« Elites | Main | Last Ditch »

October 29, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I love Jezebel, but they are dead wrong on this one.

Christine O' Donnell has spent an entire career demonizing gay people, trying to chip away at the separation of church and state, and advocating for Abstinence: Extreme Edition. No blow is too low for this witch.

And, also, if Christine were a man this would absolutely be a story... if she were a man that pretended to be "pure." It's not a story because O' Donnell is a woman, it's a story because she's a liar and a hypocrite.


Also, GOD! Sometimes liberals are so annoying.


I think the Gawker story is pretty hideous. It's an inconsequential account of harmless human frailty--to which I imagine even O'Donnell would not describe herself as being immune--that has no inherent interest apart from providing an opportunity for a politician's opponents to present her in an unattractive light. Her behavior in the anecdote is not in conflict with her policy positions, so there's no hypocrisy on display. And it is frankly hard to imagine the media devoting any resources whatsoever to a story about the time some years ago when an umarried male politician spent an evening not having sex with a woman.

There are dozens of reasons not to vote for O'Donnell, but none of them are even hinted at in the self-aggrandizing reminiscences of a misogynist douchebag.


I agree with Josh. That being said, Gawker did themselves few favors by not editing this piece a bit closer, taking out some of the douchier Penthouse Forum parts, particularly about her pubic hair. I understand where the counter reaction is coming from. This piece is written in a way that is, frankly... creepy and gross (and very male). That doesn't make the publishing of it sexist.

That being said, I bet this will get a lot more play in the media than the David Vitter scandal ever got. But I don't' know if that's sexist. The Elliott Spitzer scandal ALSO got a lot more play than the David Vitter scandal, for example, and they're basically the same thing (actually, I'm pretty sure the Vitter scandal is worse).


I used to work with Foster. (By the way, it's Kamer, not Kramer.) I thought he wasn't part of the masogynist Boy's Club of Paradigm back in the day, but I guess I was wrong. His updated story isn't as bad, but I still can't get over the caption on the other one. I guess this is what happens when college dropouts make it into the media. (Sorry, that was a low blow, but I couldn't resist going there.) I'm not surprised by any of this crap. I used to hear it all of the time at work. When the agents were away, all of the male assistants would gather in the conference room and talk about who they were screwing. And when they noticed that I noticed, they'd shut the door, and later make up some story about me to tell the agents, in an effort to cover their asses.
Of course, they use words like poontang. Typical sexist nonsense. The really annoying thing is that this is never the way male politicians are treated when their affairs (by the way, is O'Donnell married?), are made public. They aren't degraded for being sexual beings. Their genitalia isn't made out to be some gross little toy. They are attacked for their dishonesty. So, let's attack O'Donnell's dishonesty, not her vagina. Then again, although she preaches the teaching of abstinenece for teenagers, I don't remember her saying she didn't like sex. I think that politically, she's a disaster. That's enough. I don't need to talk trash about her body too. This is what always happens to women in politics regardless of whether they're idiots or not. It's wasn't enough for people to be against Hillary Clinton because she voted for the war in Iraq--no, they had to thow in some comments about her thick legs (which, by the way, are actually normal-sized).
Oh, and notice how no one is trashing the men involved. Whenever a sex scandal involves a male politician, the media always jumps on the female accuser. She is made out to be trashy, unreliable. With the exception of Jezebel, no one is questioning the validity of this guy's story or saying that his wording of the story is masogynistic.


I take it back Foster. It was a parody! Damn me!
But still, damn Gawker.

mens health

I just don’t see how the right solution can be so tightly disciplined to a dollar figure. By all means, recognize that a problem has a cost attached to it, and therefore the solution must be limited by that financial context.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

# of Visitors Since 11/22/05

  • eXTReMe Tracker