<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: This Week In Sexist History: Bathing Beauties Edition</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/22/this-week-in-sexist-history-bathing-beauties-edition/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/22/this-week-in-sexist-history-bathing-beauties-edition/</link>
	<description>Sex and Gender in D.C.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:24:38 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: This Week In Sexist Art History: Judith Leyster - The Sexist - Washington City Paper</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/22/this-week-in-sexist-history-bathing-beauties-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-12113</link>
		<dc:creator>This Week In Sexist Art History: Judith Leyster - The Sexist - Washington City Paper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:43:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=5177#comment-12113</guid>
		<description>[...] week for Sexist History! First, we revisited an 1893 New York Times piece which informed us why children are the sexiest swimmers of all. Then, we wrote some Sexist History of our own and discovered why male models may inhabit [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] week for Sexist History! First, we revisited an 1893 New York Times piece which informed us why children are the sexiest swimmers of all. Then, we wrote some Sexist History of our own and discovered why male models may inhabit [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Q™</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/22/this-week-in-sexist-history-bathing-beauties-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-11960</link>
		<dc:creator>Q™</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:21:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=5177#comment-11960</guid>
		<description>This article is a little tawdry even with the fact that there were no bikinis or thong bathing suits back then.  As a bathing story, it&#039;s almost along the lines of David and Bathsheba.  Not saying that the lady deserved the writer&#039;s attention but, RED always stands out.  

Yes his article was sexist, but what is more interesting is the audience he&#039;s writing to.  So, was this an article telling male readers to go &quot;check out the ladies&quot; or an article telling women to watch out for those voyeurs at the hotel?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This article is a little tawdry even with the fact that there were no bikinis or thong bathing suits back then.  As a bathing story, it's almost along the lines of David and Bathsheba.  Not saying that the lady deserved the writer's attention but, RED always stands out.  </p>
<p>Yes his article was sexist, but what is more interesting is the audience he's writing to.  So, was this an article telling male readers to go "check out the ladies" or an article telling women to watch out for those voyeurs at the hotel?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

