Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

[Angua]

It seems rather odd for a university to be required to provide healthcare to students by a law designed to provide healthcare to employees. The person in question does not appear to be an employee of the university, so I don't really see how they should be entitled to healthcare from the university under this law (any more than I am entitled to healthcare from my local supermarket). I suppose if the university already offers healthcare, then it is reasonable to pressure the university to offer all types of healthcare (i.e. include contraception).

Many universities offer health insurance to their students. If students are dependent on that health insurance, it would make sense that it has the same regulation as that of work health insurance.

[Diadem]

Why are you calling him a Limburger? That's rather insulting and bigoted.

[Diadem]

It's not really an issue of that either. It doesn't matter why employers wouldn't want to provide full healthcare to their employees, they don't get to skimp on that.

The Viagra analogy has just been getting in my nerves. Jon Steward said it last week and everyone has been parroting him since then. It really demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of why religious institutions object to certain contraceptives.

Religious institutions, and certainly Rush Limbaugh, object to these contraceptives because they hate women having sex and think women should be punished for having sex. Contraceptives allow women to escape their righteous punishment. Steward exposes this by comparing it to Viagra. These same people do not object to viagra (Well, no doubt they will object to it when asked. But they don't really care about it), showing that they don't care about men having sex, only women.

But anyway, I tend to agree with Bubbles on insurance; I believe that insurance should generally only cover catastrophe. The trend of insurers getting involved in as much of the medical process as possible is a huge problem in the US.

And what part of "Ovarian Cysts" does not fall under 'catastrophe'? Also, the figure given for this specific version of the pill is $3000 a year. That's much, much, more than standard birth control pills cost (which are in the order of €20,- a month. At least over here. The US can't be that different though). So most likely they are specifically designed for women who have those kind of conditions. So this specific issue isn't really about preventative healthcare at all.

I get the argument against not insuring standard birth control pills. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. But you can't extend that argument to all birth control pills, because they are often not taken just as a preventative measure.

[Zamfir]

Why are you calling him a Limburger? That's rather insulting and bigoted.

In the US, it's a kind of smelly cheese.

[Diadem]

Why are you calling him a Limburger? That's rather insulting and bigoted.

In the US, it's a kind of smelly cheese.

Oh yes, doh. I blame it on still being half asleep. In my defence though making fun of Limburgers is a national pastime over here. So yeah.

[Feddlefew]

It's not really an issue of that either. It doesn't matter why employers wouldn't want to provide full healthcare to their employees, they don't get to skimp on that.

The Viagra analogy has just been getting in my nerves. Jon Steward said it last week and everyone has been parroting him since then. It really demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of why religious institutions object to certain contraceptives.

Religious institutions, and certainly Rush Limbaugh, object to these contraceptives because they hate women having sex and think women should be punished for having sex. Contraceptives allow women to escape their righteous punishment. Steward exposes this by comparing it to Viagra. These same people do not object to viagra (Well, no doubt they will object to it when asked. But they don't really care about it), showing that they don't care about men having sex, only women.

But anyway, I tend to agree with Bubbles on insurance; I believe that insurance should generally only cover catastrophe. The trend of insurers getting involved in as much of the medical process as possible is a huge problem in the US.

And what part of "Ovarian Cysts" does not fall under 'catastrophe'? Also, the figure given for this specific version of the pill is $3000 a year. That's much, much, more than standard birth control pills cost (which are in the order of €20,- a month. At least over here. The US can't be that different though). So most likely they are specifically designed for women who have those kind of conditions. So this specific issue isn't really about preventative healthcare at all.

I get the argument against not insuring standard birth control pills. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. But you can't extend that argument to all birth control pills, because they are often not taken just as a preventative measure.

I've had a pair of large (8.4 and 6 cm) ovarian cysts removed very recently, the larger of which had more or less destroyed my left ovary and was causing me so much pain I wasn't able to stand some days. I was extremely lucky that I didn't have any serious complications, and that the surgeon was able to save both of my ovaries. Brief summery of some of the s*** that could have happened:

-Once cysts get over 7 cm they can twist the ovary enough to cut off its blood supply, killing the ovary and causing necrosis.
-Ovaries can and do explode if a sufficiently large cyst happens to be taking up most of it. Internal bleeding, anyone?
-The cyst can cause an adhesion to attach the ovary to the intestines.
-Sometimes blood flow gets cut off to the intestines.
And so on.

[KnightExemplar]

It's not really an issue of that either. It doesn't matter why employers wouldn't want to provide full healthcare to their employees, they don't get to skimp on that.

The Viagra analogy has just been getting in my nerves. Jon Steward said it last week and everyone has been parroting him since then. It really demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of why religious institutions object to certain contraceptives.

Religious institutions, and certainly Rush Limbaugh, object to these contraceptives because they hate women having sex and think women should be punished for having sex. Contraceptives allow women to escape their righteous punishment. Steward exposes this by comparing it to Viagra. These same people do not object to viagra (Well, no doubt they will object to it when asked. But they don't really care about it), showing that they don't care about men having sex, only women.

Steward is a great guy, but every now and then he's absolutely dead wrong on some issues. Thats okay, he's a comedian and his job is to be funny... not necessarily to be informed. Shoehorning the Viagra analogy into this debate is just as insulting and misinformed as calling the left-side of this debate "A war on Religion". I know you guys aren't creating a war on religion: its a matter of women's health to you guys.

EDIT: Actually, its Rush Limbaugh's fault (and other waaayyyy Right-Wing Pundits) that this happened really. I'll cede the misogyny accusation because really, Rush Limbaugh seems like a misogynistic bastard. And his unfortunate words have tainted my side of the debate. Just trust me, its very frustrating to constantly hear the "bad" arguments on my side and then be called misogynistic because of it. Anyway, I think you missed my post from earlier: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=81380#p2898933

Who is that "apology" directed at? Obviously not the left, as he outright insults them, and not the right, as they wouldn't think he needed to apologize. I really have no idea who he's trying to convince.

Perhaps people like me? I consider myself slightly on the right, especially on issues like this. Rush doesn't necessarily insult my viewpoints all day... and unfortunately, I tend to find myself on his side of the debate. But Rush is such a bigoted asshole that I don't want to listen to his show anyway... so I guess you're right about that. No apology can ever take back the words he said to Ms. Fluke.

Although, it should be noted that the whole "Left vs Right" spectrum is fundamentally flawed. Libertarians, who hold extreme values on both sides are an example of a group that breaks through the classical "left/right" thinking. The way SOPA was handled is another break in the left/right classification system. My real point is that there's a subset of Americans who probably do accept his apology.

[Griffin]

I frequent several conservative boards, Knight.

While it may not be about sex to YOU, it is to the conservatives I know in real life and on the internet, in general. It is to many republican talking heads. It is to certain candidates, and their supporters. It is very much about sex.

They aren't just pushing for abstination from ALL types of contraception, not just the types you named, while refusing to expand to male sex aids. If it wasn't about sex, but about embryo abortion, then their focus is far too wide. If it was just about sex, and not women having sex, then their focus is too narrow.

Put simply - I don't care if you are pushing for a law because you want more cheese, if the effect of the law is stick old ladies in jail and the bulk of the law's supporters support it because they want to see drug users off the street, that is what the laws about, regardless of why it was brought to the table, and the rhetoric we need to counter is the rhetoric by the bulk of supporters, not the original pushers. You don't even need to address the original supporters, because they are no longer your main threat, or at least their rhetoric isn't the one advancing the legislation.

And, again, even then, it isn't about the whether or not its okay to use this stuff. They aren't proposing a ban on it. This isn't even about sex. This is about a much higher level principle, one that will have a fuckton of precedent and consequences outside "abortive" pills, and ignoring that is completely dishonest.

The essence of the fight is, like it or not:
Should certain employers have the right to force their insurance providers to remove certain items with which they have a moral disagreement?

The actual moral disagreement (sex or "abortives") doesn't actually factor in all that much in the larger scheme of things.

[clockworkmonk]

The essence of the fight is, like it or not:
Should certain employers have the right to force their insurance providers to remove certain items with which they have a moral disagreement?

The actual moral disagreement (sex or "abortives") doesn't actually factor in all that much in the larger scheme of things.

I have a hard time seeing an argument in favor of employers denying things they disagree with from their employees. Especially in the specific case of birth control. The argument being used to justify this, that the first amendment gives them the right to impose their beliefs on others, is ridiculous. The first amendment guarantees you the right to practice your religion, not to set secular policy based on your beliefs, nor determine what people who work for your organization can and cannot do.

It turns out babies are expensive, and represent good deal of money sunk into healthcare on the side of an insurance company, which is why they cover birth control (vasectomies included) in the first place. It is considerably cheaper than babies.

(ps KnightExemplar: it is Stewart, not steward)

[altair4]

Apologies for off topic but 3000 dollars! Surely that can't be right. If insurance companies are reallypaying that for normal BC pills then US health care is going wrong somewhere.
Is this a special medical requirement rather than normal BC? If so this sounds like what insurance is there for.

[induction]

Who is that "apology" directed at? Obviously not the left, as he outright insults them, and not the right, as they wouldn't think he needed to apologize. I really have no idea who he's trying to convince.

The advertisers, would be my guess.

[Garm]

Who is that "apology" directed at? Obviously not the left, as he outright insults them, and not the right, as they wouldn't think he needed to apologize. I really have no idea who he's trying to convince.

The advertisers, would be my guess.

And/or the rest of the media establishment.

[Jave D]

I've seen some absolutely darling arguments in favor of Rush on the interwebs.

'Sarah Palin got called names too! UR HYPOCRITES!'

'Why should the government pay for UR SEX ESCAPADES?'

'Fluke is obviously a Democrat plant! ITS A CONSPIRACY!'

'But she IS a slut!'

'U HATE FREEDOM OF SPEECH!'

[Dauric]

I've seen some absolutely darling arguments in favor of Rush on the interwebs.

'But she IS a slut!''

To which the response should be:

"Like... Your Mom! .. Seriously, last night was wild. By the way, you should be expecting a younger sibling by the end of the year."

[CorruptUser]

'But she IS a slut!'

"Because any woman that would have carnal relations with my disgusting assface couldn't possibly be a decent human being!"

[aeki]

Apologies for off topic but 3000 dollars! Surely that can't be right. If insurance companies are really paying that for normal BC pills then US health care is going wrong somewhere.

The >$3000 was how much birth control costs over the course of law school, not in a single year. She mentioned a friend of hers paying $100 per packet, which is $1300 per year.

Is this a special medical requirement rather than normal BC? If so this sounds like what insurance is there for.

From Sandra Fluke's testimony:

For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.

That's what the insurance should be there for, but it isn't.

It seems clear to me that this is an embryo issue however. Some of the contraceptives under question work after the embryo has already been formed. In particular, the entire class of contragestives. That is why this debate has been escalated so much.

In all the objections to the new insurance mandate I haven't seen a single mention of IUDs, only hormone pills (and condoms for some reason, which is completely irrelevant because condoms aren't prescription drugs and aren't covered under the mandate). Every single objection has been about "paying for women to have sex." Even the religious objections have been about how contraception "cheapens" sex. This is not a debate over embryos, this is a debate over sex. That is why this debate has been escalated so much, because Americans get really frightened when women exercise sexual agency.

[Garm]

It seems clear to me that this is an embryo issue however. Some of the contraceptives under question work after the embryo has already been formed. In particular, the entire class of contragestives. That is why this debate has been escalated so much.

In all the objections to the new insurance mandate I haven't seen a single mention of IUDs, only hormone pills (and condoms for some reason, which is completely irrelevant because condoms aren't prescription drugs and aren't covered under the mandate). Every single objection has been about "paying for women to have sex." Even the religious objections have been about how contraception "cheapens" sex. This is not a debate over embryos, this is a debate over sex. That is why this debate has been escalated so much, because Americans get really frightened when women exercise sexual agency.

Here's a good article about that last point: http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/fighting-the-mansplaining-anti-sex-police

[phonon266737]

Really, this is entirely about her lack of choice of health insurance. Taxes subsidize group health insurance purchases (your employer can buy it with pre-tax dollars, but you can not), therefore buying through an employer is a big discount even before we factor in the share the employer/university pays.

Sandra was perfectly free to go get her insurance from somewhere other than Georgetown; and many plans *do* cover contraception. But she can't buy the same health insurance plan that I buy for the same rate. They're making it about sex because it gets people fired up, but it's really not the issue at hand, at all.

Insurance through Georgetown U is optional (Having insurance is mandatory, but you can bring your own plan) and costs ~ $2,000 per year. If every female student had a $1300/year birth control bill, do you think that rate would stay the same? And what does it cover for men? Aren't we simply lobbying to subsidize female birth control for those who want it by spreading the costs out among everyone else (male students and/or female students who don't take the pill)?

If Georgetown just raised the rate to $3200 per year and covered BC, would there be an issue?

[Xeio]

If Georgetown just raised the rate to $3200 per year and covered BC, would there be an issue?

They don't want to cover BC, at any cost, for any reason, that's the issue.

[Choboman]

Religious institutions, and certainly Rush Limbaugh, object to these contraceptives because they hate women having sex and think women should be punished for having sex. Contraceptives allow women to escape their righteous punishment. Steward exposes this by comparing it to Viagra. These same people do not object to viagra (Well, no doubt they will object to it when asked. But they don't really care about it), showing that they don't care about men having sex, only women.
[...]
I get the argument against not insuring standard birth control pills. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. But you can't extend that argument to all birth control pills, because they are often not taken just as a preventative measure.

Other people have already responded to this, probably better than I will, but here goes...

Any time your argument starts with the basic premise that the other side is some black-hat-wearing, mustache-twirling evil villian who does bad things because he's a bad person, we forfeit any chance at having a meaningful discussion. I don't agree with the catholic stance, but I think it's a mistake to dumb down their position to say that do it because "they hate women", just like it's not helpful for Bush to suggest that Islamic insurgents 'hate our freedom'.

As I understand the Pope's position (somebody more informed please feel free to step in and correct me), he believes that the purpose of sex is as an expression of love specifically for creating life (and ideally, with your committed and married partner), and that having sex for other reasons (because it feels good, because I really want that guy to like me, whatever) is a misuse of the tool. By this arguement, any use of birth control subverts the purpose of sex and is therefore undesireable. As I understand it, hormone treatments for someone with ovarian cysts would not be using the pills for the intention of birth control (even if it had that unfortunate side effect) and so it wouldn't necessarily go against church doctrine, in the same way that getting a hysterectomy for non-reproductive reasons doesn't go against doctrine.

I'm personally agnostic, pro-choice, and pro- access to birth control, but that doesn't mean that I can't acknowledge that people who believe otherwise might have rational/reasonable opinions when viewed in the context of their own value systems. All that said, Rush is still a huge ass.

[Triangle_Man]

Wait, Contraception 'Cheapens Sex'?

...Okay, so assuming that this isn't a 'Let's Stop Women From Having Dirty Dirty Sex' issue, how the hell would Sex be 'Cheapened'? Does this having anything to do with the strict controls on Sexual Activity that some Conservatives strongly favour?

I guess I have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that this is a 'sexual control' issue because I've always seen it (and always had it introduced to me in Philosophy Classes) as primarily an argument over whether or not the Fetus has a 'Right to Life', and that's how I've seen the argument played out in almost every other discussion I've had about Abortion.

[Choboman]

Wait, Contraception 'Cheapens Sex'?

...Okay, so assuming that this isn't a 'Let's Stop Women From Having Dirty Dirty Sex' issue, how the hell would Sex be 'Cheapened'? Does this having anything to do with the strict controls on Sexual Activity that some Conservatives strongly favour?

I guess I have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that this is a 'sexual control' issue because I've always seen it (and always had it introduced to me in Philosophy Classes) as primarily an argument over whether or not the Fetus has a 'Right to Life', and that's how I've seen the argument played out in almost every other discussion I've had about Abortion.

Whether life begins at conception is immaterial when we're discussing birth control pills, IUDs, or condoms, because the sperm and egg never come together (although it would be an issue for RU486 morning after pills), so conception never happens.

It would have a lot to do with strict controls on sex activity, because [some] religious conservatives would argue that the purpose of sex is procreation, and having sex while avoiding procreation is a subversion or perversion of God's gift.

[philsov]

he believes that the purpose of sex is as an expression of love specifically for creating life (and ideally, with your committed and married partner), and that having sex for other reasons (because it feels good, because I really want that guy to like me, whatever) is a misuse of the tool.

While that sounds good, the implication is that sterile couples or older couples where the female is postmenopausal are immorally having sex. I'd really like the think the viewpoint is more nuanced.

[Choboman]

While that sounds good, the implication is that sterile couples or older couples where the female is postmenopausal are immorally having sex. I'd really like the think the viewpoint is more nuanced.

You make a good point here, and I'd be interested in what Catholics say about this. I suspect that they may add some interpretation about there being a difference between outside circumstances preventing conception and you taking deliberate action to avoid conception, but I don't know.

[Belial]

Any time your argument starts with the basic premise that the other side is some black-hat-wearing, mustache-twirling evil villian who does bad things because he's a bad person, we forfeit any chance at having a meaningful discussion.

I think with certain topics, there's too much risk in doing the opposite: giving them the benefit of the doubt at the cost of not calling a spade a spade.

A less nice way of phrasing what you said about catholic doctrine is to say that they believe that women are baby machines, and that they shouldn't be allowed any control over that function. No matter how you dress it up, that's an inherently misogynistic, sex-negative, and all-around-awful viewpoint, and they're welcome to have it amongst themselves. The argument they're having, though, is their right to special dispensation to exercise that belief upside others inside or outside of their own religion who might choose to believe or act otherwise.

Lose sight of this, and you risk disappearing down their tortured little logical rabbit holes, as liberals in this country are so prone to doing. We constantly let conservatives take control of the framing on these issues and then start playing along and trying to satisfy their crazy asses within the ruleset they've created. Someone needs to be calling that shit what it is.

All of which is beside the point. Because no matter what some hypothetical catholics believe, Limbaugh (and his adoring audience members) are misogynistic fucksticks who hate womens' sexual agency. He actually is a moustache-twirling black-hatted villain shithead.

[Griffin]

On Rush:
He's a philander, drug addict, cheater, criminal, and liar, and he makes his money off telling the world how pissed off he is at the moral decay our country is experiencing, going out of his way to destroy lives and generally make the world worse for his own profit while believing the rules and standards he espouses aren't something he needs to follow.

He IS a villain. That is, literally, his job. It's how he makes his money. He's got loyal followers, but he thrives on the controversy - he's the epitome of a heel.

[JudeMorrigan]

A less nice way of phrasing what you said about catholic doctrine is to say that they believe that women are baby machines, and that they shouldn't be allowed any control over that function.

In fairness, the church doesn't actually teach that the sole purpose of sex is procreation. I believe the relevant passage from Humanae Vitae is:

Spoiler:

11. These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy, and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the Council recalled, "noble and worthy" [11], and they do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of the husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained towards expressing and consolidating their union. In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life [12].

Two Inseparable Aspects: Union and Procreation

12. That teaching, often set forth by the magisterium, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man's most high calling to parenthood. We believe that the men of our day are particularly capable of seizing the deeply reasonable and human character of this fundamental principle.

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06hv.htm

I'll add that the church is ok with fertility awareness based methods, which are actually quite effective if you can actually manage to do them perfectly. So it's definitely not true that the official stance is that they shouldn't be allowed any control over their reproductive functions.

Now, don't get me wrong. Everything I've posted about above is still arguably screwy in it's own way, and certainly doesn't excuse anything done on the larger topic of this thread.

[quantumcat42]

Any time your argument starts with the basic premise that the other side is some black-hat-wearing, mustache-twirling evil villian who does bad things because he's a bad person, we forfeit any chance at having a meaningful discussion.

I think with certain topics, there's too much risk in doing the opposite: giving them the benefit of the doubt at the cost of not calling a spade a spade.

A less nice way of phrasing what you said about catholic doctrine is to say that they believe that women are baby machines, and that they shouldn't be allowed any control over that function. No matter how you dress it up, that's an inherently misogynistic, sex-negative, and all-around-awful viewpoint, and they're welcome to have it amongst themselves. The argument they're having, though, is their right to special dispensation to exercise that belief upside others inside or outside of their own religion who might choose to believe or act otherwise.

Lose sight of this, and you risk disappearing down their tortured little logical rabbit holes, as liberals in this country are so prone to doing. We constantly let conservatives take control of the framing on these issues and then start playing along and trying to satisfy their crazy asses within the ruleset they've created. Someone needs to be calling that shit what it is.

All of which is beside the point. Because no matter what some hypothetical catholics believe, Limbaugh (and his adoring audience members) are misogynistic fucksticks who hate womens' sexual agency. He actually is a moustache-twirling black-hatted villain shithead.

How about calling this post for the naked bigotry it is? I mean, seriously? "Be careful not to risk understanding another point of view for fear you might stop hating those people". Yeah, Limbaugh's an asshole, but that shit you just poured out is just as repugnant. Hell, it's worse than anything I've heard the other side actually say, regardless of what you'd like to think they believe.

[Diadem]

All of which is beside the point. Because no matter what some hypothetical catholics believe, Limbaugh (and his adoring audience members) are misogynistic fucksticks who hate womens' sexual agency. He actually is a moustache-twirling black-hatted villain shithead.

How about calling this post for the naked bigotry it is? I mean, seriously? "Be careful not to risk understanding another point of view for fear you might stop hating those people". Yeah, Limbaugh's an asshole, but that shit you just poured out is just as repugnant. Hell, it's worse than anything I've heard the other side actually say, regardless of what you'd like to think they believe.

So which part of that description is inaccurate? Well the moustache-twirling part. I agree that is way out of line. An insult to evil overlords everywhere who spent a lot of time cultivating magnificient mustaches.

But other than that, what is inaccurate there? Is Limbaugh not misogynistic? Does he not hate women's sexual agency?

[Xeio]

Hell, it's worse than anything I've heard the other side actually say, regardless of what you'd like to think they believe.

Clearly you haven't listened to much national discourse at all...

[Jave D]

Any time your argument starts with the basic premise that the other side is some black-hat-wearing, mustache-twirling evil villian who does bad things because he's a bad person, we forfeit any chance at having a meaningful discussion.

I think with certain topics, there's too much risk in doing the opposite: giving them the benefit of the doubt at the cost of not calling a spade a spade.

A less nice way of phrasing what you said about catholic doctrine is to say that they believe that women are baby machines, and that they shouldn't be allowed any control over that function. No matter how you dress it up, that's an inherently misogynistic, sex-negative, and all-around-awful viewpoint, and they're welcome to have it amongst themselves. The argument they're having, though, is their right to special dispensation to exercise that belief upside others inside or outside of their own religion who might choose to believe or act otherwise.

Lose sight of this, and you risk disappearing down their tortured little logical rabbit holes, as liberals in this country are so prone to doing. We constantly let conservatives take control of the framing on these issues and then start playing along and trying to satisfy their crazy asses within the ruleset they've created. Someone needs to be calling that shit what it is.

All of which is beside the point. Because no matter what some hypothetical catholics believe, Limbaugh (and his adoring audience members) are misogynistic fucksticks who hate womens' sexual agency. He actually is a moustache-twirling black-hatted villain shithead.

How about calling this post for the naked bigotry it is? I mean, seriously? "Be careful not to risk understanding another point of view for fear you might stop hating those people". Yeah, Limbaugh's an asshole, but that shit you just poured out is just as repugnant. Hell, it's worse than anything I've heard the other side actually say, regardless of what you'd like to think they believe.

Well, I can't help but notice he didn't say "be careful not to risk understanding another point of view for fear you might stop hating Those People"... regardless of what you'd like to think he believes.

[Belial]

How about calling this post for the naked bigotry it is? I mean, seriously? "Be careful not to risk understanding another point of view for fear you might stop hating those people".

Who said anything about refusing to understand their point of view? I can understand their point of view and still refuse to accept their framing of it, or describe it in the same nice words they do. There's a big difference between understanding someone's point of view and automatically affording it respect despite its merits.

[quantumcat42]

Is Limbaugh not misogynistic? Does he not hate women's sexual agency?

I don't care what Limbaugh believes; he's an asshole who deliberately stirs up this sort of shit. It's turning that outrage on the entirety of Catholicism that's bigotry. It's strawmanning catholics, and urging people not to "risk disappearing down their tortured little logical rabbit holes" (happy, Jave?), that's bigotry. It's wrongly characterizing the nuanced, thoughtful beliefs of my friends as "mysogynistic, sex-negative, and all-around-awful" that's bigotry. I may disagree with them, but that doesn't mean it's not infuriating to see someone smugly dismissing them, insulting them, and assuming that Rush fucking Limbaugh speaks for them at all.

[Belial]

Well, for what it's worth, I was probably wrong to typecast all catholics that way. Regardless of doctrine, most american catholics are for contraception, last I checked. It's the leadership and bishops that have the terrible opinions.

[quantumcat42]

Do you maintain that any moral opposition to birth control is necessarily misogynistic?

[Princess Marzipan]

Necessarily? No. Practically? Almost always.

[Dauric]

Do you maintain that any moral opposition to birth control is necessarily misogynistic?

The moral opposition to birth control may not have misogyny as it's target, but it's blast-radius covers more women than men with greater difficulties for women than men. It may not be intentionally misogynistic, but the results that would rise from that moral opposition have disproportionate effects that are arguably misogynistic.

Given that the greatest outcry about these moral outrages tends to come from a gigantic top-down hierarchy populated largely by conservative old men with a history of refusing to let women in to the upper tiers of their hierarchy (or even mid tiers for that matter), the accusation of misogyny tends to stick.

[Griffin]

I maintain all of those interested in doing so are bad people for thinking they have the right to force others to adhere to their religious beliefs.

But seriously - Catholic doctrine IS incredibly misogynistic. Catholics, individually, may or may not be. Most of the one's I've met have been pretty reasonable about it, and even when they think something is wrong will be more than happy to excuse themselves from it without trying to dictate their well. As individuals, Catholics are pretty cool. The Religion as a whole, as in the Church?... I could see the value of an argument that it is an inherently misogynistic religion, structured as it is right now. Not irredeemably so, and probably further along than many other sects, so there's hope. The Church is. Hands down.

But the fact remains -Being willing to understand another viewpoint doesn't mean a person will find that viewpoint any less repugnant. And finding their views repugnant doesn't mean I hate them. But it does mean I will fight their attempts to control me at every opportunity.

[eran_rathan]

Apologies for off topic but 3000 dollars! Surely that can't be right. If insurance companies are reallypaying that for normal BC pills then US health care is going wrong somewhere.
Is this a special medical requirement rather than normal BC? If so this sounds like what insurance is there for.

My wife used to take a non-estrogen-based birth control, because regular (and even 'low-dose') pills made her suicidal.

And $3000/year = $250/month, which is about right for the type she took.

And yes, we paid for this out of pocket, because neither of us had insurance, and it was cheaper than having kids and/or her committing suicide.

[Triangle_Man]

First off, I think I was thinking about Abortion with my earlier post. I'm a little hazy on this issue myself for reasons that I'll explain quickly.

Also...

Do you maintain that any moral opposition to birth control is necessarily misogynistic?

I don't think that all such opposition would be like this in theory, but as Daruic said, birth control is something that has more of an impact on womens' lives than on mens' lives and in that regard I can see that as being at least unintentionally misogynistic. I can sort of see what is meant by the 'Sex is for procreation and procreation only' attitude, but I still find this issue confusing as hell as I do see contraceptives as being a tool for avoiding making a baby every time you fuck and haven't really considered them as a source of controversy before.

That being said, I am still a little surprised at the blanket accusations of misogyny since I'd assume that the 'no sex except for procreation' rule would apply to both sexes equally or something like that. Then again, it might also be partially fuelled by a continuation of the 'virgin vs. whore' attitude that sort of sprang up way back when Christianity was becoming a major religion and its followers were beginning to equate the 'physical' aspects of human existence (sex, food, drink, dedication) as being inherently sinful or something like that; it seems as though this attitude effects women for the most part, and could also be tied into the strange belief that a man has no choice but to respond to his sexual urges whenever they occur (utter bullshit, by the way) as well as a number of other olden-timey attitudes about sex that I'm not going to get into at this juncture. On that note, maybe part of the reason as to why people would hold the 'no sex except for procreation' rule is because sex is seen as being optional (unlike other physical needs of the body) and those who believe in it figure that anyone can hold off on sex via willpower as a result of that. Hence, those who are sexually active could be viewed more harshly for doing something they should be able to resist, and if that gets mixed up with the 'virgin/whore' thing from earlier, then it could be misogynistic in some way or another...

...Maybe misogynistic is too harsh of a word in this case, but its the only one I can think of that would fit in this case since it literally means a 'hatred of women' or something like that.

...Yeah, I don't even know what's up with Rush, if only because I don't get to listen to his show firsthand that much at all. From what I do know, however, the language he uses is so completely 'extreme' that it's hard not to see him as being this ginormous asshole. I don't know if he's serious about some of the crap that he's said in the past or if he's just trying to get a reaction, but it is hard to respect him when he makes comments like the ones he made in this case.