Offenders: Comedian Marc Maron and columnist Dan Savage on Real Time with Bill Maher

Media Outlet: HBO

The Offense: Guest panelists on Real Time with Bill Maher took their satirical humor too far on the July 15 show. Comedian Marc Maron expressed his hope of Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann getting f*cked "angrily" by her husband. Not to be outshined, columnist Dan Savage replied with the same violent depiction targeting candidate Rick Santorum.

NOW's Analysis: Bill Maher and his show are known for crass humor, including sexist slurs, but this time it was the guests who overstepped acceptable satirical boundaries, veering into hateful and violent territory.

While discussing Marcus Bachmann's controversial anti-gay Christian therapy clinic, the topic skewed toward his sexuality and marriage with Michele. After quickly determining Marcus to be a closeted gay man, Marc Maron states that he hopes Marcus "takes all that rage that comes from repression and denial and brings it into the bedroom with her . . . I hope he f*cks her angrily, because that's how I would, and I've thought about it."

To avoid "charges of sexism," and demonstrate that "it's not just women we're talking about f*cking," Dan Savage admits, "I sometimes think about f*cking the sh*t out of Rick Santorum." As Savage and Maron try to top each other, panelist and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban laughs as if it is the funniest thing he's heard all week. The lone woman panelist, Chrystia Freeland, looks vaguely uncomfortable while maintaining a polite smile.

Even though there are countless sexist and demeaning comments throughout the show, let's focus on the term that has the potential to become the new euphemism for rape: f*cking angrily. Is this the trendy, politically correct term to use when you want to describe violently raping someone you don't like? Women are usually the target of such comments, but don't worry, Savage made sure to mention angrily f*cking a man, and Maron applauded that sentiment, so at least they aren't sexist, right? They just enjoy the thought of degrading other people sexually -- a concept, by the way, that women and LGBT people might understandably take issue with.

Political topics and satirical humor have always gone hand-in-hand, but joking about the sexual assault of anyone is in no way amusing. Savage and Maron made it very clear that they have different political views from Bachmann and Santorum, but that gives them no right to fantasize about these candidates being the targets of aggressive, unwanted sex. It is deeply frightening that this needs to be said, but rape is not a joke, nor should it be used as a punch line for a political dig. These adults need to grow up and understand the weight of their words. And Maher, who long ago set the tone for his show, might consider trying to bring it back from the hateful path onto which it has strayed.

Take Action: Express your opinions by contacting HBO.

Marisella Rodriguez, Communications Intern, July 20, 2011

More offenders in : Media Activism, Violence Against Women, Television, Media Hall of Shame

Rank this item with our Misogyny Meter: Currently 2.53/5 1 2 3 4 5 i

Spread the word:

Offender: Reporter Laura Italiano and her editors

Media Outlet: New York Post

The Offense: In a July 2 cover story, the New York Post attempted to discredit the woman who was allegedly raped by Dominique Strauss-Kahn by labeling her a prostitute. The cover screams "DSK MAID A HOOKER" in huge type. Inside, writer Italiano provides very little beyond gossip, depending heavily on puns such as "big tips for extra turndown service" to convey this completely unsubstantiated accusation.

NOW's Analysis: Italiano jumps right into the piece, claiming that the 32-year-old mother and alleged rape survivor "wasn't just a girl working at a hotel -- she was a working girl."

Throughout the article, Italiano's harsh rhetoric and unsupported accusations portray the accuser as a "pathological liar and scam artist" willing to do anything for quick cash. Based on quotes from an unnamed source, the accuser supposedly had been "getting extraordinary tips . . . And it's not for bringing extra f--king towels." With no evidence, the reader is meant to align the accuser's income with prostition. After all, how else would this hotel maid be able to pay for her "hair braiding" and "salon expenses?"

The case for prostitution continues as Italiano's source speculates that the accuser's union "purposely assigned" her to such a high-class hotel because "it knew she would bring in big bucks." Recently, The Washington Post revealed that the union in question actually sent the New York Post a packet of documents on the accuser, including a copy of an employment application she filled out at the Sofitel, in which she listed the International Rescue Committee (not the union) as the source that referred her to the hotel.

There are countless problems with this article, two of which should greatly concern feminists. First, claiming (with no evidence and only one anonymous source) that an immigrant woman working as a hotel maid is actually a "hooker" is sexist, racist and classist, to say the least. Second, implicit in this accusation is that a prostitute cannot be raped, or that any claim she makes of being raped should not be taken seriously. Even the New York Post should be held to a standard that says promoting harmful stereotypes and demonstrating such blatant misogyny are unacceptable.

Take Action: The accuser is currently taking action by filing a libel suit against the New York Post for labeling her a prostitute. Take your own action by writing to the New York Post and giving them a piece of your mind.

Marisella Rodriguez, Communications Intern, July 13, 2011

More offenders in : Violence Against Women, Print Publications, Racism, Media Hall of Shame, Economic Injustice

Rank this item with our Misogyny Meter: Currently 2.14/5 1 2 3 4 5 i

Spread the word:

Offender: Blogger Erick Erickson

Media Outlet: RedState.com and CNN

The Offense: The conservative blog Red State, of which Erickson is editor-in-chief, ran a piece posted by "The Directors" that said, in relation to the Roe v. Wade decision: ". . . once before, our nation was forced to repudiate the Supreme Court with mass bloodshed. We remain steadfast in our belief that this will not be necessary again, but only if those committed to justice do not waiver or compromise, and send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials of what must be necessary to earn our support." (emphasis added)

NOW's Analysis: We do not find it the least bit surprising that right-wing websites run posts like this, using language like "mass bloodshed." Of course, that doesn't make it acceptable, just sadly predictable. Normally, we wouldn't spend time addressing the content on a conservative blog.

What makes this post relevant, however, is that Erick Erickson is a political contributor on CNN's John King, USA. And NOW believe that a mainstream media outlet like CNN has no business employing a radical propagandist like Erickson.

Let's count the ways in which this quote is scary: First of all, doctors, clinic workers, volunteer escorts, security guards and others have already been killed and injured in the name of protecting the "sanctity of human life." If there's an audience that doesn't need any riling up with allusions to violence, it's anti-abortion rights extremists.

And how about the careful phrasing that claims bloodshed won't be necessary, "but only if..."? The caveat that follows sounds quite difficult to measure. So, if those "committed to justice do not waiver or compromise" (what constitutes a waiver?) and they "send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials" (what qualifies as a clear signal? how many representatives must be signaled?), only then is there no need for "mass bloodshed." Who is going to be measuring whether these conditions are met or not? Is there a time certain for the conditions to be met? If they aren't met, what form will the bloodshed take? Who will be the targets of the bloodshed, and will they be warned that it's about to commence? If this series of questions comes off sounding sarcastic or facetious, it's not meant to be. This is dead serious.

Erickson reportedly will offer analysis during CNN's State of the Union coverage. Imagine a liberal in charge of a website that suggests the terms under which "mass bloodshed" should or should not take place in the U.S. being given a prominent and regular position on a mainstream cable news network. Not likely. Why is it ok for a member of the radical right to be given such a platform? It's not.

Take Action: Tell CNN that Erick Erickson has got to go. NOW. Make sure to put Erick Erickson's name in the box that says "Anchor or reporter's name."

Thanks to our friends at Media Matters for alerting us to this outrage.

National Organization for Women, January 25, 2011

More offenders in : Violence Against Women, Television, Reproductive Rights, Internet, Harassment, Intimidation, Media Hall of Shame

Rank this item with our Misogyny Meter: Currently 2.04/5 1 2 3 4 5 i

Spread the word: