Saturday, March 03, 2012

Most Respect Needs To Be Earned

An associate is insinuating that Rush Limbaugh’s remarks regarding the testimony of Sandra Fluke before a congressional Democratic committee coupled with the broadcaster’s three divorces indicates a lack of respect for women.

Rush has given this woman all the respect she deserves.

He has neither laid hands on her or forced himself upon her though she's so easy that I doubt she'd refuse anyone.

Limbaugh's divorces don't really have any relevance to this issue.

He is not the one demanding public subsidy to finance his debauchery.

At least one of Limbaugh's divorces was the result that the little woman didn't like it he was not much for going out and partying.

So if one’s wife one day leaves you for being of a studious retiring nature, should we conclude that you "don't respect women"?

Conversely, are those making the assertion that Limbaugh’s divorces indicated a lack of respect for women going to make as big of a fuss that Limbaugh's former wives insufficiently respected men?

Women that want the level of respect where they are not called sluts should earn that honor.
One shouldn't be fawned over with a degree of deference just because of how their reproductive tract is hooked up.

Should a wife beater still be considered a gentleman and all manner of condemnation heaped upon those refusing to publicly recognize him in such a lofty manner?

Had this woman been a 500 pound diabetic demanding free insulin while confessing to Congress of consuming extravagant amounts of chocolate, wouldn’t she have been called a "glutton"?

If she was complaining to Congress about a Catholic university refusing to pay for her multiple abortions shouldn’t she be considered an accessory to murder?

Had Sandra Fluke confessed to the national legislature that she had embezzled millions of dollars wouldn’t one have called her a thief?

So why shouldn't someone that proudly testifies to the wanton escapades of herself and her classmates expect to be called exactly what they are?

by Frederick Meekins

No comments: