Gawker’s Misogynistic Smear of O’Donnell So Vile, Left Shamed Into Condemning It. But, Did They Really?
posted at 2:20 pm on October 29, 2010 by Lori Ziganto
Originally posted at David Horowitz’s NewsReal:
Gawker, that pit of disgusting, published an anonymous hit piece on Christine O’Donnell today. I refuse to link to it; y’all can google and find it yourself. I’m a mean girl like that. The ‘exclusive’ – exclusive in this case meaning only Gawker was vile enough to publish, and pay for, such a thing – was a tale told by an idiot. A piggish, pitiful idiot who exposed himself for the total tool that he is; an alleged man, lacking an ounce of chivalry or even human decency. Plus, according to him, he couldn’t even score with a drunk, feisty-feeling broad! Even though the gross hit piece was titled “My One Night Stand With Christine O’Donnell” there was no actual, um, “stand”. You see, apparently Christine O’Donnell is a total slut. Who is also a prude. Or something.
I won’t go into the particulars alleged by “anonymous”, who we now know is Dustin Dominiak. Particulars that sunk so low as to discuss “feminine upkeep”; apparently Dominiak prefers pre-pubescent girls. The disgusting smears aren’t even the point, really. I mean, it’s Gawker. They are, and always have been, abhorrent. There is nothing redeeming about that site at all and they should not be given any credence whatsoever.
Gawker, or as I shall now refer to them, “the site with microscopic boy bits that shall not be named” has a record of misogyny, including the latest trend – a kind of Pornification of Conservative women. Michelle Malkin has further chronicled their smear machine against conservative women. The larger issue is that this is symptomatic of how the left sexualizes, demeans and dehumanizes Conservative women, always. It is a perfect example of how the Left tries to paint all conservative women as either a) not real women (Pat Buchanan in drag, for example, as Palin was called) to try to take away their gender completely or b) whores (in this case a “virginal” whore, which is even more absurd) as a way to reduce them to sexual use only.
The reaction of the Left to this latest atrocity proves it further.
The blogosphere was all atwitter over how even the Left was allegedly condemning this. And the National Organization for Women deigned to weigh in! Give credit where credit is due! Yeah, no. “Mean girl” doesn’t play that game; I call them like I see them. I have no need to appear cool and “above it all.” I don’t think being “fair” means doing cartwheels over a tiny, condescension laden bone from the Left nor will I ever accept N.O.W. as either an authority for women or an organization to look to for pats on the head, as they shiv you in the ribs. I’m an almost 40-year-old mom who lives in South Carolina, watches “Jersey Shore” unironically and embroiders for fun. Being hip and cool is not a priority nor something to which I even aspire.
So, let’s take a look at this supposed condemnation, shall we? First up is from The XX Factor at Slate. The XX Factor, by the way, is billed as “what women really think.” Hanna Rosin, in a post entitled “What Does Christine O’Donnell Do On Halloween?” complains only of “obnoxious” details in the Gawker piece. Then goes on to further demonize O’Donnell by saying that “the incident nonetheless confirms all my worst stereotypes about those “born-again” virgins.” Those icky, sneer-worthy, born-again virgins! They are like “cold showers”, according to Hannah Rosin. Surely she must have some Ra-Ra Sisterhood outrage or even sympathy for Christine O’Donnell, no? Yeah, no:
At least she wasn’t dressed as a witch. The person we feel most sorry for, however, is his roommate, who apparently then dated the born-again virgin for a whole year.
Such condemnation! Jezebel, Gawker‘s “sister” site and allegedly For The Women ™ wasn’t any better. In fact, they featured the Gawker hit piece on their front page most of the day. When they finally posted a response to Gawker‘s trash, it was extremely predictable. A total sham, filled with super lame semi-protestations. The basic conclusion was “No, big whoop. It’s not really bad that the story was written, because it’s just some “crazy bitch” conservative dame anyway.” So, we’ll just wink and look the other way. And still feature the link to the garbage. On the front page. Of a “Women’s Site.”
Amanda Marcotte appeared to call it out at first, but then couldn’t resist a slam at O’Donnell. N.O.W at first declined to comment, but was later shamed into doing so, due partially to the excessively disgusting nature of the hit piece. And, see, that’s the thing: a lot of the condemnation that we are supposed to be praising was forced and was an easy way to cover themselves with no risk. And even that was done insincerely and in a backhanded way:
Not a single word of any of the criticism will make Denton and Gawker think twice before doing it again to someone else, but don’t let that stop you from recognizing the good intentions of their critics. In fact, so disgusting is this story that even NOW has lowered the boom:
NOW repudiates Gawker’s decision to run this piece. It operates as public sexual harassment. And like all sexual harassment, it targets not only O’Donnell, but all women contemplating stepping into the public sphere.
NOW/PAC has proudly endorsed women’s rights champion Chris Coons, O’Donnell’s opponent in the Delaware Senate race, and finds O’Donnell’s political positions dangerous for women. That does not mean it’s acceptable to use slut-shaming against her, or any woman.
NOW has repeatedly called out misogyny against women candidates, and this election season is no different. Let me be honest: I look forward to seeing Christine O’Donnell defeated at the polls, but this kind of sexist attack is an affront to all women, and I won’t stand for it.
I didn’t see many good intentions; I saw self-serving intentions. Most of the criticism was masked with “we hate her guts, and she’s awful for women and crazy and stuff, BUT….” Which was even more infuriating. Good grief, are we supposed to think you are super cool and so above it all for half-assedly rebuking a vile, trashy, intrusively misogynistic ‘story’ – even though you don’t like her! Which you keep breathlessly reminding us. “Look at me! I totally hate this crazy bitch, but talking about her female parts is creepy. Even if she’s creepy. And a hypocrite. And a total slut!”
Are they trying to appear “non-partisan” and really for the women? They aren’t. You need only look as far as N.O.W.’s own statement to see that. “Slut-shaming”, they say. Because THAT is the issue. Christine O’Donnell is a big old slut, but you shouldn’t “shame” her for that! Because, empowerment or something. Plus, they think she stinks and she is harmful to women; vote for the man. You know, the one who will let you kill your unborn babies!
I will give no praise to N.O.W. I will give no “credit where due,” because none is due. Their denouncement was half-assed at best. The bolded line in their statement is particularly ridiculous. That already happens. It happens to every conservative woman in the public eye. All the time. N.O.W. knows that; in fact, N.O.W. participates in ensuring that it happens. They just do not care, as they have no real concern for women. Every policy they espouse, every candidate whom they endorse have agendas harmful to all females, alive and unborn.
They are only saying something now because they feel safe trying to cover their pitiful arses on this one, this one time, because O’Donnell is like 20 points behind and they believe she has no shot at winning. You know how I know this? Because a similar thing happened to Nikki Haley, running for governor here in South Carolina. And winning. This is a new tactic, you see. Toss out an “I totally tapped that” story with zero merit and the “press” will run with it. It always seems to be a complete tool who makes the allegation, usually unfortunate looking to boot. In Haley’s case, it was also completely without merit nor proof. It was the same type of story (albeit not as Gawker-y, perhaps). And guess what? N.O.W. had nothing to say. Nor did any of the supposed “critics” today. They remained absolutely silent regarding Will Folks’ smears of Nikki Haley.
Leftist feminists, including N.O.W., refused to comment on Whitman “the whore.” In fact, they endorsed Jerry Brown the very next day. They endorsed Alan Grayson, who just last year said of Fed advisor Linda Robertson, “this lobbyist, this K street whore, is trying to teach me about economics.” They have yet to denounce any of the misogyny and sexism aimed at Sarah Palin, including when the media was abuzz with tales of “her rack is totally bigger! Did she get a boob job?” the day after major primary wins for Palin endorsed candidates. Silent at the smears of conservative women in the film “Fire From the Heartland.” Silent when Michelle Malkin was called a “a big mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it.” Supportive of serial sexual harasser, publicly and otherwise, President Bill Clinton. Supportive of serial sexual harasser and manslaughter perpetrator Senator Ted Kennedy. Silent when a Democrat Congresswoman wanted the private parts of already elected GOP women “checked” to ensure that they are real women.
So, no. I won’t be thanking N.O.W. And, frankly, I don’t care if they ever denounce any of it. They do not speak for me, nor will they ever. They are not an authority of, or for, women. They should not ever be looked to as such. Their “criticism” of the Gawker piece showed me only one thing.
To the Left, it’s still totally okay to be sexist and/or trot out uncorroborated tales of “I totally hit that,” if it’s about a conservative woman who is winning.
Recently in the Green Room: