The worrying side of what’s acceptable to women in 2011

Feel free to call a bloke a sex addict….but never call a woman a slut.

MSNBC anchor and commentator (chiefly on radio) Ed Schultz has agreed to take a week’s unpaid leave from his job, after referring to conservative commentator Laura Ingraham as “a right-wing slut”. It’s that new word we can’t say any more again…..following an obsessive exchange of media views by feminists and others last week: there are no sluts. Deal with it. Thus, his remarks have been deemed ‘unacceptable’ – a word first popularised by Gordon Brown, meaning ‘things and statements with which I disagree’.

Resorting to insults is rarely a good idea when trying to win an argument. But there is of course the question of whether Schultz is right or not.

First off, who is Laura Ingraham? Well, she’s a 47 year-old person with ‘right-wing’ views, although the description continues to mean nothing in 2011. But as a conservative, she was born that way and clearly has no desire to change. As a Dartmouth undergraduate, she was a staff member of the independent US conservative newspaper, The Dartmouth Review. In her senior year, she became the paper’s first ever female editor. She wrote quite a few ‘controversial’ articles during her tenure – in fact some that MSNBC would find ‘unacceptable’. For example, Laura penned an Oped calling a gay rights campus group “cheerleaders for latent campus sodomites”.

One Jeffrey Hart, the faculty adviser for The Dartmouth Review, described Ingraham as having “the most extreme anti-homosexual views imaginable,” adding that “she went so far as to avoid a local eatery where she feared the waiters were homosexual and might touch her silverware or spit on her food, exposing her to AIDS”. Today, she has all kinds of media outlets, and hosts  The O’Reilly Factor , a Murdochite rant on Fox News Channel where she enjoys her own segment, ‘The Ingraham Angle’.

On Fox News in 2008, Ingraham told an interviewer that critic Ed Maher “Bows down at the altar of Hugh Hefner” – which may have been her way of suggesting he’s a w*nker, or that Ed is keen on male fellatio – we shall never know.

So she’s a bigot who likes to dish it out in a fearless manner. I say ‘bigot’ rather than ‘independently minded’, because many of her fears and outbursts are based largely on ignorance: not always – some of her statements I agree with – but mostly. Center for American Progress media analyst Eric Altrmanwrote in 2005, “this woman is more full of sh*t than anyone I ever met in my life”.

Thus words like ‘heat’ and ‘kitchen’ spring to mind. If she’s that much of a toughie, you’d expect her shoulders to be broad enough to shrug off Ed Schultz’s ‘slut’ insult.

However, the puzzling thing is why he chose that particular word. It’s true that Laura is infamous for having posed in a leopard print mini-skirt for a 1995 New York Times Magazine cover story on young right-wingers. But one needs more than this under one’s suspender belt to attain slut status.

Most probably, Schultz was referring to Ingraham’s epic search for a husband….the suggestion being that, good Catholic girl or not, she shagged her way through a whole lot of frogs in her search for a Prince, and has also broken off two engagements along the way. She has, during her career as an allegedly secret slut, dated luminaries major and minor such as Dinesh D’Souza, Robert Torricelli, James V Reyes, and Keith Olbermann.

Maybe she is a slut, or maybe everything has been so morally eroded by now that it’s become very hard work to earn the soubriquet. But what struck me about this non-story (‘the media talking about the media having spats with other folks in the media’) is the way the gender agenda is once again to the fore. Eric Bolling, also a talk host, discussed the comments with his panellists last night, and offered to help Schultz, because “perhaps his lashing out was a product of drinking or doing drugs.”

It’s the Moscow Asylum strategy again: anyone who still believes in the existence of sluts must be mad. But anyone calling a woman a slut is unacceptable. (What, even if they’re mad? Isn’t that mentalist?) And anyone who believes in degrees of rape must be a deluded dinosaur, and fired immediately.

Ingraham is homophobic (literally) but we mustn’t say that because she’s a woman. She cracks tasteless jokes about Third World country inhabitants, but we mustn’t say she’s racist.

However, Dominic Strauss-Kahn is a sex-beast, which of course he would be – being a bloke an’ all. Ken Clarke thinks rape is a jolly good thing and some women are gagging for it, and being therefore lower than vermin, it is fine for radio host Victoria Derbyshire to harangue him like some  tabloid…..what’s the word I’m after?…..slut, yes, that’s the one.

On her own admission, Germaine Greer shagged half of the London glitterati in the 1960s, but she detests the word slut. She’s keen on the word eunuch though, when attached to women: sells a lot of books, does eunuch. And sex-addict is a good one, because all men are beasts, ooooo they are, in’t that right girls? – and bloody useless in the supermarket. And they get man-flu.

Here’s an interesting factette: of the top ten rated celeb sex-addicts at Ranker, just one is a woman – and she was an alcoholic porn star.

Anyone, there’s our answer in the penultimate line: to be a slut, you have to be making porn movies. (The list from 10 to 20 lists two more girlies by the way – both porn stars). But to be the male equivalent, all you need to do is turn up.

18 thoughts on “The worrying side of what’s acceptable to women in 2011

    • If you believe what’s written above thats a conclusion that could be reached except for the fascist bit which is so historically daft it beggars belief this misconception has prevailed.
      A political conservative believes in the limited role of government and this is just about as far removed from the collectivist government led fascist movement as is possible.
      If she has religious views that offend then fine, this is where the sodomite stuff starts from as she is a devout Catholic (her own words as I heard her say on the O’Reilly Factor – no intermediate distorting that message for me) but leave off the fascist stuff as fascism is a form of geovernment derived from collectivist ideologies and they are virtually exclusively a left wing territory.

  1. I’m going to have to stick up for Ken Clarke on this one, I don’t think he meant to hurt victims of rape. I like him a lot better than Jack Straw and Lord Falconer, he seems a bit more bothered about justice than they were.

    • Seconded.

      It’s obvious to pretty much everyone that rape in law and the ‘rape’ that most people think of when they hear the word aren’t necessarily the same thing. On my limited understanding, it’s perfectly possible to stretch the legal definition to events that are purely consensual in practice but can’t be legally consented to. To equate those with knife-point sex crime is lunacy. In law, not all rapes *are* equal.

      Attempting to open a reasoned debate is perfectly acceptable. The man talked sense.

      And if more real, guilty rapists ‘fess up without putting the victim through the ordeal of cross questioning and dragging the whole thing up again (or the victim baulking at the idea)… and that means less rapists on the streets? Also worth a debate.

      I’m more outraged at Labour and the media for picking this up and exploiting rape to gain cheap moral points. If it’s insensitivity you’re looking for, they’re the ones that nailed it.

      *That’s* how you trivialise rape.

  2. Well now, I trawled through the various definitions of SLUT in all the online dictionaries. The urban dictionary proved to be a shocker, in particular the reference to a woman with the morals of a man!

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=slut

    Trollop is still a good timeless description used by women against other women.

    I wonder if every woman wore burkahs whether they would still be regarded as sluts underneath?

    »Sonnet 55
    Not marble, nor the gilded monuments
    Of princes, shall outlive this powerful rhyme;
    But you shall shine more bright in these contents
    Than unswept stone besmear’d with sluttish time.
    When wasteful war shall statues overturn,
    And broils root out the work of masonry,
    Nor Mars his sword nor war’s quick fire shall burn
    The living record of your memory.
    ‘Gainst death and all-oblivious enmity
    Shall you pace forth; your praise shall still find room
    Even in the eyes of all posterity
    That wear this world out to the ending doom.
    So, till the judgment that yourself arise,
    You live in this, and dwell in lover’s eyes.

    –William Shakespeare

  3. There are no longer any sluts? Jeez, that means life is no longer worth living! Who would have thought they were a species actually heading for extinction – for years the impression I had was that every season brought a fresh harvest, and this would continue on beyond my own personal expiry date.

    Back in the day, when I was a lot younger, a lot fitter and a lot better looking, I “had dealings” with scores of them. On almost every coach tour there was at least one female passenger determined to seduce the driver. Hubby’s possible prescence on the tour was reduced to nothing more than a minor inconvenience! Has this fringe benefit for the knights of the road now also died the death?

    If Laura is of the opinion that they are no more then might I suggest she leaves her ivory tower every now and then and takes a walk along some mean streets – believe me, they are still there (and I now live in a small country town!).

    As for the piccy of Laura above – yeah, back in the day that would have been rated as “alright for practicising on and keeping in form”. Could it be that she now accepts her rating will never go any higher?

  4. Is this actually more about just what those in control of public information think the majority actually want to be told about. Just what other “news” is outhere that is not being reported and on who’s behalf is it being hidden!!

  5. In using the word ‘slut’ you are making a derogatory moral judgement which you are not doing when using the description ‘sex addict’. The word is charged with a whole bunch of meta-messages, as some other, often racial words are (nigger, etc.).

    Can you insult a man for sleeping around? What would you say?

    Ingraham sounds like she’s a fascist bitch, which is bad enough. If she slept around, she might consider it as practice, research, fun etc., but she would not equate her behaviour to that of a slut. Sluts are basically prostitutes you don’t pay for. That’s why it’s so insulting.

    • I’ve seen Laura on the O’Reilly Factor several times and she is opinionated and a little too strong in talking over contributors to be suited to the role. She doesn;t seem to be a botch though and the fascist movement was derived from Mussolinis acitivites and he was a learned socialist. he didn;t follow the internationalist bolshevik revolution and so was seen as the counter balance to the Communists. This is so far away from the limited government view of most conservatives to be unsuitable as an epithet for her.

      I am not a believer and certainly not a Catholic so her views are not mine in that sphere, and that includes her theological basis for the suggested anti gay elements of the article.

      I don’t believe this article has been written by a reasonable person becuase much of what is beign written about here is nothing like what I have seen or heard and I like O’Reilly program very much. It is possible to disagree and agree with presenters and contributors and still like a presentation. I find MSNBC to be mostly spiteful, rather like the mirror of Hannity on Fox. No that s not fair, Hannity is so biased to be ridiculous but spiteful he isn’t (usually).

    • I know lots of blokes who sleep around, and here too I make derogatory moral judgments, because I think their morals to be questionable at best. To go through life without making judgments is to waste that life.

      I use words like dickhead, bellend, shaghappy, tit, pillock and others I couldn’t possible repeat in a family column such as this one.

  6. Ingrham,like myself,should be a granny,she’s definitely too rough looking to be hot!Perhaps she is upset at being viewed as an intellectual slut due to her inability to have someone of either gender to commit.However,the double standards of the world still exist.A woman may want to have as many sexual contacts as a STD clinic for whatever reason,but the reality is she will be called names in the pub,gym changing room,rugby showers and so on.So why does granny features Ingrhram get upset at being called an “intellectual slut”,is it just another term for plagarism?Me thinks she has ripped off others ideas and parlayed them as her own,so hiding behind the “little woman”syndrome she becomes untouchable.If she wants to become untouchable change to Judaism/Islam/Jehovahs Wtness or any other agenda fronting group.
    As an Ivy Leaguer,I can only assume the American elite are not exposed to reality.As a simple cleaner,you would be surprised what sort of “trash”we have had to throw out-and if they weren’t sluts they were right slappers.Again why is she,such a brain and virtuous woman,so upset by the term slut,which extends back into history,and why are the beefy feminists siding with her?Getting to the nub of a problem with uncharitable language really does upset this generation,just as it did under Franco and other knob heads!Oppresion comes in many forms,and suppressing realistic language,even by a dick,is a nasty road to be on.No wonder so many fear American fascism.

  7. In order to add substance to your denigration of Laura Ingraham you quote someone from ‘The Centre for American Progress’!
    Thats the very left wing, uber progressive group, right ?
    Thats not balance that’s really silly.
    You ight be right and you might not but using that group weakens your point to anyone with any sense of independant thought.
    (sorry about my spelling througout)

  8. ISTM that many women have been milking the role of “victim” for a long time in order to get laws passed in their favour. Every victim has to have suffered under a “perp”, enter: men, who rarely respond to their nonsense.

    All it needed was a mushy socialist govt under Blair/Brown – and of course the new fawning luvvy Ed Milipede – to come along and hey presto! You then have what we’ve now got – a ludicrous PC society with whacknuts like Hatty having power and influence way above her station.

    People who call Laura Ingraham “a right-wing slut” are almost certainly wrong (she’s most likely an authoritarian socialist – ie wannabe fascist with some sort of personality complex) and they do real conservatism a serious misjustice. I’d bet that most of them are democrats/socialists.

  9. I’d say that woman is a touch above her natural station in the current world. After all, men have built a very agreeable infrastructure, and they can now play to their hearts content, especially as the mobile phone allows the security to roam.
    I was interested to read that marriages have soared in number in Japan since the horror of the earthquakes recently.
    Just goes to prove that when the going gets tough, suddenly, you’re hot.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s