But didn’t they also magically (and conveniently) discover that sexism existed when Palin ran as Veep? It seems they really only think it exists when it applies to right wing women any other woman deserves it.

It seems they really only think it exists when it applies to right wing women any other woman deserves it.

Which is about par for the course for the right. Nancy Reagan didn’t give a crap about stem cell research until Ronnie got Alzheimers, and that’s just one example. Plus, there’s the whole “right-wing women are awesome and lefties are whores” thing.

From Hot Air:

Let’s be clear about terms here.  A “hate f**k” sounds like something perhaps just short of rape, but degrading enough to entertain the perverted twerps at Playboy.  The fact that the magazine published this piece of effluvium should be enough to show that everyone in the editorial process, from the writer to Hef himself, don’t want women empowered.  They want silent sex objects, and when confronted with women whose opinions differ from theirs, want them humiliated.

Misogyny?  In Playboy of all places!?  Well, I’m shocked!  Thank Ceiling Cat that Hot Air has bravely exposed this!!!

I was with you on this Jesse, all the way until I noticed that Hot Air’s way of coping with this was to publish their own response post entitled Top 10 Liberal Women I’d Like to ‘Hate F***’:

As Ed Morrissey reported, Playboy is now doing a feature called “Top 10 conservative women we’d love to hate f***.”

Playboy writes about conservative women in a way that would have the angry hags from the NOW picketing outside their bunny-clad doors if they did anything remotely similar about liberal women — though I don’t know whey they’d be so ticked off — it’s not like anybody from NOW would be on the list.

Figuring that one good spurn deserves another (after all, what liberal doesn’t like “fairness”?), I thought I’d return the favor.

So, without further adeiu, here are the “Top Ten Liberal Women I’d Like to Hate F***”:

There’s… uh… one of them would be… um…

Well, there’s Aman… no wait, she’s not liberal.

Ooh, there was that one chick with the reddish hair who was on CNN in the mid-80’s… but I can’t remember her name and I’m not sure she was liberal.

So… gee, you’ll have to give me a few minutes on this… it’s like trying to make Viagra out of saltpeter.

Fuck them.  Assholes.

That is, until he drunkenly accosted one of my friends, passed out on her bed, and pissed himself.

Sounds about right.

As for me, I now just picture Herm Edwards standing in front of Cap’n Ed and saying, “We can BUILD ON THIS!”

That comment about Playboy being based on flagellating one’s genitals was a bit strange, wasn’t it? Do conservatives consider masturbation torture (but not waterboarding)?

P.S. Olivetti, you have made me feel so much better about my sexual mishaps. At least the drunken friend-accoster that I hooked up with doesn’t write for a right-wing blog!

You get this one pregnant, she stays pregnant. Karma’s a bitch, isn’t it?

I don’t get it—conservatives have a problem with this?  Either irony has just been reanimated or we’re witnessing a rare instance of actual progress here.  (I lean toward the former.)

I think we’re missing something important here - conservatives really *do* read Playboy for the articles…

I’m unimpressed with the link.  This is nothing new; they protect and embrace the women and non-caucasians who agree with them and demonize the rest.  Michelle Malkin and who the fuck ever else they mentioned (I’m not bothering to read the Playboy article and Michelle was the only named list-ee I knew offhand) are Mom and apple pie, all other women are whores.

I’m much more disturbed by the Playboy article.  I get that they’re not really feminist by any real definition, but they are, as some of the commenters point out, relatively liberal and even supportive of pro-choice legislation.  Even with men who don’t respect women as social peers, I really can’t reconcile pro-choice, sex-positive liberalism with the idea of hatefucking (or grudgefucking, as it was called on a com I used to frequent.  I was unable to reconcile it there, either).  I can’t really conceive of the perspective from which these people come, and that bothers me more than extremely transparent conservatism—I don’t agree with them, but I understand, at least to a point, what drives them.  People I agree with but don’t understand are far more vexing.

There’s no point to hatefucking anyway. The idea—consensual sex between two people who can’t stand each other—just doesn’t sound either likely or fun, and I feel rather safe in saying that conservatism is a disqualification for even a one-night stand in my book.

(I honestly don’t think the concept necessarily implies anything like rape, although I’m sure it does to many of the more immature people who use the term. It is immature, misogynistic, and borderline incoherent.)

Not to mention that “hate-fucking” is a pretty gruesome concept to be championing. How is that not rape, anyway? The hell is wrong with people?

But yeah… Cap’n Ed suddenly discovers mainstream mysoginy, and it’s four o’clock twice a day.

I get that they’re not really feminist by any real definition, but they are, as some of the commenters point out, relatively liberal and even supportive of pro-choice legislation.

They’re not so much liberal as libertarian.  I think that they’re all for people having sex with whoever they want, legal drugs probably, gay marriage, etc., etc., just so long as nobody tries to disrupt their entitlement to having everyone else serve them.

If their “discovery” that Playboy is misogynistic (big surprise!) wasn’t just another attempt to rail against “lefties” and “libs” I might actually see a glimmer of hope that there could emerge some common ground.  Sadly, if you read the comments they quickly engage in similar levels of misogyny descrying the immorality of liberalism (apparently, Playboy is our overlord or something).

The true common ground here is that many so-called liberal men, like their conservative counterparts, have absolutely no problem resorting to misogyny if it means they can demean a woman whose ideas and actions they disagree with. They can’t simply attack a woman for being wrong or an asshole, but have to reduce women to being inferior vagina-bearers who need to be reminded exactly what their role in this world should be-- fucktoy.

Matt T:

I would imagine that depending on the person using the term, the definition of “hate fuck” is actually pretty squishy, but at least as I understand it the idea is usually that for some reason, said unliked person (not necessarily a woman, actually, and not even necessarily ideologically opposed, just doesn’t get along with the person) is still an object of fantasy for the hater who for some reason desires the hater anyway.

In fact, I’m not even sure it’s inherently misogynistic; it’s misanthropic in general, since it reduces the object of the fantasy to a RealDoll while feeding the ego of the fantasist. (Also, if said hate-fucking is consensual for both parties, it isn’t exactly hate since there’s an obvious attraction implied. But that still renders the entire concept incoherent.)

Also, if said hate-fucking is consensual for both parties, it isn’t exactly hate since there’s an obvious attraction implied.

Eh, hate is a force of attraction. We’re drawn to the things we hate, fascinated by them. It’s perfectly possible for attraction and hatred to coexist.

they mentioned sexism

maybe it is in fact them who are the ones who are the real sexists

No, hate-fucking is about “liberal” men being able to verbalize their rape and violent sex fantasies.  I discovered this about 4 years ago when that blog written by a “liberal” man “I fucked Ann coulter in the ass hard” was going around.

I hate Ann Coulter.

I almost threw up reading that blog.  Because that blog wasn’t about Ann Coulter’s hateful ideology.  It was about a man publically jerking off to the fantasy of fucking some bitch who has it coming, up the ass, hard.

Unlike the cons that are linked to above, I don’t turn around and make it okay to do this if you do it to con women.  Conservatives can’t even criticsize misogyny without turning around and saying misogynistic things themselves.  Then they expect to be taken seriously.  Stupid fucks.

Ya know, we are supposed to be better than them, but I’d like to see a reversed version of the “theirs, ours” picture at the end of the Whiskeyfire link from the update. I mean, it’s easy to say all the liberals are ugly and the cons are pretty, when you pick unflattering pics for group a, and glamor shots for group b.

How about someone take the exact same women they’re talking about, and flip the script? I mean, it’s obvious the thing isn’t done in good faith, but still, it makes me grit my teeth.

Theirs:  Newt Gingrich, James Dobson, George W. Bush, Sean Hannity

Ours:  Barack Obama, John Edwards, Anderson Cooper, George Clooney

Olivetti:

That is, until he drunkenly accosted one of my friends, passed out on her bed, and pissed himself.  And never apologized.

Was his name Brian?  This is exactly what happened when I got raped by my friend.

I dunno, but I think Janet Reno is way hotter than Ann Coulter.

This is just one more example which proves that being liberal does not make someone feminist.  There is both liberal and conservative misogyny, and both sides only care about controlling women’s sexuality.  The only thing they disagree on is which type of control they will benefit most from.  When we have popular magazines that condone hate fucking, is it any surprise how common rape is?

That comment about Playboy being based on flagellating one’s genitals was a bit strange, wasn’t it? Do conservatives consider masturbation torture (but not waterboarding)?

Actually, they refer to masturbation as “self-abuse”.  They have such a warped view of sex that it’s automatically assumed to be degrading to be on the “receiving” end, even if you are also on the giving end.  This why it’s considered degrading to even be a woman (because they think women are passive sex receptacles) and why they feel the need to protect women’s “honor” by not allowing them to receive sex unless absolutely necessary.  It’s also why they hate gay men so much.

I guess conservatives think “sexism” is “being nasty to women who have earned your chivalrous condescension through diet and genuflection to male dominance”.

jTuba: Yeah, libertarianism flashed through my mind as I wrote that.  I’m functionally aware that contradictory philosophies can, occasionally, align themselves on one issue or another, but it’s always strange that they do.

Magis: I’d say the same about Madelein Albright, but we share a last name and that might be considered incestuous.

The Theirs/Ours pictures are absurd, though.  I’ll even admit that if you were to replace the liberal shots with posed glossies, the conservatives would be more physically attractive.  Of course, those two groups of women demonstrate the fundamental weakness of the conservatism they espouse—the liberal women are intelligent, at worst well-spoken, thoughtful and in at least half of the examples, have demonstrated an actual commitment to their positions.  The conservative pics are all of women who have demonstrated no ability to provide actual thoughtful commentary on anything—Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingraham, among the three of them, have likely never considered the ramifications of a single word they’ve uttered or written, and all three of them have done a complete 180 on several positions as soon as it was politically convenient to do so.

How is that not rape, anyway?

Because these sluts should be grateful that any man is willing to fuck them.  And then they should slink away in shame for being Slutty McSlut Sluts, abort any pregnancy so the man isn’t trapped into marriage or child support payments, but then enter a convent forever to repent being a baby murderer and a slut.

It’s not rape b/c it’s just a rape fantasy.  And you can’t really complain about the article, because it’s JUST A JOKE.  No one is actually being raped...it’s just an article.  In PLAYBOY!  Where boys are ALLOWED to be boys and talk about how they are just raging sex machines who can’t control themselves, even if they hate a woman.  And, you know, it’s a JOKE.  So don’t be humorless man-haters about it.

It’s complete and utter male privilege on parade.  What’s the problem?

UPDATE:  Aaaaaaand...never mind.

How you did not see this coming continues to amaze me.  I would suggest an optometrist appointment to check your foresight.

Worth noting that Playboy picked the wingnut heroes in its article specifically because they are - physically - very attractive, but they are - mentally and emotionally - a pile of train wrecks.  The wingnut response seems to be, “Our women are hot!” which kinda misses the entire point of sad “hot” women being hateful bitches.

It really is taking superficial to the next level when you’re response to an article about crazy hateful people who look good is “Oh yeah, well our people look good!”

“Even with men who don’t respect women as social peers, I really can’t reconcile pro-choice, sex-positive liberalism with the idea of hatefucking...”

It’s relatively easy to do if you realize that their political/social stances stem from a pro-man outlook rather than a liberal outlook.  Sex-positive is more getting-to-have-sex-positive and pro-choice is more pro-not-getting-hit-with-a-paternity-suit.

The paradox of these assholes condemning Playboy for misogyny is making my head hurt.  If Playboy publishes a rejoinder defending its article on the grounds that hate-fucking empowers women, I’m checking into a hospital.

I think we’re missing something important here - conservatives really *do* read Playboy for the articles…

ROFL

It’s complete and utter male privilege on parade.  What’s the problem?

In all fairness, A) it’s Playboy - the vast majority of articles are going to be able some sort of sex fantasy.  B) Playboy and the right have been at odds for generations.  It’s not abnormal at all to see one of the editors let in a bit about how much he hates right wingers.  This is just a combination of the former and the latter.  C) Who cares?  Any conservative rag puts up hateful stuff like this on a daily basis and never bats an eye.  Any ideologically unaffiliated shock jock says retarded stuff like this on an hourly basis.  This isn’t anything new or shocking.

I wouldn’t call this “male privilege” by any stretch of the imagination.  Get me a similar female-centric publication - a Cosmo or something - and I’m sure I can find you an article on “List of male douche bags” or “List of male actors who are hot in bed”.  If I’m lucky, I might even be able to find “List of male douche bags who we hear are hot in bed.”

It’s childish, but it’s not some magical male-only fixation.  Hell, didn’t whole seasons of Sex and the City revolve around four girls rehashing how the guys they slept with were creeps or losers?

I wouldn’t call this “male privilege” by any stretch of the imagination.  Get me a similar female-centric publication - a Cosmo or something - and I’m sure I can find you an article on “List of male douche bags” or “List of male actors who are hot in bed”.  If I’m lucky, I might even be able to find “List of male douche bags who we hear are hot in bed.”

This isn’t the same thing at all.  Cosmo is not even a porn magazine.  (Don’t get me started on the male-centric attitude in the porn industry to the extent that almost no porn is actually made for a female audience so we have to make do with gay male porn which is still marketed mainly to men, and “lesbian porn” is actually made for straight men.) Anyway, I haven’t read Cosmo in years, but I doubt they would have an article about hate-fucking.  And you’ll find many sexist articles in Cosmo about how to please your man better.  Yes, I’m sure Playboy has a few token articles about how to please women better, but it certainly doesn’t get the same kind of focus that the opposite gets in Cosmo.

When I hear “hate-fucking” I think of the women in Darfur, or anywhere else where rape is par for the war course.  Call me oversensitive, but it makes me cringe.

This isn’t the same thing at all.  Cosmo is not even a porn magazine.

Your argument was that the Playboy article was “male privilege”.  To me, that sounds like you’re suggesting women have no voice in the magazine media.  I can find any number of woman-centered magazines which I could use to argue differently.

Maybe you’re right, and I’ve completely overestimated the chance of finding the female equivalent of the “sex with a guy I hate” list.  But the idea that there aren’t any magazines aimed at women by which a female writer could express such a desire is just not true.

I don’t see any “male privilege” in the magazine business.  One article in one man’s magazine does not a monopoly on content make.

Zifnab - You’re joking, right?  I’ve seen plenty of “womens magazines” and I would have to say the chances of seeing a comparable article is flat out ZERO.  How to get a man?  Sure.  How to please one?  Definitely.  How men can be totally mean to you and isn’t it just SUCH a shame that women have to spend their lives pleasing them anyway?  Probably a few.  But please, find me even one article, by a woman, that takes the same sneering tone or hell, even treats female desire for men as something separate from enjoying men’s desire for females.  And Bitch magazine doesn’t count.

Zifnab, try reading “women’s magazines”.  They are as sexist as any male magazine.  The parenting magazines (actually intended just for mother) are basically list of ways that you fail at being a mother and what you should really be doing if you were a better mother.  The fashion magazines are basically the same thing in regard to physical appearance.  It’s mostly a bunch of stuff that makes you feel bad for not being perfect at pleasing the men in your life, and also to sell you a bunch of over-priced junk to assuage the guilt you have for not being a perfect woman.  If you read just a few of these magazines, you’ll soon realize that your cakes aren’t moist enough, your carpets aren’t clean enough, your children’s toys aren’t safe enough, your waist in small enough, your skin isn’t smooth enough, your clothes aren’t fashionable enough, and your hair isn’t pretty enough and here’s a whole bunch of products you can buy to solve these problems.

Zifnab, this is not the place for concern trolling. A feminist blog is not the place to try and convince people that an article promoting the quasi-rape of women is not about women.

And I would love to see a link to an article in a widely read magazine about “asshole men we’d love to have rough sex with” because I have never ever seen one.

I don’t see any “male privilege” in the magazine business.  One article in one man’s magazine does not a monopoly on content make.

That’s not what “male privilege” is at all. Stop talking before you know what you’re talking about.

Male privilege is the term used to describe the societal structure that caters to heterosexual men. The fact that you couldn’t come up with a pornographic magazine aimed at women is a good example. Why is it that I can name half a dozen porn and near-porn magazines that are pretty much mainstream and aimed at men, but the only one I can think of aimed at women, Playgirl, is a) out of business, b) a spin-off of Playboy, and c) primarily aimed at homosexual men anyhow? Well, it’s because in our society, women have been made into sexual objects in a way that men have not, and moreover, we’re given the message that it is not only normal, but desirable to reduce women to their physical attractiveness.

That’s not to say that straight women aren’t actually attracted to attractive men. But straight women are told that their sexual desires are dangerous, that if they act on them they’re slutty. Good women don’t think about sex, unless it’s ways to please their husbands/partners. Again, you unintentionally stumble into that when you mention Cosmo; a quick perusal of Cosmo‘s sex tips turn out to be all about how to make sex good...for your partner. Consider that—a magazine for women, by women worries about how good sex is for men.

That’s male privilege. The privilege to be a politician without having people opine on your sexual desirability. The privilege to have your sexual desires be taken as a given, and catered to endlessly. The privilege to know that nobody’s going to write an article that, let’s face it, names male politicians that deserve to be raped. And that privilege is endemic, not just in the magazine business, but society as a whole—see the gender balance in Congress, the Supreme Court, the Presidency, the list of Fortune 500 CEOs, and on and on and on.

We’re drawn to the things we hate, fascinated by them. It’s perfectly possible for attraction and hatred to coexist.

The reason it doesn’t make sense to most women is that their hate for misogynists isn’t grounded in terror and fascination the way the misogynists’ is for them. It’s not the sexy kind of hate women feel towards these men; it’s the disgusted, violated loathling that has no place in edgy romantic comedies. No one would “hatefuck” a misogynist because even hating them isn’t sexy.

And I would love to see a link to an article in a widely read magazine about “asshole men we’d love to have rough sex with” because I have never ever seen one.

I don’t know from magazine articles, but whenever I hear women talking about assholes they want to fuck, they’re usually fictional characters. I assume that’s because they tend to have more humanity and layers to their personalities than ex-fratboy douchebags.

Shit, “loathing.”

Worth noting that Playboy picked the wingnut heroes in its article specifically because they are - physically - very attractive, but they are - mentally and emotionally - a pile of train wrecks.

Well, yeah, I think that’s the point - being viscerally attracted to a MOTAS who otherwise sets your teeth on edge and makes you want to run screaming.

And, “what about the menz”, like coming on a thread about an article wanting to quasi-rape women and saying “Well, women do it TOO (I’m sure, I don’t actually have any examples” is another example of male privilege.  Thanks for playing, do concern-troll again.

Caton:

That’s only true to the extent that it’s being used as such in this context. It’s possible for a term like this to be used in a misogynist context without actually being misogynist; that’s how political dogwhistles are created.

Not to mention that “hate-fucking” is a pretty gruesome concept to be championing. How is that not rape, anyway? The hell is wrong with people?

FWIW, my understanding is that hate-fucking is supposed to be mutually consensual. Something along the lines of Slap Slap Kiss but with a stronger dislike, and typically for better reasons than “you’re a smarmy rogue of the sort that makes a good starship captain or sitcom protagonist” and/or “you’re bossy and I like getting to do my own thing because I’m a smarmy rogue who makes a good starship captain or sitcom protagonist.”

That said, on some level it’s definitely something about oversaturation of popular culture and its broader misogyny. Cultural Osmosis is a powerful thing, and by itself explains a lot of misogyny. (I still think your average Nice Guy TM believes the standard by which his life should follow is that of a sitcom, where his average looks and irritating behavior are met with a beautiful woman who endures it all happily because its true wuv and she handily fills in the whole Madonna/Whore thing for him matching his desires at the moment.)

...actually, I’m at a loss to recall the last time a woman has mentioned wanting to, using this language, hate-fuck someone.  I pretty much only hear it from men.  Women might talk about wanting to have sex with someone even though the guy’s an asshole, but it doesn’t carry the meanness (and, occasionally, malicious glee) of the phrase “hate-fuck” and how it’s used by men.

It’s possible I’m missing something.

Not to mention that “hate-fucking” is a pretty gruesome concept to be championing. How is that not rape, anyway? The hell is wrong with people?

It is rape fantasy.  Covered with a veil so sheer it produces the same results as Vaseline on the camera lens.  To be sure, nominal lefties indulge in it too (I’m looking at you, Taibbi), but it comes from the same place: The biggest compliment you can pay a woman is to say you want to fuck her.  The biggest insult you can give a woman is to say you want to fuck her.

Either way she still gets fucked and the penis gets happy.  Yay everybody wins!  Except, y’know, women.

The “Theirs/Ours” piece annoys me for many reasons, perhaps the least significant but still salient of which is that they pick a bunch of entertainers to represent conservative womanhood.  I mean, come on.  Objectification, ur doin it rong.

I think the best example of attraction-despite-repulsion I’ve seen recently was the Wesley/Lila hookup on Angel.  That was so hot.

Hate-fucking only requires the absence of no, but it is fundamentally not about the woman’s consent.  The point of hate-fucking is to degrade the woman and show her that she is nothing but a disgusting, vile pussy to be violently pounded.  That it isn’t “rape” is semantics.  It is part and parcel of our rape culture, which uses sexual abuse (and IMO, hate-fucking and it’s threat qualifies) as a way to oppress and keep women in line.

There is a reason that you don’t see women creating these types of lists. I blame the patriarchy.

I don’t see any “male privilege” in the magazine business. 

I assume you mean “see” in the literal sense and that you are blind, but that you are plenty aware of the immense male privilege in the magazine business. As others have mentioned, when you flip through a women’s magazine the two primary messages are: YOU’RE NOT PRETTY ENOUGH and PLEASE YOUR MAN. Flip through a non-gendered magazine and, for some very odd reason, all the ads seem to be using women’s bodies as sexual objects in order to sell products to men, as if there are no female readers/consumers. That sort of male privilege is so thick you don’t have to have eyes to sense it. It just sort of vibrates.

Also, today is the day XtinaS and kaninchen win medals for saying really smart things.

...actually, I’m at a loss to recall the last time a woman has mentioned wanting to, using this language, hate-fuck someone

I’ve certainly said it about Rahm Emanuel, perhaps even in Pandagon comments (but certainly on Wonkette, where I’m IceCreamEmpress), being one of the people who parse “hate-fuck” as the Hollywood thingy where people are all “I deplore everything you stand for!” “Well, I despise you!” “Are you as turned on as I am?” “More!”

Now that I know some people parse it quite differently, I’m going to stop using it.

Cisco 642-642 Building Converged Cisco Multilayer Switched Networks certification exam is one of the most significant certifications. Cisco SY0-201 certification is also known as Cisco 640-822 BCMSN certification exam.