Two weeks ago, right-wing demagogue Rush Limbaugh called law-student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute.” Why? Because she was pushing for legislation that requires health care companies to provide coverage for birth control.
Rush’s reasons: "Well, what would you call someone who wants us to pay for her to have sex? What would you call that woman? You'd call 'em a slut, a prostitute or whatever."
When I first considered blogging about this, I wondered if it was really worth talking about. The event has garnered a lot of news and internet coverage, and Rush’s general popularity, since then, has been heading for the hills. And his comments are, after all, just so much prattling and bandying of words. Words come cheap, in politics, and don’t mean much—and are often used to conceal meanings rather than reveal them. Because this happened on a radio show with national coverage, however, and because Limbaugh is a public figure who’s gotten away with spouting rhetoric like this for years, I decided I needed to throw in my voice.
&
I read a book called SLUT! in one of my Feminist Studies classes in college. It was a 350 page deliberation on the current use of the word and its psychological repercussions.
Here’s my 40 word summary:
Though the word ‘slut’ is usually a tag given to females who have, or appear to have, promiscuous sex (where promiscuity is culturally defined and culturally relative), it is also a tool for demeaning the words of any outspoken woman.
It isn’t surprising to me, therefore, that Rush would attack a women’s rights advocate with the word ‘slut.’ Given his track record of vilification, racism, and misogyny, it was actually the predictable move. What really takes the cake, though, is his conflation of the words ‘slut’ and ‘prostitute’—which mean entirely different things. All they have in common is that they’re related to sex, have implicit negative connotations, and refer, most of the time, to people with two X chromosomes.
&
I don’t intend to counter Rush Limbaugh’s arguments through playing by his rules. There's a famous essay from the Feminist and Civil Rights movements in the seventies, called, “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House.” What Audre Lorde meant, when she wrote this, was that you can’t undermine a system of oppression using the same ideology as that system of oppression.
For that reason, I don’t even want to talk about Sandra Fluke’s personal sexual activities. That was Rush’s tactic of diverting attention from the issue at hand.
The issue at hand: I don’t understand why contraception isn’t mandatorily covered by health care companies. It’s one of the most essential, quotidian ways that women control their lives and health.
Rush said, “I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities.”
Wait! I have to stop making my argument! The times are too “serious” and “political” to be talking about women’s rights!
Who are these “American citizens” that Rush is referencing, who don’t use any form of birth control? I’d like to meet them, and ask them about their quality of life.
&
I’ve never understood why Rush Limbaugh’s show has run for so long. He’s one of those martinets who tell listeners how to think, no wiggle room left to disagree. Do his listeners want to be told how to think? No leeway to develop their own opinions? Opinions are glorious things, people—especially informed ones. Expressing them is one of our greatest liberties: a freedom that Rush enjoys to the max, but appears to grudge others.
I’m happy to announce that, since this incident, Rush has lost the majority of his corporate sponsors and advertisers. He’s had to end his show, multiple times, with dead air.
53% percent of voters, in a recent poll, think he should be fired. I agree.
&
I know I’ve been called “bitch” a few times—it’s a rare woman who escapes that stigma entirely. Have I been labeled (libeled) a “slut”? I’m not sure. I tend to forget insults like that, because they have absolutely no relevance to the way I live my life.
If I was called a “slut” by Rush Limbaugh, though, I might, in a circular way, feel a bit proud—because the only method he had to refute my argument was to attack my sexual practices. What a petty sort of desperation!
Let’s hope this incident was his swansong—his dying gasp of hate-sludge. If not, my only advice to people who want to ignore his haranguing, but can’t, is:
Pay attention to the words! Look at what they’re actually saying!
His imprecision with language is the key to his defeat!
Well said! There are a LOT of ways to counter someone like Rush Limbaugh. Unfortunately, fact and logic don't really work because they either do not experience fact or logic like the majority of us, or they choose not to acknowledge it for the sake of making more money. It's sad but I am sure it is the latter explanation. Luckily, extreme pundits such as him tend to go too far sometimes and eventually lose whatever power they had over the people. This is one of those cases. And I would hope and argue that this time is the furthest he's ever gone and that it won't be tolerated.
ReplyDeleteBy attacking this woman personally, he succeeds in validating certain cultural views (say that young women who have sex ever are sluts). The only people that might actually have these views are those that might already follow him and believe something as ludicrous as that. What he and the extreme right establishment get from this is a fervent uproar about birth control existing at all. It may be dramatic, but I think it's all about taking away the power of women. It's sick and manipulative but in the end not a winning strategy. Because the majority of the population see something like this as repulsive, illogical, and stupid. Even more than usual. And he's (more than usual) targetting and aggressively alienating potentially more than half the population.
Slut is a word that makes my stomach turn when I hear it. Clearly this time he's gone far enough to rile up the people who normally ignore him. I am pretty sure you are right in calling it his swansong. Sadly, it comes back to the money and the advertisers. It doesn't come down to people not listening anymore. But in the same way you can't counter him with logic or fact, you can counter him with removal of the money. Luckily, no company wants to endorse someone that attacks and infuriates more than half of their potential customers. I am happy that there appears to be some form of accountability, but it's just a sad reality that everything is about financial gain. I just hope it catches up to him before he causes more damage to the minds of those exposed to him on a regular basis.