“How aboutcha we go get some sandwiches, my treat?”
“Did you just say, Go make me a sandwich, with cheese? How rude!”
“No, I said, ‘How about, we go get, some sandwiches.'”
“With cheese? Nice try, mister. You’re not getting away with this.”
“…like, from Subway or something, my treat.”
“You are the most chauvinist man-pig I’ve ever met!”
“You just use women, don’t you?
“So you can assert your big male dominance?”
“What are you talking about?”
“I can’t believe you could say that to me!”
—– a sample conversation between an un-self-disciplined woman
and any guy you’ve ever known
Recently, Rush Limbaugh blew his strumpet-trumpet, about a fictitious woman — but that didn’t matter to people who can’t think on their own and left to the wild abandon of their imagination and subject to the mercy of their unfettered emotions, apt to turn Tasmanian Devil over something they didn’t even really hear.
By the droves, dopey people who have the listening comprehension and critical thinking traits of a half-awake armadillo, chimed in to denounce Rush’s remarks without even really listening to what he said. Oh, they heard the key words he used and went positively bonkers at the mere mention of a fictitious woman being called a harlot, but they didn’t really catch who he was actually addressing — a fictitious woman.
Rush had intended, presumably, to describe the testimony of law student Sandra Fluke — but getting the facts wrong about Sandra’s message. Instead, Rush actually went on a rant about Susan Fluke (not Sandra) and claimed that Susan needed contraception because of her painted nature.
Had I been Sandra at this point, I would not have responded to the effect, “Woe is the cause of women everywhere, an outspoken radio personality has accused someone of my gender with slattern activities like any logic-devoid man-baby would,” but rather, “Who is this Susan person he’s talking about? If he’s talking about me, he didn’t even really listen to the testimony…,” and then dismiss it as the ravings of Flush Lintball whose opinion especially matter much anyway, and perhaps feel sorry for whoever this Susan-person is. The real person, Sandra, had been testifying that Georgetown University should allow contraceptives in some University insurance program despite Georgetown’s religious objections of the use thereof.
A friend of Sandra needed those contraceptives because they prevented ovarian cyst growth of which the friend suffered — which, in fact, could’ve plausibly been used to preserve the possibility of future childbirth by keeping the friend’s last remaining ovary (one having been removed due to cyst buildup) rather than prevent pregnancy, for which contraceptives are generally intended.
But naturally, like any media-sensationalized misquote that belittles fictional women who didn’t actually do as described, Rush’s verbiage must certainly have been issued as a Grand High Memo from the Ambassador Of The Male Righteousness Council — which is something all women should certainly add to their mental rundown of offenses committed by those wretched man-pigs (in a totally un-hypocritical way).
For some reason Rush was pressed to apologize, despite missing the golden opportunity to say, not to the effect, “I’m sorry I called Sandra’s sensuality into question and said her name wrong,” but instead, “I’m sorry the bozos who are running this outfit are forcing me to apologize to “Sandra” who didn’t actually say any of the dreadful things my fact-checking team thought she did.”