Information
- Founded:
- Fall 2008
Social RSS
Report this feed
You are about to report that this RSS feed has violated the RSS-Connect Terms of Service, the Facebook Terms of Use, the Facebook Code of Conduct or the Facebook Copyright Policy.
All reports are strictly confidential.
| Reason: (Required) |
|
The Week’s Most Popular Blog Posts: Bumbling Frat Boys Edition
6 Nov 2009, 1:00 pm |
|
|
This week on the Sexist, we heard about a bunch of bumbling frat boys who didn’t want their student newspaper to talk about date rape. We made up for it by talking about date rape a bunch!
Photo via the Library of Congress Read more >> |
|
|
Old People Are Sexting Now
6 Nov 2009, 10:45 am |
|
|
The AARP has finally figured out a way to deter all those crazy tweens from sexting their chastity away: Inform them that a bunch of totally old people are doing it, too. In the November issue Online at AARP.org, reporter Jessica Leshnoff interviews a handful of first-name-only seniors who admit to sending photos of their boobs to other old people through text messages.
There’s Roger, the 59-year-old divorcé who need only tell a date that she has “amazing breasts” to be rewarded with an unsolicited photo of them. There’s Jill, 50, who suggests sexting dirty thoughts while “sitting in a restaurant waiting for your food . . . and no one knows what you’re doing.” And then there’s sexting-skeptical Richard, 66, who received a sext while “with a group of colleagues after hours at a restaurant,” and “surprised himself by being less than thrilled.” These aging sexters have got a good half-century on the subjects of most sexting paranoia pieces, but their story is the same. The “old people are sexting” trend story operates under the same premise as the teenage sexting story. Find a group the public doesn’t enjoy considering being sexually active (minors, the elderly). Reveal that they are sexually active. Then, add technology—the second-scariest topic next to sex— and voilà—something else for David Brooks devotees to clutch their pearls over. The AARP isn’t slut-shaming the elderly here, but it does insert a good deal of skepticism into the piece. After all, it wouldn’t be a “sexting” article without a degree of alarm. Elder sexting can’t be policed through the traditional avenues—you can’t ground them, and you can’t threaten to slap them with absurd child pornography charges. But surely, there must be some way to convince old people that sending dick photos may not be the way to spend their lunch hour? “But beware, the experts warn,” Leshnoff writes. “Sexting has its dangers, too, especially when it comes to people in the dating world.” Those dangers? “False advertising.” “Too much, too soon.” “Not everyone likes receiving a sexually charged text.” Someone could steal them and put them on the Internet. And in a sick twist of fate: “the possibility of your teenage kids innocently flipping through your texts.” The article ends on a downer, via Richard: After actually receiving the money shot, “It was like the fun kind of went out of it,” he says. But despite the pitfalls, the AARP has recognized that old people will probably send photos of their genitals anyway, so we may as well help them sext safely. Their tips: Slowly transition from “I still want to go to the prom with you” to “Forget chocolate, I am craving the taste of you!” Take care to periodically delete nude texts every once in a while. And always remember to “keep expectations based on sexting in check.” I really like that. Our culture has a tendency to infantilize men and women “of a certain age,” and that includes treating their sex lives as either an unspoken taboo or an inflated cause for concern. I get it: My parents get AARP magazine, and I don’t want to think about them giving these sexting tips a text ride, either (except for the part where they delete the evidence). And the idea of my grandmother sending a perfectly chaste text message is hilarious to me. That being said, aging can present some pretty specific challenges to a person’s sex life—and, like with teens, the worst we can do is refuse to talk about it. Photo via Ethan Prater, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0 Read more >> |
|
|
Sexist Beatdown: Taylor Swift, Avril Lavigne, Jolene, and Music’s Other “Other Women”
6 Nov 2009, 9:40 am |
|
|
Hey, ladies. It’s time for another edition of Sexist Beatdown. Up for discussion this morning are girls who hate on other girls when a man gets in the way, and then write pop songs about it. As always, your hosts are that bitchy, popular ho Sady Doyle of Tiger Beatdown, and the adorably geeky woman of your dreams—me! Join us: We promise to pretend to be your friends while we try to fuck your boyfriend and ridicule your skanky dye job. Sady has already done the groundwork on the “girl-on-girl sexism” phenomenon. In this special genre of pop music, the protagonist ridicules another woman who is either a) involved with “her man,” or b) involved with a man the singer wishes were “her man.” The protagonist typically cites purely aesthetic arguments—But she’s a cheerleader! But she has bleached hair! But she just sucks!—for hating that other bitch and attempting to convince the “man” that he belongs with her. Sady notes that this trend most recently surfaced in Taylor Swift’s beloved hit single, “You Belong With Me”:
Meanwhile, Notes on Popular Culture has already provided the counterpoint for Team Taylor: “Sady calls the comparison between the two girls ‘girl-on-girl sexism.’ What Sady forgets is that this is what people do. That is what girls do, that is what teenage girls do, this is what girls do when another girl has they guy they like. It’s tame, and pretty damn fair.” Or is it? SADY:: let’s talk about ladies who don’t like other ladies! through the universal language of SONG! (the ladies who hate other ladies. not me, or, i would imagine you. let us conduct this discussion instead through the universal language of Gchat.) AMANDA: agreed! SADY: first of all, i think we need to separate the lady-disliking-lady song from the you-cheated-on-me-song (as sung by a lady). because both are venerable pop conventions. but one is pretty specifically about disliking a lady, and the other is more about being upset with somebody who cheated on you and referring to the co-cheater as a “tramp” or whatever. AMANDA: so, you’re saying there is a difference between your unnecessary “I Hate That Bitch” song and your Jolene rip-off? SADY: i would argue, yes! although… maybe not? (BEHOLD, as i introduce and then disagree with my own points!) because, like, in “before he cheats,” by carrie underwood, she mentions that there is “probably” a “bleached-blond tramp” in this dude’s life before introducing some truly epic automotive destruction on the possible-tramp-liker. AMANDA: oh … “probably.” see, this is where it gets interesting. because doesn’t carrie underwood appear to have bleached blond hair? SADY: haha, and the hypothetical tramp sings “fake Shania karaoke” at one point. PROJECTION!
AMANDA: and isn’t it innocent-glasses TAYLOR SWIFT HERSELF, ladies and gentleman of the jury, and not bitchy-brunette Taylor Swift, that is the “other woman” in “You Belong With Me”? SADY: RIGHT! or in “girlfriend,” by avril lavigne, which is basically the same song: “hey hey you you i don’t like your girlfriend hey hey you you i could be your girlfriend why can’t you see you belong with me?” they sort of blur together into an identical message point in my head. also that “don’t you wish your girlfriend were the pussycat dolls” song. there are a LOT of these songs!
AMANDA: practically the same song, except avril subs in “punky arm-warmers” for glasses. But let’s go back to Jolene for a moment, shall we? SADY: let’s! AMANDA: so, instead of trashy bleached-blond hair (or trashy brunette-died hair, depending on the version), jolene has got a smile like a breath of spring, or whatever. SADY: right. there’s a lot of lavishly detailed jolene-sexiness, which makes the song weirdly kind of ladyrotic, all about the power of another woman’s sexuality.
SADY: welllllll… possibly? i think both are actually ABOUT competition over territory (territory = actual human dude). in one case you are trying to lure a dude away, and in another, you are trying to keep hold of him. but, weirdly, i don’t think that is so feminist? because what a lot of these songs do is sort of make the dudes not responsible for who they cheat on you with / who they date, in order to transfer all of the animus onto another woman. women are always sort of the villains, even if it’s a dude who is making the choices you disagree with. compare this to one of my favorite dude-finds-out-his-lady-cheated songs, “take a letter, maria,” in which a dude rolls into the office, tells his secretary his wife’s been sleeping with another dude. then, asks her to draft a divorce letter. then, tells her she’s his girlfriend now. like, the dude just kind of keeps rolling on. the lady is STILL the villain, even in songs about cheating ladies sung from dudes’ perspectives. not the guy his wife slept with. AMANDA: so … does any dude actually choose his girlfriend based on who writes the best song about why he should be their girlfriend? SADY: i kind of wish they did! AMANDA: i dont! i such at that shit! SADY: well, i think the vast majority of dudes would get a case of The Creeps if we were all under their windows performing dance-offs about them. which DOES kind of make the whole “you belong to me” genre weirdly feminist: it’s women being suitors, not desired objects. granted, it’s in some kind of wacky “i could totally fulfill all your needs better than she can” way, but WHATEVS. AMANDA: right, and weirdly enough, the guys are hardly humanized. SADY: exactly. like, it’s not about how dreamy they are or whatever. they’re not singing the dude’s praises. they’re just like, “WANT DUDE! DUDE MINE!” AMANDA: it’s possible that these “empowering” other-woman songs are just co-opting the worst aspects of traditional male courting behavior. one of the things that irks me about both You Belong with Me and Girlfriend is the assumption that, well, the guy belongs with them. SADY: yeah! exactly! like, Dude can’t choose who he wants to date? MAYBE THE FACT THAT YOU ARE ALWAYS IN THE WINDOW MAKING MOONEYES AT HIM HAS CREEPED HIM OUT, Taylor Glasses! AMANDA: it’s the same old shit where a dude feels entitled to harass a woman because that’s what is supposed to happen when you like a girl, no matter what she says about you—like, “no thanks,” or “just friends”
SADY: yeah, exactly. like, the whole “Nice Guy (TM)” bit of jargon we’ve coined to describe dudes who whine about how they’re so awesome and girls STILL won’t go out with them and the fact is that they’re just kind of chasing the wrong girls around? that seems, weirdly, to be present in some gender-flipped form in “You Belong With Me.” Taylor Swift is a Nice Girl (TM) and it is freaking me out a little. AMANDA: or pretending to be friends when they’re really trying to get a boner. full disclosure, I find that song catchy and I listen to it whenever it’s on the radio, which is all the time, which is why I know enough about this song to have this weird reservation about one of the lyrics. you pointed this out, as well, but when Swift says that evil bitchy girlfriend “doesn’t get his humor” and freaks out when he says certain things, it always seems obvious to me that the guy is saying something so monumentally douchey, and Taylor Swift is just lining up to be like, “I won’t call you out on being a douche.” SADY: yeah, exactly. like, i have seen girls do this. the whole “i get boys” thing, that in practice always seems to be about siding with boys when girls call them out on being sexist and/or douches. and i don’t know what it is – being known as a “guy’s girl” can give you some power, or an illusion of power, in certain circles – but to me I always get post-traumatic Tucker Max flashbacks to when he’s like, “but some of my FRIENDS are women! some of my FANS!” and, yeah, but maybe those girls are just biting the bullet and/or deluded enough to think that your douchiness will never affect them unless they laugh along. basically, i think “You Belong With Me” is a song about how Taylor Swift wants to date Seth McFarlane. that is what i think it is. i will never apologize. AMANDA: maybe they would be cute! SADY: he could talk to her in the voice of a mean-spirited british baby and/or laconic dog. AMANDA: that other bitch just doesn’t GET that like she does. SADY: EXACTLY. you know, though, i have been forced to come to the conclusion that everyone in the whole entire world likes taylor swift a little bit more than i do. like, my over-the-top dislike of taylor swift may in fact be wrongheaded and the result of being hit in the head with a skipper doll as a small child or something. people in general don’t dislike taylor swift as much as i do, so there is maybe something wrong with me. and i would like to apologize to taylor swift, for whatever i have written about her in the past, using a girl-hating-(i think?)-another-girl-song lyric. from destiny’s child. it reads: “you know i’m not gonna diss you on the internet / cause my mama told me better than that.” AMANDA: i heard that song on the radio the other day. taylor swift has, essentially, said the opposite about her career: she’s said that all her songs are about dissing people who have wronged her in some way. SADY: OH GOD. SHOULD I BE WORRIED? AMANDA: (Yes). But i can’t help but thinking that—with all her deliberate high-school-band-geek-goofy-glasses image—taylor swift maybe has underestimated how much people were going to Totally Fall In Love With Her. she’s the most successful artist right now, and smoking hot, and she’s writing a bunch of diss songs, which probably won’t play for very long. just a bit of career advice. because i know a lot about the music business. so … you’re doing her a favor, is what i’m saying, and i can’t wait to see what wig taylor swift wears in order to play you in her upcoming single, “I Didn’t Know He Had A Nazi Shirt On, You Bitch.” Read more >> |
|
|
University Sex Columns, Reviewed: Pro-Life Gays Edition
5 Nov 2009, 1:03 pm |
|
|
The battle for ideological dominance in our nation’s capital’s collegiate sex columns continues. Are our local campus columnists on the forefront of radical sex writing, or are they bringing back the good old days of romance born out of aggressive homophobia? This week: pro-life gay man worries that if he could have children, his pro-choice boyfriend might kill them; how to talk to a girl without being a creep; your boyfriend is cheating on you to avoid rumors he’s on the down low.
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY Sex Tips: In this edition of the AU Eagle’s triple-threat sex column, Buster Darkhole, Maxwell Hillcrest, and Amber Sparkles take on the issue of . . . ideological rifts in on-campus relationships. How apropos! The inspiration: A pro-life man writes in to ask if his crush on a pro-choice man is too immoral to pursue. “While he and I can’t have children, it’s more the idea that if we had children he would be OK with killing them,” he writes. “Is this enough to kill a relationship?” I bet you weren’t expecting Buster Darkhole’s response: “let me just say that it is a relief to find another pro-life gay on this campus.” Life Lesson: The American University community contains at least two pro-life gay men. Progressive Meter: Sorry, my brain just exploded attempting to accurately gauge the progressiveness of this situation. I think we’ll split the odds and go for a 5. — UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND Sex Tips: The Diamondback’s latest advice column schools undergrads on how to “start up a conversation without seeming creepy.” Columnist Esti Frischling’s suggestion: ” The rule is this: Any guy can get any girl. . . . If you approach this situation knowing without a doubt that you are going to get some serious ass, your actual chances improve drastically,” she writes. “Seeing as you already know you’re going to get with this girl in the near future, you can certainly start to relax around her. Suddenly, imagining her naked in class changes from awkward and creepy to fun and clairvoyant. . . . Keep in mind: You are the man.” Life Lesson: She wants to fuck you. Progressive Meter: Assuming that a strange woman wants to have sex with you whenever you like will inevitably lead to complications. As one commenter notes, it ain’t the first time she’s doled out this advice. So much for the “without seeming creepy” part. Zero. — HOWARD UNIVERSITY Sex Tips: In this Howard University Hilltop opinion piece, Morgan Winbush attempts to get to the bottom of Howard’s “dating double standard.” She writes: “in a man’s world; you have to be on top of everything including your woman and your relationships. . . . Messing around with other women feed into the need for a man to feel as if he is needed. The more women who ‘need’ him the more he is solidified as a man possessing the qualities that are ‘manly’ and thusly proving himself to be the leader of the pack when it comes to female dependency. ‘Is he gay?’ ‘Is he on the DL?’ — the more female partners a man has the less likely these labels will be placed on him.” But aggressively proving one’s heterosexuality ain’t just for men any more: “times have progressed and women want just as much ego rubbing as their counterparts.” Life Lesson: Your boyfriend is cheating on you so that nobody thinks he’s gay. At least now you can get in on the homophobic fun, too. Progressive Meter: Winbush makes a good-faith effort to encourage fellow students to embrace female promiscuity alongside the traditional male version. In the meantime, she raises the specter of the guy on the “down low” without even giving a positive shout-out to the campus LGBT contingent. Three. Photo by Ollie Crafoord, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0 Read more >> |
|
|
Dressing “Too Sexy”: Career Suicide Or Sexist Excuse?
5 Nov 2009, 10:36 am |
|
|
Yesterday, Feminist Law Professors drew my attention to the Miami Daily Business Review’s “Rodent” column, a weekly anonymous rant written by various members of the legal community. The latest missive, “Lady Lawyers Should Dress the Part,” warns female attorneys that they may be sabotaging their careers with overly sexy business attire. Actually, I think it’s more likely that the conveniently anonymous Rodent, who spouts off platitudes like “women who dress like Barbie dolls get treated like Barbie dolls,” is the force that’s keeping women down in the workplace.
According to the Rodent, otherwise capable female lawyers are ruining their chances at being taken seriously by forgoing pantyhose, wearing heels, and revealing their cleavage:
The vermin continues:
All right, let’s hear one more:
The Rodent’s theories are convenient: The lawyer who looks like a porn star stumbled because her shoes are too high. The lawyer who looks like a bridesmaid is not serious about her job because her shoes are too strappy. The lawyer who looks like a hooker is not successful because her breasts are too prominent. Beyond the offensiveness of grouping female professionals into categories like Barbie, porn star, hooker, and bridesmaid, the Rodent appears to be going to great lengths to deny the obvious. Perhaps the lawyer who looks like a “porn star” is devalued because people think she’s too attractive to be smart, not because she dresses like a Barbie. The lawyer who wears anything other than a turtleneck is devalued because she’s got boobs, not because she dresses like a hooker. And the lawyer who looks like a bridesmaid, whose strappy shoes are a “tip-off” that she’s not a serious lawyer? That sounds like a pretty insane explanation for a career misstep to me. The Rodent, of course, is attempting to explain away a more offensive aspect of the legal profession: women are consistently partnered and paid less than men are. A commenter on Feminist Law Professors draws the obvious comparison between devaluing a woman’s work based on her attire to outright sexual harassment. She writes that men have informed her of the harassment rule: “If she’s going to dress like trash, then she’s going to get treated like trash.” Blaming a woman’s clothing choices for her professional failure is simply a strategy for selectively discounting women without being called on your sexism. All you have to do is project your biases on to “her choices,” and you can discriminate away. This becomes clear when the Rodent gets specific about what aspects of a woman’s appearance are unacceptable. Interestingly, several of the Rodent’s tips are not specific to female lawyers. “A tattoo that shows is NEVER appropriate when you are a female attorney,” the Rodent writes—as if face tattoos are generally accepted among lady litigators’ male co-workers. The Rodent then offers up a weak defense for focusing on lady ink—women sag. “I promise you that once you are a woman of a certain age, your skin will lose elasticity, and that cute Asian saying . . . simply won’t look good when it’s sagging.” Many of the Rodent’s recommendations are inconsistent. According to the Rodent, “Frumpy is the opposite end of the spectrum, and I see a lot of that these days, too. Looking like an unmade bed—wrinkled clothes, no makeup, dirty hair—doesn’t inspire much confidence either.” Apparently, femininity-enhancing attire like heels are unacceptable, but makeup is required. The anonymous ranter also points to Condoleezza Rice as an acceptable style icon, even though Rice hardly shied away from figure-hugging, sexy-heeled outfits in her tenure as Secretary of State. The lesson we can learn from this is that the standards regulating female appearance are largely arbitrary, and are designed that way to keep the door open for criticism. Men may either be labeled “sloppy” or “professional,” but women must also navigate between being “frumpy,” “professional,” and “overly attractive.” And since the “too sexy” meter can often be set off by simply looking like a woman, not dressing like one—having breasts, hips, legs, and a waist—hitting the right note can be a lot more difficult than learning to knot a neck-tie. Feminist Law Professors’ Bridget Crawford concurs with the Rodent on some points:
I agree that this double standard—be attractive, but not too sexy—is used against women in the workplace. But I disagree with the Rodent’s conclusion that the solution to workplace sexism is for women to modify their behavior by buttoning up and trashing the sandals. Apparently, no matter what a lady lawyer wears, there will be some vermin waiting on the sidelines to tell her it’s not appropriate. Photo by markusram, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0 Read more >> |

The Sexist
Do you know any ex-gays? Call me, because I can't find any. http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/displ ay.php?id=37762





















