Column: When are women just like cats?

Tags:

If you have no idea how to answer that, then you haven't been listening to right-wing radio broadcaster Rush Limbaugh — which is probably a good thing

Carl Zielinski

Carl Zielinski
Gargoyle staff reporter
Posted Thursday, Dec. 14, 2006

Opinions

RUSH LIMBAUGH has done it again. He's forgotten that people really, seriously don't like him.

Maybe he should have gotten the message after Al Franken's book “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations” was on The New York Times bestseller list for several weeks. Or after David Letterman was applauded for making fun of him when he was a guest on “The Late Show.”

Unfortunately, he hasn't caught on yet. Recently he made some statements about how women are similar to cats, in his Nov. 30 broadcast. Here's an excerpt:

“Many people in my position would think my cat's coming to me because she loves me. Well, she likes me, and she is attached, but she comes to me when she wants to be fed. … She's smart enough to know she can't feed herself. And she doesn't have to do anything for it, which is why I say this cat's taught me more about women, than anything my whole life.”

Actually, I agree. Women are a lot like cats. But by that I don't mean that they throw up on the rug or relieve themselves in those convenient, out-of-the-way litter boxes. I mean it in the sense that they have the ability to assemble into a large group and claw you to death.

This risk is even higher for Limbaugh since he is overweight and probably can't run that fast, making him easily mobbed by angry feminists. Ironic, considering his name is “Rush.”

Now, I don't pretend to know anything about women. But, contrary to Limbaugh's statement, I'm pretty sure they have the miraculous ability to not starve without a husband. That could be why there are still living single women. If they can't feed themselves, how are they still alive?

Considering Limbaugh's track record with women, I'm really not that surprised. He has made similar comments in the past, like how some women would love to be employed simply as eye candy, so that they won't have to do any work. He is also credited with coining the term “femi-nazi,” in reference to women who are for equal rights, or are pro-choice.

It's also interesting to note that he has had a string of unsuccessful marriages, including to his third wife, whom he met over e-mail. He hasn't had another wife since they divorced in 2004.

But don't get me wrong. I'm not going to judge Limbaugh for his beliefs. For example, I'm not going to analyze Limbaugh's “women as cats” routine and draw a correlation between the low success rate of his relationships and his need to persecute women on his show.

That would be unfair. I would be a pretty mean person to suggest that he has to rely on slandering feminists in order to improve his own shattered self-esteem. Fortunately, I would never be that horrible.

Oh, wait …

Comments

What an atrocious excerpt joke. Whoever came up with it should be shot.

Why does The Gargoyle cite something as unreliable as Wikipedia so often?

Jake, 1. Define what you mean by "often." Our online articles probably contain close to 3,000 links. If more than 60 of them (2 percent) are to Wiki entries, I would be surprised. 2. Wikipedia is a handy starting point for general background information about various topics. The key phrase is "starting point." It's up to the reader to go from there. 3. The strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia are, by now, well known. Certainly they should be well known to anyone who has gone through Uni's computer literacy classes. Gargoyle readers should be savvy enough not to approach Wiki entries with blind faith. Use your critical faculties when reading a Wiki entry. If you see something incorrect in an entry, contribute your knowledge by fixing it. 4. Wiki moderators usually do a good job of alerting readers to problematic entries. The Rush Limbaugh entry cited in Carl's column is a good example. The first thing readers see is a notice that the neutrality of the entry is disputed. Follow the links, and you'll see what the disputes are. 5. Of the various Wiki entries we have linked to since last February, what specifically can you point to as unreliable -- unreliable in a way that materially affected a Gargoyle article itself? If the Wiki entry was unreliable, why didn't you correct it? 6. What specifically is unreliable about the Limbaugh entry in a way that affects Carl's column? 7. If you have a better source for general background info, please let us know. Thanks. David Porreca, Gargoyle adviser P.S. Ben Hyman, in his comment, is referring to the "Hush, Limbaugh" pun on the front page.

Ah, yeah. I came up with that part of the excerpt; it was a little self-deprecating humor. I still think it's a rather atrocious pun--but I guess I know who to blame. -Ben

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <i> <b> <p> <br> <br />
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Word Verification
Please verify that you are human by correctly translating the image into text.
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.