Gutfeld Describes Feminists As "Easy Sex Without Commitment"

We can add Greg Gutfeld to the roster of Fox News hosts who suggest feminists are sluts and then think they are whitewashing their smears by attacking Bill Maher.

On The Five on Monday (3/12/12), Gutfeld said:

There’s a bigger principle going on here, with NOW and other feminists groups- I call it the ‘Triple P’ effect. If you’re a progressive and a pig, you get a pass, which is why if you’re Bill Maher and you say horrible things about Sarah Palin… it’s ok because you buy into feminism, and you buy into progressivism, It’s why most guys in the ‘70s got into feminism- because they were looking for easy sex without commitment- and you can get that, as long as you march with them, you believe in abortion… it’s the ticket to get away with everything.”

So how do you know, Greg?

Kimberly Guilfoyle said, “Very interesting” somewhat skeptically but without questioning Gutfeld’s misogynistic “humor.”

By the way, Gutfeld seems to have conveniently forgotten that NOW chided “supposedly progressive” men and women for degrading women of any political persuastion. In fact, the admonition was posted on Foxnews.com last year. It reads: “Listen, supposedly progressive men (ok, and women, too): Cut the crap! Stop degrading women with whom you disagree and/or don’t like by using female body terms or other gender-associated slurs.”

FoxNews.com also included a NOW statement seemingly directed pointedly at themselves:

“You’re trying to take up our time getting us to defend your friend, Sarah Palin. If you keep us busy defending her, we have less time to defend women’s bodies from the onslaught of reproductive rights attacks and other threats to our freedom, safety, livelihood, etc. Sorry, but we can’t defend Palin or even Hillary Clinton from every sexist insult hurled at them in the media. That task would be impossible, and it would consume us. You know this would not be a productive way to fight for women’s equal rights, which is why you want us stuck in this morass.”

In other words, the organization has better things to do with their time than go after everyone who insults a female politician, whatever her politics.

Gutfeld also left out how NOW defended Michelle Bachmann against Newsweek, saying that even though they hope she’s defeated for her politics, they were standing by her because they felt the magazine made an inexcusable assault on her as a serious female candidate

Do you like this post?

	Tweet

Showing 15 reactions

Robert Urban commented 2012-03-14 22:27:53 -0400 · Flag

@truman. I’m sure the only thing a team of CSI ‘s would find on his pee-pee are his own palm prints. Unless they have a Dominican Republic database.
That’s as far as I am going to go on this subject.

Average American Patriot commented 2012-03-14 22:00:34 -0400 · Flag

Is Gutfeld married?

Or is he, as Newt would say, in a committed but OPEN relationship with the Palmer twins?

Brian M commented 2012-03-14 21:26:28 -0400 · Flag

Yea, I’m sure Gutfeld has nailed tons of feminists in his time…

truman commented 2012-03-14 19:28:30 -0400 · Flag

@RobertUrban. Some say that OxyRush Limpballs needs a double-dose of Vitamin V just to find his pee-pee.

Aria Prescott commented 2012-03-14 17:43:48 -0400 · Flag

And Joseph: They meant “serious” as in how seriously she was being taken, despite that. Terry O’Neil thinks she’s a disgrace, and pretty much said so in her statement about the Newsweek flap. The reason NOW took a stand for her was because (and I’ll use Jon Stewart’s wording here):

“You can say a lot about Michele Bachmann… my God, you can say a lot about her. But one thing you can’t say is that she doesn’t take a good picture. They had to find the most demeaning shot they had for that, and the wording on the text can’t even be accused of political bias, as much as that they just wanted to demonize her, based on gender.”

Bachmann and Palin both got a lot of support from NOW, including that when they were the victims of gender-based attacks, they were protected more times overall than Clinton or Pelosi. Part of why NOW started leaving them to rot is because they began expecting a full-time detail just for protecting them from critics who resort to sexism.

They also lost any and all pity they had for Megyn Kelly regarding the “maternity leave” thing fast, due in part to that she wanted to enable men who do it to other women, yet still be a victim herself. But I really don’t want to get into that particular can of worms past this mention of it…

Aria Prescott commented 2012-03-14 17:28:31 -0400 · Flag

Gutfeld has been nicknamed “The Clown Prince of Media Sexism” by quite a few watchdog writers. I find a lot of “gems” from him that end up on the bottom of my pile. One that really offended me, but I ended up skating on for work was this “gem”:

â[Planned Parenthood’s Ludwig Gaines] is confusing an opportunity for life with the promise of dependency. This is a very old, cliched argument. Pro-life doesnât mean you have to provide the life with cradle to grave services for somebody whoâs born. Blacks, 33% of abortions, theyâre 13% of the population. Racists would love that statistic. And heâs defending that statistic. He should get a medal from the KKK!â

In case you aren’t offended enough by Gutfeld saying a planned parenthood official should be honoured by the Klan, this is the Ludwig Gaines he’s talking about:

http://www3.alexandriava.gov/city/city-government/images/gaines.jpg

Yeah…

Joseph West commented 2012-03-14 17:03:18 -0400 · Flag

I’m glad I missed NOW’s defense of Bachmann. For NOW to actually describe Bachmann as a “serious female candidate” is beyond belief. (They would describe as “serious” a woman who, by her own admission, did NOT want to have a job. Michele said that her hus-beard Marcus MADE her get an accounting degree and then go work for the IRS before she finally went into politics—presumably, on Marcus’s orders. What Bachmann’s statement says to me is anything BUT serious—sort of like a kid who only gets a job at McDonalds just long enough to pay for a new video game, then he quits so he play the game all day long.)

Bachmann was NEVER a “serious female candidate.” She was a shill for an agenda that would ultimately turn back the clock on ALL women’s rights (pretty much Phyllis Schlafly redux).

Lakeview Greg commented 2012-03-14 16:18:25 -0400 · Flag

And how dare Gutfeld have the same first name as me. Gets me all confused. Sorry ’bout that.

Lakeview Greg commented 2012-03-14 16:15:28 -0400 · Flag

Except I can’t spell ipecac correctly.

Lakeview Greg commented 2012-03-14 16:13:42 -0400 · Flag

I meant exactly what I typed. Gutfeld makes one toss as easily as epicac will.

Gay or straight,
Love is great!

Robert Urban commented 2012-03-14 15:54:49 -0400 · Flag

Gee Greg. Don’t you mean feminazi’s?

Lets take a look at some facts here. Rush and his 3rd wife Marta divorced on December 21, 2004 and Rush and Kathryn Elizabeth Rogers were married on June 5, 2010. Yet in June 29, 2006 Rush became the Viagra spokesmen. Since there is one and ONLY one use for Viagra. Who’s the real f@%kin slut ?

Priscilla commented 2012-03-14 14:54:42 -0400 · Flag

I was part of the feminist movement in the early 70’s. Many of the women were married. Many were lesbians. There weren’t many men involved except for some liberal Episcopalian clergy. Somehow I don’t think that horny guys would have been interested in women whose main priorities were getting the ERA ratified (sadly, that failed), fighting for equal pay for equal work, and lobbying for abortion rights.

Given what seems to be some lurid fantasy and “projection” on Gutfeld’s part, one wonders if he tried to hit on some feminists and they told him to go you-know-what himself.

But once again we see the hypocrisy of the right that whines constantly about how right wing women are maligned by the left. But it’s fine for sexist creeps like Gutfeld to slut shame liberal women.

Lakeview Greg commented 2012-03-14 14:22:36 -0400 · Flag

Gutfeld, easy as epicac.

Yakki PsD commented 2012-03-14 14:21:26 -0400 · Flag

Easy sex without commitment?

I posit they all don’t have brain cell one amongst them. Let’s look at this whole ‘sexy’ feminist arguement. Feminists are liberated,strong,thinking women who do what THEY think is right for themselves. I suggest that it would be harder to get a feminist in the sack than some passive woman who is used to a ‘big honkin’ daddy’ figure.

In which case,would it be safe to assume that feminists are (by choice) getting the shaft(rofl) less than non feminists?

Seems like a valid argument to make,IMO.