While I am utterly un-surprised that Steven Ertelt over at Christian pro-life website LifeNews.com is displeased by the fact that Sandra Fluke is included on a list of nominees for Time magazine’s “Person of the Year” contest, I am amused by his attitude and apparent ignorance of why Fluke is an important person.
I am 90% sure he is being sarcastic, but even his sarcasm completely misses the mark:
Fluke is apparently unable to figure out how to purchase low-cost birth control from places like Target, Wal-Mart or her local pharmacy.
Now, I am not going to explain why this is an unfair and inaccurate summation of Fluke, because I am sure that Ertelt understands that when Fluke spoke to Congress, she was talking about, among other things, a friend whose doctor prescribed medication to cover a real, actual disorder and how it caused her a financial hardship since her school refused to cover her birth control… because of God.
Also, remember how Fluke became the punching-bag of conservative wing-nuts like Rush Limbaugh who, once and for all, demonstrated the fact that an alarming number of men do not understand how birth control works (“She’s having so much sex, she can’t afford the contraception”)?
Also, how about that super-awesome speech she made at the Democratic National Convention?
So it’s just willful ignorance pretending that she’s just some dumb lady-tramp who doesn’t understand how to navigate her local Walgreen’s, right? Right…?
Ertelt, I’m not going to say that you are a condescending asshole by painting Fluke, however flippantly and jokingly, as a bimbo. I will say that you completely missed the mark on what it means to be an influential person. Fluke became the face of women who were demanded because their voices were heard during discussions of things like uteri and vaginae and she endured those attacks against her character with dignity and poise.
I am also going to call BS on your next sentence:
Still, Time magazine felt she was qualified enough to include her with legitimate newsmakers and leaders who are significantly more deserving of the award and recognition.
First of all, it is inarguable that Fluke is a “legitimate newsmaker.” Second, can we agree that conservative men need to stop using the word “legitimate”? Third, look at some of the other members of that list. YouTube sensation Psy? 50 Shades of Grey author E.L. James? Rapper Jay-Z? Gymnast Gabby Douglass? I’m not arguing for or against any of these nominees, but if Ertelt wants to keep his list super-exclusive, I don’t know that Kim Jung-un is deserving of recognition just yet. Also, if you want to be picky, the Mars Rover isn’t even a person, so why don’t you direct your vitriol there.
So is it possible that it’s not that Fluke is undeserving of the nomination but that Ertelt just doesn’t like her or what she stands for?
In other news regarding the “Person of the Year” award, Pakistani woman’s rights activist and ass-kicking teenager Malala Yousafzai is also a nominee, and incredibly deserving of the recognition. Yousafzai was shot in the head on her school bus after she revealed her name and face after speaking out against Sharia law, and is currently recovering in the hospital.
It’s also worth noting that you can go to the Time website and vote for or against nominees. While the voting ultimately doesn’t count towards anything (the winner is always picked by Time editors), it’s interesting to see what kind of percentages people are polling at. Malala Yousafzai is currently at 71% for and 29% against, which seems low to me, until you look at some other numbers.
Here’s a selective list of nominees along with their percentage of “Definitely!” votes (as opposed to the other scientific option, “No Way!”):
Karl Rove: 4%
E.L. James: 5%
Joe Biden: 21%
Sandra Fluke: 27%
Hillary Clinton: 35%
Felix Baumgartner: 40%
Barack Obama: 43%
Higgs Boson: 44%
Mars Rover: 52%
Mohamed Morsy: 53%
Kim Jong-un: 75% (?!?)
So… I suppose all of the numbers need to be taken with a grain of salt, right?