Savage: "[A]ny heterosexual woman today over the age of 25 who grew up in America is basically a dominatrix"
SUMMARY: On his radio program, Michael Savage discussed a New York Post article that reported allegations that a New York City attorney was shot to death by a rival for the affections of a woman "who moonlights as a dominatrix." Savage said: "I don't understand that part of it. I truly don't understand it because any heterosexual woman today over the age of 25 who grew up in America is basically a dominatrix. You ask any heterosexual guy. Within a short period of time -- what do you think it's going to last? Ehhh -- 90 days and after that you're living with a dominatrix anyway, so what's the difference?"
During the December 4 broadcast of The Savage Nation, host Michael Savage discussed a New York Post article that reported allegations that "[a]n attorney at one of New York City's most prestigious law firms -- who had a secret passion for S&M -- was shot to death by a rival for the affections of a brilliant Ivy League stunner who moonlights as a dominatrix." Savage said: "When I was a kid, we didn't need to go to a dominatrix; all we had to do is argue with our mothers." Savage later said: "I don't understand that part of it. I truly don't understand it because any heterosexual woman today over the age of 25 who grew up in America is basically a dominatrix. You ask any heterosexual guy. Within a short period of time -- what do you think it's going to last? Ehhh -- 90 days and after that you're living with a dominatrix anyway, so what's the difference?"
Savage continued:
Why do they have to go to a professional? What does a professional dominatrix do that an ordinary woman doesn't do in America today? Half the women look like post-op transvestites to begin with, trying to look like they're gay or keeping up with the mores of the society. You ever see what they look like? They thin themselves down, they're on some kind of diet pill. The lipstick looks like it was applied by, what's her name, Joan Rivers when she was high. They all have a mouth on them, and the guy is, like, pushed into the background. It's any wonder I'm in talk radio.
Talk Radio Network, which syndicates Savage's show, claims that Savage is heard on more than 350 radio stations. The Savage Nation reaches at least 8.25 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it one of the most listened-to talk radio shows in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.
From the December 4 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: "Lawyer slain by S&M madman obsessed with victim's whip mistress girlfriend." That's not a bad story. "An attorney at one of New York City's most prestigious law firms -- who had a secret passion for S&M -- was shot to death by a rival for the affections of a brilliant Ivy League stunner who moonlights as a dominatrix." Where did this all come from, a dominatrix? When did that -- when did that come up in America, dominatrix? I mean, I could say a few words about it. When I was a kid, we didn't need to go to a dominatrix; all we had to do is argue with our mothers.
[...]
SAVAGE: Then we got into the dominatrix issue. I don't understand that part of it. I truly don't understand it because any heterosexual woman today over the age of 25 who grew up in America is basically a dominatrix. You ask any heterosexual guy. Within a short period of time -- what do you think it's going to last? Ehhh -- 90 days and after that you're living with a dominatrix anyway, so what's the difference? Why do they have to go to a professional? What does a professional dominatrix do that an ordinary woman doesn't do in America today? Half the women look like post-op transvestites to begin with, trying to look like they're gay or keeping up with the mores of the society. You ever see what they look like? They thin themselves down, they're on some kind of diet pill. The lipstick looks like it was applied by, what's her name, Joan Rivers when she was high. They all have a mouth on them, and the guy is, like, pushed into the background. It's any wonder I'm in talk radio. The safest place for a man to be today is in talk radio and listening to it.
I get the feeling that its worse than that eweston,
For all his ramblings.... I have wondered for some time now... just how much of a danger is Savage to himself and those around him... because most things he says have nearly no common sense value and almost sound like the babblings of someone that has a few screws missing in the brain... or basically... someone that is losing his trainwreck of a radio show away from ending up in a white padded room or in prison for potential crimes against society.
"Half of the women ..." Huh? What world is he living in? And why would any radio station want to carry this guy? Savage has a long-established pattern of saying something outrageous to get attention. Some people must find it entertaining. Not me. In fact, given the way he berates his own audience, I think you have to be a masochist to listen to Savage on a regular basis.
Thats America buddy! Where any conservative boy has that chance of spreading whatever nonesense, floating in his unconciousness, manages to worm its way into what can be laughingly called a concious mind.
It seems the purpose of modern civilization, to a neocon turn of mind, is to allow them to ignore very important parts of our shared reality. This is dangerous in at least three important ways. The spreading of this striped down, stupified reality from positions of authority. Refusal to give any cedence to differing veiwpoints and this varience refusal has a trip wire of extreme sensitivity. And when the house of cards begins to fall, the public fall prey to Shock Doctrine enthusiats and other public blood suckers.
Reasoned public discourse, a knowledgable populus, intelligent leaders, an honest media, there'd be no stopping us. Till the day that we can assemble these things we, the concerned, do what we can. Sometimes that's going batshit crazy right back at them.
Oops, there goes the soccer mom demographic!
I wonder if Mrs. Weiner knows what her son has been telling people about her?
Mike Savage's confessions of a lonely and pathetic man. Or else he is the "yes dear" tyoe with permission to act like a "manly man" on the radio. Who know, who cares.
Like most male talk radio hosts I have heard, he does seem to be awfully insecure about his masculinity.
Now that I think about it, many conservative female radio and TV personalities seem to be obsessed with the subject of masculinity, too. For them, there is no greater sin than for a man to be unmanly, and they often seem to equate being liberal with being unmanly.
I think it's because they are catering to their pathetic loser listeners. So many of those guys call in and mention, wither in passing or as a main point, their problems with women or distrust of women, both of which come off as fear of women. If they had better things to do they wouldn't spend their time calling in to fawn over the likes of Savage.
So if we could get lonely guys girlfriends we could destory the GOP I am all for it. But who are the poor women that will take the hit? Of course, by doing this we only allow them the opportunity to reproduce and increase their cretinous numbers.
This is the opposite of a call-in therapy show. Here, listeners get to be amateur psychotherapists for a genuinely disturbed man.
Today's topic:psychosexual development. What can we gather about Savage's upbringing?
Wow, yet he still can't get laid!
Savage probably couldn't get laid in a monkey whorehouse with a bag full of bananas... ;>)
I guess to a sniveling submissive, every woman looks like a dominatrix.
Yep...but I'd bet Savage knows the sensational sting of a cat-o-nine tails administered by a stern, black-booted woman. His comments are too personally revealing IMO...
I'm sure that he does. Methinks he might be projecting again about what he wishes were actually happening to him (like a lot of the gay talk he does). I'm sure he'd love to be the "gimp" for someone.
I'm banking on self flaggellation with a cat o nine tails.
Could be that too, although I'm sure his secret gay lover (not that there's anything wrong with that), would probably take offense, because dang it. That's his job to whip old Mikey Boy.
Would that be his call screener? Or is his call screener someone else?
I'm waiting for the next Savage Outrage - where he goes on a mad rant that gets picked up here at MMFA, generates 400+ comments, gets reported by the MSM for about a week, and Savage's subsequent shows are about how he was taken out of context
Slow news day?
Slow uptake day?
I wouldn't describe Savage as "slow". I think maybe "psychotic news day" is a better description for this sort of coverage.
Brab,
This MMFA item is so ridiculous it doesn't eve qualify for WITH. Putting it out there shows that MMFA has indeed "jumped the shark".
If you say so. Because, you know, they really care what a right-wing troll thinks they should and should not post.
That's sort of silly, considering they've covered stuff like this throughout their existence. Some items are more severe than others, but the general lowering of the discourse is something that should be monitored.
Brab,
As silly as Savage's comments are, it is simply opinion about gender relations. I've heard tons of comics (on xm radio) say essentially the same thing. Anyone cans see it was essentially a comedy monlogue.
Posting a thread here is laughable in and of itself.
If he doesn't mean it, then he can say so. Otherwise it's not the same as what comics say, obviously.
Part of the problem is "crying wolf" syndrome. He says any number of unhinged, bizarre things that he seems to take seriously, but this we're supposed to take as comedy. Why? What signals are you reading from this to make this distinction?
Who said comics don't mean what they say? I rarely hear comics give disclaimers over their act. Sometimes some do, but as rule, they don't.
I put Savage in the unhinged and bizarre arena anyway. I rarely if ever listen to him, and only because he is on a station that is one of my presets. His whole shtick is to rant and say outrageous things.
Speaking of which, the outrageousness and comical nature of these comments alone are self evident as to a comedy monologue. Surely you see that?
Usually a live laugh track helps me tell the difference between intended comedy and just mean spirited hate. But that's just me...
Holy crap. In your first sentence, you assert that comics mean what they say. Then you finish up by asserting that the unbelievability of his remarks prove their comic nature.
Comics don't need to give disclaimers, because it's not supposed to be taken seriously.
And no, the outrageousness alone does not prove he's not serious. A truly psychotic person could say all sorts of things that you would classify as outrageous and be completely serious in doing so.
Brab,
My point, that I feel you missed, is in response to your post saying that "If he doesn't mean it, then he can say so. Otherwise it's not the same as what comics say, obviously."
1. Comics rarely say they don't mean it. So you don't quantify a rant as comedy based on some disclaimer. If that were true, barring any disclaimer, you could say every comic means everything he says.
2. Even if Savage meant what he says, the whole rant is comedic, similar to Ray Barone, Bill Cosby, or Tim Allen routines about being married. He is simply commenting on gender relations, therefore has nothing to do with MMFA.
Have you no sense of humor?
Is Savage operating as a comedian? Comedians, as I said, don't need to say they're joking. Commentators do.
If Savage meant what he said, then he meant what he said. That's plain crazy. If you think the guy on the street corner talking about black helicopters is funny, that's your taste, not mine. I find it sad.
I own every Cosby album up to the late 80's, many on vinyl. I think I can point to the fact that you're referring to Ray Romano, not the fictional Ray Barone, to show that I'm probably a bigger fan of stand-up comedy than you are.
Brab,
Glad to hear you enjoy comedy and know rules. I stand corrected regarding Ray Ramano. I seem to be having problems with last names lately. :-) However I did go see Bill Cosby in person last year! However I don't doubt your memory is better than mine and your comedy collection on vinyl trumps mine. (I'll trade you on Bill Cosby for one original CCR.) I'll admit laughed at all BCs old routines as much when I saw him in person as when I first heard them 30 years ago on those same records you've kept.
I was simply making a point about comedians and comedy also joke about gender relations without needing to mention they are joking. Where are the rules that commentators need to say they are joking?
I can see that if you are reading the MMFA thread up above, you might automatically filter every Savage rant that shows up here as mean spirited and/or hateful. It's Pavlovian to see the same responses by the same people to the same whenever someone like Savage is highlighted. However if you look at it as a comedy routine, you see it is kind of funny and similar to other comedians routines who comment on the "battle of the sexes". To claim this particular rant by Savage as conservative misinformation only makes MMFA look silly. Either they are pulling the wool over your eyes or the jokes on them.
I agree that if you view it as a comedy routine, it makes sense that way. However, there's quite a few things that he's said that are equally outrageous, and more so, which he has explicitly defended.
If you can tell the difference between when someone is joking and when they aren't, then this isn't an issue. But as I said, this is sort of "boy who cried wolf". The pattern that I've seen is that he means what he says, (or at least claims to, if he is just putting on an act). That's the key. The pattern with comedians is that they're joking. When they get serious about something, they change their tone and body language significantly as a signal. The pattern with commentators is that they aren't joking. If they alter their behavior in some way to indicate otherwise, that is what I'm looking for. I should amend it to mean that commentators need to show when they're joking, not specifically say it explicitly necessarily. Look at your own behavior. You put the smiley face on your posts when you're joking. Why? It's a signal as to your meaning, which is vital to accurate comprehension.
So if I can see something that indicates that he's joking, then I'll buy that. But if I don't see it, then I have no way of distinguishing it from the pile of other quotes that he seems to be serious about. How do I know the difference? And if he creates that confusion, what motivation do I have to give him the benefit of the doubt?
AA,
I seem to recall telling you this about Rush several months ago... it might have been someone else...but no matter... I'll say it again to you...
Lets say for the sake of argument that you are correct and Savage is only doing his radio show for poops and giggles... but he does not nor ever has admitted it to his hardcore fans...
Now... if those hardcore fans don't realize that he is only yanking their collective chain... they are more than likely going to take what he says seriously.
Now, I know what you might say to that... "If his listeners take what he says seriously... that's their problem"
Not sure if you would have...but I'll assume that you might have and say... actually... no... it is not their problem... it is society as a wholes problem.
If even one of his listeners were ever to do something terrible or illegal because they hear Mr Savage ranting about the evils of liberalism and whatever else he disrespects...
The point is... is that while Mr Savage has a Constitutional right to rant and rave... I think even you have to consider that to be a potential danger to all of us?
I proudly have my bumper stickers of several progressive groups and people o my car... I had a bumper sticker 'Obama/Biden 08' on my car that some schmuck thought funny to X it out three times with a permenant marker...
and it could very well be just a matter of time before it goes to a level that could be dangerous to my wife or kids... my right to a safe environment and my ability to wear my choices as I see fit are under assult by people like Mr Savage when they spread that hate that you think is nothing more than a schtick... for the simple reason that many of his core listeners are likely not all that stable?
capt,
The criticisms of Savage apply to all public discourse. I sometimes listen to Air America and the vitriol and slanted viewpoints are, in many instances, on a par with anything Savage says. However, as unapetising as it seems to you, his speech is protected by the first amendment. Where do you draw the line?
I do not agree with vandalism. It was wrong to have your bumper sticker vandalized. Unfortunately there are unstable people out there. However I disagree that your immediate family is in danger from Mr. Savage or his listeners. Any more than my family is danger because some people listen to "The Young Turks" or watch Keith Olbermann.
The problem with coarsening of the political dialog is not just with the right. Have you been keeping up with the assault on the Mormon's in California over Prop 8? Some people have been forced from their jobs for supporting prop 8. Now that is religious bigotry and persecution. It is scary and it is coming from the left.
"Have you been keeping up with the assault on the Mormon's in California over Prop 8? Some people have been forced from their jobs for supporting prop 8. Now that is religious bigotry and persecution. It is scary and it is coming from the left."
The hell it is. That's holding people accountable for their actions. It's not because of their faith.
IOKIYAL is that it? Surely you jest?
You believe it is okay to pickout Mormon's who, along with the majority of Mexican Americans, black Americans, and Democrats, supported Prop, 8 to get them removed from their jobs because they availed themselves pg their Constitutional rights of free speech?
These people have been blacklisted, as sure as anyone targeted by the HUAC in the late 40s. Don't you see the injustice of it?
What would you think if you were removed from your job because of your political views?
What action would I have taken against some group that would cause me to be targeted?
Your assertion was that it was religous persecution. Then you turn around and ask what I would think if I - a member of no church - was fired for some unnamed action that I took.
See the problem? It's got nothing to do with religion, as you pointed out with your own question.
Why is persecuting gays a matter of free speech, but the gay community using its influence and money against bigots not a matter of free speech? If someone is stupid enough to work in a performance theatre and support this proposition, then obviously the gay community is going to have a lot of influence over the shows that theatre gets, the people who perform there, etc. Clearly that makes the idiot in question a liability to the theatre, as it should. What is unfair about that?
You're also confusing voting with funding. That is a huge error on your part.
Brab,
That person was singled out for persecution because of his religous view which he expressed through supporting Prop 8. His contribution to supporting Prop 8 was not bigotry in any manner whatsoever. It is bigotry and hatred from gays that got him fired for expressing his constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. To try to say he deserves to be blacklisted is Orwellian coming from groups that seemingly are asking for tolerance. It is persecution plain and simple.
I cannot believe you are arguing that gay bigotry is okay.
The majority of voters expressed their views that they did not not want marriage redefined. Should everyone lose their job over their vote? Calling this man who voted his conscience based on his religious views as an idiot only exposes your bigotry toward those who hold opinions different from yours.
No. Again, it's an action, not a religious view. It's not like if it were a group of truck drivers that there wouldn't be some sort of backlash against them. Religion has nothing to do with it. It may be the reason for the anti-gay bigotry, but it's not the reason for the response.
So it's not a matter of "tolerance". It's an act that was willfully taken, an act that affected people's lives. It is not "bigotry" to push back against actual bigotry.
The man is an idiot because he works in the theatre business. He profits from the work of homosexuals. He works with them. If he thought he was owed any respect or that his career wasn't going to be threatened after contributing to that cause, he is an idiot. That really shouldn't be a very controversial thing to say.
Something for you to think about is what you would think if this wasn't about Christians and homosexuals. What if it was some measure pushed by extremist Muslims that somehow discriminated against women? Would that not be bigotry simply because it was based on religious beliefs? Would you really argue that pushback is out-of-bounds because it's freedom of speech?
It seems unlikely. And no, I'm not saying that any such measure would pass, but the principle remains the same. It's a discriminatory act that can be expected to inspire a negative reaction, and you would surely understand the black cloud hanging over any supporter's head.
Brab,
I do believe your support of the gay agenda has clouded your reasoning.
First of all, what you call bigotry, is only your opinion. According to your logic and tha actions willfully taken, (to support a political cause and vote one's concience,) somehow make this person deserving to lose his job. According to your argument, the majority of voters on this issue in California must also be bigots and should also lose their jobs. Do you really believe that?
Working in the Theater business does not take away anyone's constitutional rights. If gays cannot accept diversity of opinion, and want to indirectly persecute the theater for employing this gentleman, then they are the bigots, not this person.
Your analogy falls through because, first of all, many Muslims already do discriminate against women, and secondly, if Muslims want to push through some bill, they are free to do so. I may oppose their issue, but I don't try to have them removed from their jobs or boycott "Theaters" where they work. So yes, I believe in the First Amendment and that pushback is out of bounds. So you are mistaken.
Even so, that does not excuse the bigotry and persecution toward this one individual, or for that matter, the Mormons who feel homosexual behavior is wrong, by radical gay rights advocates.
You have to ask yourself if everyone behaved as these gay rights people did, and persecuted others for their religious beliefs and/or expression of their constitutionally guaranteed political beliefs, what type of country would we have?
You need to rethink your position. You are advocating bigotry and persecution.
Your ability for ignoring the point is extraordinary.
Again, we're not talking about voting. Get that crap out of your skull once and for all. We're talking about financial support. This is not a difficult distinction to understand.
Don't you believe in the free market? If some liberal talk show host said something unacceptable, and people boycotted them, causing their network to dump them, that's how the market works. You surely wouldn't have an issue with that, would you? This guy works in a huge overlapping circle with the gay community, and he thought it was a good idea to fund an anti-gay measure? Again, an idiot. Of course people are going to threaten boycotts and punitive measures. It has nothing to do with the Constitution at all. What Constitutional protection do you have from your employer firing you because of outside pressure? None at all.
So because many Muslims discriminate against women, that makes my analogy invalid? Put down the crack pipe, in all seriousness. Obviously that makes the analogy even more solid, because the idea is plausible by your own admission. If that were to happen, why would women want to patronize the businesses of people who funded that measure? Give me some reason why they shouldn't be outraged and choose to take their money elsewhere, please. The First Amendment does not protect you from pushback, any more than you couldn't get fired if you called your boss's wife a whore in the middle of the office Christmas party. You have the right to say it, but it doesn't protect you from consequences. Re-read your Constitution if you believe otherwise.
And again, since you keep acting as if this point has not been made, nobody's being persecuted because they're Mormon. They're persecuted because they themselves went out of their way to take away a right bestowed upon gay people by the California Supreme Court.
I've thought my position out quite well, thank you. Holding people accountable for their actions is not bigotry or persecution, period.
That should read "religious persecution" at the end.
"Would that not be bigotry simply because it was based on religious beliefs?"
I also notice you failed to answer that question. Somehow, I'm not surprised.
so you're saying the savage is actually a comic, masquerading as a radio talk-show host? i've often thought that, but mr. savage has never given any indication that all of this is just a comic schtick.
in the absence of that disclaimer, it's reasonable to assume he's actually (attempting) being "serious". that being the case, the man is clearly in need of the help of trained, licensed medical professionals, before he injures himself or others.
cp,
I am saying that much of what Savage says is indeed a form of comedy. He is easily goes over the top, no matter the topic. He fills two or three hours a night with his impromptu rantings. It is his comedy shtick. Some of his rants are pure comedy, as was this one above, some of it have far right political commentary mixed in, some of it is plain boring. He is not my cup-of-tea, and now that I have xm, never listen. I never took him seriously when I occasionally did listen. I found him sometimes mildly entertaining, and many times irritating or boring. When that happened, I simply turned the dial.
Do you even know what "jumping the shark" means?
Granted, MMFA's traffic is down over the past 3 months overall, which could be equated to a drop in TV ratings, but a typical Savage rant is indication of jumping the shark?
This is no less routine than any of the 170+ items that MMFA has posted about Savage for nearly two years running.
If MMFA is jumping the shark, this is definitely not evidence of it.
But I will give you credit for at least coming up with a reason why it's here all by yourself, even if that reasoning is full of holes.
Please don't explain "jumping the shark" to him, Pete. He must have declared that MM has jumped the shark 50 times by now, and each time he does illustrates a little more that he doesn't understand the phrase, which makes it just a bit funnier than the previous time.
Speaking of jumping sharks, if Savage and Limbaugh ever teamed up they'd be such a super team!
Do you even know what 'jumped the shark' means? You've used it plenty of times lately, but for some reason, it just doesn't fit.
csl,
Snoopy's graphic above proves my point.
Nuh uh, we don't want Savage. You hets can keep him! ;)
Isn't it time we went after his advertizers? Do we as a people have the right to complain about filth, vermin and garbage on our public airways SPONSORED by the profits made by our commercial and business community? He has the right to vomit on the air, or on the street. I wouldn't take that away but I hope to find out iof I buy any products which supports this crap.
Has been done, and has been mildly successful actually. So succesful that the Savage one filed a lawsuit against CAIR for doing it. He lost, and wanted to appeal, but then didn't. Talk about frivilous lawsuits clogging the courts. Also, not the first time he filed suit because someone said something "bad" about him.
According to Mr. "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder:"
"Show us your facts, please!"
Profusly illustrated, for strickly marketing reasons of course.
8~O
From what planet does this guy broadcast? On what planet do his listeners live?
Why are we giving him our attention and space?
We are in agreement.
You agree with his questions?
Why? Because we're auditioning for the role of Ebeneezer Scrooge in MMFA's "A Christian Peril".
Sounds maybe like the Dolt had a heterosexual encounter on Dec 3 that did not go to well, at least for him.
I have a question. If any given heterosexual woman over 25 is a dominatrix, what does that make the homosexual women over 25? What about the bisexual women? Are they half dominatrix? How does this work? Teach us, Mikey. We're all riveted.
Golly, and all this time we thought Mr. Savage's problem was "only" repressed homosexuality: his virulent attacks on gays could only be explained by what Freud called "projection" (the pawning off on others those traits one most dislikes in oneself). Now we know his problem involves much more than that. The guy is a raving misogynist as well. What a piece of work is Michael! A veritable field day for shrinks. A treasure trove of phobias, manias, complexes, neuroses and, I'll bet, borderline psychoses as well. In all that he reminds me of no one so much as Saul Paul Tarsus, whose ugly pronouncements in various New Testament gospels betray the man's self-loathing, masochism, homophobia, and misogyny, and whose followers today, especially the loony evangelicals, mock everything Jebus is supposed to have stood for.
Wow, and this guy is married with children!? I think he just admitted that he hates woman that love men (straight) and he hates gay-woman (nothing new).
So Savage, you finally show your true colors - you hate WOMAN!!
Does Weiner ad-lib this stuff, or does he sit around before his show and think it up?