
David Horsey/Los Angeles Times
I understand that you're trying to criticize him, but you're doing it wrong.
Rush Limbaugh, as you might imagine, is not that practiced in issuing apologies. That was quite apparent in his Saturday statement concerning his (most recent) sexist comments:
For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke...
My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.
We'll skip the whole bit where we note how Limbaugh's "word choices" makes the "I did not mean" part laughable. The excerpt above brackets a poor rationalization for his attack, and I'll leave the analysis of that to others. Whether the "apology" was motivated by pure regret, futile desperation to stem the loss of advertisers, or a desire to remain a relevant topic in the Sunday shows (not ours), the apology was up to Sandra Fluke to accept. (Which minutes ago on ABC's "The View," she did not.)
What's interesting to me is why this incident, out of Limbaugh's long history of bile, hit such a nerve with so many. Good Magazine associate editor and past "MHP" guest Nona Willis Aronowitz proposes four possibilities that make a lot of sense: that "slut" is an actual epithet (you haven't heard him drop the N-word on-air, yet); his comments were sheer hypocrisy (oh, hi, Viagra); and Limbaugh made these hypocritical comments at a time at which the Right is losing the culture war, and Americans are finally getting that the Right is losing the culture war.
The fourth reason Nona gives is a point that isn't being discussed enough:
Sandra Fluke is a white, female law student—the "perfect victim." When Limbaugh assails a public figure, we don't get too angry; criticism, even the vicious kind, goes with the territory of a high profile. When Limbaugh rails against a group of people like welfare moms or Muslims, it comes across as garden-variety racism rather than a pointed attack. But our protective impulses kick in when someone disparages an innocent, stand-up citizen, especially if that person is a white, educated woman. As writer Amanda Marcotte told me Friday, Fluke "is the good daughter distilled," the kind parents can be proud of. This same principle holds with "perfect" rape victims, in which our culture believes the rape story of a virginal cheerleader getting attacked behind the bushes rather than, say, an immigrant maid of color. Do you think there'd be the same outcry if Sandra Fluke was a poor, unwed mother from the projects?
Being upset over Limbaugh's comments is understandable, given that is his goal and his demonstrated skill in achieving those ends. But that doesn't mean that as we examine Limbaugh's psyche to understand such cruelty, we shouldn't also take a look at ourselves and our privilege. Even the cartoon above uses a negative image of women in order to criticize Limbaugh. Yes, it is infuriating to have to deal with the latest Limbaugh slut-shaming, but it's also an opportunity for us to re-examine how much we've bought into both the "good" and "bad" images of womanhood which we've been sold -- and which we sell to ourselves.


Now the so called "conservatives" will squawk about free speech, but Limbaugh is still free to say anything loving or hateful or ignorant that he wants to. We are protesting having him be paid to do so.
i couldn't agree more... he should tour and dish his garbage let people pay to hear it!
This piece, while I ultimately agree with the premise (the only kidnap victims that get national attention are for the most part white), overstates the racial part of this equation. From the beginning of this absurd contraception debate, women have not been included. His statements were the climax to a week of men telling women what to do with their bodies that ended up defining the debate. And remember, Limbaugh was fired from ESPN for racially insensitive remarks about Donovan McNabb.
I've followed this mess closely but casually from the beginning and this piece and the one by Nona Willis are actually the only two I've come across that even mention anything about race. Of course I haven't seen and read everything out there, but that's how it looks from my armchair. While I don't think it should dominate the discussion, I don't think MHP or Nona Willis are overstating anything at all. They're pointing out two things that took me several days to realize:
The congressional democrats involved knew any woman testifying in favor of contraceptive coverage would likely be attacked. Given the predictable pattern of Limbaugh, Beck, and their ilk on this issue, they had a good idea what form those attacks would take. The sad fact is, had Sandra Fluke been an African-American professor or a Latina cafeteria manager and mother of two, they would've been attacked at least as badly (probably far worse) as Ms. Fluke was. And like the black kidnap victim, the outrage and attention that followed would be far less in comparison. So Sandra Fluke being who she is had everything to do with why she was selected, and I think that's definitely something worth examining.
Remember Don Imus, the popular radio and tv host. Remember when he referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team, which was comprised of eight African-American and two white players, as "nappy-headed hos"? People were just as outraged as they are now and his advertisers left in droves. What happened to Imus next? He got fired.
I'm shocked by how easily people fall in to supposed humour that stereotypes demeans prostituted women. Perhaps even more shocked than I am by Limbaugh's predictable ranting.
Clear Channel's parent company was taken private in 2008 by private equity firms Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital. Notice that last name... ring any bells... Mitt Romney is still being paid by Bain Capital. He is profiting from Rush's show!!!!!!