Why Does Katherine Spillar, Editor of Ms. Magazine, Support NOW and Their Bid To Censor "Sexist" Speech?


Once again, Katherine Spillar, editor of Ms., approved a full page ad that attempts to foment a movement against free speech. How? By using that vast and never-satiated feminist reservoir of bitterness and hatred towards men (and female stooges of the Patriarchy) and focusing it on those who make "sexist" remarks in the television news media. And who are we talking about? Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, and Maureen Dowd???

As our eyes glance over this full page ad from NOW, we see a shot of Keith Olbermann with a cartoon balloon coming out of his mouth, and inside the words: KATIE COURIC IS THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD. Um, ok. So this is an example of the pernicious influence of sexist male media? It's laughable! What in hell is Katherine Spillar of Ms. Magazine thinking??? Also, did Olbermann actually say this, or is NOW lying?

Okay, so Olbermann doesn't like somebody who happens to be female. Fair enough. I guess he has that right, yes? So according to NOW and Ms. Magazine he should therefore be censored? ... And by who? The American government? The FCC? What exactly do Katherine Spillar and NOW want? New federal laws that will slap fines or jail time on any male or female media personality who dares criticize or express displeasure with any female human being for any reason?

BTW, is the truth, sexist?

And sure, it's fine if Olbermann slams George Bush, Jr., no problem. But if he doesn't like Katie and says so, he should be jailed, fined, or at least fired from his job? Let's read on: NO MORE SEXIST INSULTS, SLURS AND ATTACKS, NO MORE RACISM, HOMOPHOBIA AND OTHER "ISMS" THAT PROMOTE INEQUALITY. Wow! I have to refer to my piece on Jeremy Waldron and his need to censor speech for similar reasons.

And who makes the rules? Who? ... Very scary.

Why can't supreme hypocrites like Katherine Spillar and her stooges of the Ms. Magazine Matriarchy do something useful for a change, like maybe supporting the boycott of products that advertise on Black Entertainment Television (the most sexist channel this side of the galaxy) or any of the many horrible programs and reality shows that encourage young women and girls to emulate shallow and foolish behavior? (Wouldn't that be more productive than bashing Keith Olbermann?) Why? Because they won't risk making powerful enemies of big corporate advertisers and major media execs, and they especially don't want to attract negative attention by potentially harming popular TV shows watched by millions of young women.

Their consultants won't let them.

It's simply best to stick to the same old formula, i.e., continue to foment causes that efficiently tap the black well of feminist hatred. After all, it's the safest way to assure donations and grants, no?



No comments:

Post a Comment