Limbaugh, Fluke, and Feminism: Did We “Rush” to Conclusions About Privilege, Sex, Race, and Class?

I watched Rush Limbaugh’s asinine comments, Sandra Fluke’s subsequent responses, and the ensuing mainstream media shit storm with a whole host of mixed emotions.

At the heart of it is this: we’ve got a long way to go when discussing these issues. To put it mildly.

To recap briefly… Rush Limbaugh, in his infinite wisdom and intelligence, felt it appropriate (or knew it wasn’t appropriate but didn’t care anyway) to tell Ms. Fluke to stop having sex because he didn’t want to pay for her birth control. He then called her a slut and a prostitute. I’m not linking to the stories because you’ve all read them and we don’t need to give him any more Google hits. There are so many holes in this argument that they aren’t even worth taking down one by one. Suffice to say, Rush should (a) learn how contraceptives work, (b) get educated on insurance plans, and (c) shut his damn mouth. Ms. Fluke certainly had the media’s attention prior to Rush’s idiotic remarks, but he catapulted her even further into the spotlight. Oops, your bad, Rush.

In the aftermath we saw Ms. Fluke’s face everywhere, and let me be very clear, she did a remarkable job in the face of some pretty awful personal attacks. That said, there have been some missed opportunities to dive deeper into the underlying issues. What I had hoped (and continue to hope) for is space for a more nuanced discussion about privilege, sex and sexuality, and feminism.

First, I wanted Ms. Fluke to own her privilege on the air. I wanted her to say, facing the camera on any one of her many appearances, that she has been able to capitalize on the attention she’s been given in large part because she is white, straight, and well-educated. Before I go any further, let me acknowledge that I, too, am white, straight, and well-educated. However, it is not up to women of color to always call privilege out. For those of us who purport to engage in anti-racism and anti-oppression work, it is not enough to sit by and think smugly to ourselves, “I wouldn’t have done that.” Simply put, if Ms. Fluke weren’t white, the media’s infatuation with her would have flamed out in a few short days, if not hours. No doubt in my mind. I don’t mean to suggest that Ms. Fluke’s feelings aren’t real, that she didn’t and isn’t experiencing some serious shit right now, but she can experience it AND shed light on the fact that she is able to tell the stories of her colleagues again and again because, in large part, of what she looks like and the opportunities she has been given.

The mainstream media doesn’t get a pass regarding privilege either. It sucked all the air out of the room and vaulted Ms. Fluke into a spotlight built for one. In the testimony that Ms. Fluke wasn’t allowed to give at the House Committee on Oversight Government Reform, she noted that contraception can cost upwards of $3,000.00 during three years in law school. That is a lot of money, I’m not here to state otherwise. It’s especially a lot of money to public interest and social justice-minded law students who get paid a fraction of what their colleagues at big firms do. That said, I want the mainstream media to point out that coming up with an extra $1,000.00 in one year is a hell of a lot more burdensome on a working mother of two making minimum wage without insurance coverage; or on an undocumented worker who, under the Affordable Care Act, can’t even partake in the new HHS regulations requiring that birth control be provided at no cost under insurance because they can’t purchase said insurance even with her own money. There are other voices and stories that need to be lifted up, and having Ms. Fluke tell her story over and over again silences those incredibly important voices.

Second, why is it that men (and let’s face it, many women) feel that the worst thing they can call someone is a prostitute? As soon as Rush opened his mouth, there were cries of “defamation!” and “sue his ass!” and while I certainly understand the sentiment of wanting to punish Rush for being his general awful self, the legal definition of defamation requires (1) a false statement of fact, (2) about the plaintiff, (3) that harms the plaintiff’s reputation. I won’t get into the problems inherent with suing someone for being called a slut while simultaneously attempting to reclaim the word and shift cultural attitudes around women having sex.

The conversations had around what Rush called Ms. Fluke are leaving out an entire population of individuals who engage in sex work. When we get offended by being called a prostitute, we are not so tacitly implying that being a prostitute (or engaging in alternative or street economies, as some reproductive justice organizations frame the work) is the Worst! Thing! Ever! That’s bullshit, if I may be so blunt. How can we, as feminists, as reproductive rights and justice advocates, purport to combat reproductive oppression and the type of misogyny spewed by Rush on an almost daily basis, while at the same time stigmatizing and further marginalizing an entire population of individuals based upon their work?

And third, we need to learn from previous missteps that we can’t paint all feminists with the same brush stroke. Emily Bazelon recently wrote that Ms. Fluke “represents a cultural shift that puts women’s sexual agency front and center rather than modestly cloaking it.” Whose cultural shift? As we learned during SlutWalks, there are entire communities of folks who have zero desire to reclaim the word slut. Why? Because, as the amazing Crunk Feminist Collective put it:

“Black women have always been understood to be lascivious, hypersexed, and always ready and willing… Black female sexuality has always been understood from without to be deviant, hyper, and excessive. Therefore, the word slut has not been used to discipline (shame) us into chaste moral categories, as we have largely been understood to be unable to practice ‘normal’ and ‘chaste’ sexuality anyway.”

And, as Harsha Walia writes, “while I appreciate that others feel differently and there is an argument to be made about transgressing the social boundaries defined by the term ‘slut,’ I personally don’t feel the whole ‘reclaim slut’ thing. I find that the term disproportionately impacts women of colour and poor women to reinforce their status as inherently dirty and second-class, and hence more rape-able.” It’s irresponsible to leave voices like these out of the discussion on more mainstream sites.

Further, Ms. Fluke never stated her interest in putting sexual agency (hers or anyone else’s) “front and center” and reclaiming the word slut. She never talked about her sex life, RUSH did. Time and again, she focuses her remarks on the medical consequences of inaccessible birth control, not on the need to de-stigmatize women’s sexuality. I think she should be talking about that as well, but one woman can only do so much. Again, I do not want to take away from the incredible work that Ms. Fluke has been doing… she is likely inundated on a daily basis by right-wing folks calling her horrible names, spreading lies about her, and questioning her integrity.

But I do think this is an incredible opportunity to continue the conversation, and ask ourselves where the other stories are, how we talk about sex and sexual agency, and why these comments, out of all offensive things Limbaugh has said (and there are plenty to choose from), may be the straw that breaks Rush’s back.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact

  • jimthompsonmensrightsvideos

    First off, I am a man. Second, I am a Men’s Rights activist. I declare my interests right off the bat.

    Well said. Sandra Fluke is the poster child for “Prima Donna Feminism”. For her, feminism seems to equate to “self-indulgence”. And never mind birth control, what about the poor women (black, white, etc) who are just trying to make ends meet? Do they identify with Sandra Fluke’s urgent crusade to finance her sexual escapades?

    A major criticism of Second Wave Feminism is that it places white, middle/upper- class women at the center of the universe, as the Yardstick of Womanhood. Meanwhile, so-called “women of color” have been relegated to the margins and given a “tolerated”, peripheral-spectator role. (White feminists invoke them whenever they are accused of privilege).

    Now, how about our Men’s Rights Movement? Is that privileged, too? Well, it does appear to be overwhelmingly white (although I am networked with Black, Asian, and Hispanic MRAs who tell me that feminist indoctrination in their communities is nowhere widespread as it is in white comunities, as feminism is a function of overall race-class privilege).

    Are we classist? We constantly point out working-class men’s issues, homeless men’s issues, and middle-class father’s rights issues.  We have a decidedly working-class leaning. All these issues as viz. a viz. feminism which pretends that all men are CEOs, living like kings, and do not experience economic inequality or legal abuse.

    Feminism, on the other hand, seems to be obsessed with providing middle-class white women with air-conditioned office jobs and the illusion of consequence-free sex , and then labeling that “equality”. It’s a shallow equality, at best. A privilege, at worst.

  • jennifer-starr

    It’s amazing to me how you guys keep talking about Sandra Fluke’s ‘sexual escapades’, when she said absolutely  NOTHING  about her personal sex life in her testimony.  You don’t think that’s just a little bit slanderous? 

  • jimthompsonmensrightsvideos

    Her demands for subsidized birth control would imply that she is having sex. The “yearly costs” she cited also imply that her sexual activity is not infrequent.

    If you’re going to broach that subject before a Congressional panel, you should not be shocked that the public discusses what it means.


  • jennifer-starr

    No, that’s wrong. The amount of birth control you take does not increase with the amount of sex you have. It’s not viagra. You take one pill every day regardless  of how many times you have sex or if you don’t have sex at all. And now let’s bring the conversation back to what  Sandra Fluke was actually talking about–which was women who need birth control for actual medical conditions, like ovarian cysts.  You want to talk about that, ? 

  • jimthompsonmensrightsvideos

    The “birth control is medicine” story is a cop-out.

    The vast majority of women (and birth control users) are not suffering from those types of medical conditions. It’s the same lame argument made by Marijuana Legalization advocates who claim that millions of pot smokers need it for their glaucoma, when we really know it is for personal consumption.

    The real assumption here is: “Pregnancy is a disease that must be eradicated.”


  • prochoiceferret

    Her demands for subsidized birth control would imply that she is having sex.


    And this statement on your part implies that you haven’t a clue about the other reasons that one might be prescribed hormonal contraceptives.


    Here’s an equally silly statement: “His demands for subsidized statins would imply that he is eating at McDonalds.”


    The “yearly costs” she cited also imply that her sexual activity is not infrequent.


    Which, in turn, implies that you have no idea how hormonal contraception even works. Here’s a hint: Even if you were using it only for its contraceptive powers, you take it every day, not just when you are having sex.


    (“The ‘yearly costs’ he cited also imply that his Big Mac consumption is not infrequent.”)

  • jennifer-starr

    And while you’re at it, you might want to explain why something that the vast majority of women have used at some point in their lives has suddenly become controversial and stigmatized.  Single women use contraception. So do happily married women, Catholic women, Evangelical women–women right across the board.  Insurance coverage for this should be a non-issue. 

  • jimthompsonmensrightsvideos

    So, she’s using birth control because it tastes so good? Right…

  • jimthompsonmensrightsvideos

    Replace the term “birth control” with “marijuana”. Does that logic still work for you?

  • jennifer-starr

    I’m hopiing you’re unmarried and that you have no daughters, Jim, because you just have no clue  I have about three friends who take BC for endometriosis and one friend who does have polycystic  ovaries–and I live in staid, conservative, southeastern Virginia.  So I dont think these conditions are that uncommon at all. 

  • jennifer-starr

    Yeah if we’re going to discuss logic, you have to actually be logical. And so far you haven’t been. 

  • jimthompsonmensrightsvideos

    Ok, how’s this?

    • Pregnancy is a disease that needs to be eradicated.
    • Birth control makes you healthier, like vitamins.
    • Abortion makes you healthier and happier.

    Is that better?

  • prochoiceferret

    The “birth control is medicine” story is a cop-out.


    So is Viagra, and its insurance coverage. Would you like to talk about that?


    The vast majority of women (and birth control users) are not suffering from those types of medical conditions.


    The vast majority of women are not suffering from cancer, endometriosis, or any number of other medical issues that affect their health, but that’s hardly a reason for their insurance not to cover these now, is it?


    The real assumption here is: “Pregnancy is a disease that must be eradicated.”


    Maybe you shouldn’t assume so much (when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me… but mostly you), and learn about what contraception actually is. Hint: It’s not the same as sterilization! You can still have a baby if you stop taking it!

  • jimthompsonmensrightsvideos

    The Viagra coverage is a fair argument. I won’t entirely disagree with you there. I think health insurance should be for serious medical conditions or conditions that relieve pain. Erectile dysfunction is not a life threatening disease.


  • prochoiceferret

    Pregnancy is a disease that needs to be eradicated.


    On a site dedicated to “Reproductive & Sexual Health and Justice,” this idea pretty much goes over like a lead balloon.


    Birth control makes you healthier, like vitamins.


    This is why birth control is usually packaged with a warning to keep it away from children, although the implication is that this includes anyone unable to exercise the care necessary to use pharmaceutical products.


    Abortion makes you healthier and happier.


    Compared to carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term, with all of the physical, mental, financial, and emotional costs that incurs, hell yeah!

  • prochoiceferret

    The Viagra coverage is a fair argument. I won’t entirely disagree with you there. I think health insurance should be for serious medical conditions or conditions that relieve pain. Erectile dysfunction is not a life threatening disease.


    Great! You may want to write your GOP Congresscritters about that, since they’ve been focusing all this time and energy on the covering-contraception thing while completely neglecting the covering-Viagra thing. I’m sure it was just an oversight, and that they’ll appreciate your bringing it to their attention. It’ll really help them, too, because then they can attack insurance coverage of these things without giving the appearance of warring on women while leaving men completely untouched!