UPDATE: I'm going to push this back to the top, because there's been a couple of developments, and because I do, still, find the relative silence fascinating. Apparently, Jill at Feministe finally said something on June 9, and while it's pretty straight up, it strikes me as late (and note that her commenters aren't nearly so clearly outraged). Adam Serwer noted that last night, and complained that conservatives giving liberals a hard time for not speaking up about it were wrong. In addition to Jill, he cites Pandagon (links below), and Jezebel, who, it should be noted, really was throroughly outraged early, and loudly. But that, of course, is all there is... Adam couldn't even note that neither Dana nor Ann at his own site have still said nothing. All of that noted, I should also note that I did get a response from Melissa at Shakes, pointing out that she has been taking a blogging break. I wish her Godspeed. We need her teaspoon.
I've debated bringing this up, but I don't think I can just stay silent.
If someone published a list, online, of women who ought to be raped... don't you think someone would notice? Or protest? Even if - or especially if - it was from a popular adult site?
Apparently not... if the women on the list are conservatives.
On Monday, Playboy.com published a list of "So Right It's Wrong," listing 10 conservative women that, as the author put it, he'd "like to hatef*ck". The list of Michelle Malkin, Mary Katherine Ham, Megyn Kelly, Elizabeth Hasselback, Peggy Noonan, Laura Ingraham, Dana Perino, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Amanda Carpenter, and Pamela Geller was taken down some time after it went up (a cache of it starts here), but not before Anne Schroeder Mullins of Politico published the list of women, calling it "Playboy's Top 10 Conservative Women We Hate To Love."
Mullins, too, was forced, first, to admit that she'd made a mistake in the comments... and eventually took down her post and replaced it with an apologia, of sorts, saying "the Playboy article also included an offensive section that was not included in the blog, but has caused outrage in some readers who believe the blog agrees with all of Playboy stances. This is not true. So the blog has now taken down the link and greatly apologies. No ill will was meant." Mullins continues to refer to the piece as "10 conservative women 'they love to hate'" .
You know... if, by hate, you mean brutalizing sexually. Or was that love? Oh... never mind.
I have my issues with Michelle Malkin, and I even lose patience with some of her complaints about unpleasant attacks (as she tends to be somewhat extreme as well)... but this... is this really a hard call (or how about this)? A Playboy writer calls for brutal sexual assualts on 10 women and we're... not sure how to react to it? Seriously?
Bonnie Erbe at US News, asked by a conservative blogger to comment was about as equivocating as one can be -
I also want to note that at least one woman on the list is so venom-spewing, she unfortunately invites venom to be shot back at her: Michelle Malkin. Her posts and her "routine" are so venomous and predictable, in fact, I stopped paying attention to her years ago.
Others on the list, however, are not venom-spewing at all. One woman mentioned on the atlasshrugs2000 blog is a regular guest on my PBS show. Amanda Carpenter, on the show at least, eschews personal judgment of people with whom she disagrees politically. So her inclusion on the Playboy list is much more offensive to me than is the inclusion of Ms. Malkin, although their political views may not differ greatly.
But at least Erbe said something. I forwarded Malkin's own blog post about this to Melissa McEwan, with no response so far. There's also been nothing, so far as I can tell on any of this from feminists I know who care about this - not Feministe or Feministing, neither Ann Friedman nor Dana Goldstein at The Prospect. At least Amanda Marcotte did, sort of... oh wait, so did Jesse, and boy was his link helpful. And so, I figured, to stay silent was to agree that somehow, this didn't rise to the level of importance, or somehow required qualifiers. And that's not true, at least not for me. I think this is unconscionable. I can't believe no one is speaking out about it (okay, to be fair, I'm not alone), simply and clearly.
And so... I thought I'd try and do something about it. We'll see what develops.

Recent Comments