“Jill” at Feministe was one of the first to jump on the bandwagon mocking Christine O’Donnell’s sexuality (or actually, lack thereof), as I documented in my first post on the subject in September, Rachel Maddow Sexualizes Christine O’Donnell.
I’ll give her one thing, Jill is not jumping on the phony chorus of left-bloggers defending O’Donnell against the Gawker attack.
Jill condemns the sexist “code” in the attack on O’Donnell, but not the fact that O’Donnell’s sex life was exposed (emphasis mine):
This is a story, apparently, because O’Donnell is a big proponent of abstinence — not just from sex, but from sexual activity generally — until marriage. And I’m a big fan of political hypocrisy stories, so it doesn’t bother me all that much when hypocrites like O’Donnell are exposed. She goes around saying that no one should have sex; if elected she’ll push for policies that teach kids in school that sex is sinful outside of marriage and condoms and contraceptives don’t work; and if elected she’ll vote against abortion rights. At the same time as she’s condemning sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriages — and using her political platform to promote laws and policies that condemn sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriages — she’s engaging in it. Exposing that, I think, is fair game, just like I think it’s fair game to expose anti-gay bigots who sleep with people of the same sex, or “family values” men who cheat on their wives….
The O’Donnell story rubs me the wrong way not because her sex life is totally off-limits — sorry, sister, but when you start using your own purity and sexual mores to try and dictate everyone else’s, and when you want to be the sex police and violate everyone else’s privacy, you lose the right to your own — but because the whole story is coded in a very specific, very sexist way…. The point of the story isn’t to expose O’Donnell as a person who says one thing and does another; the point is to shame and humiliate her, and to shame humiliate her in an expressly sexualized way that is really only directed at women.
This meme, that because O’Donnell has certain views as to sexuality she must want to impose those views on everyone else, is plainly false, as Dave Weigel writes (emphasis mine):
I’m aware that Christine O’Donnell’s public commentary career started with her going on TV to talk about how kids shouldn’t have sex or masturbate before marriage. But not only has she never called for that behavior to be punished legally, I’m unaware of her ever coming out against the actions mentioned here — which, let’s remember are drinking, fooling around, and not having sex. There is no hypocrisy being exposed here. This is anonymous creep shaming a woman who wouldn’t sleep with him, and doing so because she’s a celebrity now.
There was no hypocrisy in O’Donnell’s conduct, but what if there were?
Should a female who advocates teaching “safe” sex in schools be outed if she doesn’t practice safe sex? Shall we have a condom police, as well as the Gawker waxing police? Where do we draw the line on exposing female sexual engagement if “hypocrisy” is the standard?
Jill’s logic is not logic at all. She doesn’t like the choices Christine O’Donnell has made, or O’Donnell’s politics, and wraps that political view in a blanket of supposed opposition to “hypocrisy.” But this entirely is a one way street, applied only to conservative women.
That said, while I disagree with Jill, at least she’s being honest, unlike so many of those defending O’Donnell for tactical political purposes.
——————————————–
Related Posts:
Not Buying The Crocodile Tears From Gawker’s Enablers
Rachel Maddow Sexualizes Christine O’Donnell
“What’s up w/obsession about O’Donnell’s opinions on sex?”
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
She is being crucified for having "incorrect thoughts". This is entirely the "politics of personal destruction" that Clinton warned us against.
Unfortunately, if Christine O'Donnell wins, these attacks will continue. They won't go away. The more political power she accumulates, the more the social liberals will use her to divide their opponents ("fight back against the O'Donnell wing of the republican party!" they'll shriek). We must stand up for O'Donnell and blunt this despicable Alinki tool that they also used to destroy Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich and countless others.
I'm as liberal as can be, this "sex" thing is completley out of bounds and reprehensible.
Gawker is just trying to attract eyeballs in a very sleazy way.
quiznilo, she is being "crucified" for her her rice-paper thin resume and the crazy that falls out of her mouth like lying about attending Oxford, saying masturbation is the same as adultery, and her other statements "We took the Bible and prayer out of public schools. Now we're having weekly shootings", "The outstanding (medical) bills do not determine whether or not the patient has been healed by God", "America is now a socialist economy. The definition of a socialist economy is when 50% or more your economy is dependent on the federal government", "I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven" "American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains", "You know what, evolution is a myth why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?", "During the primary, I heard the audible voice of God He said, 'Credibility'.",
I can not imagine how any one in Delaware could vote for her opponent. His complete history is tax increase after tax increase. Any thing Obama wants will be approved by him. There is no reason to vote for him. The choice for Delaware is clear.
Vote for Christine O'Donnell.
cool comment, davemartin7777, if that's your *real* name (insert evil laughter here)
I love your first qualifying sentence but I don't quite believe you. As for a thin resume, that didn't seem to be an issue when considering Obama's experience (as if he was vetted at all) so how come it's fair game now? The "experience" charge only seems to go one-way.
As for her opinions over masturbation, I've heard far worse from the left (see Jocelyn Elders). The others appear me as expressing fairly mainstream sentiments. Christine O'Donnell, if anything, is emminently human and a refreshing alternative to the same old, empty suit, calculating, politicians we're subjected to nowadays.
I doubt you really want to start comparing the quotes of O'Donnell with some of the insanity coming from the Left. Unfortunately, the media is in the tank for Coons and the sheep will all fall in line and think what they're supposed to think about O'Donnell, no matter how divorced from reality the narrative is.
Personally I am so offended by the feminist concept that you are only a free woman if you whore like a male slut. Boarders, ethics and morals make for a strong society. The lack of an acknowledgment that there are rights and wrongs is one of the reasons that so many people are unhappy in their lives. Plus having dignity in who you have sex with is part of self-respect, humanity dignity and self-empowerment.
Quiznilo, yup that's my real name I'm not smart enough to think of a clever nik.
When I go to Lowe's or Home Despot their accounts are rife with a plethora of David Martins so I'm comfortable hiding in plain sight on the interwebs.
Thanks for keeping your comments civil, I really appreciate that in such volatile times, you're obviously a person so substance.
It certainly was a pleasure to read your well thought out arguments, you obviously have a sense of humor about this.
I think we can all agree that what Gawker did was FAR out of bounds.
I can respect Christine O'Donnell for being a strong Christian woman, but personally am troubled when politicians start merging religion and government together as if that was the intent of our Founding Fathers.