Tuesday, October 26, 2010

More From Loesch: If MoveOn.org Was "Chivalrous," They Wouldn't Let Women Attend Political Events

I wrote earlier about how horrible human being Dana Loesch demanded that a MoveOn activist apologize for having her head stomped on by an angry Rand Paul supporter while being held on the ground by other Paulites.

Now Loesch is doubling down, claiming that MoveOn wasn't "chivalrous" because they didn't prevent a woman from attending a political debate:

The buried assumption in Loesch's argument is that it takes "balls" to attend a political debate because if one does so, he/she should expect to be beaten by violent right-wingers. In fact, Loesch practically says as much in her post on the subject:
If she didn’t want to be restrained she shouldn’t have gone with the intent to start trouble, but congressional members also need to provide their own security.
So what's with these crazy liberals who think that we live in a time where men and women should be free to attend political debates and, yes, sometimes even pull "stunts," (you know, like writing "free abortions" on signs, or dressing up in SEIU shirts ) without getting physically attacked to the point of concussions and sprains? I guess they just don't understand the valiant notion of chivalry that characterizes guys like Tim Profitt.

Related Content:
Show Me Progress: Expecting To Hear Crickets
FiredUp Missouri: Dana Loesch Wants MoveOn.org To Apologize For Letting Staffer Place Her Head Under Angry Man's Foot
Media Matters: Limbaugh, Loesch join chorus blaming MoveOn for activist beating
And the great Digby: Asking For It


  1. Like OMG, how dare you, like don't you realize she's a REAL FEMINIST and all the liberals are just poor facsimiles? Just ask her, she'll tell you.

  2. I know my comment from yesterday hasn't been posted yet, but at that time I took issue with Loesch implying that Valle was not subject to "real violence" the way Gladney and Owens were. How I have not seen the Owens video, but after watching the Valle video I found myself pondering this question:

    Gladney case: male vs male violence
    Owens: female vs female violence
    Valle: male vs female violence

    As a self-proclaimed feminist, does she not grasp that the entire concept of a group of men inflicting violence on a woman is worse than these other two situations? If she had to be the "victim" of one of these "assaults", which one do you think she would be least likely to chose?

    For me, if I was a dude, I'd rather fight a dude. And as a chick, I'd rather fight a chick. Being tackled by 2-3 men and then having one UNNCESSARILY step on me? Yeah, I think that's my least favorite.