Conservatives Empathize With Plight Of Conservative Women In Playboy

How do you begin an article about “hate-fucking” famous conservative women?

A first sentence ought aspire to reach out and grab the reader’s larynx, but, the thinking dude’s writer I am does not want to employ some tawdry ploy such as that.  Further, I just can’t think of a hook to really encapsulate the gravamen of the forthcoming.   At the moment, I think it better merely to set out and calmly explain the issue.  It has to do with doing it.

Some Guy (link removal explained in the previous article I shall not link to) from Playboy ran a column of the top 10 conservative women he would like to “hate-fuck.”  Guy deftly entitles his article, “So Right, It’s Wrong.”  Personally, I had never thought of this play on words.  Hmph.  Better press on.

In a spirit of love, peace, and harmony (values all Americans share) the author elucidates a novel theory of working across party lines.  A way to reach out and touch:

Michele Bachmann

Who: Bachmann is a lusty congresswoman from the Twin Cities who’s got some great twins of her own. She’s rumored to have a Clinton-level libido, and with that batshit-crazy look in her eyes you just know she’s a screamer.

How Could You? She’s called for McCarthy-esque investigations into the patriotism of her fellow congressmen, encouraged armed revolution against the White House-backed cap-and-trade proposal to reduce carbon emissions and suggested an AmeriCorps bill would lead to re-education camps. We could go on.

The Hate Fuck Rating: Chemical castration has begun to look appealing.

Abashedly I admit, I read Playboy almost exclusively for the content.  “For the articles:”

The magazine’s roster of contributors was as distinguished as any in English-language journalism. Vladimir Nabokov, John Cheever, John Updike, Irwin Shaw, William Styron, Gabriel Garcia Marquez and such cartoonists as Dedini, Barsotti, Kliban: they could be the front table at a New Yorker banquet. Skeptics suspected that Hefner got the second-best from the best, or work the New Yorker had rejected, and that Playboy settled for B material from the A team in order to appropriate their literary celebrity. Some folks in publishing had a dismissive term for Playboy fiction: “shit from names.”

But that depends on your definition of shit. In the 60s and 70s, much New Yorker fiction had a sere, affectless style — embodied (or disembodied) by the stories of Donald Barthelme — that spoke to a narrow band of Manhattan intelligentsia. Playboy spread its net to include all forms of fiction, from Styron and Ken Kesey to the science fiction of Ray Bradbury and Philip K. Dick. Further, The New Yorker could intimidate readers into accepting its crabby tone, because the magazine knew best; it really was written for a certain kind of New Yorker. Playboy had to sell each story to consumers from every level of sophistication. They bought the magazine to look; often they stayed to read.

Yes.   Something Wicked This Way Comes.  Something for the wise fool apparently.

After hearing some of the outcry from the left and right, I must confess, I’ve never seen such division and inconsistency on the blogosphere.  Certainly, Playboy’s (now defunct) policy of boning the likes of Michelle Malkin and Michelle Bachmann is something we can all get behind eh fellas?

Not so fast.  Tommy Christopher, guardian of liberal values and gatekeeper of Conservative chastity-belts nationwide, trumpets a call to boycott Playboy and rightfully exposes Playboy’s surreptitious hatred of all women.

Over the years, “tasteful” porn dinosaur Playboy Magazine has been the subject of pop cultural debate for decades. Is the nudity exploitation, or

empowerment? Does the magazine celebrate women, or degrade them? If so, are the articles really worth all of that?

I received several of the answers via my Twitter feed this morning. Washington Times columnist Amanda Carpenter sent this jawdropper about the magazine’s latest feature:

“I’m in Playboy for GOP women they’d like to “hate f***” They didn’t even get my employer right. What should I do? Mon 01 Jun 11:51 via web

I’m steamed. That list is vile, insulting and WRONG on factual matters. Mon 01 Jun 11:54 via web”  …

I outgrew my fascination for Playboy magazine the very instant I was able to purchase one for myself. Hopefully, any other men who claim to love women will kick the habit, too

What’s this?  Empathy?  Empathy for the plight of a woman?  All women?  Conservative women?  By a man?  Impossible.  How dare Mr. Christopher step in the the pumps of even his most ardent rivals and try to imagine how it must feel to be objectified?  What a jerk.  And just what does Mr. Christopher mean by “‘Tasteful’ porn dinosaur?” I have often found porn dinosaurs to be a bit large a course for my dainty appetite.

Folks, I must be honest, I intend to follow Mr. Christopher’s advice about kicking the Playboy habit despite not having one.  While I might have a different view on empathy, the argument concerning imminent destruction of my Playboy collection in the ol’ shoebox beneath the bed must go.  For, in order to love women, I must never read Playboy again.  Thus, I propose a bonfire of the maladies.  Burn them.   Burn them all.

Later, I hope to find a categorical policy on matters such as this like Mr. Christopher.

Suffice it to say, Mr. Christopher must not be swayed by The Right’s reaction at Hot Air and their “two Wrongs make a Right” theory on metaphysics and epistomology.  (See the boldface?  I can make that joke too!  Maybe I’m Playboy’s next Ray Bradbury)

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.

Oh sweet vengeance!  Blow that Hot Air baby.  Show me the money shot…

Surely this must be a piece of humor.  Satire.  I happened to have spoken with several satirists (all of whom have their degree in satirology) and they aptly point out how the author explicitly states his motive — payback.  Also, the writing from Hot Air couldn’t be considered humorous ever since the release of Harvard’s study which empirically proved comedy and conservatism to be mutually exclusive.  For the record, one satirist of prominent fame deduced no satire existed primarily because “it sucked.”

The picture originated as a direct assault on women, liberal and conservative women, and objectified them.   No argument can bring this back from the dead under any alleged literary device as a pretext.  The view articulated is an objectivist jab for for an objectivist jab.

And so I read on.

Egats!  I found the polar opposite view on Hot Air.  But this article was on the front-page and is  morally distinguishable. Therefore, it is imperative that no vicarious liability be attached to Ed Morrissey, a front-pager with a frightfully empathetic take on the situation:

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.

This one on Megyn Kelly is too pricelessly ironic:

“The Hate F**k Rating: You need to flagellate your genitals for wanting to f**k this woman.”

Isn’t the entire Playboy empire based on self-flagellation of genitals?

Aside from the whole fallacious cock-punching concept, Ed makes some great points.   He also displays great empathy.   Certianly he draws a sharp contrast to the other author at Hot Air —  one Mr. Powers: noted plebe and back-pager. Should the fact that Hot Air “published this piece of effluvium .. be enough to show that everyone in the editorial process, from the writer to [the Hef functional equivalent at Hot Air — the one with the castle I guess], don’t want women empowered?”  I leave that to the editors at Hot Air.

Now, unlike Tommy and Ed,  Politico takes a far different stance on this sordid tale.  Anne Schroeder Mullins (soon to be a noted target of the shy-womyn-myn  hater’s club) doesn’t let a little “rape” or “mysogeny” enter her vocabulary.  She classifies Playboy’s piece as “antics” and “shenanigans from the lighter side of politics.”

I write this off as bias.  Phraseology used on Politico is a tell-tale sign of a serial rapist.  Such is life Ms. Mullins.  Such is life.

Where does that leave us?  Somewhere between Tommy’s call to boycott Playboy,  Ed’s trumpet to cease the self-mutilation of male bits while reading Hef’s literature, Mr. Power’s retributivist philosophy espousing the concept he’d rather make whoopee with Laura Bush than Helen Thomas, and the rapist/misogynist woman over at Politico.

Everyone wants to be an empathizing cherry-picker.  It’s so easy.

Tags: Daily Dose, Ed Morrissey, Empathy, Everyone Has All The Answers, Hot Air, It's So Easy, Mr. Powers, Playboy, Ray Bradbury, Time Magazine, Tommy Christopher