On apologies and contraception
I have an uneasy relationship with apologies. To me, it often seems as if it's just assumed that saying "I'm sorry" or some equivalent is enough to absolve someone of any responsibility for their actions. Actually, according to Altemeyer's research that's exactly the case, with people who rely on prayer (without seeking to atone to those they have hurt) for absolving their sins:
No admission of wrong-doing to injured parties is required, no restitution, and no change in behavior. But it works really well: Instant Guilt-Be-Gone; just add a little prayer. And why wouldn’t you sin again, since it’s so easy to erase the transgression with your Easyoff, Easy-on religious practice?
That is to say, there are in fact people who believe that if you hurt one person, you can ask a third part for forgiveness, and with no tangible effort on their part nor even anything tangible on the part of the third party, they are forgiven and do not feel any guilt.
On the other hand, there are some things you Just Can't Fix. And these are often the worst mistakes. Things that affect - or end - peoples' lives. I don't have any love for the people who respond to "Dammit, I just dropped my computer and it broke!" with "Well, why did you do that?". We live int he real world, accidents and mistakes can and do happen, and treating every act like it, and all of its results, were the result of that person's nigh-omniscient plan is both horribly antisocial and idiotic. Sometimes you just have to apologize, and do what you can to make sure it never happens again. And if you're on the receiving end, have the grace to accept that some things can't be fixed, accept the apology, and move on. Especially for public figures, well, I think that's likely to be de rigeuer, since a comment by a random person might potentially cost a celebrity thousands or millions of dollars, and there's no way that can be fixed - and, also, a celebrity going after a random person is likely to just make the celebrity look more like jerk. But I digress...
I'm not so great about accepting apologies when there's no attempt at damage control, because I feel like it's often abused - public abuse becomes private apology, and often the private apology is "I'm sorry you feel that way" (which translates to "I'm not at all sorry about what I did, I just don't want to have to experience the consequences of it."
So, when I caught the headline that Sandra Fluke did not accept Limbaugh's apology (warning, link automatically plays a video) I had to look into it a bit deeper.
I'd heard vaguely about the flap. It's a follow-on for the ongoing bit about contraception being a required part of healthcare. A Georgetown University Student, Sandra Fluke, testified to members of Congress (note, not to Congress - she was not allowed to testify before Congress) that the Catholic university's failure to pay for contraception was a financial hardship for students. Limbaugh, showing the amount of class I've come to expect since he became a household name in the 80s, called her a slut and a prostitute. My assumption, incidentally, was that he had done so implicitly; he usually has the presence of mind to not say anything which might be legally actionable, I think. I hadn't bothered to look into it more deeply. It was, in fact, news to me that Georgetown was Catholic - I'd simply never cared to find out. In Georgetown's favor, the President of the University stood by his student, writing a letter supporting her and condemning Limbaugh. Yeah, the head of the school she spoke against came out in Fluke's favor. Also, another president - Obama - called Fluke to thank her for her stand.
So, by the way, what did Limbaugh say? Well, I did find a transcript - the first day of this is about halfway down:
What does it say about the college co-ed Susan (sic) Fluke who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex. What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.
So, yeah. He went there. He did, in fact, call her by name (and framing her face on camera at the time) a slut and prostitute. For wanting her healthcare to cover birth control pills.
Oh, note I said "the first day." Because there was considerable stir from those comments. He was definitely informed that what he'd said was inappropriate. Because the very next day he said:
Oh, yeah, I’m gonna deal with this. I’m gonna deal with it. I think this is hilarious. Absolutely hilarious. The left has been thrown into an outright conniption fit! This is “phony soldiers” times ten. Oh, ten times worse than phony soldiers. The reaction that they are having to what I said yesterday about Susan Fluke - or Sandra Fluke, whatever her name is - the Georgetown student who went before a congressional committee and said she’s having so much sex, she’s going broke buying contraceptives and wants us to buy them. I said, “Well, what would you call someone who wants us to pay for her to have sex? What would you call that woman? You’d call ‘em a slut, a prostitute or whatever.”
Apparently, he kept this up for three days running, attacking this law student. this is being - not inaccurately - called out as slut shaming.
Being realistic, I'm pretty sure Limbaugh would invent something else derogatory to say about a male who happens to disagree with him. Limbaugh's hatred isn't hatred of women; misogyny is, I think, merely a tool he wields in his hatred of anyone who disagrees with him. But it is, admittedly, a very powerful tool that he wields with apparent glee.
Limbaugh, this celebrity with a nationwide radio show and TV show, with a massive audience (a fact which does not fill me with glee) spent three days attacking an otherwise unknown law student for expressing her views.
Now, I should mention, for those inclined to write Ms. Fluke off for being "just a student" and "not an adult" that while she is indeed a student she is also 30 years old; incontrovertibly an adult, and her views have as much validity as those of anyone else. And she had the temerity to express those views to Congress. For this, she received such derision from Limbaugh that I cannot describe merely as "inappropriate". I have had better treatment from a spider monkey that was trying to kill me (yes, that is an actual fact; I am not being hyperbolic).
Now, Limbaugh has finally been compelled to render an apology of sorts. But before I go into that, I'd like to delve into the content of Limbaugh's skepticism of Fluke's testimony, beyond the personal attacks. His criticism betrays a person who is critically out of touch with the notion of people on limited income (I can't even call this "the poor"; he doesn't seem to get the idea of "person who doesn't have functionally infinite wealth") and women's health.
First off, he rails against her numbers. Ms. Fluke testified that three years' supply of birth control would cost her $3,000. Limbaugh cited Planned Parenthood, which said that birth control pills cost $15-$50 a month. At the low end (which Limbaugh cites as the high end; either he can't do arithmetic, or he assumes his listeners can't), that's $540 for three years; at the high end that's $1,800. But... do you recognize those numbers? Those who have to worry about a typical health plan, without an endless font of money should. $15-$50/month... that's a co-pay. That's the amount you pay after your insurance pays the rest. What Ms. Fluke is citing is how much she pays because her birth control isn't covered at all. And if you do the math, she's citing a pretty reasonable $83/month. Okay, not "reasonable" in that she shouldn't have to pay that much, but perfectly plausible. Limbaugh can't seem to decide if that's so cheap she shouldn't have any need for insurance coverage, or so expensive that it justifies requiring women to be porn stars. Of course, it's neither. To most Americans, $83/month out of pocket is an acceptable but painful addition to the monthly budget. That's about what I pay each month for power. Well, during the winter. I'd rather not pay an extra utility bill every month, but I could. Of course, I'm a technical writer, not a law student. But I went to college to be a tech writer, and I do recall that time. And I did not have a spare $83 every month. And, you know, most people don't. It's not a trivial amount of money; it's certainly not an amount you can casually brush off, especially if, like many Americans, you're living paycheck to paycheck.
The other issue is, apparently, Limbaugh knows jack-all about contraception, birth control pills, or women's health. At least, judging from his comments. He opts to draw a false and ridiculous parallel between birth control pills and condoms. Yes, both serve a primary purpose of preventing pregnancy. And... um, the similarities pretty much stop there. Birth control pills are actually more effective than condoms at preventing pregnancy, though condoms can prevent disease transmission - if I recall correctly, teens are often told to use both, so it's not even an either/or there, as Limbaugh suggests. But the differences keep going. Thing is, you use condoms exactly as often as you have sex. No more, and if you're being responsible, no less. Pills? For them to be effective, you have to take them well in advance. In fact, for maximum effectiveness you have to take them over a month in advance. Consistently, too. You can't just say "Well, I broke up with my boyfriend, I won't be having sex in February, so I'll start up again later." Perhaps Limbaugh thinks birth control pills are taken the same day as one is planning to have sex? If so, he's laughably wrong.
But birth control pills are, in spite of the name, not really just about birth control. Many women use them to regular their cycles. I wont' go into gory details, but for some women this is medically necessary; it actually seems to be reasonably common. Whether or not that's the case for Ms. Fluke I shall not speculate. It is not my business - nor is it anyone else's. That's a matter between a woman and her doctor; granted I'd be highly amused to learn of Rush Limbaugh awkwardly stumbling over the topic of menstruation and so forth, and acknowledging how terrifically wrong he was, but really - isn't the notion of there being a "moral" prescription and an "immoral" prescription - as determined by your employer - ridiculous?
My point is, however, that Limbaugh's commentary wasn't just crude, offensive, misogynistic, and wholly inappropriate. It was also ignorant, false, and misleading.
But let's get to that apology.
After three days of verbal abuse against Sandra Fluke, Limbaugh started to feel the heat. Several advertisers have dropped him and as a result he rendered an apology on his website (don't click that, please, I'm simply including it for completeness). Yes, he is putting an apology on his website for something he said on his radio show? Recall what I said about public abuse becoming private apology? Not quite the same thing, but I have no illusion which one will get less circulation. Here's the full text:
For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.
I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.
My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.
Emily Yoffe has nicely analyzed it, and concluded it is "a model of how not to apologize". And she's right. As an apology it's awful: it fails to convey anything like contrition, it comes across more as self-aggrandizing than apologetic, and I can't imagine how it might possibly mollify anyone. Additionally, it fails to actually contain any contrition at all. Limbaugh focuses strictly on his use of the words "slut" and "prostitute", he doesn't even make mention of everything else he said against Ms. Fluke. He outright lies about what he did - you do not make a poor word choice for three days running, and you do not apologize for a personal attack by claiming it wasn't a personal attack. Sandra Fluke cannot accept Rush Limbaugh's apology for leveling personal attacks against her, because he has not rendered such an apology at all!
To me, this isn't a real or sincere apology. It's something that was put up to say "See? He apologized! Why are you liberals being so mean! Just accept his apology and move on!" There's no contrition, no commitment to never do it again, never any acknowledgement that he even did wrong. And he didn't even do this until facing mounting financial pressure. There's no sincerity at all there.
Of course, I do have to step back a bit. I despise Rush Limbaugh. I loathe his politics, I loathe how he lies to and misleads people, and I feel his effect on our nation in the world bears a greater resemblance to the Spanish Flu than it does to the actions of a worthwhile human being. Am I too quick to judge against him? Am I biased?
Well, yes, I'm biased. So let's ask another opinion here. How about A conservative Republican who asks "are we being fair to Rush Limbaugh?".
I think he deals as well as I could with the counterarguments. To wit:
1) Yes, Limbaugh's comments were that bad. They are beyond the pale, and beyond even the minimal standards of decency already set.
2) The "equivalent" unacceptable liberal comments did not go unpunished.
3) Limbaugh is not, in fact, equivalent to any of the supposed "equivalents" ever brought up.
4) So what if a liberal commentator said something inappropriate? Tu quoque is a logical fallacy. What Limbaugh said was not acceptable, regardless of what anyone else said.
Now, we live in a free(ish?) country and I do believe in Freedom of Speech. Mr. Limbaugh is allowed to go on his show and call this woman who disagreed with him a "slut" and a "prostitute". I am - and you are - allowed to exercise your freedom of speech too. I suggestion you employ it thusly: "I do not wish for your station to carry Rush Limbaugh's show" and "If you continue to advertise with Rush Limbaugh, I will not support your products."
You can start here (part 1) and here (part 2) to find out about addressing your local station, or go for the advertisers. Or, you know, do both. Freedom of speech is nice, isn't it?
No admission of wrong-doing to injured parties is required, no restitution, and no change in behavior. But it works really well: Instant Guilt-Be-Gone; just add a little prayer. And why wouldn’t you sin again, since it’s so easy to erase the transgression with your Easyoff, Easy-on religious practice?
That is to say, there are in fact people who believe that if you hurt one person, you can ask a third part for forgiveness, and with no tangible effort on their part nor even anything tangible on the part of the third party, they are forgiven and do not feel any guilt.
On the other hand, there are some things you Just Can't Fix. And these are often the worst mistakes. Things that affect - or end - peoples' lives. I don't have any love for the people who respond to "Dammit, I just dropped my computer and it broke!" with "Well, why did you do that?". We live int he real world, accidents and mistakes can and do happen, and treating every act like it, and all of its results, were the result of that person's nigh-omniscient plan is both horribly antisocial and idiotic. Sometimes you just have to apologize, and do what you can to make sure it never happens again. And if you're on the receiving end, have the grace to accept that some things can't be fixed, accept the apology, and move on. Especially for public figures, well, I think that's likely to be de rigeuer, since a comment by a random person might potentially cost a celebrity thousands or millions of dollars, and there's no way that can be fixed - and, also, a celebrity going after a random person is likely to just make the celebrity look more like jerk. But I digress...
I'm not so great about accepting apologies when there's no attempt at damage control, because I feel like it's often abused - public abuse becomes private apology, and often the private apology is "I'm sorry you feel that way" (which translates to "I'm not at all sorry about what I did, I just don't want to have to experience the consequences of it."
So, when I caught the headline that Sandra Fluke did not accept Limbaugh's apology (warning, link automatically plays a video) I had to look into it a bit deeper.
I'd heard vaguely about the flap. It's a follow-on for the ongoing bit about contraception being a required part of healthcare. A Georgetown University Student, Sandra Fluke, testified to members of Congress (note, not to Congress - she was not allowed to testify before Congress) that the Catholic university's failure to pay for contraception was a financial hardship for students. Limbaugh, showing the amount of class I've come to expect since he became a household name in the 80s, called her a slut and a prostitute. My assumption, incidentally, was that he had done so implicitly; he usually has the presence of mind to not say anything which might be legally actionable, I think. I hadn't bothered to look into it more deeply. It was, in fact, news to me that Georgetown was Catholic - I'd simply never cared to find out. In Georgetown's favor, the President of the University stood by his student, writing a letter supporting her and condemning Limbaugh. Yeah, the head of the school she spoke against came out in Fluke's favor. Also, another president - Obama - called Fluke to thank her for her stand.
So, by the way, what did Limbaugh say? Well, I did find a transcript - the first day of this is about halfway down:
What does it say about the college co-ed Susan (sic) Fluke who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex. What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.
So, yeah. He went there. He did, in fact, call her by name (and framing her face on camera at the time) a slut and prostitute. For wanting her healthcare to cover birth control pills.
Oh, note I said "the first day." Because there was considerable stir from those comments. He was definitely informed that what he'd said was inappropriate. Because the very next day he said:
Oh, yeah, I’m gonna deal with this. I’m gonna deal with it. I think this is hilarious. Absolutely hilarious. The left has been thrown into an outright conniption fit! This is “phony soldiers” times ten. Oh, ten times worse than phony soldiers. The reaction that they are having to what I said yesterday about Susan Fluke - or Sandra Fluke, whatever her name is - the Georgetown student who went before a congressional committee and said she’s having so much sex, she’s going broke buying contraceptives and wants us to buy them. I said, “Well, what would you call someone who wants us to pay for her to have sex? What would you call that woman? You’d call ‘em a slut, a prostitute or whatever.”
Apparently, he kept this up for three days running, attacking this law student. this is being - not inaccurately - called out as slut shaming.
Being realistic, I'm pretty sure Limbaugh would invent something else derogatory to say about a male who happens to disagree with him. Limbaugh's hatred isn't hatred of women; misogyny is, I think, merely a tool he wields in his hatred of anyone who disagrees with him. But it is, admittedly, a very powerful tool that he wields with apparent glee.
Limbaugh, this celebrity with a nationwide radio show and TV show, with a massive audience (a fact which does not fill me with glee) spent three days attacking an otherwise unknown law student for expressing her views.
Now, I should mention, for those inclined to write Ms. Fluke off for being "just a student" and "not an adult" that while she is indeed a student she is also 30 years old; incontrovertibly an adult, and her views have as much validity as those of anyone else. And she had the temerity to express those views to Congress. For this, she received such derision from Limbaugh that I cannot describe merely as "inappropriate". I have had better treatment from a spider monkey that was trying to kill me (yes, that is an actual fact; I am not being hyperbolic).
Now, Limbaugh has finally been compelled to render an apology of sorts. But before I go into that, I'd like to delve into the content of Limbaugh's skepticism of Fluke's testimony, beyond the personal attacks. His criticism betrays a person who is critically out of touch with the notion of people on limited income (I can't even call this "the poor"; he doesn't seem to get the idea of "person who doesn't have functionally infinite wealth") and women's health.
First off, he rails against her numbers. Ms. Fluke testified that three years' supply of birth control would cost her $3,000. Limbaugh cited Planned Parenthood, which said that birth control pills cost $15-$50 a month. At the low end (which Limbaugh cites as the high end; either he can't do arithmetic, or he assumes his listeners can't), that's $540 for three years; at the high end that's $1,800. But... do you recognize those numbers? Those who have to worry about a typical health plan, without an endless font of money should. $15-$50/month... that's a co-pay. That's the amount you pay after your insurance pays the rest. What Ms. Fluke is citing is how much she pays because her birth control isn't covered at all. And if you do the math, she's citing a pretty reasonable $83/month. Okay, not "reasonable" in that she shouldn't have to pay that much, but perfectly plausible. Limbaugh can't seem to decide if that's so cheap she shouldn't have any need for insurance coverage, or so expensive that it justifies requiring women to be porn stars. Of course, it's neither. To most Americans, $83/month out of pocket is an acceptable but painful addition to the monthly budget. That's about what I pay each month for power. Well, during the winter. I'd rather not pay an extra utility bill every month, but I could. Of course, I'm a technical writer, not a law student. But I went to college to be a tech writer, and I do recall that time. And I did not have a spare $83 every month. And, you know, most people don't. It's not a trivial amount of money; it's certainly not an amount you can casually brush off, especially if, like many Americans, you're living paycheck to paycheck.
The other issue is, apparently, Limbaugh knows jack-all about contraception, birth control pills, or women's health. At least, judging from his comments. He opts to draw a false and ridiculous parallel between birth control pills and condoms. Yes, both serve a primary purpose of preventing pregnancy. And... um, the similarities pretty much stop there. Birth control pills are actually more effective than condoms at preventing pregnancy, though condoms can prevent disease transmission - if I recall correctly, teens are often told to use both, so it's not even an either/or there, as Limbaugh suggests. But the differences keep going. Thing is, you use condoms exactly as often as you have sex. No more, and if you're being responsible, no less. Pills? For them to be effective, you have to take them well in advance. In fact, for maximum effectiveness you have to take them over a month in advance. Consistently, too. You can't just say "Well, I broke up with my boyfriend, I won't be having sex in February, so I'll start up again later." Perhaps Limbaugh thinks birth control pills are taken the same day as one is planning to have sex? If so, he's laughably wrong.
But birth control pills are, in spite of the name, not really just about birth control. Many women use them to regular their cycles. I wont' go into gory details, but for some women this is medically necessary; it actually seems to be reasonably common. Whether or not that's the case for Ms. Fluke I shall not speculate. It is not my business - nor is it anyone else's. That's a matter between a woman and her doctor; granted I'd be highly amused to learn of Rush Limbaugh awkwardly stumbling over the topic of menstruation and so forth, and acknowledging how terrifically wrong he was, but really - isn't the notion of there being a "moral" prescription and an "immoral" prescription - as determined by your employer - ridiculous?
My point is, however, that Limbaugh's commentary wasn't just crude, offensive, misogynistic, and wholly inappropriate. It was also ignorant, false, and misleading.
But let's get to that apology.
After three days of verbal abuse against Sandra Fluke, Limbaugh started to feel the heat. Several advertisers have dropped him and as a result he rendered an apology on his website (don't click that, please, I'm simply including it for completeness). Yes, he is putting an apology on his website for something he said on his radio show? Recall what I said about public abuse becoming private apology? Not quite the same thing, but I have no illusion which one will get less circulation. Here's the full text:
For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.
I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.
My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.
Emily Yoffe has nicely analyzed it, and concluded it is "a model of how not to apologize". And she's right. As an apology it's awful: it fails to convey anything like contrition, it comes across more as self-aggrandizing than apologetic, and I can't imagine how it might possibly mollify anyone. Additionally, it fails to actually contain any contrition at all. Limbaugh focuses strictly on his use of the words "slut" and "prostitute", he doesn't even make mention of everything else he said against Ms. Fluke. He outright lies about what he did - you do not make a poor word choice for three days running, and you do not apologize for a personal attack by claiming it wasn't a personal attack. Sandra Fluke cannot accept Rush Limbaugh's apology for leveling personal attacks against her, because he has not rendered such an apology at all!
To me, this isn't a real or sincere apology. It's something that was put up to say "See? He apologized! Why are you liberals being so mean! Just accept his apology and move on!" There's no contrition, no commitment to never do it again, never any acknowledgement that he even did wrong. And he didn't even do this until facing mounting financial pressure. There's no sincerity at all there.
Of course, I do have to step back a bit. I despise Rush Limbaugh. I loathe his politics, I loathe how he lies to and misleads people, and I feel his effect on our nation in the world bears a greater resemblance to the Spanish Flu than it does to the actions of a worthwhile human being. Am I too quick to judge against him? Am I biased?
Well, yes, I'm biased. So let's ask another opinion here. How about A conservative Republican who asks "are we being fair to Rush Limbaugh?".
I think he deals as well as I could with the counterarguments. To wit:
1) Yes, Limbaugh's comments were that bad. They are beyond the pale, and beyond even the minimal standards of decency already set.
2) The "equivalent" unacceptable liberal comments did not go unpunished.
3) Limbaugh is not, in fact, equivalent to any of the supposed "equivalents" ever brought up.
4) So what if a liberal commentator said something inappropriate? Tu quoque is a logical fallacy. What Limbaugh said was not acceptable, regardless of what anyone else said.
Now, we live in a free(ish?) country and I do believe in Freedom of Speech. Mr. Limbaugh is allowed to go on his show and call this woman who disagreed with him a "slut" and a "prostitute". I am - and you are - allowed to exercise your freedom of speech too. I suggestion you employ it thusly: "I do not wish for your station to carry Rush Limbaugh's show" and "If you continue to advertise with Rush Limbaugh, I will not support your products."
You can start here (part 1) and here (part 2) to find out about addressing your local station, or go for the advertisers. Or, you know, do both. Freedom of speech is nice, isn't it?