Mid-February 2012, a Congressional hearing on contraception was held. The hearing sparked outrage among leftists/Democrats and women’s groups, because House Oversight Committee Chairman, Darrell Issa, allowed no women to join the panel of witnesses to testify. House Democrats responded by holding an unofficial hearing of their own a few days later while Congress was not in session. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi chose to allow Sandra Fluke, the woman barred from the previous hearing, to represent women in the ongoing contraception debate. No Republicans attended the hearing.
Sandra Fluke is a 30-year-old graduate of Cornell University, and 3rd year law student at Georgetown University Law Center–a young, white woman of privilege. In an attempt to make a case for instituting government policies requiring colleges and universities to provide contraception as a form of typical healthcare, the main argument in Fluke’s testimony was that birth control medications are used for reasons other than avoiding unwanted pregnancies. In other words, birth control is used to treat some medical conditions that have nothing to do with preventing unwanted pregnancies. Fluke cited cost concerns for students like herself.
The purpose of her testimony was to shift the dialogue from contraception being primarily used for preventing pregnancy, to focus on the women who need contraception to treat medical issues unrelated to preventing pregnancy. Notice that she didn’t refute the extreme Republican view that people who want to use contraception for birth control don’t deserve the right to have costs covered in health insurance plans. Fluke is not arguing on behalf of all women, but on behalf of women like herself–young, middle to upper class professional women.
Controversial Statements by Rush Limbaugh
Of course, Rush Limbaugh could not resist the urge to chime in, and persisted to label Sandra Fluke a ‘slut’ and ‘prostitute.’ This act by druggie Limbaugh sparked another outcry from the left, Democrats, and women’s groups. The energy behind the outcry is not simply that Mr. “I like pills” called a woman some subjectively derogatory terms, but that it was somehow an attack on all women. It is not simply that he said some sexist things; the underlying beef is that he made those statements about a woman who fights for the cause of women’s rights via her involvement in women’s rights organizations. That would make Fluke far more important than any regular woman whom he could attack.
Groups upset with Limbaugh channeled their anger to the cause of hurting Rush’s overweight pockets, by calling for boycotts of companies that advertise on his ridiculous radio show. This is a very reactionary move on the part of those who oppose the vitriol, hate, and mere insensitivities slobbered by Limbaugh pretty much daily on his program.
Outside of the brainwashed Right, everyone knows that Limbaugh’s program is a cesspool of foolish statements that have been reeking throughout the airwaves for decades. It took until 2012 for things to get so bad that people decided to band together to do something about the Limbaugh problem. Why have there been no boycotts of his advertisers of this magnitude organized before the attack on the privileged white woman?
The Role Of Advertisers
Many of the companies people are now demanding we boycott were advertisers on Rush Limbaugh’s program before he made the statements about Sandra Fluke. (I bet you didn’t know that!) Limbaugh is a superstar radio host in 2012, because companies have been advertising on his garbage talk show for years before this incident; he has a multi-million dollar contract for goodness sake!
This boycott is being used as a method of negotiation to cause corporations–that many people do not regularly support–to pull ads from Rush Limbaugh’s broadcast, thereby hurting him financially, even though he has already gained so much. If those advertisers were not funding Rush’s show prior to him making the statements about Fluke, maybe we would know nothing about him at all.
Politics and Publicity
The boycott could have taken place when he offended Latina women, Black women, or any of the hundreds of groups he spoke of in such nonsensical fashion over the years. Now that the privileged white woman was attacked, it appears that Rush Limbaugh has only recently crossed the line of disgust. This is because Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party have made Sandra Fluke a symbol of the woman, a hero of sorts. Rush Limbaugh’s attack now is seen as more devious, because (talking to other-than-colored folk) he attacked your sister, your wife, or maybe even you; It has gotten personal.
We all know that Rush Limbaugh is, above all, an entertainer. In terms of everyday life and government policy, his daily barrage of BS does not directly impact the lives of people as a whole. His statements about Sandra Fluke do not negatively affect women. He simply offended some women, many of whom would not have been offended if his statements had not been rebroadcasted by others within the media establishment. His job as a vocal entertainer is to use “shock speech” to make controversial statements for the purpose of publicity. Advertisers pay for spots on his show because there are plenty of people out there who want to and continue to listen to the many offensive statements made by Limbaugh daily.
The framing of these recent events as one concerning women and affecting women’s rights, is constructed by the Democratic party and other groups for political reasons. That is why Sandra Fluke was testifying at a fake hearing to begin with. It has been framed in this way to get others to join their particular causes.
Wal-Mart Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
In June 2001, a class action lawsuit was brought against Wal-Mart for discrimination against female workers. What would become a class action, represented well over a million former and current female Wal-Mart employees, citing inequality in pay and promotions among other things (Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.). Almost simultaneously, another class action lawsuit representing all women workers against Wal-Mart was taken to court due to Wal-Mart’s practice of excluding contraceptives from its prescription drug plan (Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.). The public backing of women against Wal-mart’s women’s rights violations was seeminly non-existent. One could argue that a reason for the lack of backing was the absence of today’s social media back in 2001. However, the Dukes v. Wal-Mart case continued well into 2011, with little to no public support or outcry. Still, there were no wide spreading boycotts that we see now concerning what an entertainment talk show host simply said about a woman.
It is undeniable that Wal-Mart’s actions directly affected the lives of millions of women on a truly practical level. Wal-Mart is directly linked to the financial situations and economic standings of their female employees. Their policies directly restricted female employees’ access to contraception. Yet, no boycotts against Wal-Mart, no major protests on behalf of women who may have been below Sandra Fluke on the socio-economic pyramid. This may be due to some idea in the minds of the masses that Wal-Mart employees are not, or should not, be included in the class of “women” deserving rights–or at least worth the fight.
According to public sentiment, a woman worth rallying behind, is one who is “responsible,” or one who is an example of what women should aspire to be. Sandra Fluke represents all of the best qualities that can be assembled to present the world with the perfect model of a woman trying to achieve the American Dream. Fluke was placed at the hearing in front of Nancy Pelosi and cameras to show the “best” representation of women deserving of rights–not merely struggling Wal-Mart employees, or Black or Latina women, or poor women.
Hypocrisy Of The Democrats
Today, we see an amazing push by liberals and Democrats on behalf of a law student for the cause of women’s rights. But at the same time, we have a president who is a Democrat and numerous members of the Democratic party who support direct inhumane actions against women. The Democratic party stands firmly behind President Barack Obama as he authorizes and supports dropping bombs and missiles on the heads of women in countries around the world–notably Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. U.S. drone strikes continue to KILL women regularly in countries outside the U.S., yet no peep about boycotting the Democratic party or companies profitting from those atrocious U.S. actions–at least not widespread enough to make an impact in a way that has affected the conservative entertainer Rush Limbaugh for talking about things. Will Democrats such as Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and others who’ve done nothing wrong besides being born somewhere when election season rolls around be boycotted by those boycotting Limbaugh’s sponsors? No. They want a symbolic victory. They want a victory against right-wingers, not for women’s rights or women collectively.
Finally, the Democrats have taken a strategy from the Republican playbook. They have created a symbol, a cause to trumpet in order to promote an idea. Democrats have tried this same tactic recently but have failed with causes such as “green energy” and “health care.” Sandra Fluke is the Democratic party’s Joe the Plumber. She represents women and women’s rights. Being attacked by conservative political commentator Rush Limbugh is seen as an attack on women and women’s rights, because Rush Limbaugh is already somewhat of the “Super Conservative,” though insignificant in terms of change or political effectiveness. First, Rep. Darrell Issa denied Fluke the opportunity to speak on behalf of women, and now, Super Conservative called her a slut and prostitute. Now, it looks as though conservative Republicans see women as sluts and prostitutes who are incapable of speaking on their own behalf, let alone making decisions as to what happens with their own bodies. Nancy Pelosi, a woman in her own right, questioning Sandra Fluke in the fake hearing puts liberals and Democrats on the side of giving women a voice and women’s rights a chance.
The Problem With The Advertiser Boycotts
At the same time, these recent events beg the question of where responsibility lies. Companies that have funded Rush Limbaugh through ads would not hurt much at the end of the day. An advertiser can find different places to advertise. All that needs to be done is offer money to whomever is willing to take it. It doesn’t even have to be someone as extreme as Limbaugh, but there are plenty of others who have no problem with taking corporate money. If advertisers all jump the Rush ship, those same companies will continue to profit and thrive within capitalism. Simply by jumping ship, boycotters will cheer and no further blame or action will be required of those companies. Ending advertisements on Rush Limbaugh’s program will be seen as the victory. Their hands will be clean and free to fund another hate speaker. Boycotters still have not made the connection that Limbaugh said those things because those companies made and kept him wealthy, so continuing a boycott after they jump ship is very unlikely.
As we see with the case of Wal-Mart, they got away with robust and widespread discrimination against women. The Democratic party is also not required to own up to its hands in killing women living regular lives outside of the United States, because right now they are the group that appears to be pushing the agenda of gaining women equal rights and voice.
Carpe Diem
The Republican’s grand idea of bring up social issues during crucial election times has backfired, because Democrats were finally successful–which is extremely rare–in creating a symbol. The Democrats are now the victors in the national debate regarding women’s rights, because everyone is on their side, or they appear to be on the side of the people on this issue.
Yes, it’s a complicated world. On the surface you have Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke names. But, beneath the surface there is an intricate web of activity that goes unnoticed–nobody’s doing anything besides appearing to do something. People need to start to stand on principles continuously, not just when it is convenient and popular. They also need to realize that when the media pushes these stories, all is not what it appears to be–they’ve fallen for the propaganda of the elite mainstream media. It’s all a charade and the Democrats FLUKE doesn’t change this, nor does it advance the cause of women’s rights!
108 comments »