Spot on!

No man can tell me when I have received adequate apology and someone jumped on me saying Maher defends women every day. It boggles the mind the level of bs on some issues in this place.

hear hear

or

here here.

now i have to go back and hit recommend.

You can't bankrupt him....and there's not much in the shame department to hit him with...and he could always pull a Howard Stern and go to Sat radio. And now for your viewing enjoyment, some less noticed misogyny:

Ed Schultz:

“President Obama is going to be visiting Joplin, Missouri on Sunday but you know what they’re talking about, like this right-wing slut, what’s her name?” Schultz asked on his radio program last year. “Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she’s a talk slut.”

Bill Maher:

"Did you hear this – Sarah Palin finally heard what happened in Japan and she’s demanding that we invade ‘Tsunami. I mean she said, ‘These ‘Tsunamians’ will not get away with this.’ Oh speaking of dumb tw**s, did you...”

Neal Boortz on Kagan:

"Has anyone seen Mike Myers and your new Supreme in the same room at the same time?" "Justice Shrek?"

Michael Savage:

"Kagan makes Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg look like a Kazakhstan beauty"

Chris Matthews on Hillary Clinton:

"strip-teaser." "witchy" "Nurse Ratched."

...where any of the men you named went on a days-long lying spree about those women, making up nasty stories about their sexual behavior.

All of those men should be called on their name-calling. I know that Ed Shultz apologized and went off the air for a week. Limbaugh apologized for the use of two words, among the hours of slander that he perpetrated against Sandra Fluke.

It is not the same thing. Sometimes a difference in degree adds up to a difference in kind. This is one of those cases.

But to ignore the distinction between a crude one-liner (for which Maher was criticized by many on DU and nearly all feminist organizations) and a sustained 3 day woman/women hating assault is advancing a false equivalency.

Limbaugh has been spewing his misogynist (and racist and homophobic) bile for decades. Yet, even so, he's not only been able to maintain his public broadcast career but has garnered the respect of the RNC and has been the beneficiary of puff pieces in mainstream media.

Now, if Rush had strung out his 70+ incidences of vitriol over a period of weeks rather than days, he would have received criticism, some of it high profile, but he would have not faced an outright rebellion.

attack. not even comparable.

BUT a contributor to a climate that allowed limbaugh to believe that a three day assault on this woman would not be an issue, because we have people like him, for years, and maher and many others using this language against females.

maher is not even comparable. agreed.

And certainly, I condemn Maher (who I never watch specifically because of his misogyny). And yes, he is a contributor to the climate of anti-women rhetoric but I am not going to call for his head at this time or waste my time pretending that Maher actions and Rush's actions are equivalent.

Rush is facing rebellion based on the virulency of his attack. Though I'd love to live in a world where his past overt misogyny faced as much criticism as this latest instance.

would have passed along with all the other shit he has said in the past. the fool kept going, getting cruder and more vulgar and too long. even the most shallow and obtuse got it.

I have no idea who you are--I've seen you around for a couple of months. But you can stop the pedantic and preachy tone, and the inference that this place can't run without you. I promise you that it can--GET IT. You'd better learn to narrow your attacks to whomever may have specifically attacked you, and leave those who didn't out of your tantrum. Clear?

If anyone anywhere ever utters the C word they're a sexist? What happens when women use the word? Do they hate their own gender? What a load of malarkey.

If the "rule" now is that any man who uses the C word is a sexist, then I submit that any woman who's ever uttered the words used to describe male genitalia is also a sexist. That's right, if she ever got mad and called her coworker a "dick," or if she ever suggested that a man was thinking with "the other head" then she's an unabashed sexist. I mean, according to you, the mere repetition of a word irrespective of the intent of the speaker is absolutely sexism, and if we're going to apply that rule, let's be equal in its application.

In your world apparently the word of a comedian should be taken literally. Richard Pryor once did a bit about lions in Africa speaking, like in English. Are you suggesting that they actually did? Or that Pryor, what, hallucinated it? It was a joke, and he said it to make the point that animals in Africa aren't as tame as they are here, for the most part. Maher's comments about Palin were offensive, intentionally so, because she's an offensive human being. She makes a living offending people. What do you call that person if you're a comedian? An "offensive human being"? Boy, I can hear the laughs rolling in already! He's unequivocally stated that he doesn't judge Palin for being a woman, rather that he judges her for being an idiot. He's said that explicitly. Yet you and people like you simply choose to hear otherwise, demanding that everyone conform to YOUR values or risk being labeled as something they're not.

We all work to pay the bills. Maher pays his bills by telling jokes. He makes fun of every group, including the groups in which he resides (male, white, Jewish, Hollywood, etc.) So I guess because he's joked about Jewish people that he's an anti-Semite, right? That might be difficult, though, considering his mom is Jewish, and he considers himself half-Jewish. He's said that old white men shouldn't be making the rules for everyone else, so I guess he's anti-white? Yes, he clearly hates himself. I mean why is it that his jokes about every other group don't necessarily make him a hater of those groups, but the one group - women - he simply shouldn't joke about that. Why? He's never once stated that women are lesser than men, and in fact he's discussed the wage gap between men and women and said it's appalling. He once called Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann "boobs," and of course he was roundly criticized for that - seemingly unnoticed, though, was the fact that he also called George W. Bush a boob, and that one of the dictionary definitions of "boob" is "a stupid person; fool; dunce."

There are some words that certain groups should never use. The N word is clearly one of those because it can only be said to disparage, demean, and hurt a group of people. But the C word is often used to describe things quite apart from a sexual organ, and is also used in reference to both sexes. If you're offended by the word's usage I'd point out that's YOUR problem, not the speaker's, inasmuch as it has multiple uses and meanings, and it doesn't inherently denote sexism or even a gender calculation. By contrast, the term "slut" is much like the N word inasmuch as it inherently implies a value judgment of the other person; their perceived "worth" is inherently demeaned simply by saying the word. There is no equivalency between Limbaugh and Maher, at least not for those of us still blessed enough to remain attached to reality.

I wrote plenty, you simply sniped back without arguing ANYTHING. I'm sure you view what you've written as the pinnacle of clever, but all you've managed to do is childishly spout what is the effective equivalent of "nuh-uh!"

Whenever you're ready to take off the training wheels and actually make a point lemme know.

Sexism is believing another gender to be inferior to one's own. It's intent which is used to judge whether something or someone is sexist. For example an employer who pays women less, that's sexism. A man who thinks his wife or girlfriend belongs in the house is also sexism. If a man were to call a woman the C word with the intention of demeaning her as a woman, that would be sexism. But men often call each other the C word, amongst other flattering terms. Is that sexism? I'd suggest not because I am a man, and whenever I've used that word I never meant it as somehow demeaning of the person based upon their gender, but instead as an angry snipe against the person individually - be it a man or a woman.

What you're saying is that everyone who uses that word - no matter the intention - is a sexist. The problem is that's almost entirely wrong. I'm a guy, and in conversations with other guys I've literally never met a single one who thinks women are in any way "lesser" than men. Not a single one. Not all of them have used the C word, but the ones who did - in my experience - never meant to do anything remotely sexist. And absent intention, absent malice, it's not sexism. You might call it insensitive or even offensive, but sexism requires a value judgment - one presuming that one gender is superior. Without that judgment there is necessarily not sexism present.

Put a different way, if a woman were to get angry at a male coworker and called him a "dick," is that sexist? I'd suggest not: it's a commonly used word to express disdain for someone else. You must be fair in your application of the rule, though: If saying the C word is "sexist," then using other terms describing the male "parts" must also be sexism if applied to a man. Pretty soon no one could make jokes or get angry and use the ever-broadening array of body part slurs against anyone else lest they be painted a sexist, no matter that their intention wasn't meant to demean a gender but instead one particular person.

This shotgun approach to defining other people based entirely upon a very broad definition is wrong and counterproductive. While people waste time discussing what Bill Maher may or may not have said, they lose that time fighting against the actual sexists in this country who inflict real damage upon women. Large corporations, male bosses in occupations traditionally occupied by men, and of course the creeps in Congress and state houses across the country - all of whom are causing women REAL damage. But instead some people are set on attacking Bill Maher - a comedian - for making jokes which they don't like. If someone doesn't like Maher then they should utilize the little plastic thing that came with their TV and change the station; no one is forced to listen to him. That as contrasted to jobs and the law, the former being something most everyone needs and the latter controlling one's freedoms.

the N word is used among black people, but it's still racist if a white person says it. The C word is sexist when a man calls a woman a C. I'm a woman and I KNOW it is.

Last edited Sat Mar 10, 2012, 06:33 PM - Edit history (1)

That's incredible! So much so that I don't believe it - largely because the only reasoning you offer is your gut feeling on what someone else is thinks and feels. The problem with that is that you don't know what other people intend to do literally all of the time, and you don't get to rewrite the dictionary to suit your sensibilities.

The N word is ENTIRELY different because it had NO OTHER USAGE than to disparage an entire race of people, so of course it's mere usage is inherently racist (with the exception of quoting someone else). The C word describes a body part, is a friendly or not friendly unisex insult, AND it has a sexist application. That you're only familiar with the latter - or seem to hurriedly assume that the first 2 common uses simply MUST be the third because you can't figure out the difference - is a failing of yours, not of every speaker. Clearly if a man INTENDS to demean a woman for her gender through WHATEVER word he uses, that would be a sexist act - and there are cases where using the C word was intended to do that. But automatically assuming intent is an irrational, unfounded action.

Think about it a bit more: The N word literally only means one thing, a devaluation of another human being based on race. African Americans don't even say it amongst each other, they instead use a hyphenated version of it which is the way they've ingeniously taken it back. Contrast that with the C word: It's a very crude word, but it does have 3 possible meanings/intentions. So it's mere usage isn't as clear as the N word given that the speaker might intend one, two, or three different things with it, 2 of them being absent a desire to judge women based upon their gender. That and of course some women also use the word - not a hyphenated or "taken-back" version, but the word itself - so that alone suggests it's not always sexist to use it.

I think you do actually require a lesson on what sexism is, as you seem to think it's well defined by who uses what terminology. I'm betting that the vast majority of true sexists would never say the C word in public, but they continue to pay women less - and for that reason they'd never say the word publicly lest their business get sued for gender bias. Or in the case of politicians, I've never heard Bob McDonnell say that word, yet I do know his forced vaginal probe law is horribly sexist.

We are all truly equal, blacks, whites, women, men, all of us. We're all human beings, all created equally. We have different sexual organs, but I've never been one to think that sets our worth. And I think very few people actually believe in gender or racial superiority, although the exceptions to that are unfortunately noisy and tend to be able to affect policy. We should focus our attention on them, the ones who do objectively sexist things which objectively subjugate women and/or minorities for it's they - not the foul-mouthed guy in a bar or some comedian - who are doing tangible harm to people.

sexist language. You could easily say that a white person wasn't thinking racist thoughts when he called a black person an n. The thoughts of the white person who called the name are irrelevant. What matters is how the black person feels about it. And it's the same with the c word. It doesn't matter whether women use the word or not either. That is completely irrelevant to whether it's sexist for a man to call a woman a c.

And your other argument about Bob McDonnell is just crazy. You're basically saying if a sexist like Bob doesn't say the c word, that means the c word isn't sexist. Come on. It's pretty obvious who need the lesson on sexism, and it's not me.

If you can't accept that a woman says it's sexist for you to call her a c, then there's really nothing more to say. Continue calling women c's all you want. You have a right to free speech, and I have a right to judge that speech and the person using it as sexist. And I have nothing further to say to someone like that because it's not worth my time.

With respect to Bob McDonnell, I was saying that although he doesn't say the word (in public) he's passing laws which are horrifically sexist. Objectively so: They demean women based entirely upon their gender. That's sexism. Your argument is that if a man ever utters the C word he's automatically a sexist, wholly failing to account for his motivations behind the word, and ignoring that most sexists who have actual impact on women's lives don't even say the word.

No one in the world could reasonably or credibly say that a white person saying the N word "wasn't thinking racist thoughts" because the word literally only has that definition; there's no "good way" of saying it; there's no "innocent" definition. So no, there is no equivalence between the C and N words. None. One is literally ALWAYS meant to degrade a person based upon their race, the other has no less than 3 common uses - only one of them being sexist. Try as you might you simply can't make the two words the same because of that very difference: That one has no "innocent" definition whereas the other does. And when there are multiple possibilities in a given situation, defaulting to the worst of them is a judgment, likely one made by you about the gender of the speaker. In a way it's sexism, you're assuming that men simply aren't capable of using the other 2 definitions, that they simply must be using the other either because you're incapable or unwilling of grasping the difference, or because you think men are thusly uncapable.

And what I note you're rather reticent about, that women ALSO use the word. Why the silence? Could it be because that necessarily refutes your argument? Or is it that you think women should have a right to that word that men don't? Why? Wouldn't that be a form of sexism? If not, why? I thought we wanted equality of the sexes, not that one would have special privileges that the other doesn't also enjoy. That wouldn't be equality, it'd be an ersatz societal experiment in which we call inherent inequality its opposite and hope no one notices the striking hypocrisy.

You most certainly do not have the right to call me a sexist. I am not a sexist in any way, shape, or form. I don't accept *YOUR* interpretation of that word, nor do I accept *YOUR* supposition that it's universally offensive in that way irrespective of intent. You don't have the right to tell me that if I don't speak in the way you like that you get to label me with a term which demeans and defames my character. I haven't done that to you, and I resent you doing it to me as callously as you've done.

I'm perhaps the perfect feminist inasmuch as I want absolute equality. I want women to be paid EXACTLY the same for the same job. I want women to have EXACTLY the same opportunities that a man has. I want women to be considered by men as equals in EVERYTHING. I don't want women being singled out by laws based upon their gender, as I wouldn't want to be singled out by laws for being a man. That is equality, and it's the cornerstone of what being a feminist is. Not some silly insulation from a multiple-definition word which many women use to each other AND in reference to us. That wouldn't be equality. In fact I don't even know what that would be called. What you want is some fantasy world in which every group offended by some word gets to libel the speaker ... well actually not even the speaker in this case, you've libeled me and I never even said the word. Where you got that sense of grand entitlement I have no idea, but please note that some of us see it for what it is. And what it is is pathetic.

Limbaugh is their LEADER. He makes their candidates,he breaks them. Maher is comediene on cable.

Example?

How many times is a person allowed to be a sexist jackass? Condemning both is not hard. Demanding better is not hard. It doesn't dilute the message that Limbaugh is a sexist jackass, it shows the conviction of those who want a better world.

"Why does it matter if it's 1 time or 53 times?"

...the OP is certainly a convoluted way to claim that what Limbaugh did is the same as everything else. Here you are trying to claim that a single incident or two from the past is the same as a vile ongoing assault on a private citizen.

This is the equivalency that has been made to cover Limbaugh's ass: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002379474

No one is giving anyone a pass, but the constant claims to that effect and putting people in the position of refuting them is nothing but pure obfuscation. If you want to condemn someone, do it, but do it without straw men.

In fact, the other people being dragged out to provide cover for Limbaugh didn't spend the last week engaged in vile non-stop attacks on women.

Maher is an asshole who defended Limbaugh. Maher is also an asshole who was removed from the public airwaves and Taibbi is a writer for a magazine.

Maybe those insisting on drawing false equivalencies could demand that Limbaugh get the same treatment as Maher.

Have you signed the petition: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002406945

to get away with being a sexist pig. I haven't even come close. That's claiming an argument I never made.

What I have been speaking about from word No. 1 is that the standard need to apply equally because sexism is never acceptable. The person/venue/audience size/number of offenses/political affiliation are immaterial to the fact that sexism is meant to demean a woman based on her gender.

If I was confronted with 2 cases of homophobia where 1 person had been excoriated and the other left undisturbed my complaint wouldn't be to allow both to go but I would want to know why both weren't made to understand the vileness of their actions.

"Yes, but our side likes him," isn't an excuse; that would make those who pretend to be on our side into unprincipled hypocrites.

"Yes, but only a few other people heard him say it," isn't an excuse. Homophobia is an attack on good people trying to demean who they are.

"Yes, but he only said it a few times," isn't an excuse; it's disgusting the first time.

Until then, he's just another jester trying to get attention.

OTOH, Limbaugh IS the GOP. And NOBODY on the right EVER criticizes him.

Am I not allowed to ask that sexism NOT be condoned regardless of where it comes from?

Just so there is no ambiguity -- People who condone/excuse/turn a blind eye to sexism are pigs just like Limbaugh. People who condone/excuse/turn a blind eye to sexism are unprincipled pigs.

And I don't how that has even the slightest relation to the article you linked. I never came close to suggestion Limbaugh not feel the heat for his behavior. I said that same standard has to be applied equally. I don't understand why you find that disgusting.

People are turning a blind eye to sexism and when others point this out -- not to excuse Limbaugh but to confront sexism -- we're told how we have to accept the lamest excuses as to why their guy isn't as bad as Limbaugh. We're being told "don't listen to Sexist X, but Sexist Y is totally OK because {insert lame excuse here}."

That's telling me what to read, watch, listen to and how I'm supposed to digest it.

What is so hard about that?

It doesn't matter if it's Limbaugh, Maher, Rude Pundit or anyone else. That's my point, they're the same. It doesn't matter where they broadcast their sexism, who the audience is, who the target is or any of the other ridiculous absurd excuses meant to enable one side while condemning the other.

People who enable racism are pigs as much as the racists they defend.

People who enable homophobia are pigs as much as the homophobes they defend.

It's called consistency. It's called principles. Sadly, it seems to be a lacking quality when political expediency is the rule of the day.

Not only will some DUers defend him, there are some who will openly state they AGREE with him.

I guess it's because he's not on the "public airwaves"... Oh wait! Is the Internet "public"? Is there any government funding for the Internet?

Only right-wing sexists are hated it would seem.

I can't decide if what you're saying disappointing, saddening, infuriating, disgusting, or -- I don't know. I feel like I just woke-up to find people who are pretending to be on my side are just using me and when I ask they show principled consistency they'll damn me as strongly as they'll damn the person they pretend to be damning on my behalf.

It's shallow, manipulative and disgusting. They are the real sexists. Dehumanizing users. My god, what a betrayal.

defending the pundit. cause he is rude after all. what do you expect.

yes. just like that.

more false equivalency, and inaccuracy- examine each eg you use. and go back to work. adding to what many have already said, limbaugh's attacks are usually for a political purpose, fed by think tanks like the heritage foundation.

in this case the purpose was to intimidate Fluke and keep her down. he's been getting away with this shit for 20 years.

he's using public airwaves on stations licensed to serve in the public interest, hiding behind call screeners so he doesn't have to take real calls.

ed apologized (really) to her (a RW lying propagandist asshole who helped lie us into iraq), and took a self imposed leave of absence, felt badly.

maher is a real comedian on subscription airwaves.

anti choice laws. Rush Limbaugh is not a comedian on TV, he's a very big power broker in the republican party.

Did I miss anything?

As if sexism is mitgated by audience size, venue, noteriety of the target, number of repititions or whatever. How is any of that even remotely serve as an excuse for deliberate, repeated sexism?

And yes, in this thread I've been accused of listening to Sean Hannity (oh, the irony). No challenge to any point I made, just a personal dismissal.

"As if sexism is mitgated by audience size, venue, noteriety of the target, number of repititions."

Without the beignning of the sentence the context of what I wrote is completely inverted. I assume the mistake was unintended.

i need clarity, please. is this sentence saying that if a person protests sexist remarks from the left, they are rushbots and infiltrators?

and less like moore getting all macho with maher, all those times i have called these men out for sexist remarks, if i now say anything i am an infiltrator for rush?

my choice is to defend these people i have always called out, or shut up.

really?

JUST KIDDING. Don't hit me. Hell, I ain't shutting up. This bullshit pushback against a consistent crusade against sexism is only making me more dedicated.

I should have reported the person who called me a Rushbot but I know there are too many supporters of that viewpoint for such a clearly TOS-violating act of namecalling to get a jury decision in my favor.

"you said... allow me to sum up your critics"

...I did not: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=407971

i went to the post you responded to, and did not see it.

thanks

There are a bunch more examples on here but what's the point, you are hell bent upon denying the facts.

I don't need to come to you for validation.

In general though, on an overall scale, there isn't a close comparison or equivalency between left and right in this regard. I do not think, say for instance, Ed Schultz and the right are close even though he said derogatory things about the hateful Laura Ingraham and realized he spoke inappropriately on a larger scale than was necessary. However, even though my family watches Bill's program because of the quality of guests and discussion, it is time for Bill to become aware of his problem. Awareness is the first step in correcting one's faults. He can't become aware intellectually unless people begin bringing it to his attention that it isn't funny to be so. Forms of hate and disrespect are never humorous. It's not the same as mocking another's hateful ignorance.

he may get it and always has and doesnt give a shit. i think him telling dems they look bad being "outraged" after an apology pretty much lets us know he doesnt give a shit.

He may not get it. To put it as dems looking bad concerning outrage indicates that possibility. But we will see.

are democrats and represent the party is and always has been wrong.

i would like that recognition also.

they support a lot of dem stuff. but both have issue with dem party and declare being something other than dem.

Salon has a piece on it if you're interested:

The Somewhat False Equivalency of Bill Maher & Rush Limbaugh
MARCH 8, 2012 10:11AM

Just as Rush Limbaugh has his many detractors, he has his many supporters, and almost in a chorus, those supporters have spent the last couple of days arguing that the other side says horrible things about women, too, but never seem to face this kind of tidal wave of public criticism.

Their case in chief: Bill Maher.

The argument is not entirely without merit. Maher is one of a class of political pundits whose various hang-ups about women frequently leak into their commentary. It’s not that hard to talk about the many flaws of Sarah Palin without employing the word “cunt.” Or to debate the merits of Michele Bachmann without calling her a “bimbo.” Maher’s never been able to make that leap. (Remember, this is the guy who opined back in 1993 that “though claiming to be feminists, don’t many women – when it suits them, when it’s convenient – retreat back to their pre-feminist role of manipulating men through helpless, deferential behavior?”) And while it’s incorrect to claim that Maher is never criticized for his more outrageous comments by the feminist movement in general, it’s accurate to say that high-profile Democratic and progressive women have been somewhat reluctant to call him on those statements.

At the end of the day, though, it’s comparing a rotten crab-apple to a rotund, mealy orange...

More here: http://open.salon.com/blog/heather_michon/2012/03/08/the_somewhat_false_equivalency_of_bill_maher_rush_limbaugh

an excellent piece, but again this:

I don't like it, for example, when I see name-calling against Rush or Mitten's wives that seems fixated on their gender. Stupidity is another matter ...

But I completely agree with you about Rush - I have signed all petitions I have come across (including the one on whitehouse.gov). I think he's toast at this point.

That's the problem with the country right now. Extremes.

Not boycotting a comedian because he said something vile is not the same as being okay with what he said. But he didn't hit someone, like Mel Gibson, or go on a tirade with vile language against a child, like Alec Baldwin.

He's a comedian, a political humorist. He crossed a line & was vile. I hate it. Disagree with it. But he's a comedian and not the leader of a political party, or a political talk show host.

Comedians often cross the line. I choose to move on past that and appreciate the clever humor that he possesses. It's not the same as the Rush language, since he's a leader of the GOP and is a king maker and many take their marching orders from him. No one takes marching orders from Maher.

I haven't boycotted Alec Baldwin, either. I HAVE, OTOH, boycotted Mel Gibson. Anti-semitism and domestic violence warrant that...he truly is at his core a vile, bigoted, hateful person. It overshadows his talent, IMO. And given the history of the Jews, I will not stand for anti-semitism in any form.

what limbaugh did is not what others do. hence, all hell breaking out about limbaugh and not the others.

when a sexist comment is made, some of us speak out. when a maher who stands up for womens rights also shows his misogynist views, some of us speak out. we are often and continously attacked with excuses for the man. personally, i see more an issue from people that recognize inequalities and making excuses for poor behavior than the idiots that are ignorant all the way around.

but, it is not saying what limbaugh did is comparable to what maher does.

it is being consistent calling out the sexist

i dont know why we have to say they are equal in order to call out poor or offensive behavior.

Or the hateful-to-his-child Alec Baldwin?

It could just go on and on and on.

Gibson was, by far, more vile than Maher. Gibson's words and actions were more indicative of deep seated hatred and bigotry against Jews and women, followed by actions. His actions were multiple and were such in nature as to speak to his rotten core as a human being. He is, at his core, a Jew-hater and woman-hater. I boycotted Gibson years ago & still will not watch any movie he is associated with.

Baldwin's incident was only once and in the throes of a bad divorce. I gave him a pass on that one. I'm not sure if he apologized, but he seemed genuinely sorry in some things he said.

I recognized YEARS ago that Maher is sexist. People on this board will disagree with me, but I have seen enough and heard enough to know that he is. A lot of men are. But Maher is a comedian and political humorist. Ultimately, I don't care much about his views on women since they don't rise to the level of interfering with women's rights, and he's not a leader of a party, like Limpballs. Maher has not exhibited hatred towards all women, IMO, has not beat them up, or expressed anti-semitic views or views about women that show he wants them to have fewer rights (like Limpballs).

They then try to deflect by pointing at Bill Maher and it works like a charm, on you at least.

If the Republicans never brought up Bill's old remarks, would you have mentioned them in the context of the recent Rush Limbaugh debate? I doubt it.

Hell, you can drown your one-night stand and still be a "lion" in some circles so long s you're of the right political creed.

"I dunno. If Rush was a doctrinaire liberal would he have been as strongly condemned?"

...you saying that Limbaugh is only being condemn by liberals because he's a Repulican? See, that's an attempt to call into question the motives of those condemning Limbaugh.

"Limbaugh is only being condemn by liberals because he's a Repulican"
there is some political currency to be earned from this fiasco and some on the "left" will seek to take it
there will of course be those who are genuinely offended and those who will be offended because it pushes their agenda
and some who are genuinely offended and ready to use the offence to move their agenda
i think what is jerking folks chains here is more the lack of offence when the offender agrees with you
we all need to realize human nature is such that you will always cut more slack for those who agree with you
if we start exiling everyone who has said a sexist comment then soon we will have a completely empty room
we are all sexist creatures like it or not and we see the world only from our wo/mans eyes
we have no context but our own

I would certainly think not and I use John Edwards as my evidence. How many folks are standing up for his behavior here? I knew supporters of his who felt horrible for Elizabeth but they were furious with John. They most certainly did denounce and condemn him, and many wanted their campaign contributions returned as well.

and being a loud mouth myself, that certainly says something.

be it edward or any of a number of others that cross the line, the majority speak out. there were plenty that made excuses for edward, too. but in my view, they were the minority. the would also be the ones that consistently stand up for the other men that use sexist language.

personally, i do not think there is the argument that the left ignores.... as a whole.

with a majority of people too. Having the ability to see the big picture doesn't fit with today's propaganda culture.

But there is a difference of degree and a difference, I think, of intent. Words can have different meanings in different contexts. For example if I say, "I hate you!" while smiling because you just ate my cookie---that statement is a lot different than saying those same words while pointing a gun at my head. Please stop a minute and listen to others before you jump them for not agreeing with you. I believe most people on this thread are not condoning what Maher said but recognize that the tone, context and intent may (i say MAY) have been different than when Limbaugh said the same words. I think because of the context, tone and intent behind Limbaugh's use of these words, this attitude toward women is now seen by the general public as wrong. This is a watershed moment and will impact, I believe, the words that Maher and his ilk will use in the future.