The man raping the girl in the alleyway, or the passive bystander who neither stops the attack nor calls the police? The mother beating her children, or the husband who goes to work and leaves the children with her?

Who is worse? The abuser, the attacker is worse. But we are revulsed and disgusted by the people who aid and abet and ignore the perpetrators, and rightly so.

Last week, ten women were the subject of a cyber-rape. That is, without their consent, they were subjected to one misogynist, Guy Cimbalo, and his rape fantasies, which appeared in his Playboy article titled “Ten Conservative Women I’d Like To Hate F***.” (The article has since been taken down.)

Perhaps you think “cyber-rape” is extreme. But consider what was said about Mary Katherine Ham:

You get this one pregnant, she stays pregnant. Karma’s a b****, isn’t it?

Implying that she wouldn’t want a baby resulting from rape, but because of her belief system, she’d have the child. Of course, she would deserve this treatment and fate, because Ham is pro-life. Carrying the baby would be karmic retribution for holding her disagreeable belief.

Cimbalo says of Amanda Carpenter:

She is also a columnist at TownHall, a website for illiterates who disprove evolution by their very existence.

She has been dealing with the fallout all week. Amanda Carpenter shared that on Monday — instead of working — she had to explain the controversy to her male coworkers. She said it was embarrassing and distracting. A friend sent her an excited email: “You made a list of the best conservative blogger women for Playboy!” The friend hadn’t read the article.

And now, when someone Googles her name, the Playboy list shows up prominently.

So imagine, if you will, that the list consisted of liberal women bloggers. Imagine if Amanda Marcotte, Jane Hamsher, Jill from Feministe, and some of the more vocal feminist bloggers made up the list. Right now, they’re all upset over a National Review caricature of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. (It’s called satire. Remember this?)

First, the list would never be made. Why? Because Playboy considers liberal women to be sympathetic compatriots. Ironically enough, they’re on the same team.

Second, the outrage would be vocal and ubiquitous. Playboy made the miscalculation of assuming that conservative men are misogynistic pigs and, yes, sent the press release to them. They thought they would have a friendly audience that would link back.

Did liberal men bloggers get the list? Probably not, but Playboy would have found more sympathy with them. As conservative women know, the most vicious attacks come from leftist male bloggers. Spending some time in the comment section of an opinionated conservative woman blogger will curl toes. It’s not for the faint of heart.

Conservative women bloggers are used to being sexualized, objectified, and called names. Conservative women generally know that any voiced public opinion or any public involvement will mean attempted personal destruction. Which is the point of the Playboy list — get conservative women to shut up. Specifically, get beautiful, smart, young conservative women to shut up. Get them to leave the public sphere. Can you say Sarah Palin?

When Teri Cristophe — executive director for Smart Girl Politics, a conservative women’s activist group which includes male members — contacted liberal U.S. News blogger Bonnie Erbe about Playboy’s list, here’s what Erbe said:

A couple of caveats are in order. First, I probably disagree politically with much of SmartGirlPolitics.org’s agenda — I know I disagree completely with the group’s position on abortion rights. But as a nonpartisan, I’m also a firm believer in supporting all members of my gender when attacked due to their gender. I am supporting these women herewith.

I also want to note that at least one woman on the list is so venom-spewing, she unfortunately invites venom to be shot back at her: Michelle Malkin. Her posts and her “routine” are so venomous and predictable, in fact, I stopped paying attention to her years ago.

Others on the list, however, are not venom-spewing at all. One woman mentioned on the atlasshrugs2000 blog is a regular guest on my PBS show. Amanda Carpenter, on the show at least, eschews personal judgment of people with whom she disagrees politically. So her inclusion on the Playboy list is much more offensive to me than is the inclusion of Ms. Malkin, although their political views may not differ greatly.

So a rape-fantasy list is fine for a “venom-spewing” woman. That’s right. Most women don’t deserve rape except for the ones who “have it coming.” You know, the girls wearing short skirts, they kinda ask for it.

It’s nice to see a modern feminist clarify her position. Cyber-rape is fine for some people.

Bonnie Erbe’s opinion is rare — rare in that she actually hinted, if mildly, that the list is distasteful. She actually said something. Anne Schroeder Mullins of Politico acted the role of passive bystander by whitewashing and sanitizing the list.

Most feminist women did what they abhor the most: they remained silent.

Rather than coming to the defense of the sisterhood, feminist writers and bloggers turned their heads. Conservative women get what they have coming. They aren’t sisters anyway. They are women who have the nerve to disagree with the “real” women. Real women have one central belief and that is the right to abortion.

Ray Cimbalo committed the crime that the Playboy editors and public relations department set up. Feminist women watched the crime from the sidelines and did nothing. They remained silent. Feminist men defended the cyber-rape.

Meanwhile, besides the women on the list and other conservative women media members (Megyn Kelly, Michelle Malkin, Elizabeth Blakney, the Smart Girls ladies, etc.), who presented the most vociferous defense?

Conservative men. That’s right. Conservative men wrote ardently for of the attacked women. Ed Driscoll, John Hawkins, Ed Morrissey, Caleb Howe, Allahpundit, Jim Treacher. One liberal man likely lost his job for decrying Playboy’s misogynistic actions.

The feminist women remain silent. I don’t expect them to find their voices anytime soon. These are the same women who defended Bill Clinton’s sexual harassment and blamed the victims. These are the same women who savaged Sarah Palin based on her hair, her clothes, and her choice to have a special needs child. And now, these are the women who stand by and watch other women get attacked because they are beautiful and believe differently. The feminists say nothing.

The fact is, feminists want conservative women muzzled. And evidently, even cyber-rape is an acceptable way to silence their ideological opposition. Duly noted.

For two weeks, Democrats and their media allies have leveled scorching fire at Sarah Palin. It’s not having much effect, but they keep at it anyway.

The latest Fox News poll shows Palin with a 54-27 favorable/unfavorable ratio, which compares well with Barack Obama’s 57-36, John McCain’s 60-33 and Joe Biden’s 51-29. (Of the four, she’s the most popular).

Why do Democrats feel so threatened? They’ve even stopped attacking McCain and President Bush to launch a vicious and sexist barrage at her that would normally make a feminist angry and a Democrat blush.

Basically, it’s this: John McCain only endangers Democratic chances of victory this November, but Sarah Palin is an existential threat to the Democratic Party.

She threatens a core element of the party’s base – women.

When an African-American like Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell or Condi Rice rises to prominence as a Republican, he or she endangers the Democratic coalition. So would a Republican labor leader.

And so, above all, does the woman Republican running for vice president.

Democrats can’t stomach seeing the feminist movement’s impetus for greater female political participation and empowerment “hijacked” by a pro-life woman who espouses traditional values. They must obliterate her, lest her popularity eat away at their party’s core.

So the Democrats are hysterical in their attacks on her. South Carolina’s Democratic Party chairwoman, Carol Fowler (wife of a national party chairman), said that the only qualification Palin had for vice president was that she hadn’t had an abortion. Tabloids are digging up dirt on Palin’s children. And liberal bloggers have suggested that Palin would neglect her children if she were elected (while the Democratic candidate has young children at home, too).

That liberals would resort to such blatant sexism shows their desperation.

But the Fox News poll of Sept. 8-9 indicates a deeper reality of Palin’s popularity. On the question of which of the four candidates best understands what day-to-day life is like in America, Palin finished first, with 33 percent. (Obama drew 32 percent, McCain 17 percent and Biden 10 percent.)

She’s not popular because she’s a radical feminist or pro-choice advocate. It’s because she understands what it’s like to be a woman in 21st century America.

She’s never ascended to the elite, so she doesn’t need to stoop to conquer as most well-heeled feminist leaders must. She lives far from the plastic pseudoreality where a fossilized ideology substitutes for human compassion and empathy. As such, she rises above the slogans of both the left and the right and proposes to bring to Washington a dose of reality – a taste of real life.

She may become the first woman in national office – yet the Democrats, feminists and liberals can’t control her, and that burns them up.

Elections come and go, but Palin is a far more fundamental threat to the Democratic Party. And that’s why they fear her so.
DickMorris.com