As a female wanting to break into the online journoblogger world, how am I supposed to take the recent Playboy article? I can do this, but because I fall to the right of center, I better be expecting this kind of stuff? Or better question, how am I supposed to take the mostly silence to the Climate of Hate that was displayed?
From the left, there came but one voice that defended women but more precisely those hit by the Playboy article. Tommy Christopher. There were other voices from the left, but they mostly prevaricated the "They were clearly asking for it." defense that I thought went out of style in the 90s. Feminists were quick to denounce those who would dare to defend any rapists with that tripe. But now, here we have those that denounced it using that same excuse! Bonnie Erbe's response to the clear denouncing she correctly received for attempting to use this line,
"I also want to note that at least one woman on the list is so venom-spewing, she unfortunately invites venom to be shot back at her: Michelle Malkin. Her posts and her "routine" are so venomous and predictable, in fact, I stopped paying attention to her years ago."
was "Does that need any more explanation than a plain reading of the language offers?" Nobody distorted what you said, Ms Erbe. We used the exact quote in context.
Today, Tommy Christopher was fired for (what we can only assume) his response to the Playboy hit piece. So, I can write my opinion pieces, but if I dare disagree with anyone, they have the right to put out hate pieces on me, and if anyone dare defend me, they will suffer the consequences. Good to know.
Playboy removed the article not because of the hate, but because the message was misunderstood. We didn't get the joke, you see. If the politics in this whole mess were reversed, I would wager a good deal that the women hit wouldn't see that joke either.
Update (as I wrote this) h/t Amanda Carpenter:
Elizabeth Hasselbeck received a reply (and a good one finally) from NOW.
Cross posted on my blog.