The news just broke wide that liberal talk show host Ed Schultz, known for his even temper and tendency to speak in docile tones, called someone a bad name. On his radio show, "Big Eddie" - as he refers to himself - called conservative radio talk show host and frequent Fox News guest Laura Ingraham a "slut" - or, more accurately, a "right wing slut" - which he then quickly followed with "talk slut".
"President Obama is going to be visiting Joplin, Mo., on Sunday but you know what they’re talking about, like this right-wing slut, what’s her name? Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she’s a talk slut. You see, she was, back in the day, praising President Reagan when he was drinking a beer overseas. But now that Obama’s doing it, they’re working him over."
This was in response to comments Ms. Ingraham made in regards to President Obama being overseas, drinking beer, (i.e: continuing the Irish leg of his European tour) which was already in progress when the disaster relief began.
As one might expect, the twitterverse is ... well, atwitter. The remarks following the ubiquitous hash tags argue all sides of the issue: some in support of Big Eddie, others in defense of Ms. Ingraham and her newly besmirched honor, and most interestingly quite a few against "this hateful diatribe" that has "brought political speech to an all new sexist low."
In the interest of full disclosure, i'm not what one would call a fan of Big Ed: he comes across as self important and unnecessarily aggressive. This may be in part due to his ego having recently been challenged by his employer, MSNBC, who gave greater consideration to Keith Olbermann than to him, something that he still appears to be pissed about. That being said, i'm not an apologist for his behavior, but through the barrage of false analogies, hasty generalizations and non-sequitors, a major point was being missed.
Schultz referred to Ingraham as a "talk slut". Granted, that was the qualifier to the previous sentence where he referred to her as a "right wing slut" - but the qualified statement is the one that stands as his final word on the matter.
This moniker, this "slur", was not a sexist remark nor a slight against some perceived sexual proclivities. It was (according to my theory) a reference to the lack of self respect that comes from compromising your integrity in exchange for the standard fee given a guest contributor.
Ms. Ingraham took no issue with former President Reagan drinking a beer overseas. Nor do i recall any criticisms from her in regards to the latter Bush golfing while New Orleans sank. To disregard such completely analogous instances displays either a complete lack of perspective or a surplus of ignorance.
The unfortunate truth is that terms such as 'bitch', 'slut' and 'whore' have become the go-to insults when trying to verbally inflict the greatest amount of harm on women. They act as both devices to impugn character while serving as reminders of the double standard that victimizes women by placing perception in the hands of another.
And while such behavior is detestable, this was not such a instance. In this case, "slut" was not a castigation on the basis of some libidinous act, but an invective focused on the promiscuity of her views, or more accurately, her willingness to lie down with anyone just so long as they have an "R" in parentheses.
As one might expect, the twitterverse is ... well, atwitter. The remarks following the ubiquitous hash tags argue all sides of the issue: some in support of Big Eddie, others in defense of Ms. Ingraham and her newly besmirched honor, and most interestingly quite a few against "this hateful diatribe" that has "brought political speech to an all new sexist low."
In the interest of full disclosure, i'm not what one would call a fan of Big Ed: he comes across as self important and unnecessarily aggressive. This may be in part due to his ego having recently been challenged by his employer, MSNBC, who gave greater consideration to Keith Olbermann than to him, something that he still appears to be pissed about. That being said, i'm not an apologist for his behavior, but through the barrage of false analogies, hasty generalizations and non-sequitors, a major point was being missed.
Schultz referred to Ingraham as a "talk slut". Granted, that was the qualifier to the previous sentence where he referred to her as a "right wing slut" - but the qualified statement is the one that stands as his final word on the matter.
This moniker, this "slur", was not a sexist remark nor a slight against some perceived sexual proclivities. It was (according to my theory) a reference to the lack of self respect that comes from compromising your integrity in exchange for the standard fee given a guest contributor.
Ms. Ingraham took no issue with former President Reagan drinking a beer overseas. Nor do i recall any criticisms from her in regards to the latter Bush golfing while New Orleans sank. To disregard such completely analogous instances displays either a complete lack of perspective or a surplus of ignorance.
The unfortunate truth is that terms such as 'bitch', 'slut' and 'whore' have become the go-to insults when trying to verbally inflict the greatest amount of harm on women. They act as both devices to impugn character while serving as reminders of the double standard that victimizes women by placing perception in the hands of another.
And while such behavior is detestable, this was not such a instance. In this case, "slut" was not a castigation on the basis of some libidinous act, but an invective focused on the promiscuity of her views, or more accurately, her willingness to lie down with anyone just so long as they have an "R" in parentheses.
