prostitutes in the senate? (part 2)

Re-cap from last post:

The comparison of a United States Senator changing her mind on a procedural vote due to additional funds being made available for the benefit of her constituents to a woman selling sex for money is unbelievably sexist.

As my excellent friend Robb pointed out in reference to my last post, MSNBC news anchor and commentator Keith Olbermann recently called Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) a "senatorial prostitute."

(That statement can be found in the clip below at 5:04, but I recommend watching Mr. Olbermann's entire Special Comment.)



So, from a feminist perspective, or from a personal perspective, having just discussed how appalling I find the rhetoric of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh in regards to Sen. Mary Landrieu, how do I respond to Mr. Olbermann's remarks?

My specific concern and objection (outrage, actually) to Mr. Beck and Mr. Limbaugh calling Sen. Landrieu a prostitute is that I think it carries a deep(er) significance (than the obvious) when used to insult a woman. Insulting a woman by calling her a prostitute implies that she can't be more than about sex. It takes a woman away from a level playing field, and casts her in a role of servitude and submission. While both Webster's (and Wikipedia) says that prostitute may also mean "one who works towards an unworthy cause," it seems clear that using the word as an insult towards a female inherently devalues her and objectifies her - more so than when used as an insult towards a male.

I wish that Mr. Olbermann had chosen a different word to describe Sen. Lieberman, but I am not sure, not being male myself, that it carries the same weight of debasement when used to refer to a male.

Although I may disagree with Mr. Olbermann's word choice, but I do not disagree with his Special Comment in the least: Sen. Lieberman's conduct throughout the health care debate has been reprehensible, and yes, he has been working for an unworthy cause.

Conversation welcomed and encouraged!

prostitutes in the senate?

If you've been following the health care situation, the U.S. Senate is currently debating on the (Senate version of the) proposed health-care reform legislation. I am going to resist the urge to comment on this itself (just so you know, this is very, very difficult for me!) and merely discuss a tangential issue that has arisen as a result.

Some fiscally conservative Democratic Senators have been resistant to the legislation, to the point of being reluctant to even vote on a procedural matter: allowing the bill to move to the floor for debate. (The Senate requires invoking cloture - a procedural vote to stop filibusters & unlimited debate, requiring 60 yes votes. During the Bush administration, Republican Senators criticized Democrats for not "allowing an up or down vote" on such matters as nominations; this current matter could be considered comparable, as Republicans are attempting to avoid the invocation of cloture.)

The Senators who are part of the Democratic Caucus - but were resistant to the cloture vote - were Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut), Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska), Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana), and Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas).

Concessions were made in order to bring these members on board, and cloture was eventually successfully invoked on November 23, 2009. But certainly at a cost; according to this CNN article:

"To get Landrieu's vote, language was inserted in the bill that gives her state up to $300 million. Landrieu said she while she was pleased with the provision, 'that is not the reason I am moving to debate'."

Conservatives reacted quickly, as in these quote (from the aforementioned article) from RNC chairman Michael Steele:

"This is a process where people are saying one thing, leading up to the vote, they get their arms twisted -- or in the case of Mary Landrieu you are able to triple the amount of money that was being offered to you ... and then you vote for the bill."

This is acceptable and appropriate commentary. I myself dislike the idea that so much money would be moved around in order to gain votes - especially since I believe these particular senators ought to have been on board from the beginning.

However, other conservative figures reacted in a truly atrocious, offensive manner:

Beck on Landrieu: "We're with a high-class prostitute"

November 23, 2009 10:40 am ET

From the November 23 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:

Echoing Beck, Limbaugh claims Landrieu "may be the most expensive prostitute in the history of prostitution"

November 23, 2009 12:57 pm ET

From the November 23 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

Beck again calls Sen. Landrieu a prostitute: "So we know you're hookin', but you're just not cheap"

November 23, 2009 5:37 pm ET

From the November 23 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

The comparison of a United States Senator changing her mind on a procedural vote due to additional funds being made available for the benefit of her constituents to a woman selling sex for money is unbelievably sexist.

More on this later. For now: your thoughts?