Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

haele

(15,678 posts)
43. There is a difference between belittling a perception, and belittling a person.
Sat Mar 10, 2012, 12:00 PM
Mar 2012

Rachel Maddow was belittling the perception or lack of education - the "For Dummies" was a big give-away. BTW, the "For Dummies" book series is one of the best teaching series out there for people who want to become usefully educated in a process or subject in a casual, humorous way.
What she did was just as misandristic as mocking "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus". It's not a case of "All men are clueless about contraception", but that some men were clueless about contraception.

Limbaugh was belittling a person, a woman who he thought was being "uppity", and trying to crush her. Stating outright that the only reason any woman would want to use contraception would be to have as much sex as they can and not get pregnant.

It is an apples and oranges situation - the subject differences are some men "thinking" vs. all women "using” and delivery differences are sarcastic education vs. sarcastic castigation.

Understanding how contraception works is a matter of education - if the person then decides that contraception is immoral, that's a choice.
Using contraception is a choice.

Two different focii, two different approaches.

If Rachel was saying all men who used Viagra or Cialis were man sluts who were having so much sex every night that they needed the government to force insurance to cover enough of their little blue pills that they could have that sex, and that she wanted them all to post their porn videos before she could go along with the government requiring insurance companies to provide it, then she would be be exactly on the same page that Rush was.

BTW, it is also different for people to snark on Rush's apparent personal over-use of Viagra, as that is a sign of his hypocrisy; mocking other people's sexual activity but acting innocent about his own.
Most those same people wouldn't say boo if it was Bob Dole or someone else who had gone through prostate cancer treatment and wanted to still have marital relationships with his significant other.

Intelligent people know there is a difference between contraception and ED pills, and they know that there are a myriad of reasons that someone might need both, including medical reasons (as in, Viagra was originally a heart/blood pressure regulation medicine) and unless they are using these prescriptions for illegal purposes, "it ain't nobody's business if they do".

That was Rachel's point. Not "Hey Men, you're stupid"

Haele

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I had to look up "misandristic." Suich Mar 2012 #1
Well, you're wrong. It was misandristic. WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2012 #2
Off topic but heres a good addon for firefox madokie Mar 2012 #37
Which one are you talking about? The one from last October? csziggy Mar 2012 #3
No, it was less educational and more patronizing than you wish to admit too. She did it to... WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2012 #6
It was more educational than what most men bother to learn about women's reproduction csziggy Mar 2012 #48
She had some fun poking stupidity with a stick. AtomicKitten Mar 2012 #4
Maher, misogynistic? Pfft. WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2012 #7
Maher occasionally makes sexist remarks, but he's no misogynist. AtomicKitten Mar 2012 #10
No, I'm thinking that all of the threads about liberal misogynists are out of control WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2012 #11
If Rachel spent 10 minutes 'humiliating, shaming, and patronizing' (AKA: mocking) AtomicKitten Mar 2012 #12
Is that what you've learned along the way? Stoop to their level? WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2012 #13
What a pantload. EFerrari Mar 2012 #15
How is Rachel different than Bill Maher or other liberals who've crawled up your butts? WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2012 #18
Lmao. EFerrari Mar 2012 #49
"Some of yous is ridiculous," LOL! pinboy3niner Mar 2012 #22
I know! None of you want to look! The horror!! WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2012 #23
"None of you want to look!" pinboy3niner Mar 2012 #25
YES!!! It is about you! It's all about you! If you *tried*, you would have figured that out long ago WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2012 #27
You ought to consider getting back on your meds :) pinboy3niner Mar 2012 #31
I gave you too much credit, then WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2012 #34
+1 sarcasmo Mar 2012 #40
This message was self-deleted by its author AtomicKitten Mar 2012 #16
It's their crap Shankapotomus Mar 2012 #21
If Republican men have any self-awareness (doubtful), then ... tledford Mar 2012 #41
I don't think she really did that, though treestar Mar 2012 #56
She tells it like it is. If you don't like it. Get out of the kitchen. appleannie1 Mar 2012 #5
If you can't follow along, get out of the kitchen. WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2012 #9
LOL nicely done. k&r. nt TeamsterDem Mar 2012 #8
You couldn't even get 2 DUers to agree that Sharon Osborne was being sexist Zalatix Mar 2012 #14
You can't follow the discussion because you choose not to try. WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2012 #19
You can't follow what I SAID because you choose not to read. Zalatix Mar 2012 #38
I suspect they left that to you, and you're managing quite nicely. MADem Mar 2012 #17
This is low hanging fruit WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2012 #20
Oh, I think it's already fallen off the tree at this point. nt MADem Mar 2012 #39
He is just mad cause no one would poo poo on Maher Rex Mar 2012 #52
I confess! Like *you*, I love it when Rachel demeans Republican men, too!! WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2012 #24
Maybe because we are secure in our manhood. Motown_Johnny Mar 2012 #26
I don't know what accounts for all the knee-jerking 'round here WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2012 #28
False Equivalency is always problematic Motown_Johnny Mar 2012 #29
For many, equating Maher to Limbaugh came very easy WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2012 #33
Because 99% of US population Dokkie Mar 2012 #30
I think everyone is fucking nuts 2pooped2pop Mar 2012 #32
I'm buying WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2012 #35
I agree with you liberal_mama Mar 2012 #42
It's not so bad to own up to it 2pooped2pop Mar 2012 #47
Exactly. pa28 Mar 2012 #53
My shift is about up, and by the time I rise this thread will have been vaporized by Team Maddow WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2012 #36
There is a difference between belittling a perception, and belittling a person. haele Mar 2012 #43
I'm in my "man cave" right now. Actually it's just the computer room, however... HopeHoops Mar 2012 #44
Trolling FAIL. Odin2005 Mar 2012 #45
He tried to poo poo Maher Rex Mar 2012 #51
...you'd have to morally dumb not to see the difference fascisthunter Mar 2012 #46
Wow, people cannot handle Gush being called out Rex Mar 2012 #50
So true Cali_Democrat Mar 2012 #58
Wait...what? NoNeed4Attention Mar 2012 #54
Because most men aren't so overly sensitive that they see 'evil intentions' behind every joke. DutchLiberal Mar 2012 #55
This has to be satire. Quantess Mar 2012 #57
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why has no one called out...»Reply #43