding respect for her office and expertise.

The question, as translated, was entirely inappropriate and while the answer was not conventional enough for some armchair diplomats to swallow, it was not out of line.  If she had submissively accepted the insult or politely laughed it off, the same critics attacking her for “showing her true colors” wouldn’t be praising her for her tact, they’d be calling her an impotent pushover lacking the political chops to emerge from beneath Bill Clinton’s shadow.

Like it or not, Hillary Clinton is a cabinet member.  She is no longer the first lady and should not be expected to play that role.

And if you want to know what my husband thinks about all this, you can ask him yourself.

August 11, 2009 · Filed Under Hillary Clinton, Misogyny, The Blogosphere

5 Comments 

Desire and Yearning, Burger King Style

I present you with reason number 247 to stay away from Burger King:

Others have noted that the woman in this ad resembles a blowup doll, but the problem with the image goes beyond the objectification of a woman by reducing her to a single orifice.  More disturbing is the juxtaposition of blatantly sexual ad copy with a wide-eyed woman who looks utterly horrified at the “Seven Incher” headed toward her open mouth. That’s not the look of a woman who’s happy to be there.

If you can’t quite make out the ad copy, here’s what it says:

Fill your desire for something long, juicy and flame-grilled with the NEW BK SUPER SEVEN INCHER.  Yearn for more after you taste the mind-blowing burger that comes with a single beef patty, topped with American cheese, crispy onions and the A.1. Thick & Hearty Steak Sauce.

Desire? Yearning? I’m not seeing it.

In addition, there’s the main ad copy: It’ll Blow Your Mind Away.  Not, it’ll blow you away, but it’ll blow your mind away when it’s shoved down your throat and chokes out the back of your skull.  This ad isn’t merely sexually suggestive; it’s evocative of sexual violence.

I’m not opposed to sexual innuendo in advertising, especially if the ad campaign is unlikely to be seen by children.  Depictions of sex don’t make something sexist. But I like my sexual imagery to portray all parties, men, women, and phallic sandwiches, as if they are fully enjoying themselves.  This ad doesn’t come close to cutting it.

Apparently Burger King didn’t learn from the widespread outrage and boycotts following their Spongebob/Sir Mix-A-Lot mash up.  Please let them know that their latest ad campaign isn’t an improvement:

Burger King Corporation
5505 Blue Lagoon Dr.
Miami, FL 33126
Consumer Relations (305) 378-3535, M-F, 9am–5pm EST
Investor Relations: investor@whopper.com

June 24, 2009 · Filed Under Misogyny

7 Comments 

And Speaking of Liberal Bigotry …

Kathryn Jean Lopez announced this week she is stepping aside as editor of National Review Online.

I’ll still be contributing to NRO with ideas and content, and if you are an author or reader you might not notice much of a change. I’ll probably still be bugging you for pieces if you’re an author and I’ll still be traffic-copping the Corner. But I will be moving my primary base of operation in the fall from New York to D.C., and will no longer honcho NRO on a day-by-day basis.

Unable to contain their nasty barbs for long, two liberal bloggers offered prime examples of the assumption that liberalism offers a sure-fire defense against accusations of bigotry.

Exhibit A: The Ethnic Slur

In response to K-Lo’s statement that she will “no longer honcho NRO on a day-by-day basis,” Firedoglake blogger TBogg wrote:

Since “honcho” is not a verb, we consulted the Urban Dictionary to see what crazee ways kidz are using “honcho” these days, but to no avail. We did find “hincho“:

a person of latin american descent with poor taste in fashion, music and speaks with a heavy accent

….so, we’re thinking typo.

Exhibit B: The Sexist Photo Manipulation

The Sadly, No blog is keeping feminism alive by portraying Lopez as an out of work prostitute:

What strength and courage it must take to use gender and ethnicity to attack your ideological foes.  Are you as blown away as I am?

Hat tip: Ann Athouse

June 18, 2009 · Filed Under Liberal Absurdity, Misogyny, The Blogosphere, Women

2 Comments 

David Letterman and the Culture of Liberal Entitlement

David Letterman feels entitled.

He’s entitled to use spew crude, sexually degrading invective to portray a teenage girl as a sexual object.

Maybe you saw it on one of the highlight reels, one awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game. During the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.

The hardest part of her visit [to New York] was keeping Eliot Spitzer away from her daughter

He’s entitled to use a class and gender based slur to demean the most popular sitting governor in the United States.

[Sarah Palin] bought makeup from Bloomingdale’s to update her “slutty flight attendant” look

And he’s entitled to smugly repeat his rank insults while delivering a non-apology to Sarah Palin in painstakingly choreographed deadpan, milking each sexist remark one more time to the delight of a fawning audience.

What gives Dave Letterman license to repeatedly troll the gutter without ever dirtying his Worldwide Pants?

Liberalism.

Didn’t you realize?  He can’t be sexist, he’s a liberal.  He’s no misogynist – he votes Democrat.  Like all liberals, Dave will tell you he loves women.  He respects them.  Isn’t he pro-choice?  Isn’t he sufficiently appalled by breast cancer? Doesn’t he joke all the time about those brutish southerners who beat their wives with Confederate flags? Haven’t you heard?  He’s a card carrying liberal. Liberal, I tell you.  Liberal!

Among his liberal buddies, Letterman can get away with pretending that he intended to insult Sarah Palin’s 18-year-old daughter Bristol, not her younger child Willow.  But Willow was at the ballgame, Bristol was thousands of miles away, and Letterman is the skeevy guy in dress shoes and a tan trench coat who bares it all to a 14-year-old girl on the subway, then swears to the cops, “But I thought she was 18,” as he’s being hauled off to jail.

“Look at my record,” Dave told his audience as he clarified his remarks about Willow.  What he means is he’s on record as being liberal.  He knows the secret handshake and everything!  And as we all know, liberal men are inherently sensitive to sexism in our society.

You see, liberal identity is a bubble that protects those inside from accusations of sexism, racism, and other forms of bigotry. It’s considered a nearly unassailable defense against the indefensible.  It’s a free pass, a blind eye, and a Get Out of Jail Free card all rolled into one.

Racially and sexually charged jabs are still acceptable in liberal circles because it’s mutually acknowledged that they know better.  It’s not like they’re conservatives – you know, the real sexists – so they can say and do as they please without inviting the same consequences a conservative would incur.

And if the target is a conservative woman, well, even better because there’s no chance those pesky feminists will get their panties in a collective bunch.  Melissa Clouthier explains why:

Women on the Right, are not considered women. Period. They are considered gender traitors. There simply can be no honest disagreement. This is thought policing and fascistic thinking at it’s worst.

David Letterman is also no stranger to bigoted, elitist one-liners about the Palin family’s middle class roots, and by extension, all people of average means.  In addition to the “slutty flight attendant” slur, Michelle Malkin dug up the following examples of Letterman’s oh so enlightened commentary about Sarah Palin:

“You know, she reminds me, she looks like the flight attendant who won’t give you a second can of Pepsi. No, you’ve had enough. We’re landing. Looks like the waitress at the coffee shop who draws a little smiley face on your check. Have a nice day.”

“She looks like the dip sample lady at Safeway. She looks like the nurse who weighs you and then makes you sit alone in your underwear for 20 minutes. She looks like the Olive Garden hostess who says, ‘I’m sorry, your table isn’t ready yet.” She looks like infomercial lady who says she made $64,000 a month flipping condos.”

“[S]he looks like the lady at the bakery who yells out ‘44! 45!’ She looks like a real estate agent whose picture you see on the bus stop bench. That’s who she looks like. She looks like the lady who has a chain of cupcake stores…”

But don’t forget, liberalism absolves Dave from responsibility for the classism he perpetuates when he derides Sarah Palin by comparing her to working class people.  Everyone knows liberals are sensitive and open-minded, and that entitles him to say what he wants without ever expecting to be raked over the coals.

As many writers have observed, the feminist silence on Letterman’s sexually inappropriate remarks about Sarah and Willow Palin is predictably deafening.  The unwritten rule is that feminism stands for liberal women – authentic women – not conservative women who are, by virtue of their conservatism, anti-woman.

The National Organization for Women (NOW) and Ms. Magazine both declined to send representatives to be interviewed for an On The Record segment about Letterman’s sexually derogatory treatment of the governor and her daughter.  Instead, NOW opted to release a statement as critical of conservatives as it was of Dave Letterman.

NOW hopes that all the conservatives who are fired up about sexism in the media lately will join us in calling out sexism when it is directed at women who aren’t professed conservatives.”

NOW also managed to miss the real thrust of Letterman’s remarks about Sarah Palin:

Letterman also joked about what he called Palin’s “slutty flight attendant look” — yet another example of how the media love to focus on a woman politician’s appearance, especially as it relates to her sexual appeal to men.

Yes, the media focus on Sarah Palin’s appearance often delves into sexist territory.  But what about the use of the word “slutty,” NOW?  Slutty doesn’t speak to “her sexual appeal to men.” It reinforces the belief that by being attractive and fertile, Sarah Palin invites attacks on her virtue as a woman.  It says, you can’t be a beautiful woman, a good wife, a loving mother, and a career politician.  Pick one.

The response that NOW should have given was instead delivered by a fledgling feminist organization called The New Agenda.

“Letterman’s apology talk last night was cheap,” said The New Agenda co-founder and President Amy Siskind. “True contrition would not invite the Palin’s on his show after publicly humiliating them and their 14-year old daughter. If Letterman’s apology is authentic, he should show it by devoting part of his show to address the national crisis of the sexualization of our teenage daughters.”

The New Agenda was also happy to publish my recent piece on Playboy’s conservative rape fantasy article.

Feminists, that is how it’s done.

Amy Siskind, founder of The New Agenda, took her message to The Huffington Post yesterday in a piece called, “Sexism Against Conservative Women Is Still Sexism.”  Think it would be hard to argue with that simple concept?  You’d be wrong.  Here’s a tiny selection of what the HuffPo commenters had to say about Sarah Palin and sexism:

propitiousmoment: ” She wants to use her sexuality to advance her agenda … might I say, the classic definition of a bimbo.”

andyboy: “To defend a woman from a sexist attack simply because she is a woman is actually the essence of sexism.”

voltaireinexile: “She played the pretty-sexy-mama card all along, undermining what many women have fought so hard against –the objectification of women”

arnray: “Palin and the rest use their sexuality to numb the senses of the dullards and then cry foul when someone throws it back at them.”

Gainsbourg69: “When a woman wants to be considered more than just a sex object she should take steps necessary to avoid being labeled a sex object. Simple.”

Wilson201: “Palin marginalizes her own opinions by dressing the way she does just as Prejeans opinion is by posing barely clothed. If they wish to be taken seriously, then they should dress and behave properly.

Amy’s piece also attracted a host of comments insisting there’s nothing sexist about calling Palin a “slutty flight attendant” if the shoe fits.  Right.  Palin was practically begging for Dave’s insults just like Michelle Malkin invited the Playboy rape fantasy.  Is it any wonder where conservative writers like Kathleen Parker, trying to curry favor with the media elite, pick up ideas like this:

I also think it’s out of line for a woman to sexualize her candidacy, which Palin did. Just ask Rich Lowry, who wrote that he had to sit up a little straighter when she winked during the vp debate. So, maybe when you play the flirt and invite males to see starbursts bouncing off the walls (Lowry again), then maybe you invite the sexual punchline.

It’s clear that sexually demeaning the women with whom we disagree is more mainstream than ever.  It’s a cancer that’s metastasized throughout media, politics, and entertainment, rubber stamped by the liberal sentiment that calling oneself a feminist makes it so.  And conservative women aren’t the only targets.  Just ask Hillary Clinton, who discovered liberal-approved sexism firsthand during her campaign for the Democratic nomination.

Sexism, racism, and all the other -isms aren’t any more acceptable if you happen to dislike or disagree with the target.  This shouldn’t need to be said.  And it doesn’t matter if you’re a comedian or a liberal.  Sexism always matters.  And no political affiliation gives you license to hurl sexually inappropriate insults at women and girls without fear of consequences.

June 12, 2009 · Filed Under Liberal Absurdity, Misogyny, Sarah Palin, Women

20 Comments 

← Previous Page — Next Page →