Rush Limbaugh: Tiny penises are feminazis’ fault

Limbaugh’s at it again. Even using his linguistic creation, to boot. This time, his unevidenced postulate is that feminism shrinks penises. Because feminism has only existed for the last 50 years. Or something.

Rush Limbaugh on Thursday lashed out at feminists — who he called “feminazis” — over the news that male genitalia are shrinking.

The conservative radio host pointed to an Italian study which found that the average male penis was 10 percent smaller than 50 years ago. Researchers cited weight gain around the waist, smoking, stress and environmental pollutants as factors.

If anything’s an environmental pollutant, it’s feminists and their bra-burning ways, AMIRITE?

“I think it’s feminism,” he declared. “If it’s tied to the last 50 years — the average size of [a male’s] member is 10 percent smaller than 50 years — it has to be the feminazis, the chickification and everything else.”

“Give ‘em time and they’ll blame Bush. But air pollution vs. feminazis? Ha!”

And yet, color me completely skeptical that this is even happening. According to CBS, the report doesn’t say how it was conducted or provide raw numbers. I’d definitely need to see SOME science before I even give this a second glance, nor start speculating on why it’s happening or why it even bloody matters. It’s not like it’s a selection criterion or anything — people are just as well capable of procreating with 5.6 inch penises as they are with 6.

I’m mostly just surprised he didn’t go for the low-hanging (heh) fruit of blaming feminists for cutting off penises to the point where the outliers skewed the average.

Memo to anyone using the term “feminazi” unironicly: this is what you’re aligning yourself with.

Rush Limbaugh: Tiny penises are feminazis’ fault
The Orbit is still fighting a SLAPP suit! Help defend freedom of speech, click here to find out more and donate!

24 thoughts on “Rush Limbaugh: Tiny penises are feminazis’ fault

  1. 1

    Probably has more to do with increased obesity. If you’re measuring from the “base” (where the shaft meets the pelvis) then the more overweight the man is, the less “shaft” there will be, without actually effecting the true length of the penis.

    Think of it as two identical towers, each with a bottom at the same height above sea level, but one built into a hill and the other on a flat plain. The tower built into the hill shows less height than the other, but the distance from bottom to top is the same.

  2. 2

    Every time I hear these Republicans say things as studid and outrageous as what Rush says, and then realize these clowns can and do get elected…my penis shrinks a little bit more.

  3. 8

    Dude,.. you spelled



    In fact, there is no real word, ‘unironically’. It’s more accurately designated, ‘non-ironically’.

    Come on you self-righteous, back-patting, supposedly accurate atheists who are sticklers for detail and evidence! Proofread!

  4. 10

    Does Limbaugh care about anything other than his penis? Why does it all have to come down to that? As much as I hate Freud’s nonscientific and misogynistic approach, I feel like he would have something to say here.

  5. 11

    That reminds me of this General from Dr. Strangelove who goes on and on about these precious bodily fluids that somehow get drained/diluted/whatever by the arch enemy.

    This General is somewhat to the political right, too. Fancy that. As if there was a pattern…

  6. 13

    I saw this story, and I tried to track down the original study. I’ve not found it anywhere. Not that it mattered in this context, as the article cited plausible reasons, like stress and the rise in obesity rates.

    But hey, I guess blaming feminism and that horrible push for equality across sex and gender lines makes for great fodder. It is a fault of feminism that Rush and his ilk have little penises, which is why they seek to punish women. Or they are just assholes looking for any excuse to bag on their straw-feminism.

  7. 15

    Although, Limbaugh is full of prunes here, there may be a good Darwinian explanation for this phenomena. Making the assumption that penis size is, at least to some degree, inheritable, it may be for for some reason, men with small penises are having more descendants, possibly because women are sexually selecting such individuals to marry and procreate with. That’s of course, if the premise is true in the first place, which Mr. glodson @ #13 has indicated is questionable.

    This sort of an explanation will not appeal to Prof. Larry Moran who will characterize it as a just so story.

  8. 18

    @15 – In this sexual selection vein sort of reasoning a rightwing ‘smart fool’ could reason from a supposed correlation between prenatal testosterone levels and penile sizes and take it from there to set up something utterly confused, arguing for feminism reducing sizes of penises.

    Trouble with the theory is the inverse relation between secularism and reproduction rates. Also higher education, higher income and liberal political preferences are bad for babies. This would suggest backwardness in general and poverty specifically makes for bigger penises. Maybe this is the origin of the market for penal size compensating sports cars. and I dear not to speculate on the penis sizes of the owners of Hummers.

    Come to realize, an apostle of Rupert Sheldrake could argue the opposite and derive from the remarkable excess of teen pregnancies in the most feminism deprived and concomitant anti-conception free territories that male offspring morphologically adopts the not yet fully blossomed penis of his unknown dad.

    You can run anywhere you like with an undersized penis I guess.

  9. 21

    Without any link to an actual study, this is just pure wind, but the fact that a statement like this would be believed by many who wouldn’t even bother to fact-check if such a study existed seems pretty frightening.

    Plus, how often is this thing being measured? If there was *some study* from 50 years ago where the average length of the penises of a pool of 100 men was studied, and then a similar study was reproduced today you don’t really have good data here (small sample, large time-gap so you can’t compare year to year to see what the variance is, you might be grabbing a pool of ‘random men’ who are all of different ages so you aren’t properly separating men by age cohort.)

  10. 24

    One would think if women could really change the size of dicks, they would make them bigger, not smaller…

    Enlarge! (╯°□°)╯

Comments are closed.