Categories
actual activism antifeminism armageddon atlas shrugged crackpottery creepy douchebaggery hypocrisy I'm totally being sarcastic irony alert it's science! misogyny oppressed men PUA racism reactionary bullshit sluts the c-word transphobia

Gucci Little Piggy: Sandra Fluke is a lesbian pirate because one of her fingers is longer than the other

Welcome to Day Three of the Man Boobz Pledge Drive. If you haven’t already, please consider clicking the little button below and sending a few bucks my way.

Thanks! And big thanks to all who’ve already donated. The response has been amazing so far. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming:

Leave it to the manosphere to further elevate the national discourse about Sandra Fluke. On Gucci Little Piggy, a blog loosely aligned with the alt-right/racist/PUA wing of the manosphere, blogger Chuck Rudd suggests that Rush Limbaugh might have been wrong to call Fluke a slut. Sounds good,eh? Not when you hear the, er, reasoning behind it:

I think the term “slut” is too arbitrary to have much meaning in a political context, especially when we don’t actually know anything about the so-called slut’s sexual history.  It doesn’t fit Sandra Fluke anyway as we don’t know for sure that she’s heterosexual.

Go on.

Fluke is not a “slut”, nor is she a “good citizen” which is what President Obama called her in a press conference held today.  Based upon readily observable behavior and on her beliefs about what she and her favorite groups have a right to grab from tax payers and employers, it’s best to call her what she is:  a pirate

Uh, what?

Apparently, in Chuck’s world, putative lesbians who suggest that insurance should pay for birth control that they personally don’t need to prevent babies, though they or people they know might need it to treat other medical conditions, are pirates.

Later in the post, Chuck links to a review of a book that suggests many pirates engaged in sodomy. Which is evidently proof in his mind that lesbians are pirates, or at least that it is hilarious to call them pirates.

Anyway, the best part of the piece is how Chuck, using the magic of SCIENCE, proves that Fluke is gay:

[P]eople who have a longer ring finger (4d) than index finger (2d) have more testosterone and, some argue, a higher sex drive.

Pointing to a news photograph that appears to show that Ms. Fluke does indeed have a long ring finger, Chuck concludes:

her ring finger is quite a bit longer than her index.  It’s almost as long as her middle finger.  In general, a low 2d:4d ratio in women indicates a greater proclivity towards homosexuality or bisexuality and greater tendency towards aggressiveness and assertiveness.  So, yeah, pirate fits.

Thanks, Chuck.

Most of the commenters to his article seem to agree with his basic thesis.

Stickman writes:

forget the fingers… shes got strait up MAN HANDS. But look on the bright side, if she survives the up coming second dark ages, I’m sure she will do a fine job of pulling a plow.

Note: The “coming second dark ages” is a familiar trope among manospherians; the idea is that men will get so fed up with the gynofascist matriarchy we evidently all live in today that they will stop working, civilization will crumble, and the ladies will be put in their proper place, behind pulling plows.

SOBL1 adds:

As a fellow Cornellian, my guess is lesbian. Cornell has a decent les population.It also speaks more to a les to demand free birth control as a hand out from the government speaking on behalf of all women when she has no shot of getting pregnant. That’s just the thing lesbians like to do: consider their opinions the worldview of all “womyn”. At a minimum, she was a LUG [Lesbian Until Graduation]. Her face and hair are so masculine, she could pass for a male supporting character in “All the President’s Men”.

Did he mention he went to CORNELL?

One free-thinking fellow actually challenges Chuck’s analysis. Nick digger writes:

This finger length analysis from candid photos is nonsense. There are too many knuckle-bends in all directions, combined with skewed camera position, to get an accurate measurement. There has to be some standard for this, such as hands pressed flat against a flat surface, with all fingers together, or each finger extending in a straight line from its source carpal (or metacarpal, whatever it is).

Having said that, she looks like a fat, ugly cunt — which is what Rush should have called her, as it does not imply sluttiness. He’s entitled, because libs call him a fat ugly cunt all the time.

Such is the nature of the discussion amongst some of the internet’s most steadfast advocates for the rights of men.

Chuck himself adds a few parting thoughts in a comment suggesting that Fluke’s biggest crime was that she didn’t ask for birth control coverage nicely enough:

When you ask for something from someone you don’t demand it and then demonize someone who doesn’t cave in to your demands. You ask and the other person chooses whether to reciprocate. All of this is akin to someone asking a stranger for a hitch across town and then screaming and yelling when rebuffed

It’s true. In the past, activists have always been extremely polite about their demands requests. You may recall the famous anti-war slogan: “Heck no, we would prefer not to go.”  The “Excuse us, fellas, but we would also like to be able to walk around at night” marches. And of course, Martin Luther King’s famous, “Guys, would any of you like to hear about this dream I had” speech.

All Chuck and his friends are asking is that fat ugly dyke cunts stop being so darn rude when they call on insurance companies to provide certain kinds of medical coverage. Is that really too much to ask?

I’d better put that blinking

gif here, just in case.

232 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Shadow
Shadow
10 years ago

Rush has now lost forty-five sponsors

How the fuck does dude have 45 sponsors to lose?!!

Chuck Rudd
10 years ago

Rutee:

“True, there’s no law that forces people to be decent human beings. What’s your point, exactly? That people shouldn’t be?”

Yeah, people were just big meanies until the Obama administration pushed through the mandate forcing employers to pick up insurance plans that cover birth control. B.O. – Before Obama – when employers could provide whichever insurance plans they wanted to, nobody was decent, right?

My point, if you really need it spelled out for you, is that there is a difference between a right and a want or a nicety.

“Damn those women, trying to force companies to give them the services they thought they were paying for.”

I don’t think you know all that much about what’s going on. First, Fluke attended Georgetown with prior knowledge that their health insurance didn’t cover birth control. She set out to change that upon enrollment in law school there. Second, someone erroneously thinking they were paying for something is different than someone actually paying for something and not receiving it. At past jobs where I sign up for different health plans, I typically look at Rx costs, copay rates, and premiums. Does the Pill sap womens’ ability to do their own due diligence before picking up insurance plans? If they are lacking birth control coverage they can either get a rider policy or they can bust out the $10 – $30 a month for their birth control.

Dracula
Dracula
10 years ago

@Kathleen B:

“I have gigantic hands, both my middle and ring fingers are longer than my index finger, and I’m MARRIED TO A MAN!!!”

Are you sure? You better go check.

Spoken like someone who truly cares about the plight of men. Or, y’know, a hypocrite.

Chuck Rudd
10 years ago

Shadow:

“But when it comes to Viagara being covered by insurance policies, suddenly it’s all good in the hood?”

I must have missed where Obama is forcing employers to cover Viagra prescriptions. Can you point me to the news story that covers this?

Polliwog
Polliwog
10 years ago

(and pay very little, mind you)

Beyond everything else wrong with your comment, you apparently are either under the impression that all women are quite wealthy, or you have no freaking idea what birth control costs.

Bostonian
10 years ago

Viagra, prostate exams, vasectomies, all of those are always medically necessary!

Birth control pills only reduce long term medical bills for the majority of the population, and prevent pregnancy as well. Not medically necessary.

To MRAs and idiots in the GOP and the Catholic Church.

Brian Westley
10 years ago

“Just my opinion that she’s a lesbian”

No, no, “utter stupidity” does not qualify as an opinion.

magdelyn
10 years ago

Rudd, you have to read under the section of the bill that creates the Office of Men’s Health.

katz
10 years ago

Chuckie, you do realize that most people associate pirates with unadulterated badass, right? If you meant that she’s a thief, why not call her a thief?

Polliwog
Polliwog
10 years ago

the $10 – $30 a month for their birth control.

So apparently the answer to my question is “both, but especially the latter.” $30 per pill pack would add up to roughly $390 dollars a year, which is not “very little” on many people’s incomes – and $30 is vastly, vastly cheaper than a lot of BC prescriptions, many of which are more like $100 per pack. Do you have a spare $1300 a year lying around? Because I sure as hell don’t.

katz
10 years ago

Are you guys actually trying to engage with someone who thinks that paying for something and receiving it is stealing?

Polliwog
Polliwog
10 years ago

Are you guys actually trying to engage with someone who thinks that paying for something and receiving it is stealing?

…when you put it that way, it does seem kind of pointless. In my defense, I’m bored and waiting for someone to call me back in a few minutes, so it’s not like I have much else to do. :-p

Chuck Rudd
10 years ago

katz:

“Are you guys actually trying to engage with someone who thinks that paying for something and receiving it is stealing?”

i thought the issue was that women weren’t receiving birth control. now you’re saying that they are receiving birth control which shows that they aren’t stealing. which is it?

Chuck Rudd
10 years ago

if birth control is mandated to be carried on all insurance policies and if it has zero co-pay, do you think it is free? this is a crucial question.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
10 years ago

Chuck and mags, birth control has already been deemed something that should be covered under health plans. The mandate is redundant for a lot of providers because they already provide birth control. It saves the companies money (by avoiding the cost of birth and medical conditions that are treated by birth control), and its something the recipients want. Win-win!

It’s not about paying for sex, it’s not about giving special privilages to women, and it’s not about forcing people to do something unwise. It’s about religious providers wanting to only provide health care that they deem appropriate.

kladle
kladle
10 years ago

DSC, I’m going to ask you because I’m puzzled. Why is the finger ratio thing pseudoscience? As far as I’ve read on this it seems to be a pretty sturdy correlation. It’s not that all cis hetero men have longer ring fingers and all cis hetero women have shorter ones either. The ratio for both is in the .9s, meaning that most people will have shorter index fingers than ring fingers. It’s just that on average men have shorter index fingers than women, and lesbians/bi women have shorter index fingers than straight women do. (As far as I can tell, the data on gay men seems to be all over the place w/r/t finger ratio.) IIRC gay men also are more likely to have hair whorls that go in the opposite direction from hetero men and LGB people of all genders are more likely to be left-handed.

I really fail to see how any of this is fake science here. Yeah, we don’t really know enough now to speculate on fetal hormone levels or whatever, and I can see how saying low 2D:4D ratio = more testosterone in utero = gay is not the most well supported move to make. (Although it does seem to be a fair move to connect 2D:4D ratio to fetal testosterone exposure.) But as far as I can tell the correlation itself stands, and it’s an interesting data point to note. Where did I go wrong?

Shadow
Shadow
10 years ago

I must have missed where Obama is forcing employers to cover Viagra prescriptions. Can you point me to the news story that covers this?

Clearly you did since the Affordable Health Care Act covers mandatory viagra coverage too.

@katz

Now I feel foolish

Bostonian
10 years ago

The issue has always been the desire of the Catholic Church to dictate what is covered by insurance and what is not. Most employers do not delve as deeply into the private lives of their employees.

The employees just want the insurance to cover what it covers for all of the insured.

If the Catholic Church is allowed to set this precedent it will not be a good thing for employees of any religious affiliated institution that receives tax dollars.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

It does seem counter-productive Katz.

And I noticed in Mr. Rudd’s little list he did not get a pre-list of what meds the policy did not cover.

Which means that if he was to seek a certain med and his insurance company said “HAHAHA MORON!!! That is going to cost you $1500 a month now because refuse to cover it!”

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

Meaning, he would be SOL.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

if birth control is mandated to be carried on all insurance policies and if it has zero co-pay, do you think it is free? this is a crucial question.

No. Because that is why we pay a premium every month. Are you always this dumb or is it a Wednesday special?

Chuck Rudd
10 years ago

shadow:

“Clearly you did since the Affordable Health Care Act covers mandatory viagra coverage too.”

what are you smoking? ObamaCare doesn’t force employers to pick up plans that cover Viagra nor does it mandate zero co-pay. you’ve got to get your facts straight.

Shadow
Shadow
10 years ago

Are you always this dumb or is it a Wednesday special?

I’m hoping he peaks on hump day

Chuck Rudd
10 years ago

Elizabeth:

“No. Because that is why we pay a premium every month. Are you always this dumb or is it a Wednesday special?”

You pay for other prescriptions on your plan after paying your insurance premium. There is no principled reason for this mandate. Employers should be allowed to offer whatever plans they want. The argument here is that the government can force anyone to purchase or offer insurance, and it’s merely a continuation of this coercive policy that employers have to pick up certain health plans that charge nothing for birth control. I just want someone to give me a good reason for why every employer *has to* provide these plans.

Quackers
Quackers
10 years ago

@Pillowinhell

What was the comment? I think it should be seen so everyone knows the type of assholes we’re dealing with. The type of people who fancy themselves rational and objective, but are just full of hate and vitriol towards women.

%d bloggers like this: