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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: University of Rochester Students Silently Protest Professor Who Defended Limbaugh, Ridiculed Fluke [View all]Mrs. Ted Nancy
(462 posts)42. Here is part of Prof. Landsburg's blog post
And if you have the stomach for it, read the comments.
Rush Limbaugh is under fire for responding in trademark fashion to the congressional testimony of Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, who wants you to pay for her contraception. If the rest of us are to share in the costs of Ms. Flukes sex life, says Rush, we should also share in the benefits, via the magic of online video. For this, Rush is accused of denying Ms. Fluke her due respect.
But while Ms. Fluke herself deserves the same basic respect we owe to any human being, her position which is whats at issue here deserves none whatseover. It deserves only to be ridiculed, mocked and jeered. To treat it with respect would be a travesty. I expect there are respectable arguments for subsidizing contraception (though I am skeptical that there are arguments sufficiently respectable to win me over), but Ms. Fluke made no such argument. All she said, in effect, was that she and others want contraception and they dont want to pay for it.
To his credit, Rush stepped in to provide the requisite mockery. To his far greater credit, he did so with a spot-on analogy: If I can reasonably be required to pay for someone elses sex life (absent any argument about externalities or other market failures), then I can reasonably demand to share in the benefits. His dense and humorless critics notwithstanding, I am 99% sure that Rush doesnt actually advocate mandatory on-line sex videos. What he advocates is logical consistency and an appreciation for ethical symmetry. So do I. Color me jealous for not having thought of this analogy myself.
Theres one place where I part company with Rush, though: He wants to brand Ms. Fluke a slut because, he says, shes demanding to be paid for sex. There are two things wrong here. First, the word slut connotes (to me at least) precisely the sort of joyous enthusiasm that would render payment superfluous. A far better word might have been prostitute (or a five-letter synonym therefor), but thats still wrong because Ms. Fluke is not in fact demanding to be paid for sex. (Not that theres anything wrong with that.) She will, as I understand it, be having sex whether she gets paid or not. Her demand is to be paid. The right word for that is something much closer to extortionist. Or better yet, extortionist with an overweening sense of entitlement. Is there a single word for that?
But while Ms. Fluke herself deserves the same basic respect we owe to any human being, her position which is whats at issue here deserves none whatseover. It deserves only to be ridiculed, mocked and jeered. To treat it with respect would be a travesty. I expect there are respectable arguments for subsidizing contraception (though I am skeptical that there are arguments sufficiently respectable to win me over), but Ms. Fluke made no such argument. All she said, in effect, was that she and others want contraception and they dont want to pay for it.
To his credit, Rush stepped in to provide the requisite mockery. To his far greater credit, he did so with a spot-on analogy: If I can reasonably be required to pay for someone elses sex life (absent any argument about externalities or other market failures), then I can reasonably demand to share in the benefits. His dense and humorless critics notwithstanding, I am 99% sure that Rush doesnt actually advocate mandatory on-line sex videos. What he advocates is logical consistency and an appreciation for ethical symmetry. So do I. Color me jealous for not having thought of this analogy myself.
Theres one place where I part company with Rush, though: He wants to brand Ms. Fluke a slut because, he says, shes demanding to be paid for sex. There are two things wrong here. First, the word slut connotes (to me at least) precisely the sort of joyous enthusiasm that would render payment superfluous. A far better word might have been prostitute (or a five-letter synonym therefor), but thats still wrong because Ms. Fluke is not in fact demanding to be paid for sex. (Not that theres anything wrong with that.) She will, as I understand it, be having sex whether she gets paid or not. Her demand is to be paid. The right word for that is something much closer to extortionist. Or better yet, extortionist with an overweening sense of entitlement. Is there a single word for that?
link
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
43 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
University of Rochester Students Silently Protest Professor Who Defended Limbaugh, Ridiculed Fluke [View all]
SunsetDreams
Mar 2012
OP
The people in Freeper land are calling those students Obama-Hitlers. They hold a dignified protest
appleannie1
Mar 2012
#4
silent protests are super creepy. I recall the silent protest of the UC davis chancellor
Liberal_in_LA
Mar 2012
#15
“I am outraged that any professor would demean a student in this fashion"
GopperStopper2680
Mar 2012
#21
Silly students don't understand university administration - there are MUCH more effective protests
saras
Mar 2012
#31
I noticed all the GOP ignore the ovarian cyst that was another woman's problem &
StarsInHerHair
Mar 2012
#39