Tag Archives: media personality

Bill O’Reilly, You So Crazy

Oh, Bill. I never cease to be amazed by some of the things you teach me. For example, how the brutal and horrifying rampage in Norway was not committed by a Christian (despite the rambling Christianity-soaked manifesto, and your O’Reilly-esque insistence that all terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslims regardless of any indication of their Islamic faith), simply because you don’t think a Christian would do that. Or like how your three visits to Africa assured you that you just can’t “bring Western reasoning into the culture.” Oh, and that the ACLU is second only to Al-Qaeda in how dangerous and threatening it is. And that poverty is a result being lazy and irresponsible, and if you just work hard and go to school, then, you know, you’ll make bags and bags of money and be just fine regardless of anything else or circumstance. Which sounds totally on point, since you also taught me that conservatives “see things in black and white, and liberals see gray.” Which sounds like nuance, and uh-oh, you’ve made me see that nuance makes things complicated…

And this past week, O’Reilly taught me this: “Many women who get pregnant are blasted out of their minds when they have sex and [are] not going to use birth control anyway.”

(First of all, if the women O’Reilly and the men he knows are having sex with are blasted out of their mind, I’d be interested in hearing how that consent discussion went. Perhaps his definition of consent is a little hazy. Recall - if she’s too drunk to consent, it’s not consensual sex.) 

But back to what he’s taught me. With this latest statement, I’ve learned that women – regardless of their sobriety level – are exclusively the ones who need to be concerned with contraception and infection (and that, in fact, they do a terrible job of this). Only one person in a two-person sexual encounter is responsible for ensuring the woman doesn’t get pregnant (hint – it is not the man). He’s also informed me that contraception is something only considered the exact moment before a sexual encounter occurs – not hours or days or months before – just in that whisper of a moment before the magic happens. If O’Reilly had actually engaged in sexual activity with the woman he harassed, maybe he would have just crossed his fingers that she was both sober and using birth control and not have give it a second passing thought or considered it his concern. So let’s all just do the same moving forward.

More seriously now – it’s unconscionable that someone supposes men should be able to have sex with a woman (a drunk or sober one) whenever they want and also not have to worry about or share the burden of responsibility to avoid pregnancy. We need to utilize as many tools as we can to prevent pregnancy, and that prevention should be shared equally between the two partners engaging in sexual activity. It would be great if health insurance took the lead and incorporated 50% (or 100%, if they were so inclined) of the cost of a partner’s contraception of choice into a man’s health insurance plan. I think that would be even more of a fighting point than co-pays being covered under plans.

Nancy Northrup, CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, did a great job and broke it down over at CBS News about why the hysteria over insurers now eliminating co-pays for women with contraceptive prescriptions that is bubbling over is not actually all that hysterical. In fact, it’s something that 28 states require to be covered by health insurance, something already covered (with those pesky co-pays) by government health insurance, and something that 99% of all women have used, regardless of religious affiliation.

Additionally, under the Affordable Care Act, virtually all of us will be required to have or purchase health insurance (a contentious point, still, largely among Republicans, but others as well). With what will be an added cost to the personal budget of many Americans, let’s take a snapshot of what the cost of birth control is: the pill is up to $50 a month (over $500/year), the NuvaRing is up to $70 a month (over $800/year) $500 – $1,000 for an IUD; even the morning after pill, used if other birth control methods failed or were forgotten, costs up to $70.  If you are currently one of the millions without healthcare and one of the millions without a job and an income, these costs are likely to be the first that are cut as you struggle to keep you and your family afloat. However. Pre-natal care costs, the cost of delivery, well visits for a newborn – and, you know, the food and clothing needs of a baby – are not going to be cheaper than the contraception options. Bottom line – prevention can be costly, and beneficial to all. Absence of prevention is even more costly, and frequently puts a lot of burden on all parties involved.

Remember how in O’Reilly’s world everyone is super wasted when they’re having sex – too wasted to worry about a condom? All these methods – the IUD, the birth control pill, the NuvaRing – can be taken or inserted well before sex. Some don’t ever come out, some devices like the NuvaRing are changed monthly. This is why these are called preventive measures. You are utilizing them well before you engage in sexual activity, so when you’re in O’Reilly’s alcohol-soaked sex fiesta and about to engage in consensual sexual activity, pregnancy is already well on the way of being stopped in its tracks. (Not STIs, let’s not forget. None of these protect against sexually transmitted diseases.) His excuse that they aren’t thinking about using contraception holds no water in the argument of preventive techniques like these that take the worry about pregnancy prevention out of the immediate sexual encounter (not 100%, though – no method is 100% effective, and I actually recommend using one of these birth control methods as well as condoms). I’d also add here that many women when drunk are still concerned with pregnancy prevention, so that weasle-y move of trying to make intoxicated women look like reckless players shooting for a fertilized egg is also inaccurate.

Bill’s “black and white” take on the issue of contraception seems to boil down to: women need to pay for their birth control, they need to pay for their pre-natal care costs and gynecological exams, they need to pay for the cost of having the baby. But the fetus was not put there by her alone. The desire to not get pregnant is not hers alone. Communicative partnerships and cost coverage in these areas leading to happy, healthy mothers and children would benefit everyone.

1 Comment

Filed under Defining Gender, Feminism, Health Education, Media, Politics, Pop Culture, Public Health, Sexism, Women's Health

Ed Schultz, the NYPD, and the Burden of Victims

Three fairly prolific things have happened in the past three days that I found to be misogynistic, sadly unsurprising, and deeply troubling. They all incorporated the ways in which women are attacked in the public eye, how the media shapes the representation of female victims, and what we think are crimes worthy of solving and what kind of help is worth giving.

Let’s start with Ed. Given the obviously hard liberal bent of this blog, I’m guessing most of you have already determined that my views are aligned with many on MSNBC, despite not usually watching TV for my news (I prefer to read my news, because I hate commercials and because I’d rather get the straight facts than deal with a sensationalized version of a story with a reporter’s personal opinion bending it one way or another). This past week, Ed Schultz referred to Laura Ingraham as a slut.

This frustrated me for a number of reasons. First of all, I don’t care about Laura Ingraham’s sex life. I don’t care how many people she’s slept with, who they are, or what they’ve done. Why does Ed? Why does anybody? To use that as a platform of attack is insulting, crude, sexist, and entirely irrelevant to the argument. Schultz was angry and wanted to be mean – and the best way to be mean to women in America is by calling them out as sex-crazy animals. It’s a double shot – you’re calling them dirty and you’re calling them immoral. Is that the way we’re mean to men in America? No. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Secondly, just take a quick, cursory look at Ingraham’s website. There are…so, SO many things that I would rather have had Schultz tackle regarding Ingraham’s absurd political ideology than calling her a slut. Without even clicking through, I can see about ten things that Schultz’s usually incisive wit and on-target analysis would have been better poised to take on. The last thing I want someone like Ingraham getting is an increased audience size due to sympathy culled because a TV personality called her a bad name. I would much rather have her getting an increased audience size due to a TV personality calling out her intense and callous right-wing agenda and seriously out there hard-core conservative rants against what she sees as Obama’s socialist agenda. He could have killed her mission with facts. Instead, he propped her mission up with an insult.

Next up – the acquittal of the two NYPD officers charged with raping a woman in her East Village apartment in 2008 after supposedly “helping her home.” The officers were called to escort a woman home who was apparently so incapacitated that she could not manage on her own. They entered her apartment, supposedly helped her into bed, and then faked 911 calls multiple times through the night so they could return to her apartment, “talk to her” and “cuddle with her” when she wasn’t wearing underwear. In their words, they were “checking in on her” and one of the officers even said he was “counseling” her on her alcohol use since as a former addict himself, claiming to recognize she may have a problem with alcohol. She reported that she awoke to a man taking off her tights and penetrating her. He said all he did was “cuddle” with her. When a conversation that she had taped became public – she went to his precinct to confront him and ask him if he had used a condom – he back-peddled and agreed that sex had occurred but that it had been consensual. He said, as quoted on the tape, that “yes, I used a condom, you don’t have to worry about diseases or anything.” She insisted on an answer to this to protect her health because she was too drunk to knowingly consent to sex. A story change like that alone – going from “we just cuddled” to “actually, we did have sex” should make one highly suspicious of his defense. It is not the job of an NYPD officer to decide that he should be counseling a woman he was called to escort home. Why, if you were so concerned with her safety, would you fake 911 calls to go back into her apartment? You could have easily reported that you were concerned and noted that you felt there was a need for her to be checked in on.

Ultimately, all the cops were found guilty of was “official misconduct.” Faking 911 calls and repeatedly entering a woman’s apartment without her consent and “cuddling” with her while she wasn’t wearing underwear? How will this precedent serves those charged with rape on the stand in the near future? If a man enters my apartment and crawls into bed while I’m not wearing underwear to “cuddle” with me while I am too incapacitated to agree to it, “misconduct” does not describe how I would categorize those events. More like…breaking and entering and assault. The defense of the officers was insulting – they claimed that she was way too drunk to make it home on her own, but that she was sober enough to consent to sex. Seems like a woman can’t win.

When a few people on the jury were asked how they came to this conclusion, one man said that they “just didn’t believe the woman’s testimony” when it was read back. They also said they felt there were holes in both her and the cops’ stories. Yet they chose to not believe the victim. I understand the concept of reasonable doubt, yes – but, in this case, we had the testimony of a cop whose story had holes in it because he was trying to cover up his actions, and the testimony of a woman whose story had holes in it because she was drunk. If she was too drunk to have a cohesive testimony, what makes one think she is sober enough to consent to sex? It seems that this definition makes people more uncomfortable than the act of the non-consensual sex itself. An NYPD officer, above all, should know this (they go through sexual assault training – did he forget?), and should be in the position of protector. I simply cannot get beyond the idea that if one thought she was so drunk, so utterly incapacitated that you needed to check on her over and over again throughout the night, why – I just have to know – would one think she was in any state to have sex?

And lastly, news recently hit that New York, undoubtedly tight on funds, has proposed cutting the special victims unit teams at hospitals that serve women who were recently sexually assaulted and raped. SVUs are the group of professionals equipped to deal with the aftermath of an assault. They gather forensic evidence from rape kits, which collect DNA and have helped track down and identify many assaulters in the past. (There are already backlogs of hundreds of unexamined rape kits in many U.S. cities, something that rightfully angers and frustrates advocates who point out that these kits are often the most reliable evidence one has in linking an attacker to a victim.) They also provide the essential mental health support for women immediately after a sexual assault, and also help connect her to services that can continue the necessary ongoing mental health support in the future. It seems like a no-brainer that these services should be offered.

These three distinct stories are each, in their unique ways, indicative of one perspective that desperately needs to change – people hate women who have a sexual identity. They blame them for being sexually active and sexually expressive; if a woman has historically had a lot of sex partners, they make sure to bring this to light during a rape accusation and claim that she must have agreed to it, it must have been consensual because she loves sex so much! When they want to insult women they use terms that are charged with implications of having too much sex (Schultz doesn’t actually care how much sex Ingraham is having – he was furious with her political idiocy, and instead of calmly articulating that and making a much needed point about her fact-less rantings, he chose to sling a comment that he thought would be more hurtful – that we socially have decided is more hurtful – one that charged she was sexually ravenous), and use that to delegitimize her. Ingraham lobs a lot of softballs for liberals; why not attack her weak political ideology instead of attacking her supposed sexual proclivity?

Why cut the services that are so obviously needed for women who, after an assault or rape, feel incredibly vulnerable, angry, confused, and scared? Why would you not want a forensic team to gather evidence that could help arrest and implicate a rapist? Why would you not want a team of mental health professionals to support the victim immediately, to help her process it, to continue to help her process it, decreasing the likelihood of her struggling with depression, chronic fear and fatigue, incredible anger, and a serious lack of faith in the criminal justice system? All I can think of is that these people…don’t believe these are real issues. They don’t believe the women who are assaulted and who try to seek justice and healing after their attacks. It seems as thought the burden of being assaulted rests on women here just because they are women. It’s much easier to denounce having sex than have to go after someone who assaulted a woman. But what these people need to remember is that rape isn’t actually about sex, it’s about power over the victim. And these three stories offer up sensational examples of how the greater social power structure perpetrates this dynamic and supports and fosters the rape culture. By acquitting the NYPD officers we’ve shown that those in power will not be questioned, by removing SVU services we’ve told women that they are losing the resources that would have helped them regain personal power and that would have legally stripped their assaulters of theirs. And Ed, who thankfully apologized, showed that those who have a handle on the media, and who are lucky enough to have their voices projected farther than most, can still knock a woman (even those who are ostensibly on their same level in terms of exposure) down by calling her a slut.

Leave a comment

Filed under Feminism, Media, Politics, Pop Culture, Violence

Billy Bush: Stop.

I had never seen an episode of Access Hollywood before this February, when my schedule totally changed because of my qualifying exams. I would be at the gym and to ignore the sometimes searing calf pain, I would watch mindless television – Access Hollywood. HOW….is this show still on? I had no idea there was an hour’s worth of celebrity bullshit to cover every morning.

This morning, Mr. Bush (1st cousin of Dubya – what a range of expertise this family has!) tackled the Schwarzenegger affair/love child. Unfortunately, I can’t get a video clip of this gem of journalism since AH doesn’t post their entire show on their website (and thank god for that), but as the “breaking news” unfolded, here’s a summary of what the great BB said:

“One thing that I’m surprised by, in looking at the picture of this housekeeper, is that, you know….I mean she doesn’t look like this little hot Scandinavian-looking, tall, blond-in-a-cute-little-French maid’s outfit with a little feather duster…you know, not like this person who the man of the house just had to get his hands on…it means Arnold has a deeper problem, there’s a bigger issue here.”

OH MY GOD. Yes, Arnold certainly does seem to have a problem with infidelity, but WHAT, pray tell, does it have to do with the fact that YOU don’t find this housekeeper attractive? WHY does your assessment of her unattractiveness indicate that his problem is of a more significant nature? If she were, as you so eloquently put it, some “hot Scandinavian-looking, tall, blond-in-a-cute-little-French maid’s outfit with a little feather duster,” you would think he didn’t have much of a problem? That it was more understandable, that he just couldn’t resist, that everyone must see he just couldn’t pass up the opportunity to bed this little tart?

Also, now we all know that this is your dream woman:

Ms. Featherduster courtesy of Disney.

So, Billy, please stop talking.

Leave a comment

Filed under Defining Gender, Media, Pop Culture, Sexism

Glenn Beck Strikes Again

I’m not usually surprised by anything Glenn Beck does in the sense that it generally falls into the realm of idiocy, and it’s best to just brush it off and remember that most people (well…those that I know and choose to spend my time with) also think of him as a joke. However, his most recent act of offensive stupidity deserves some serious commenting.

Beck decided to ridicule Meghan McCain (who, despite she and I having different political ideologies and opinions, does seem to share my opinions about Palin, albeit more nicely) because she appeared in a skin cancer PSA in which she seemed to be nude. The ad was not gratuitous and the message was clear – cover up with sunscreen and protect yourself from the deadly rays. Beck, of course, decided to completely ignore the message of the ad and instead chose to focus his efforts on butchering McCain’s body. I can’t even get through his entire juvenile, absurdly sexist rant, as it goes on for well over the amount of time I can suffer Beck; but how helpful he was, taking a health education announcement that tries to bring skin cancer’s prevalence and dangers under the spotlight and turning it into an assault on a woman’s appearance! Not only does he deftly ignore the important and legitimate message, he skillfully points out how a male ignorant radio host who is losing his job (read: influence and respect) due to constantly putting his foot in his mouth, is somehow still the judge of what makes a woman attractive, appealing, worthy of giving respect and listening to. And what makes her worthy, of course, what her most significant characteristic is, is her appearance and her weight – not, for some reason, her very worthy goal and effort to educate people about this preventable disease. Bravo, Beck. I will take the high road here and refrain from making any comments about his body and stick to his just-as-easy-to-target immature tirades. I will give a shout out to McCain’s other public efforts, notably her fighting for everyone to shut up about women’s bodies and rightfully wondering why it is still fodder for public debate.

Side note, why is McCain the one he focuses on? No love for the other ladies, GB? I’m sure they’re devastated. I can’t wait till this man no longer has access to a microphone.

Leave a comment

Filed under Sexism