The many condemnations of Rush Limbaugh's remarks about law student Sandra Fluke are appropriate, but they have thus far ignored the important subtext of his comments -- specifically, a contradiction so powerful that it is changing laws across the country to the detriment of both men and women.
Some of Limbaugh's less incendiary (and thus less discussed) assertions merit further scrutiny. For example, Limbaugh expresses outrage at the idea that female contraception should be provided by medical insurance, claiming at one point that it is unnecessary because "the Washington, D.C., Department of Health will send you free condoms." This makes it clear that contraception -- even taxpayer-subsidized contraception -- is not really the source of his outrage. But then, what is?
It is instructive to consider his description of his fantasy that Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich will "spy on Sandra Fluke and interrupt her in mid-coitus, and then they'll make 'em [sexually active female Georgetown law students] get married. They'll make 'em get married and then make 'em have those babies and make 'em have 10,000 babies and then stay home..." Here Limbaugh both luridly depicts male politicians as peeping toms and passes judgment on the imaginary subjects of this salacious interest -- indeed, even sentences them for their crimes. Their punishment, naturally, is to have more sex and bear the reproductive burdens thereof -- but only under the control of husbands who keep them locked away at home (where, presumably, they can find no other outlets for their insatiable lust).
In even plainer terms he first called Ms. Fluke "a slut, a prostitute," and then the next day demanded that she arrange to have "the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we are getting for our money." These statements give away the profound, secret paradox in his condemnation of Ms. Fluke and outrage at her presumed (though not fact-based) promiscuity. Mr. Limbaugh wants to punish and castigate women who fail to practice sufficiently puritanical morality, while also unashamedly proclaiming his lascivious interest in watching the 'slutty' uninhibited sex he imagines them having.
This contradictory set of demands -- that women should be ashamed of their sexuality but nevertheless behave shamelessly for men's pleasure -- is neither insignificant nor his alone. Although his statements are widely being denigrated, the issues at stake retain their political traction. The Republicans and other social conservatives arguing for contraception and abortion restrictions may reject Limbaugh's phrasing, but they are nevertheless supporting policies that, as one Alabama legislator put it, are "designed to humiliate women." Over twenty states already have legislation subjecting women to unnecessary medical procedures, a practice that was notoriously employed by the Soviet Union to coerce compliance. Several more states are currently debating requiring women seeking abortions to undergo ultrasounds.
This controversy has been described as a war on women. It may be that, but it is also, and perhaps more effectively, a war against sexuality itself. To the degree that social denigration and government-imposed restrictions are successful in inculcating shame and fear, they foster sexual inhibition both in the marital bed and outside it. People who are ashamed of their bodies and sexuality, or fearful of the potentially dire consequences of sex, are not likely to be relaxed, uninhibited, or enthusiastic in the bedroom.
The proliferation of media discussions, books, articles, and blogs about sexual difficulties - not to mention the popularity of sex therapists - is a testament to how uncomfortable and dissatisfied couples are with sex, no matter their political orientation or marital status. Unfortunately, no quantity of therapy, books or articles can repair damage that is done on a widespread social scale by a combination of private disgust and public policy.
Until we recognize that the true victims of this crusade include not only women but also sexuality itself, we are unlikely to end it. Both sexes suffer when women are subjected to puritanical standards, public humiliation, and the private belief that the very sexuality they desire is "slutty" and shameful. If we are to overcome what ails us in the bedroom, we will have to address what happens in the public arena and end sanctions on female sexuality.
Dr. Ruth Bettelheim is a writer, lecturer, and executive/life coach specializing in the development of human potential. She is based in New York and Los Angeles and can be found at RuthBettelheim.com.
Via The Op-Ed Project.
Follow Ruth Bettelheim, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@Ruth_Bettelhei
Catherine Meeks, Ph.D.: Yes, Alexander, It Is A Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day, But...
This is not merely about "women" per se (tho you are overwhelmingly those being affected).
Although the misogynistic right-wing men in government have no problem continuing to set women's rights aside, I do not hold that this is merely about "sex". I believe this entire fiasco is a stalking horse by the health care insurance coprporations, upset at being mandated to provide generic pharmaceuticals for which they make little to no profit, to so many "healthy" women of child-bearing age. They have fiduciaary responsibility to maximize profits and this is how they're doing it. They've donated to the reelection campaigns and lobbied both the fiscal conservatives and religious conservatives in government to shirk this new mandate and have no qualms allowing the Limbaughs the O'Reilleys or the Santorums and Gingriches of this world to fight this battle in public for them.
Take to the street, sure, but occupy the shareholder meetings of Unitedhealth Group, Wellpoint, Kaiser and Aetna etc.
Many many of us men value all that you do and we'll help as much as you'll allow us.
Happy International Women's Day!
xoxo
All those other services you rightly mentioned are billed and billed heavily. They all make money for the corporations.
The monthly cost of contraception for women ranges from $30 to $50, and experts agree that savings more than offset the cost. It's estimated that it would cost employers 15 to 17 percent more NOT to provide contraceptive coverage than to provide it. Employers - not insurers.
I said this is not the entire thing - and you are right, there is a battle being waged against women on many fronts in this election cycle - knowing they cannot win on economics, they are using the triple treat of guns, gays and gynecology to get out the vote.
As to Rush and his lack of progeny after three marriages - Goggle "Jeff Christie" and read about Rush's arrest(s) and how Elliot Sanders simply guarantees that, "none of his marriages was ever consummated."
If you want to understand Limbaugh's use of humor, read Zev Chafet's biography of him or listen to the show for a while.
Please note that I'm not interested in defending him, just explaining him.
Next they will revoke or inhibit our ability to vote, own land, have short hair, and wear pants. Ladies start learning how to darn again and stock up on petticoats. I can't even begin to imagine why we are still having to fight these battles for personal freedoms! Adult/Sex Industries that profit off sexuality would not be some of the wealthiest industries if MEN didn't want hookers, strippers, porn stars, etc. It is acceptable for them to CRAVE this sexuality from women, yet denigrate women, our rights, and our sexuality. Hypocrisy!
Oh, and we should just all start preparing to sleep in separate bed chambers at this rate...
Bubba wants to keep you barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.
There is another aspect to this "war", and that is an attempt to stifle women. First, a Congressional Committee bans women from a hearing that primarily affects them (women). Next, a young woman who does testify in a different venue is subjected to Rush Limbaugh's humiliating tirades. The lesson seems to that women should be used, not heard.
As for contradictions, try the hypocrisy involved in opposing both abortion and birth control. No one can oppose both and be morally consistent.
None of it is actually "pro-life" or "pro" anything else; it's just a puritanical desire to punish women.
responsibility of men to make sure that women are protected? Why are women fully responsible for the ramifications of sex?
The mother of all right wing crusades is the war on personal freedom, be it on sexuality or freedom of political expression (in the end the same thing), to intimidate, coerce and subjugate the masses to the will of the super rich.
F/f'd.
The war on women is indeed a war on sexuality, which is in turn, a war on all of us.
I can see rational arguments on both sides of the contraception issue. But the larger issue is this assault on sexual liberty. Regardless of who pays for condoms or the public health or state financial implications of unwanted pregnancies, that one battle is a small part of this war. Rick Santorum thinks certain sexual acts between consenting adults should be illegal. That is not an American ideal to me. Give us sexual liberty, or give us death!
I get the sense some people (Mr. Limbaugh being one) are ethically offended seeing your health care system change from "everyman/woman for themselves getting whatever health care they can afford" to "all citizens deserve equal access to health care".
Just my 2 cents as an observer. BTW - I was highly offended by Mr L calling ANY woman a slut and a prostitute! To me it shows a lack of respect for all women and a junior high sensibility about women's sexuality.
On an ironic side-note, Sarah Palin, in her memoir, talks about "hustling over the border [to Canada] for health care".
One experience I had 10 years ago might highlight the difference between US and Canadian medical systems. I was diagnosed with e-coli which had eaten away portions of my spine and one kidney. I was near death when admitted to hospital. I was transferred to a larger hospital and spent 63 days there. I had eight specialists, two surgical procedures, blood tests 3x a day, 20 different medications and treatments. I paid nothing for this care. There was no bill given to me