Michelle Malkin, that is. Because she is so “venomous,” she was sort of asking to be placed on a rape hit-list. According to Bonnie Erbe, at least. Uh-huh.
Look: I disagree with Malkin all the time, because (1) I’m not the kind of conservative she is (certainly, she’s more of a SoCon), and (2) as a writer I’m less rhetorically aggressive; we have different roles (as do Ann Coulter and I, which leads to all kinds of drama). Michelle preaches to the choir. I, on the other hand, attempt to change minds. Which is not to say that I don’t get passionate about politics: we all do. It’s just that I’m in the business of persuading people, rather than cheerleading for discouraged conservatives. Both functions are necessary.
But the idea that in the United States of America it’s okay to foment sexual violence against someone because of her forceful rhetoric is just . . . staggering.
I mean, I’m tempted to discuss Malkin as a cultural phenomenon, as someone who runs two full-time websites—one of them, a daily stop for me that is staffed by men who are much more moderate than she is, both in tone and in degree-of-conservatism. Michelle has taken on huge risks in order to help develop the newsgathering abilities of online news sites, and we all owe her a debt. Furthermore, she’s been taking some heat lately for continuing to employ “AllahPundit,” who is [G-d help me] a huge asset to right-wing new media, his detractors’ hysterical accusations that he’s “gone left” notwithstanding. (And Hot Air benefits, of course, hugely from having one blogger who is a Christian with SoCon tendencies, and one who is an atheist, with fewer. Those who want more red meat can always go to “the boss’s site”—Michelle’s. Frankly, she’s only on my “weekly” list, whereas her guys are on my “daily” list. And, yes: I do admire her running a second site without demanding that it be a clone of her own: it’s smart not to exert undue editorial control over Hot Air.)
But Michelle’s achievements are not pivotal to the discussion: no woman should be exposed to the threat of rape simply for speaking her mind politically. And Bonnie Erbe is no feminist if she cannot see that. This is not a subtle point: this is a human rights issue. Rape is used as a tool of social control in other countries, but normally only in the ones that are either dictatorships and/or practitioners of gender apartheid.
Thanks for defending our sex, Bonnie. Thanks—but no thanks.
Via AllahP, who strikes just the right note in defending his employer against a rather monstrous attack.
And Michelle links Erbe’s piece as well, with a well-placed bit of snark.
* * *
But perhaps I’ve been too hasty.
Bonnie, I’m sorry. I shall try not to be so uppity in the future, and I’ll hope that if someone suggests that my bad habit of speaking out on the issues of the day should incur sexual violence, I’ll hope that you consider me worthy of defense against that fomenting-of-violence.
Perhaps I should send you links to my writing on a weekly or monthly basis? I’d like to make sure I haven’t committed uppityness, so as to be certain that I’m not deserving of the sexual torture that rape is, at its core.
Maybe we could establish a grading system?—that way, if I see a “C” on my report card, I’ll know that I need to put in more effort, lest I slip into the rape-worthy column.
Please email me; I’d like to make this right. Really. And I’m sorry about what I wrote at first. I didn’t mean it, and I’d like to make it up to you someday. Do you need flowers? Wine? Would you like me to polish an apple for you? Let me know.
I’m so, so sorry. Please don’t send the liberal shock troops to have me raped.
I’m working on this. I promise. I can change.
UPDATE: Subsequent to this post, I penned this one, about the Tommy Christopher firing.
Previous posts on the Playboy “hate-fucking” scandal are here and—more colorfully—here.
; ?>/images/user.png)
; ?>/images/email.png)
; ?>/images/feed.png)
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }
Bonnie will defend you. But only if you’re raped by a Republican.
It used to be written in stone among liberals that rape was utterly wrong, regardless of the circumstances or motivations. They went so far as to falsely allege that conservatives were blase about it, in order to manufacture yet another excuse for condemning them. And now we see them oddly silent when someone says that those women who disagree with liberalism should be raped.
And I am wondering if there is a single, solitary rule in all of the macrocosmic universe that liberals will honor, even at the expense of political advantage.
I guess if you ask for Bonnie Erbe’s two cents you can expect change. Hope SmartGirl pays on spec.
Conservative women all over will surely be saying “Thanks for having our backs, Sis!”
When liberal men try to hate-f women back to the one-true-path, we now know that Bonnie will be cheering them on. Defense attorneys everywhere are dusting off their old “she asked-for-it” defenses and calling Bonnie to testify.
Didn’t NOW defend David Dinkin’s aides, accused of demanding oral sex for women to keep their jobs at NYC Hall, by calling it a petty offense, since BJs were only $10 in Times Square? Maybe Bonnie doesn’t just contribute to USN&WR and NPR. Hope they’re paying her what she’s worth.
I think the point the writer was making is that Malkin invited vitriol because her columns and screeds are themselves vitriolic, hateful and mean-spirited.
I think Malkin needs to do some soul searching and should act more like a Christian.
Great post! Keep up the excellent work!!
COMMON CENTS
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
ps. Link Exchange??
Jeff would have despised what Malkin has become. Shrill and partisan and dishonest.
And he allus loathed Pam Geller right from the beginning.
He loved Charles, and he would been have enchanted with Charles’ smackdown on her.
Great satire material.
Jeffie had impeccable taste in humans.
He liked you a lot.
đ
I miss my Stuttering Bear.
hehe, I hope you think of him when you soap your breasts.
<3
jinnji
also…I think the real over-the-top attack was Matt Taibbi’s tea-bagging Malkin post.
ewww
made me read him less.
Jeffie would have just written a superawesome satire back at them.
Like this.
You shouldn’t be so touchy.
Remember what Kyle said.
Either its all ok to make fun of, or none of it is.
Mike:
Perhaps you could give me an example of Malkin’s rhetoric that is equivalent to joking about her getting raped. Because I don’t read her that often. Perhaps I’ve missed something that kicks her rhetoric up to the level that justifies a threat of sexual violence? Please advise.
I forget how I got here. But I agree with everything (in a nutshell) what the author said.
Why does it take you so long to say what is obvious?
You are another reason not to bother with soul searching motor mouths and stick with the facts .
Let the facts come fast and furious, and the orators be damned.
1. The way I understood the descriptions of the Playboy piece (it was removed before I could see it) was that the author promoted “hate f***,” meaning he wanted to f*** a hot conservative babe, whom he would otherwise hate. Plain ol’ hookin’ up, meaningless sex, zipless f***, as it used to be called.
2. Why isn’t anyone talking about the racial and ethnic slurs? He ranted about Malkin, the Filipina. I forget the other ones I read about.
I don’t agree with you politically. I’m not saying you should be raped, only that I understand how some people might want to abuse, humiliate and sexually assault you. You ‘invite’ it, you see. It’s not my fault you decided to invite it, with the things you said, which I’ve decided are ‘venomous’ even though I freely admit I don’t actually read your work.
Maybe if you shut your uppity mouth, people wouldn’t want to rape you, hmmm? I’m just sayin’ is all.
Hey look at me, everybody! I’m a feminist!
You know, I had my 5 minutes of fame last year by physically defending Michelle from Alex Jones (who is, by the way, a consummate ass.)
The number of big hot button issues we disagree on â immigration, the Japanese Internment, the bank bailout (if not the other bailouts) â is immense, but I none the less defended her against a screaming mob (who admittedly probably had one normal testicle among them.)
Anyone who thinks she ought to be subjected to this kind of thing because of her opinions is no feminist, is no defender of human rights, and in general probably has to look up the word “morality” in the dictionary.
To Mike (June 3rd, 2009 at 5:50 pm)
You realize that Christ made a whip and beat the living snot out of some people. I don’t recall Michelle Malkin ever suggesting doing the same thing. Hmmmm…..although, that might not be a bad idea.
Hmmm. “Nonpartisan” in the same sentence as “Liberal Democrat”. This is sane?
In defense of Michelle Malkin
http://hotair.com/headlines/?p=41892
I must have done a Rip van Winkle thing.
Last I heard “She was asking for it” got you the electric chair or worse.
Now it gets you kudos and nods from Bonnie, Mike, and 52% of the rest. Who knows what Leatherneck is agreeing with? But it’s a fact that a Marine doesn’t shit where he sleeps.
Sandra Bernhard warns the 48% to stay out of Manhattan or they’ll be gang-raped by all her big black broithers. She also says to try the veal. She says “women deserve better. I certainly wish (women who disagree with her) no harm. I’d just like (women who disagree with her) to explain to me how (women who disagree with her) can hold such outrageous views .”
1. The way I understood the descriptions of the Playboy piece (it was removed before I could see it) was that the author promoted âhate f***,â meaning he wanted to f*** a hot conservative babe, whom he would otherwise hate. Plain olâ hookinâ up, meaningless sex, zipless f***, as it used to be called.
No. It was clearly meant as rough, violent, degrading sex. It was a weasal word, in short, that meant rape (for how many would would consent to rough, violent sex that had the aim of humiliating them>?
2. Why isnât anyone talking about the racial and ethnic slurs? He ranted about Malkin, the Filipina. I forget the other ones I read about.
The whole thing was so vile and full of woman-hatred that the ethnic stuff took a back seat.
Michelle Malkin’s columns are available in my local paper. She is rough, in prose and attitude, but usually pretty sharp. I think she gets the most heat bc she is unapologetic – she never qualifies her remarks with the usual shibboleths. If she is talking about black on white racism, she doesnt moderate her comments by stating she believes in equal opportunity, MLK, blah blah blah. And I must follow that sentence by saying that I believe in equal opportunity, the principles of MLK, etc. ANd I have seen examples of the horrible epithets that have been leveled against her. If you are a woman and you dont object to it, you have betrayed your gender. She has more courage than me, and more than most of the disgusting commenters who have written about her.
You whiny commenters who conflate hatefucking with rape are obviously old/prudish types. But then you’re right-wingers so you are likely not up to lingo that isn’t from the 1950s.
Hatefucking has nothing to do with rape.
You can let us know from Juvie then.
Mikie loves everything. Consent is implied.
lolwut?
You’ll find out what it means in Juvie.
You might want to keep a firm hold on the soap, though.
We all know what it means, asshole. Who do you think invented all language?
We just don’t put ‘hate’ and ‘fuck’ together, that’s all. Next week, Mickie tells us that hatecrimes have nothing to do with crimes.
Hatefuck
“Hatefuck” is a term made up by Gen Y and Z posers, talking to Gen Y and Z posers, who, in reality, can not get within a hundred feet of an actual, non-related woman. It presumes that every woman wants to fuck them (although none have, at least without money being exchanged). That’s why they don’t even consider the possibility that the woman in question would not like to fuck them. That’s why consent is never even part of the discussion. They’re doing them a favor–putting one over on them. “Bitch” is sometimes added to drive the point home.
“I hatefucked the bitch then told her to STFU when she started to yammer on about some shit, then told her to take her skanky ass somewhere else!”
“Dude!”
Luckily for women, these losers are seldom seen in the presence of a non-inflatable woman, and rarely further than 2 feet from a box of Kleenex and bottle of hand lotion or other lubricant. They are now Playboy’s prime target market. Breast implants have been increased to DD+ because testing indicated that the group as a whole could not reliably distinguish between male and female subjects appearing in the magazine without additional visual clues.
The fact that the idea of hatefucking someone is seriously being debated at all, tells me how far we’re sunk as a juvenile content driven society. This is the sort of inane drivel that gets you dentention in high school, not something for civilized discussion by adults in public.
That being said, it’s just a rape euphemism. Angry sex as power. Nothing new here. The only thing new is that there are adult idiots literally defending the idea of it.
Or perhaps, not so adult. You can age and not mature.
lolwut.
Hatefucking has nothing to do with rape. Stop being a PC whiner and accept the fact that Malkin is routinely cruising for a bruising.
> Malkin invited vitriol because her columns and screeds are themselves
> vitriolic, hateful and mean-spirited.
So she should be raped, because you don’t think she’s polite ????? The Playboy article was clearly talking about rape.
I have been regularly visiting both of Malkin’s blogs for sometime now and disagree with her (and esp. “allahpundit”) on a lot of topics. But I would not describe it as “vitriolic, hateful and mean-spirited”, although certainly “snarky” — but nothing she has ever said could be even remotely equivalent to the threats of rape in the Playboy article.
> I think Malkin needs to do some soul searching and should
> act more like a Christian
I just love it when people who have never cracked open a New Testament start lecturing others on what it means to “act more like a Christian.”
Love your post, Joy! And I really like Darrell’s comments! LOL~
Many years ago, I thought perhaps I would attend a NOW meeting – back in the ’70s. I was (and still am) for equal pay. I was flaggergasted to find that the meeting focused entirely on the goodness of abortion and the badness of men. I was especially disturbed when one of the leaders of the groups said, “a baby is better off aborted than adopted”.
So, that was my first and only meeting with feminists. I had no respect for them then, and even less now.
I remember that when defending Clinton, the head of NOW proposed the one free grope rule.
IE, as long as he stops when asked, then no harm was done.
oh really mikey ? Why don’t you step up to the plate my friend. Cruise on in and try to give her a bruising.
What ? You won’t ? Because you’re an utter pussy who spends his time fantasizing about raping conservative woman and typing threats on the internet ? Oh ok.
The other reason you won’t is, conservative men are armed.
Hey Mike. I’ll put it in terms that you might be able to understand.
A hate fuck is what a hooker does when you pay her for ‘Round the World’.
As soon as you figure that out, then we’ll work from there.
Thanks, Miss Attila, for a much better “in support of conservative women” piece than anything to which Bonnie Erbe could ever aspire.
Please, gentlemen and ladies. No person, of any ilk. should ever be objectified, in print or or subjected to in person, those disgraceful imaginings which were posted on the Playboy website. Ever. It is rape they were discussing, Mike, whether your little warped brain can wrap itself around that concept or not. Just because you might have contributed a fantasy or two down that nasty little road, does not make any of it defensible.
Feminism, as idealized by the liberal left, has died. It no longer represents the majority of women, and only represents a small proportion of women in the world, those who subscribe to the particular and often strange viewpoint. It is therefore our responsibility to speak out against allowing such things as this Playboy article/site to be “mainstreamed”. There was no humor in it, and if you found yourself laughing, just imagine that it was your sister or your mother that had been listed, instead of Michelle.
anyone who thinks this garbage was funny? Needs to do some serious soul searching. Because you’re a shameful example of humanity.
Try to think of a similar list of leftist commentators. Can’t do it? Me either.
Hey, Dr. Theo? I know you’re trying to help, but once we get into the “our opponents are ugly” thing, I’m going to have to listen to a bunch of “Rush Limbaugh is overweight” stuff, and that bores me to tears.
Besides, John Hawkins already HAS made that list.
Mikey: I think what I’m hearing is that Guy Cimbalo wasn’t being sexist . . . only misogynistic. Or perhaps it was the other way around . . .
I’d love to discuss your feeling that Michelle Malkin was “cruising for a bruising.” The fact is, you’re cruising for a good deal more than that.
So why is everybody avoiding the issue here–the issue being the number of guys who died or are still in prison because “she was asking for it” was not accepted as a defense?
Anybody got guts enough to explain how all of a sudden “She was asking for it” is OK?
I didn’t think so.
She was asking for it.
A change of venue looking for jury nullification when she put two in the head and two in the groin.
What’s scary is not so much that people have these fantasies, but that they occasionally get to act them out. There were lots of examples in the 20th century. Here’s one:
“Let us recall how, in Kiev, Kishinev, and other cities, the good-natured Russian people drove nails into the skulls of Jews, how, in 1906, the workers of Ivanovo-Voznesensk boiled their comrades in cauldrons of scalding water, throwing them in alive; how sadistically gaolers tortured young female revolutionaries, driving stakes into the sexual organs.”
Maxim Gorky wrote this in 1917, just before the Bolshevik revolution, when things got a whole lot worse. Kind of makes you think the Second Amendment wasn’t such a bad idea after all.
It’s not hard to see why so many people are incensed about this, trolls notwithstanding. Buy it also strikes me as a desperation move for a publication that is trying to stay relevant, which has not been the case for many, many tears.
As Justice Thomas is not black to the leftist a-holes, the women on that lit are not women.
Understanding this, we see how the personal is the political, a vagina is not a vagina, women’s lib is not women’s lib, the Vagina Monologues are for poltically correct vaginas.
I really hate these people, they are so deranged.
Uncle Thomas