Monday, August 23, 2010

Profiles in Cowardice: Loesch Attacks Feminists Then Runs Scared

Dana Loesch wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Times Examiner doing her typical logic-inverted gibberish routine about how the people who fight for the rights of oppressed people (i.e. people who inevitably aren't neocons or tea partiers) are actually the ones who are secretly responsible for the oppression. In this case, she was claiming that feminists are actually responsible for "a political ploy to tether women to The Man."

Karoli at Momocrats, though seemingly doubting the value of responding to someone as intellectually dishonest as Loesch, nevertheless decided that the piece was too absurd to leave unchallenged:
I debated about whether to take on the latest turd Dana Loesch dropped on in the form of an op-ed column or ignore her. Other than being the latest Ann Coulter wannabe, she hasn't said much original for the past year or so. (Yes, I snark. It serves as a reminder not to take her too seriously.)

The Sarah Palins, Michele Bachmanns, and other members of the "feminist right" can always be counted on to echo the newest Luntz talking points through the echo chamber. Now that Betsy McCaughey, Pamela Geller and Dr. Laura have been thoroughly discredited, they just pick up some other woman looking for her five minutes of fame and hackery. Dana is the newest candidate. Not the first and she won't be the last.

Do conservative women -- especially intelligent ones (yes, they do exist) -- ever wonder why the party faithful finds the dumbest, most extreme groupies to deliver their message? Republican cynicism at its best -- pay lip service to women's equality but find the ones dumber than a rock to deliver it. Bachmann, Foxx, Palin, Angle....need I say more?
After this blistering intro, Karoli proceeded to perform a point-by-point takedown of nearly every disingenuous paragraph of Loesch's post. She took down Loesch's false claims about Avastin. She took down Loesch's conspiracy theory about Allee Bautsch. She took down Loesch's ridiculous suggestion that "librul" policies are responsible for the current unemployment levels. She rightly mocked Loesch's childish claims about the education system. She questioned Loesch's fact-free assertion that males are "being suppressed." And she noted Loesch's complete head-in-the-sand approach to the fact that women make 78% of what men make for similar jobs. In other words, she destroyed each and every substantive point in Loesch's article. Read the whole article. Trust me; it's worth it.

And what, pray tell, was Loesch's response? She completely avoided all substance and tried to brush off the entire post by saying that those mean "liberal-chicks" were "name-calling:"

The implication from Loesch, of course, is that all the post does is "name call" and so doesn't substantively address her points. But in fact, addressing all of her points is precisely what Karoli did, despite her own stated misgivings about wasting time on such nonsensical tripe. And it was Loesch who was completely scared sh*tless by the prospect of having a conversation about the actual issues being discussed.

And lest you think that Loesch was in fact responding to some other post that really did just do name-calling, it's pretty obvious that's not the case. You can see Loesch responding with the "waaaaah, name-calling" claim right after PunditMom tweeted Karoli's article:

And, of course, she didn't stop there:

As she always does when discussing feminism, Loesch makes sure to bring in some physical references about how the people she's arguing agaisnst are somehow lacking in some "femininity" or some physical characteristic. For example, when I tuned in to her radio show after the Emily's List mama grizzly video came out, she made sure to repeatedly make claims that the membership of Emily's List has "hair lips." For some reason, Loesch can't seem to talk about women's issues without bringing it back to physical appearance, which some might say is also a way in which women are kept down.


  1. Yeah, and Ms. Dana has never resorted to name-calling, has she?

    Oh, wait. I was wrong, again.

  2. The Washington Examiner reports that the Washington Times (why does Dana write an op-ed for the Moonies?) is close to shutting down.

    Unfortunately for us, Dana's op-ed ran before this happens.

  3. You know, The Washington Times is still owned by one of the world's biggest cults - The Unification Church, aka The Moonies. Wonder if she knew that before she wrote for them?

  4. Adam, the editorial came from the VERY Right-Wing Washington Examiner, NOT the Moonie Times.

    Loesch has been known to be a snide coward to those who disagree with her.

  5. Whoops! Thanks for catching that Justin. I have now corrected it.

  6. Great article Adam, glad someone is keeping Mrs. Loesch in check!

  7. Glad you pointed out her penchant for going straight for the physical insults when she can't think of anything intelligent to say. For her, name-calling and insults have always been SOP. (i.e. her incredibly nasty comments about Claire McCaskill during the Senate campaign) I can't figure out if it's just that she is mostly ignorant or if it's a result of her incredible self-absorption and arrogance.

    For someone who professes to be a champion of women she has very little to say that doesn't make "conservative women" look ridiculous.

  8. Ah, Dana. She accuses other women of padding their bras only to draw attention away from her ham-handed attempts to pad her own brain by using words she doesn't understand.

    FYI, Loesch, "beholding" is a form of the verb "to behold" meaning to observe or to see. "Beholden" is an adjective meaning obligated or indebted. They are not the same word, at all, and your conflation of the two is a most glaring grammatical error, though admittedly, the mistake stands out less in the midst of your mushy, incoherent sentences than it might in the work of a more skilled argumentative writer.

    Next time you have write an op-ed, you might want to crack a dictionary before having yourself published.

  9. Wow! I just had the misfortune to listen to a small portion of The Dana Show (specifically "Mailbag of Hate") and was stunned to hear the most juvenile, immature, sophomoric, insult-ridden 5 minutes imaginable. Stupid voices, cackling and snorting? This is a radio show?!

    And as for being a "major voice for conservatives" I hope they are listening.

    Grow up Dana, you're 15 minutes are almost up, and eventually you will be irrelevant and seen for the ridiculous, self-serving, fame-wh*re cartoon you are.

  10. I have often found that people who either have no response to or knowledge of feminism will just resort to calling feminists unattractive. Not only do I find this response stupid, but dated- something I'd expect from someone in the 70s who felt threatened by a female supervisor or something. I am glad intelligent, educated women stand up to the Palins & Co. of America, women who obviously don't know much about or understand feminism. I forget where I heard it, but the point, "You're not a feminist, you're just female", sums it up nicely.
    I'm twenty-something & feministy, and for someone to assume I look a certain way because I want to better the lives of women is just laughable...seriously, that's supposed to be a viable argument? Like I said before, that sounds like something a chauvanist would say in an attempt to insult a woman who presumably rests her personal value and security on how she looks. Additionally, in my experience, women who lash out at other women over physical attributes (insinuating they pad their bras, for example,) are generally quite insecure about their own physical attributes, are hyperaware of them, and feel obligated to reassure other conservatives they in fact do not realistically support/challenge obstacles to bettering women's lives, health, safety, etc.
    Historically, people who fought for women's rights to vote, hold jobs, go to school, have access to reproductive care, etc., have been liberal. Conservative people have, by and large, never been supportive of changes in gender roles. They have never supported bettering women's lives, yet now want to pretend they did or do. Outspoken, outlandish conservative women also seem to be totally ignorant of the history of feminism, apparently taking no time to research and understand the different facets of a movement they want to represent and insult at the same time.
    I agree with the above poster who said they were "stunned to hear the most juvenile, immature, sophomoric, insult-ridden 5 minutes imaginable". I happened across the same thing, and had to check if I had clicked the 'AM' button. The poor imitations of animals and rural people (or whatever you want to call it, being from a part of Missouri where people do have an accent, I didn't relate to it at all, I found it hateful and degrading...and I make fun of my hoosier heritage all the time), was especially immature. Surely we have more intelligent, articulate, thoughtful people who have actual valuable insights to share with us over the airwaves?