Bride and Prejudice

When I was a magazine publisher, one of our biggest advertisers was a prejudiced man. By the time he revealed his dark side, we had become friends. He was cultured and smart, but he was prejudiced against anyone other than Caucasians. Learning this made me feel less friendly towards him, but I never told him that I found his racial slurs offensive.  His advertising meant more to me than his friendship, so I kept quiet. I’m a bit embarrassed to admit this, but nevertheless, it’s what I did.  I was in my thirties.

What does Rush Limbaugh’s fourth wife, 34-year-old Kathryn Rogers (he’s turning 61)  think about his attitude towards women?  Is she offended, but keeps quiet because she’s A) afraid of him?B.) likes his money too much to disagree with him? C.) loves everything else about him? Or perhaps she agrees with his portrayal of a Georgetown University law student as a “slut” for thinking contraception should be made available through health plans.

Rush and Rogers

Sometimes it takes years to see a person’s true colors. We may not like what we see, but we do we throw out the whole box of crayons because we hate the dark green and purple? Or do we work with what we love and keep that which we don’t under wraps?

Some things aren’t as black and white as we’d like them to be.

31 Responses to “Bride and Prejudice”

  1. Lisa says:

    v, The only thing that is sad about this thread is your inability to understand what’s being debated. It’s an issue of the government (Obama administration) telling a private business (health insurance company) that they have to give something away for free. In the US we operate under a free enterprise system and government has no authority to tell a private enterprise that it has to provide anything to anybody for free.

    Forcing the church to provide contraception either directly or through an insurance company also violates their right to religious freedom. Either way it’s unconstitutional.

    REPLY
  2. v says:

    Why do people freak out about health insurance covering birth control, but not about health insurance covering viagra. Even were birth control only being used as birth control, if people think women should simply cease having sex (unless they want to get pregnant), then they should also believe that everyone should exercise and eat healthily (etc.) rather than expect health insurance to cover things like blood-pressure medication and insulin, etc. There should be no coverage for anything “brought on by lifestyle choices” if there should be no coverage for birth control. Anyone in the anti-coverage brigade with me on this? I didn’t think so…

    REPLY
    • Lisa says:

      Congratulations v! You got something for “free” courtesy of the Obama administration. Never mind that they trampled over the US constitution to do it. Why worry yourself with such petty details. Lucky for you, there’s more to come! But wait-you’re sick & you can’t get the tests you need? Your medication isn’t covered? Claim denied?!! What you didn’t think this could happen. Didn’t think so…

      REPLY
      • v says:

        Lisa — sadly, we’ve reached a stage in this country where it’s impossible to know whether your inability to comprehend what I wrote and complete incoherence when responding to what I wrote is the result of our “free education” or home-schooling…

        Again I will ask, in simpler terms for simpler minds — why should health insurance cover viagra, or meds and/or treatments for type-II diabetes, high blood-pressure, and other “lifestyle” illnesses?

        As for me, the only thing I’ve gotten for free from Obama is more Bush/Cheney. And I’m an American who will start actually caring about Americans’ health insurance (or lack thereof) when we start caring about the death and destruction we wreak upon others. ‘Til then? Not so much.

        REPLY
  3. Lisa says:

    That right has to apply to all women not just the ones you agree with politically or you have no credibility on this. And being a public figure does not make it ok.

    REPLY
    • Geri says:

      I totally agree

      REPLY
  4. Lisa says:

    “I believe this is quite important in the big scheme of things since it involves women’s rights”. Geri, this is what you said.

    REPLY
    • Geri Brin says:

      Women’s rights to speak their mind whiteout being called sluts.

      REPLY
  5. Lisa says:

    Geri, I can’t believe you still think this about women’s rights. It’s so much more than that. Your government has mandated that a private company provide something for free because it’s politically expedient. We’re not Venezula. We don’t have Presidential fiats. Wake up!

    REPLY
    • Geri Brin says:

      Hi Lisa

      I wasn’t even writing about women’s rights. Never even mentioned them. In fact, I was writing about Rush Limbaugh calling a young woman a slut because he disagreed with her. The comments somehow took on a life of their own.

      Geri

      REPLY
  6. heather Chapple says:

    Whoa…are those comments real?

    REPLY
  7. MaryAnn says:

    Geri….puhhhleeeze! Please knock it off. If you’ve truly listened to Rush Limbaugh, you would know he is NOT prejudiced, but it’s very convenient to label him as such since you do not agree with him politically. It’s very easy to claim “victim” when you want to knock someone down with whom you don’t agree.

    Is that the advantage to being female?

    As for the Sandra Fluke comment, I personally do not like name calling. However, you cannot deny there is a huge double standard when it comes to name calling women who are from the conservative camp.

    Rush apologized. Let’s get on with things. This is not all that important in the big scheme of where our country is out right now, which is trillions of dollars in debt with an economy on the brink. Harping on the Sandra Fluke thing is a way to distract.

    If you don’t like the name calling, then don’t brand Rush “prejudiced,” either, or question what his wife feels about him. Labeling him makes you as guilty as you claim he is for labeling Sandra Fluke.

    Stop the hypocricy!

    🙂 Have a nice day.

    REPLY
    • Geri says:

      Hi MaryAnn,

      My blog was about Limbaugh’s attitude towards women. I didn’t use the word “prejudiced” about him, but about the man I knew, who I used as an example because I never reacted to his behavior.

      I believe this is quite important in the big scheme of things since it involves women’s rights. I really don’t give a damn what his wife thinks about him. I only used it as an example to make the point I was trying to make: that we don’t always react to people we love who do or say things that don’t please (or disgust) us.

      Geri

      REPLY
  8. kcramone says:

    My words about Ms. Fluke were pale in comparison to Rush’s. This is not a man who denigrates women. He got so much flak because a conservative man dared critisize a liberal shill. This issue is not about women’s rights; it is about White House intrusion into independent institutions.

    Because the Constitution is just an old, dirty piece of paper to obama, the separation of church and state mean nothing to him. He wanted to be able to regulate and vet the Church’s mandate.

    Realizing, he had stepped into it very deeply, he cleverly twisted the issue into one of women’s rights. Anita Dunne, one of his cabal, contacted Fluke, the head of a women’s contraception rights forum, for help. Of course, she was thrilled to help obama in her area of expertise. Everyone forgot about the church/state issue and fell right into his trap; women’s rights over their bodies and how Catholic institutions did not provide for it. That would be blasphemy for the Church and this false brouhaha was the perfect distraction. Women fell for it.

    Why is it a right-winger like Rush was so castigated for his remark, (which he did aplogize for…I wish he hadn’t,) but left wing Bill Maher, Keith Olberman, Chris?, (from MsNBC,) can use words describing right wing women that are so hateful, vitriolic, and misogynist are given a pass and laughed with…wink wink. This double standard is more offensive and dangerous than the original issue. The main stream media protects obama, cherry picks the news they deliver us.

    Thank goodness for the internet because anyoe who thinks they’re informed by the traditional networks and the NY Times is deluding themselves badly. Sorry, about any typos but everytime I tried to fix them, the computer jumped. kcramone

    REPLY
  9. Lisa says:

    Hi Colby,

    The government didn’t “decree” that polygamy is a crime. The people decided this via the legislative system. That’s how our American system of government works. No bill has been introduced or passed mandating this contraception entitlement. This is just one example of a diktat decided by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and foisted upon the church with many more to come. Again, I urge you to stop and consider what other mandates or prohibitions might be next? Something you object to? What recourse will you have? Absolutely none.

    As for the Catholic church being duplicitous in taking federal money and now arguing against this, I agree they’ve set themselves up for a long hard fight and that’s what they get for trying to have it both ways.

    REPLY
  10. colby says:

    hi lisa,

    this sentence is circular reasoning: It’s entirely proper for the government to tell the church that a man can marry only one wife and that parents cannot withhold medical care from their children because polygamy and child endangerment are crimes.

    why are they crimes? because the govt decreed as much. on the face of it, if theyre all adults and willing, why is polygamy a crime per se? to people who practice it, making this illegal is govt interfering in their religion. in fact, regarding polygamists, govt interference is much more egregious bc it’s a *direct* moral imposition on their lives.

    insurance plans covering contraception is so attenuated from the actual day-to-day lives/practices of the clergy that one has to strain to see the connection.

    for example: consider a jewish or agnostic nurse working at georgetown hospital. if her insurance were to cover birth control, she would likely fill the prescription at a pharmacy. the person filling it would likely not have a moral objection. the insurance executives likely would not have an objection. so in this case, the clergy/devout members of the church associated with georgetown are not involved in this process in any tangible way. their only connection, in reality, is on paper. if, in their heart, that’s still too close, so be it. i can understand that to a point.

    however, when it comes time for them to receive federal govt funding for their hospital, or for their clinics, etc, they welcome the money. that’s duplicitous.

    it’s also not sound social/business practice. bc eventually, if the church holds this line, while other employers’ insurance covers things like birth control, the pool of people willing to work for these church institutions will grow smaller and smaller.

    i totally understood why the original birth control mandate went too far for some people. but once the administration carved out room for the church to be out of the loop – taking the mandate, rather, to the insurer, it seemed that that was a realistic, reasonable compromise.

    in fact, the catholic health association, led by a nun, found this to be a solid compromise.

    but then the male bishops objected, once again. call it what you want, but the idea of a bunch of old(er) men making this unilateral decision on a drug that, literally in the history of mankind has never been taken by a single man, seems more morally objectionable than anything the govt could hope to impose.

    REPLY
    • colby says:

      i might add that the church has tacitly endorsed birth control for some time now. catholic families no longer comprise five, six, seven children. the church knows this, and they know the main reason is that their congregants are using birth control. they also know that this keeps the number of abortions in this country far below what it would be without birth control.

      the sum of these factors – along with the catholic health assn being okay with the mandate – makes it seem that a small portion of church leadership is gerrymandering its moral objection in this case.

      REPLY
  11. Lisa says:

    Colby,

    It’s entirely proper for the government to tell the church that a man can marry only one wife and that parents cannot withhold medical care from their children because polygamy and child endangerment are crimes. The decision to of whether to use contraception is not a legal matter but a decision made by each woman based on her personal beliefs. By mandating the church or its representative (their paid insurance carrier) to provide birth control pills the government is imposing its moral beliefs on the church. Particularly egregious to the church is that this would include abortifacient drugs meant to induce abortion.

    REPLY
  12. colby says:

    first of all, im glad to see a discussion of this issue composed of WOMEN, as opposed to rep. issa’s hearing, which astoundingly only had men. so that’s nice.

    one thing i dont quite follow is this church-state question. true, our country is founded on that separation, but let’s be real: the govt ABSOLUTELY has told religion what to do on many occasions. for instance, arent there sects of mormonism that practice polygamy? arent there sects of christianity (and no doubt other faiths) where parents would prefer to heal their sick children with prayer, in lieu of modern medicine?

    yet the govt has decreed such practices plainly illegal.

    my point is that everyone seems comfortable running roughshod over those ‘beliefs,’ no one cries ‘religious freedom’ in those cases. so even when it comes to church-state, people pick and choose how they apply that doctrine, they apply via their own personal tastes.

    finally, it’s not the govt telling the church to provide contraception. it’s telling church-run businesses/employers to provide insurance that provides for contraception. that’s a far cry from making priests and nuns distribute the pill at sunday mass, which is what a lot of people make it sound like.

    -colby

    REPLY
  13. Lisa says:

    Glensye,

    While I enjoyed the story of your upbringing it really is irrelevant to this debate. The question is not should women have access to contraception. No one is saying they shouldn’t. The controversy is over the government telling the Catholic church they must pay for birth control which is firmly against the church’s long held beliefs. We have a strong tradition in this country of religious freedom In fact, it’s one of our most sacred founding principles. For this reason, the government has no right to tell the church to pay for Ms. Fluke’s or anyone else’s contraception. While you may disagree on this particular issue, I would urge to consider what else the government may decide its citizens must pay for? Next time it might be something you’re opposed to and you might find yourself on the other side of the argument.

    REPLY
  14. Kate Line Snider says:

    @ Glenyse: Your point about medical needs is well taken and I bow to that. I will continue to restate that birth control is not a health issue, it is a private matter. It is not the responsibility of the school.

    I agree that Rush Limbaugh’s statements were rude and vulgar.(I said I didn’t like him!) I assure you he is not representative of all Republican men. A good thing.

    REPLY
  15. Glenyse says:

    Kate Line Snider: Not every woman that uses birth control is using it to not have children. It has been medically proven to help women with painful polycistic ovarian disease (which is what Ms. Fluke spoke of) and helps peri-menopausal women help regulate their monthly hormonal shifts (among other things). The pill has many other uses beyond regulating a women’s cycle.

    I agree with you that sex is optional, but if you had a medical condition that could be helped by, for instance,Viagra, would you say I’m not gonna take it cause it’s for men?

    And you should take the opportunity to listen to his broadcast. He did not have a point, and even if he did shame on him for trying to scare Ms. Fluke to run hiding under a rock with his language. You would think that a grown man could find a better way to articulate his thoughts without calling out a woman with the names he used. You could NEVER convince me that she deserved to be called a ‘prostitute’.

    Most importantly, how would Rush feel if a “radio talk show host”, or “entertainer” called any of his female relatives a “slut” or a “prostitute”? He didn’t step over the line, he drove a race car across it.

    This is not 195o’s, 60’s or even 70’s. You would think that these men (i.e., Republicans) want us all to find a man, marry said man, quit our jobs, give up our drivers licenses and become housewives. Not gonna happen.

    I would be interested in what Ms. Limbaugh thinks about this situation.

    REPLY
    • jodie says:

      @ Glenyse, Your perspective on Republican men is media sewn!

      I am not a hater…FACTS…

      The Student Susan Fluke is 30 years old.

      Pays $250,000.00 for her schooling.

      Birth Control is $13.00 a month

      Free at Planned Parenthood.

      AND HER POINT WAS?

      She should Volunteering for the women who are truly underprivileged, Abused,
      mentally not fit for optimal decision making!

      Give up a dinner, a hair cut, a taxi ride, a $125.00 pair of jeans once amonth to pay for birth control.

      We American women have it made… Enjoy it!

      The super liberal and conservative boomers need to get into “Present time”

      Common sence must prevail…

      Donate to those almost real babies they give to high School students?

      I used to hve a group of 11 girls from my neighborhood over to my house every other tuesday.

      I developed a 45 min. one women play on being a single Mom… It worked.

      I also taught them budgets, bills and bull s$$T,

      I am a NYC 50 something women… living in Colorado…

      Helen Gurley Brown said it all…

      We can have everything… And we ended up with everything!

      The kids, the bills, no time for anything , the new wife and kids, the breast cancer, the stress…

      If you were from a blue collar family as I am … One had no options…

      I only had ONE child… WHY? because I could’nt afford another one on any level!

      COMMON SENCE!!!!!!!

      REPLY
      • Glenyse says:

        @Jodie, actually I am from a blue collar family. My mama was an auto mechanic, and one the first black women to become a certified welder in Michigan. She retired from the Chicago Transit Authority as one of the 1%, one percent of the total rail mechanics that are not only women, but also black.

        Did you read that right? When my mama retired, one percent of the total workforce for the Chicago Transit Authority rail mechanics were women. And my mama was trained to fix any car on the rail. My mama is the BOMB.

        My uncle taught me how to “drop an engine” when I was thirteen. And then he showed me how to barbecue. He worked those same rails until he passed away in 2011.

        How much more blue collar do I need to qualify for that title?

        But back to my mom….it is from her that I learned sexual harassment was part of the job…and she fought hard so I would not have to deal with a lot of the atrocities that she endured as a woman doing what was in the late sixties called “a man’s job.”

        All the stuff my mama fought for….I feel we are going backwards, the fights over women’s ability to get a prescription pill (for whatever the reason), and really it’s all pretty damn tiring considering all the poli-ticking over my right to choose ANYTHING.

        Ms. Fluke was not just advocating on her own behalf, she was likely advocating for the women whom you mentored also. Not everyone that goes to Georgetown has the ability to pay for it themselves. What about those women? The women who get a scholarship and are scrappy enough to make financial aid and loans work for them every semester but still need to apply for food stamps to eat? Who do they turn to?

        I don’t claim a “party”. I’m not Republican, Democrat nor an Independent. But I am independent in my thinking, reading and decisions. I have options, my mama and my family saw to it that I did. But many women (and young men) don’t have a lot of options. These are the people we need to advocate for. They need our voices and our help.

        We all need help at one time or another. You have to agree on that since you mentored young ladies at one time. No one person on this planet can live their whole life without needing the help of another human being.

        REPLY
  16. Kate Line Snider says:

    I ‘m a conservative but I can’t stand Rush, so I just don’t listen to anything he says. I didn’t hear the broadcast, but apparently he did have a point.

    About the issue: I feel any single woman who can afford to go to an expensive law school can pay for her own birth control. During my childbearing years I was married to an alcoholic. We were deathly poor, but it never occurred to me that anyone else- especially the government- was responsible for my personal needs. (I refuse to consider birth control a health issue as sex is optional, when you get right down to it.There’s nothing more personal than birth control!)

    Is this woman going to law school to be educated for her career, or to fool around? The school should not be obligated to pay for birth control. ANY school, not just a Catholic school.

    Challenging the issue? What a clever way to assure a post-graduation job offer.

    REPLY
    • v says:

      @Kate: if this is the way you feel about “single women,” health insurance, and birth control (and we’ll just forget about the fact that many women use “birth control” for medical reasons unrelated to birth control), then by extension you should agree that not only should married women with jobs also be “too busy to fool around,” and that men with jobs should be “too busy” to have health insurance cover their viagra, but also that EVERYone who chooses to live a sedentary life, who chooses to eat too much, eat “the wrong things,” smoke, drink sodas and alcohol (etc., ad nauseam) should also not be covered by their health insurance for the meds and treatments required because of their personal lifestyle choices.

      No blood-pressure medication, no insulin nor ANY kind of care for anyone not born with type I diabetes, no medication for gout, no treatments for non-congenital heart problems, the list is endless. There should also be no coverage for injuries sustained in “accidents,” as most “accidents” are the result of human error (and most humans are just accidents waiting to happen).

      You agree with all of the above, correct? Basically, everyone should pay for health insurance in return for no coverage for anything other than the problems with which they were born. I know the insurance companies will be on board!

      REPLY
  17. Lisa says:

    Check out some of the things Bill Maher has said about women and Rush’s comment pales in comparison i.e., Maher calling Sarah Pallin a c___. While I don’t condone any of this, I find it interesting that the media makes so much of Rush’s name calling but says nothing about Maher and his vulgar misogynist remarks. Politics is a dirty business but I guess it helps when you’ve got the media on your side.

    As for Rush’s wife, I couldn’t start to say how she feels about any of this. I have no idea. I do know that Bill Maher is unmarried and seems to have no trouble finding women to date. I can only assume they know he speaks about certain women with disgusting crudeness and disdain and that they simply choose to ignore it.

    REPLY
    • Geri says:

      Hi Lisa,

      I understand what you’re saying, and I don’t condone Bill Maher (I don’t even like him), but Sarah Palin is a public figure, so there’s a difference. It doesn’t make it any less distasteful, but public figures are criticized all the time. Even saintly ones. We all think we know them.

      Geri

      REPLY
    • kcramone says:

      When I used to watch “Politically Incorrect,” with Bill Maher he made it very clear, he would never marry, doesn’t date and goes out with women just to f#ck them.

      REPLY
  18. Nicole says:

    Rush is an entertainer, a radio talk show host… not a politician and not a journalist. Yesterday Rush said… “Rappers can say anything they want about women. It’s called art. And they win awards.” Our President insulted children and adults with intellectual disabilities (www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HOBTUCv4o0)… but it was just a “gaffe” I guess. There is a clear double standard.

    REPLY

Leave a Reply