Feminists outraged that I said Regina Lasko was not a pretty woman...
UPDATE (Oct. 7) — A quick glance at my site meter shows that this post was linked by the hairy-legged babes at Feministing and Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon.
You might remember Marcotte as the foul-mouthed little tramp that got canned resigned from John Edwards campaign because she wan’t good looking enough for Edwards to cheat on his cancer-stricken wife. Or it might have been for some other contrived reason…I can’t remember…
Any how — welcome to all you man-hating, uptight, need-a-good-banging softball players. Feel free to tell me how mean and sexist I am for making fun of David’s fugly wife (and try to convince me she’s not), but how it’s OK for Dave to make jokes about Sarah Palin’s teenage daughter getting raped by a major league baseball player.
Feminists are so cute when they get riled up…
_________________
Imagine the outrage…the collective panties in a twist…if Rush Limbaugh had admitted to having sexual relationships with female staffers (half-his-age staffers, at that).
There would be boycotts of the Rush Limbaugh show. There would be protests outside of his office by nearly every feminist group in the country. There would be calls for Rush to be fired for sexually harassing his younger subordinates.
But that didn’t happen.
Stephanie Birkitt: This is what Letterman risked his career and family for?
Instead, we have unhinged (and unfunny) late night comedian David Letterman who was forced to admit that he had sexual relationships with several of his female staffers. And the calls for a boycott of his sponsors? The feminists protesting his show? The calls for Letterman to be fired for sexually harassing his young staffers?
Nada. Crickets.
Of course, after watching most of Hollywood bend over backwards last week to apologize for a child rapist, it’s not too hard to imagine the amoral Left of Hollywood and the MSM not really caring all that much about something as creepy as an old man like David Letterman sexual harassing his female staffers.
It’s already been confirmed that one of the tarts that he cheated on his then girlfriend/current wife/mother of his child (Regina Lasko), was 34-year old Stephanie Birkitt who was Dave’s assistant (apparently she was quite good at assisting him out of his pants and into hers).
Though, after seeing pictures of David’s wife, it’s almost understandable…
[...] about Rush Limbaugh as of October 4, 2009 David Letterman: Creepy Old Pervert – urbangrounds.com 10/04/2009 Imagine the outrage…the collective panties in a [...]
actually Robbie I am disgusted with what he did. You don’t sleep with your employees period.
And Hollywood defending Polanski? Just another example of how rape is still not seen as a big deal,even among progressives/liberals. Sexism is very alive and well on the left and right. :/ (FWIW, I consider myself Liberal, but not a bed wetting liberal. The type that wrings their hands because ppl say that Octomom had a litter. Talk about pearl clutching!)
Letterman is fine; he never was the “Family Values” type. Yes, he probably cheated on his girlfriend now wife. But at least he does go around claiming he is Mr. “Family Values” like some of our politicians (can you just see the grin on all “Fake News” reporters/commentators). This has been a tough summer, for Dave, for our economy but at least he did not end up on the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC).
No, undoubtedly, Letterman belongs on the “1977-2009 Democrat Free the Child Anal & Vaginal Rapist” list (too many to name).
You must be so proud!
Sanford, jackass. Sanford. S A N F O R D. Like the TV show. Not like the university you stand a snowball’s chance in hell of attending.
Fucking moron.
MediaCurves.com conducted a study on 505 viewers of David Letterman’s sex scandal confession. Results found that that the majority reported that their perceptions of Letterman have not changed after viewing the confession. Less than one-quarter (22%) reported that they have a more negative perception of Letterman, and a similar number (23%) reported that they have a more positive perception of him. In addition, 73% claimed that this incident has not changed their likelihood of watching Letterman’s ‘Late Show.’ More in depth results can be seen at:
http://www.mediacurves.com/Entertainment/J7581-Letterman/Index.cfm
Thanks,
Ben
Are you KIDDING me Robbie Cooper? Sexist much?
Actually, Stephanie, I was using the exact same type of “humor” that Dave would use to attack the people that he mocks for behavior comparable to his own. Sorry that went over your head. Next time I’ll use Crayons to draw a more simple picture for you.
Actually, no…your comments were sexist and insulting. Coming back and insulting the poster that called you out on that speaks volumes about you.
you’re dumb
http://www.feministing.com/archives/018156.html
right on, feministing!
The gals at feministing are dumb as rocks. I got into it with them when they were trying to argue that when Britney Spears was falling down drunk, puking on herself, forgetting to wear underwear and flashing the paparazzis, checking into rehab, checking out of rehab the next day, shaving her head, all while in a custody battle for her kids, was normal behavior. When I suggested she might be suffering from post postpartum depression, drug addiction, or mental illness, I was called a sexist who refused to acknowledge a double standard was being applied to a “strong women” like Brittney Spears. LOL
Way to generalize and only reference a small percentage of comments that were posted – completely ignoring all the credible posts.
I’m not generalizing. All the comments were nuts and none of them could get beyond their politics to see that a woman was mentally ill and desperately needed help.
Extremely doubtful. Do you have the link so that we can all read this and determine the validity of your statement?
Not doubtful at all. Here: http://www.feministing.com/ And you would have to be a real whackjob to think anyone would or could make it up. LOL
Hi, your post just leads to the general feministing.com website…not the article you’re quoting. Can you please send the link to the actual article you’re referencing?
No. Do your own homework. Not sure why people think they can insult you and then demand your cooperation in the same breadth.
Um, what? YOU referenced an article, not me. If you can’t give me the link, I have to assume these comments you’re referencing either do not exist or are horribly exaggerated. Next time, maybe try to back up your point rather than insulting other posters that are politely asking for more information.
As a frequent visitor to the site, I am 99% certain you are wrong and simply were not listening or didn’t want to listen because you are scared feminists are man haters who are trying to eat your babies or something.
They would not argue that Britney was acting “normal”. Just that you have to take into consideration double standards of media on celebrities. Many “normal” people deal with similar issues…they just aren’t aired for the public to tear into as they please. And it is completely true that female celebrities are treated unfairly by the media. Consider Downey Jr and Lohan. He went to rehab – good for him. She goes and apparently she is an out of control mess? Two different takes on different stories.
(Sorry to derail this thread…)
Michael, the ‘gals’ at feministing are amazing and are aiming their critiques and analysis way over your judgemental and ignorant head.
Read: I’m not sure why you’re criticizing my comment. I was challenging the original statement that “anonymous” made in which he stated that “the gals at feministing are dumb as rocks”. Perhaps you meant your comment to be addressed to him instead?
ROPE THE CALF: And you would be 100% wrong. They were defending her months of aberrant behavior as normal, by isolating each incident, as you tried to do, and attempting to explain it away. However, her aberrant behavior was ongoing for several months and they were doing her no favors.
MICHAEL S.: I will repeat myself- don’t come here, insult me, and then demand I do your research. I referenced comments in a thread on a blog. What you believe is irrelevant.
And your lovely misogynistic comments about David’s wife being ugly or referring to Stephanie Birkitt (who is beautiful) as “this”?
Your sexist self is not all that good at selling your point. Not only is it clear you are not concerned with actual sexism – its clear that you are just trying to play the “gotcha” game and failing.
You need to learn the difference between a stranger taking a shot at some one’s photo vs. cheating and lying to one’s spouse or significant other for 20 years and the mother of your child or sexual harassment in the work place.
the difference is very clear. What is your point? That just because Letterman appears to be super skeezy means I should ignore the sexist comments of Copper? I don’t think so.
I don’t agree in the least with cheating on significant others or sexual harassment (of any kind – work place, street, etc).
There isn’t much to comment on as far as the cheating. Unless they have an open relationship, Letterman is a jerk who cheated. They will deal with that how they see fit.
On the topic of sexual harassment, it is wrong to assume that the women Letterman had affairs with were not fully capable of choosing to have a sexual relationship with him that was consensual and without pressure. That’s insulting to them. On the other hand, its very hard to ignore the power dynamics of work relationships and the dangers of those dynamics.
In other words – too early to judge. We know little about the story. So we should judge little about the story.
What I was saying is that Copper is angry feminists aren’t up in arms about this. Why? Because he cares so much about fighting sexism? Doubtful given his own sexism. He is just trying to point out a fault in feminism as proof that feminism is wrong or something. And its a crappy attempt.
If you can’t determine my point by your original comment and my response, you are definitely not a critical thinker.
I see your points. Just no logic behind them. If you want to discuss it, be my guest.
But “the difference between a stranger taking a shot at some one’s photo vs. cheating and lying to one’s spouse or significant other for 20 years and the mother of your child or sexual harassment in the work place” is the degree to which this person is a jerk. The examples we are discussing are both examples of sexism. So again, what point are you trying to make.
I can’t take your article seriously considering that you keep using the word “their” when you should be using the word “there”. Maybe you should do a grammar check before you publish an article expecting people to take it seriously.
I can’t take people like you seriously who will ignore the substantive arguments because of a few minor grammar or typing errors. As you well know – it’s a dodge.
Thanks – I wasn’t asking anyone to take me seriously – merely stating a comment that i’m surprised insulted you. I don’t think that it’s being unreasonable to expect an “intelligent” article to be written with proper grammar. Combine that with the fact that the article is actually trying to justify Letterman’s actions by saying his wife is unattractive and also insulting the looks of one of the women he cheated with – I feel like i’m reading something written by a 15 year old boy with no clue about life.
Don’t worry – no one would take you seriously. And your surprise and projection is rather disingenuous, so give it up.
You are very unreasonable in dismissing anything based on a couple of minor errors. Your goal was to insult and your motive is leftard craziness.
And no the article was not “actually trying to justify Letterman’s actions.” Your reading comprehension, frankly, sucks.
And after reading your two posts, I know I am dealing with a petty person with a not so hidden agenda. hta
Wow, your post is hilarious! I can’t understand why my being the only one to point out poor grammar would get your panties tied in a knot like this. It’s quite humorous – thanks for brightening up my day.
If you think it’s hilarious you are still not reading and thinking critically. Additionally, you are apparently too dishonest to admit why you posted what you did. Not that it matters. People like you are obvious to everyone but themselves.
p.s.: It’s your panties that are in knots, sweetie.
My motivation? Atrocious grammar. But thanks for your incredible insight into my “hidden agenda”! Still wondering why you care.
Anon, your agenda is as apparent and you are equally disingenuous and your attacks are as passive agressive. Take your own advice and pull your panties out of that knot.
Hahaha: My agenda is that I don’t put up with insults and cheap shots form others. In the words of our First Lady: Don’t start nuttin’ – there won’t be nuttin’
As to pulling panties, the only pantie wearer is Rachel. You go tug on them.
Sue me. I fired my editor. While you’re busy merely “teaching” others to use proper grammar in their writing, I’m actually in the real world actually doing. I write some of the most painstakingly accurate technical manuals for defense systems critical to the defense of our nation. I spend all day writing letter-perfect documents. So you’ll have to excuse me if, while indulging my little blogging hobby in my little corner of the blogosphere that I occasionally make a few mistakes.
I assure you, ma’am, that my knowledge of grammar (both prescriptive and descriptive) and usage far exceed anything that you are “marking” on your college papers…
But I appreciate your fine eye for editing and for pointing out how much smarter than me you think you are. I thought about teaching college once too, but then realized that I wanted to earn an honest living actually producing something useful. I’m sure it must get tiring for you elite academics — always carrying around the weight of thinking you’re smarter and better than everyone else. /sarcasm
Hi Robbie, thanks for all the insults – very mature coming from the author. Just to clarify – University professors don’t just “mark papers” and “think we’re smarter and better than everyone else”. I’m guessing you have never been based on your blanket statements. We spend our lives researching and writing meaningful articles – much like you’re attempting to do here except that our journal articles are meant to actually prove something. If they don’t – they don’t get published.
Oh, stop it! No one believes you are a professor of anything.
You’re right. My degrees are purely honorary.
Hardly. Please, you’re not fooling anyone and only making yourself look foolish and dishonest. And who said I cared about anything to do with you? You’re the one who came here in a snit.
Hardly. Read above. I commented on poor grammar – you turned it into a criticism of ME and my “hidden agenda”. How one leads to the other is beyond me. If you’re going to criticize my post fine…dispute what I said and have points to back yourself up. You’ve done neither and as a result I see no reason why this conversation should continue. This is my last post – too much derailment from you which has nothing to do with the article or my original comment. Later.
I did read above. You commented on more than what you call bad grammar. You came here to insult people. Pretending that you did not is a waste of everyone’s time. You’re very transparent. I’ll chalk it up to youth and you being an asshole. Hopefully, you’ll grow out of it.
I’m a 39 year old University professor – I mark papers and despise bad grammar. I also hate de-railment, which you are the expert on. THIS is my last post.
I find it difficult to believe that the state of higher education is so bad that it could produce you, Rachel. You don’t hate derailment since that is what you have done from the moment you arrived. You came here to be disruptive and insulting. And one can only hope it is your last post, however, your track record is for lying.
Thank You ANONYMOUS-
You State- People who Ignore the Arguments-Because Of bad Grammar or Typing errors,Are Dodging.
Havnt you done that, time and time again On here
Proven Yet again-What Double standards you have-You Slate a person for correcting Grammar, Rather than argue the facts etc-Fuck Me and how many times have you failed on other posts to answer facts, And resorted to Dodging.
2 Faced Biggot
Thanks for supplying a real example of bad grammar. There is a difference between a spelling error or two and your posts that are so filled with grammatical and spelling mistakes and lack of logic that you are incomprehensible.
I’ll pass on having sex with you. But, thanks for supplying a real example of bad grammar. There is a difference between a spelling error or two and your posts that are so filled with grammatical and spelling mistakes and lack of logic that you are incomprehensible.
Invaded by flying monkeys and fake professors!
Anonymous – face it, you’re just an internet troll with nothing better to do with his time than insult anyone and everyone that disagrees with your pathetic narrow-minded conservative viewpoints. It just kills you that a woman could be a professor while you live the life of a stooge, doesn’t it?
Fake Prof. Rachel: Your projection is juvenile. You came to a board that you never commented on before to post nothing but insults. It is clear by your lack of logic and poor writing that you are not a professor of anything. Something is seriously wrong with you to lie the way you do.
As has been previously mentioned by other posters – you, my dear are the master of insults. Speaking of being a liar – I saw your post above which referenced a Feministing article on Britney Spears. I looked up all articles that refrenced her on the site and shockingly, what you stated was completely false! I know i’m shocked…..
It never ceases to amaze me that you and your ilk acts shocked when in response to insulting people they get insulted back. If you and your fellow flying monkeys don’t like to be insulted, don’t come to this board and insult others. And no, I wasn’t lying about Spears. Lying is your M.O. – not mine.
I wonder if the DeVry “professor” has any Kinkels, Klebolds or Kazmierczaks in her class.
Meh, she’s probably fucking them to help their GPAs. This is why she sees no issue with Letterman.
Thanks for supplying, Yet another example what a complete and Utter loser you are ANONYMOUS.
I and others write posts with Bad Grammar-On the posts that you can prove the sender to be wrong, You reply-When faced with being proven a loser, Or you cannot answer-Out comes the ” Im not replying because of your Grammar, Or You reply and dont bother with the raised Issue, You just belittle.
So Your Grammar Is Pefect,You have got no morals,Standards-You suffer from some form of split personality Disorder, And you cannot face Facts.
I would rather have bad Grammar, And have morals/Standards, I be honest with myself when I am proven wrong.
Rather the prove to the rest what a Fucking Ass you really Are.
[...] have covered the outrage, pointing out that the pearl clutchers undermine their own case by calling Letterman’s wife ugly, and equating this with the Polanski case. Which answers the question plaintively asked by a [...]
Dang! I guess a creepy writer attracts creepy anonymous commenters! Who’d have guessed?
Sorry, but we don’t take anyone seriously unless they claim to have a fake academic title.
This post is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. And SELF-CONTRADICTORY! In one line, you blast Letterman for taking advantage of poor unsuspecting female victims, and in the next you call them tarts! Which are they, victims or scheming homewreckers? Or are you so much of a misogynist that all women are simultaneously both so what difference does it make what you call them?
And a grown woman sleeping with her boss is the same as a grown man raping a child? So I guess in addition to being victims and whores, these women are also children. What the hell are you smoking?
I believe that the American people can see the distinction between a Late Night jokester and a Politician who preaches one thing and lives another. And I also believe that the American people will have more compassionate about this situation, but who knows what the court case will reveal. I guess sexual harassment suit can be filed (I have not heard of one) but until then, who cares what consenting adults do. We all know that there are laws for regular folks and laws for those who have influence and power. Kinda like the military they all get different spanks for different ranks.
Clare: You might take a look at this page for reflection:
http://www.russellmoore.com/2009/10/04/what-david-letterman-can-teach-us-about-the-gospel/
holy sheeeeeeeeee-it Letterermans wife is double fugly I suspect viagra makes you go blind… Which would explain much about OLD Dave… stupid human tricks? Sounds like OLD Dave was b*nging skanky human tricks.. what a zero…. Bet he had sex with Paul tooo
“The calls for Letterman to be fired for sexually harassing his young staffers?”. When did it ever come out that Letterman harassed them? From what has been said so far – all of the acts were consentual. I am not saying that what Letterman did was right from a moral perspective – but to say that he “harassed” these women when there has been no proof of that is pretty unfair and misleading in my opinion.
Your update here reads like a hateful piece aimed at a group of people you dislike (who appear to have much more valid and better constructed opinions than your own I might add – judging by some of the more intelligent comments on here and of course not including the rampant insults with no point behind them). I’d like to see a more objective opinion…this one is obviously incredibly slanted. I will look elsewhere for something actually worth reading…there is nothing of value here.
Approaching women who depend on him for a paycheck and professional advancement and suggesting sex obviates the idea of consensuality. At least it did when feminism was considering things in the abstract rather than when a Democrat was doing it. “Harassment” is an appropriate term. “Exploitation” would be a more precise term. You are a hypocrite. You exemplify the fact that “feminism” and its principles are mere pretexts for the advancement of Democratic politicians. Your comment reads like a hateful piece aimed at people you dislke (who appear to have much more valid and better constructed opinikons than your own I might add. But I am glad you posted. You do show what “feminism” and its principles are really about – and that has nothing to do with the exploitation of women.
Spenser, I see your point. However I think your argument is flawed in that you are assuming that any situation in which a woman is involved with a man of power equals harassment. One of the women in question claimed to be in love. I don’t see harassment there. Now if it comes out that Letterman bribed these women and offered them promotions, then it’s a different story. It’s not unnatural for women to be attracted to men of power and prestige and to want to have sexual relations with them. They do have minds of their own. I agree that it’s a problem if it is a result of exploitation. But this issue is not clear cut black and white and we don’t yet have any evidence to prove that exploitation is what indeed it is.
Ever hear of a “quid pro quo?”
Probably not, you fucking leftist asshole. Die.
I didn’t realize that it was a crime to attempt an intelligent discussion. I’ll know better next time that it isn’t possible on this particular site.
Later, crybaby bitch.
Go suck off your messiah.
Sam, thanks again for brilliantly proving my point.
On This Site, It Is Criminal To have A Inteligent Discussion-Unless You Are Rightwing, With The Warped Attidude-If You dont agree with This Site, Or You are not rightwing-Then You have no chance.
Rather than challenge points of view, Or Indeed Facts, If They cannot Disprove You out come the Name calling, Grammar Inspectors, And Ignoring the questions posed.
And Is so Apparent on This Thread as with others-Those who pick or belittle, Are Guilty Of the same offence(Such A fucking Crime Isnt It).
But If you Aint righwing,You will be ridiculed, And your questions left not Answered.
As they say-The best form of Defence Is Attack,And you lot do it to such great affect.
So Sam And Mr Iv got A severe split personality Disorder, Prove Me wrong-Show Me what A true Rightwinger Is-Or Are you shallow Minded, Are you a biggot, And are you an Ass, As all your previous And selective responses Have been, And proven yourself to Be.
Come on Educate Me And others, And Stop showing everyone, Arseholes you really are
Dumbass: Anyone can find and read your past posts. You are arrogant, your posts are unintelligble, and you don’t have a clue about what you are posting about. You make crap up. You throw tantrums because people won’t take you seriously. You act like a 5 year old. People tried to cut you slack because you said you had psych problems. But, your b.s. got real old real fast.
Paul’s posts should be classified as torture under the Geneva Convention. It’s less painful to be waterboarded than to read what that uneducated parent-killing loser has to say.
Hopefully some chav stabs him in the eye with an icepick.
Sam, I added his name to the scroll-over list long ago.
Lol Anonymous,
People Try to give me slack, Because I said I had Psych probs-Did I It is news to me,So dont know Where U got that from.And I am the 1 accused Of Making things up-You appear to have Double Standards.
As for Sam-Time After Time,You name call(Childish Ass) When You are proved wrong.
Are You not Man Enough, To debate,Rather Than when proven wrong,Resort to your mode of defence.
You have proven what A low life,Shallow Minded Biggot you trully are.
And NO2LIBERALS-Many have added your name to The He Is a Tosser List.
I take great satisfaction-That when posed with facts That you cannot defend,Out comes the Abuse To Anyone who does not agree with you.
It appears to be a very popular Trait on this site-So Is that What A true Rightwinger stands for? Apparently So