I also have no dog in this fight, but that whole sign bit had me totally confused also. After puzzling over it for a while it suddenly hit me. He’s talking about replacing arrow symbols which are vaugely phallic with “3” which can sort of resemble a pair of breasts.
The meaning of “3<—” then becomes obvious.
It is quite disturbing to note that a radio talk show host would use a stretch of a metaphor in an ad hominum attack. I think we all owe Mr. Evil Breakfast our sincerest thanks for pointing out Rush’s offense in this area. I propose that all future ad hominum attacks by non-elected pundits be accompanied by 3 independant and verifiable sources. The very foundation of modern political discourse is at stake.
While we are at it, let’s deconstruct other political ad hominums. I’ll go first.
Ivory Tower. Completely fallacious metaphor used to express the opinion that liberals are out of touch with reality. Not only have I never met anyone who actually lives in an ivory tower, but liberals would be against the harvesting of elephants or rhinos to build such a tower.
Ah. Ahhh!
But I think he meant it to be ass and not tits.
So which 12 women in NOW is he refering to?
Maybe the drugs blurred his vision and those 12 FemiNazis looked like a whole lot more.
I support equal opportunity and pay for women, but I am not a feminist. I’m just a logical, thinking human being.
Please don’t attach labels to me.
I have listened to Rush a maximum of 4 times in my life, yet at least two of those times, he ranted about Feminazis. If there are only 12 of them in the country, why does he feel the need to go on so about them? It seems that any other special interest group made up of only a dozen people would get totally ignored.
FWIW, my impression from the few times I’ve listened is that Rush does a lot of backtracking on issues. His definition as written on his website is probably another case of his reluctance to stick by what he says.
Sheesh. It’s such an easy concept to grasp, yet you feign ignorance. Please explain the concept “water” to me.
The few overly zealous and humorless feminists gave rise to this joke:
Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: THAT’S NOT FUNNY!!
Yes, it is an easy concept to understand, and the OP knows exactly what it means, which is why this stupid OP was moved from GD to the pit, where such garbage belongs.
FEMINAZI = hardcore feminists with totalitarian views (therefore the nazi staple)
And many FEMINAZIS are ugly females, that look more like men.
Perhaps they need to get some more real penises inserted into them a bit more often, and perhaps they will lighten up a bit.
Lord Ashtar, as a logical, thinking human being (your labels, not mine), please consider the following:
According to Webster’s, a feminist is one who supports the theory of political, social and economic equality of the sexes. Webster’s is generally considered a recognized authority on the way that words are used to label concepts in English in our society.
If you do not support the theory of political, social and economic equality of the sexes (which is a little more specific than what I said earlier), then I can understand your objection to being called a feminist. If you do support them, then by definition – literally, you are a feminist.
I am not the one who chose the label for you and I make no judgments about you.
Are you familiar with syllogisms?
Good grief, Daisy Cutter, I usually don’t go around saying “that’s sexist” but what you said was appallingly sexist.
And I’m a typical Man Show-watching dude.
Funny. I usually think of people about Rush Limbaugh’s age.
Wow, I’m astonished that you were able to read my mind and find that I knew exactly what Rush meant.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :dubious: :dubious: :dubious: :dubious:
Your attitudes towards women in general went out of fashion over 20 years ago, dsespite Rush and his ilk’s desperate attempts to bring them back.
Don’t forget your club when you go back to your cave.
Aw, and I was hoping that just once, someone, somewhere might get through a conversation about feminism without a dumbass comment like that being made.
Way to fight the notion that men are disgusting, sex-obsessed pigs, buddy.
That is not, of course, to say that men are disgusting, sex-obsessed pigs, nor that most women think of them as such. However, suggestions that a woman who is unhappy with the way women in general are treated just needs some deep dickin’ to solve her problems sure as hell won’t win you any points with those women who do think men are sex-obsessed pigs.
Hell, it won’t win you any points with most other women, either.
Ahem.
Contrary to the impression you may have got from the dictionary, there are feminists who do not define themselves by “equal pay for equal work,” or “equal opportunities.” Contrary to the charming quotes from above, there are feminists who are not enamoured with abortion and some who are anti-abortion in all circumstances. Furthermore, and although this has not yet been brought up, there are feminists who like men, feminists who do not need to get laid more, feminists who wear make-up, feminists who don’t mind if you hold the door open for them, feminists who think Ms magazine is a load of crap, feminists who you would be quite mistaken to call “liberal” - whether because they are conservative, socialist, radical, Marxist, etc. And so on, ad nauseum.
Yes it is extremely aggravating that people who will never agree with each other all use the same label. Kind of like other groups of people we talk about, like disabled people, or West Virginians, or Muslims.
Get it? If you want to know how a feminist thinks - ask a feminist. If you want to know what “feminists” want, you will forever be frustrated, just as we are when we try to determine what “muslims” or “christians” want. Generalizations are no more appropriate here than in any other context. There are things they have in common but they cannot, CANNOT be simplified to “They want equality for men and women.” Please stop saying that. If you are truly interested, go do some reading - there’s miles of it. But don’t think that you can say conclusively what feminists think.
Oh, please. . . . :o
Don’t try to paint me as the bad guy here or anything. :eek:
I’m all for equal rights. I’m talking about the extreme, frothing at the mouth ones.
I don’t have a lot of interaction with people around his age. . .I guess I’m just hoping that some of my friends’ll grow out of it by then.
Jesus fucking Christ. Do you have any idea how obnoxiously offensive this is?
Conservative men are disgusting, sex-obsessed pigs, please. Us liberal types are all sensitive new-age-kinda guys, remember? 
You must not have met Daisy Cutter before – neanderthal, clueless comments are his specialty.
Here’s the definition from the glossary of Rush’s terms at the end of The Way Things Ought to Be:
So there it says 25.
At the time, IIRC, his ire was mostly focused at Patty Ireland and Gloria “all sex is rape” Steinem. Since those two and other feminist leaders of the early 90’s have sort of fallen out of the public eye, I don’t really hear him refer to specific feminazis anymore. But I only catch his show a few hours a week, so it’s possible I’m missing it.
As for my own take on hardcore feminism, hey they’re just advocates fighting for privilege in an adversarial society. Men’s rights groups are doing the same thing. Men and women come into direct conflict quite a bit, so I see nothing wrong with treating gender at least in part as an adversarial conflict and fighting vigorously for one’s side.
The only thing I can’t stand about feminists is that the Women’s Studies programs have caused that idiot Foucault to be considered a legitimate philosopher. I’ll take 10 feminists over one postmodernist any day of the week.