Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Monday, March 24, 2014


Y'know, this shit offends even me. And I've gotten more than a few feminists angry at me during this blog's life.

(Not sure what I did to offend them. Must have been a time-of-month thing.)
I think Rush was more addicted to his pain killers than anyone knows. After re-hab,he really started to sound like someone who cannot function off his meds.Either that or he is substituting it with something else. Either way, for all his money and fans, such as they are, he remains in my observation, a deeply troubled and unhappy person. I think he would like to come back in his second life as Bill Clinton.
Rush's fans like him for the very fact that he is so offensive. They know that his ugliness grates upon liberal sensibilities and they love him for it.

Limbaugh is the Baghdad Bob of climate change.

I only hope that his fat clogged heart can hold out for him to live long enough for the people of this country to realize that he helped sell them and their grandchildren down the river, and he can be strung from a lamp post like Mussolini.
Joseph, you haven't offended feminists, perhaps youi either offended femi-nazi's or maybe got under the skin of the militant lesbian network.

Sad part is half of the network is conservative and the other half progressive and I think they can't stand moderate men because that would make you a reasonable man.

A reasonable man is like nails on a chalkboard to the L.N.
Are we cataloguing the stupid things Rush Limbaugh says now? You won't have to apologise for scant posting in future, anyway.

If we're talking about a museum of women's history I don't see the point. There are two type of women's history, the type that is real history and appears in normal museums, and the part that is just tokenism and pandering and doesn't deserve a museum.
Machi refers to feminazis. A term coined by Rush Limbaugh. What a cultural touchstone he is.
Oy. Maybe I shouldn't have posted this.

My comment was just a joke. "Feminazi" is not a term I would ever use. I think that there are feminists who take themselves too seriously, but I also think that every other group you can name contains lots of people who take themselves too seriously.

And of course there should be a museum devoted to women's history.
I don't think feminazi is a term that should never be used. I once had a discussion with a woman who was both a female supremacist and believe in the supremacy of the Aryan race. Feminazi would be an apt term, although she preferred "Harlot".

As for the museum, I recently located a museum for dolls near my town, from which I have kept a safe distance. Dolls, deary me. I predict that should this one be built its main critics will be feminists upset that women's history is being ghettoised.

When asked to describe my political posture, I often reply "Feminazi." (If I say Puma, then I have to explain it.) Rush, of course, mightily offends me, as he does anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills.
I rolled my eyes at Joseph's joke, but some of the responses, oy vey indeed!

I sometimes use the term "godless feminazi" to refer to myself when trying to explain to some would-be romeo in the quickest fashion possible that he has no idea who I am. So I agree with CBarr, the term is offensive on purpose: it's comic.

Stephen, the fact that you don't see the point is the very reason we need a museum of women's history. The most offensive terms here (and you win out over some very choice A. Machisms ) were "real" and "normal" --- and no, we don't learn about women's contributions in the "real" history books.

Oh, but silly me... hold up, everyone. Stephen Morgan doesn't see the point of a women's history museum. He's thought it through and now he's spoken. If we're not in the "normal" museums it's because we "don't deserve" to be. And, after all, we got our Doll Museum, what more do we want! Let's all go back to our kitchens. Or to the mall.

At least Rush knows he's being offensive.

I'm still not sure what you would like to see in a museum of women's history. Women are already covered with men. You won't see mention of the first Churchill, or the Battle of Blenheim, without mention of the vital parts played by Queen Anne and his wife, who was one of her ladies-in-waiting.

Of course, these days academic types tend to disapprove of the great-man theory of history and go in for a more marxist approach wherein people are a homogenous mob driven by impersonal forces to play their role. Neither of these approaches discounts women. Women who are sufficiently prominent get mentioned as individuals, and women get to be part of the mob. I'm sure women also made some of the pots and such which form the bulk of archaeological discoveries.

So again I'm left wondering what would go in a women's history museum. White feathers, perhaps. More likely self-indulgent Fried Green Tomatoes-style rubbish.

As for the doll museum, the relevance of that isn't that dolls are for women, but rather that dolls are a stupid thing to have their own museum. There isn't enough funding to keep the town museum open or convert it into the supposedly planned National Civil War museum, but there's plenty or money for the stupid-shit museum, whether dolls or gardening equipment or women's history.

Stephen, that is so cute. You think that I would care to read what you "think," especially after you predictably get defensive rather than grasp why I bust a gut laughing over your clueless previous comments.

Nice try, tho! Just reread my previous comment and come back after you ask a few women for help in your perspective. That is, if you know any who aren't, as you explained, true embodiments of femi-nazis.

Or try this little experiment. Would you tell black Americans we don't need a Black history month or museum, because anything they did of import would be in the "real" history books, and therefore if they are not represented in "normal" museums it's because they don't "deserve" it?

Then top it off with sneering how a Tap Dancing museum opened up near you.

Can you hear me now? I'm not a guy, you know. You can't engage me in a pissing contest, so if you don't get it, you can't bluster your way out, you simply lose. Bye! :)

I agree with Stephen on one point...that women damn well SHOULD be in the "regular" history books and museums. That said, in my education as a youngster, I don't recall that we were taught much about women's role in history (though there was some, even back in the 80's). My son, now in 7th grade, has been required to learn about a great many women in history, so I think that aspect is changing. I think it makes much more sense to simply include ALL previously ignored groups in "regular" history and museums. Wouldn't that be better anyway, giving equal weight to all groups contributions, and including explanations of how patriarchy and bigotry resulted in these groups not getting a fair shake the first time around? Just my thoughts about it.
prowlerzee, if you don't care what I think it might be better to not respond, rather than to post specifically to say you're not going to respond.

But this is the internet. The only thing to care about is what people think. Male or female, rich or poor, tall or short, pretty or ugly, none of it matters on the internet. Therefore you might want to change your idea that debate and dialectic between men is a "pissing contest", and that women have the ultimate opinion on what should be done with museums (musea?) because they have vaginas (vaginae?) rather than because they have rational arguments. What is said matters, who said it doesn't. The ad hominem, meaning an argument against the man rather than his argument, is a logical fallacy. And, incidentally, there still hasn't been an argument provided for why there should be a women's history museum, or what would go in it.

My country also doesn't have a black history museum, although we have black people. Those black people are covered in proper museums, as are all the other peoples of this nation.

In addition, frankly, the position of black people and women is not analogous. Black people are still badly treated by society, and were previously treated considerably less well than dogs, so a bit of pandering probably wouldn't be out of line. Women are a different matter altogether. Rich white women have traditionally tried to hijack popular black causes to gain credibility for their own ends, though, so it's nice to see some respect for historical traditions.

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic