As it turns out, that fawning defense of The Daily Show by its women employees illustrates exactly what's wrong with the show's hiring practices. They write:

Jon’s not just a guy in a suit reading a prompter. His voice and vision shape every aspect of the show from concept to execution. The idea that he would risk compromising his show’s quality by hiring or firing someone based on anything but ability, or by booking guests based on anything but subject matter, is simply ludicrous.

You see, The Daily Show hires only the best comedians; it books only the best guests. And if the best of the best are reliably, overwhelmingly male? Well: Perhaps men are just better than women.

But first, a quick recap of Jezebel reporter Irin Carmon's findings on the show's gender disparities: In the past seven years, only one woman, Olivia Munn, has been considered an able enough comedian to be hired as an on-air correspondent on The Daily Show (and she's still in try-out mode). Past employees have reported a boys' club mentality in hiring and firing. And this year alone, the show's roster of guests has featured 63 men, but only 13 women.

Here are a few possibilities for why this might be the case:

(a) Overt sexism. Jon Stewart, let's just suggest for the sake of argument, is a tyrannical sexist who deliberately keeps women off the air and out of his writer's room due to a deep hatred of the gender. This appears to be the argument the women of The Daily Show are dismissing as "simply ludicrous."

(b) Societal forces. Comedy is an overwhelmingly male industry, and The Daily Show is at the very top of the pyramid. As show co-creator Madeline Smithberg told Carmon, "The planet is sexist." She explains:

"I don't think Jon is sexist," she says. "I don't think that there is a double standard at the Daily Show. I do think that by the time it gets to the Daily Show it's already been through the horrible sexist double standard of the universe. You're not hiring someone right out of school. By the time they get to the candidates of the Daily Show, the herd has been thinned by the larger societal forces."

(c) Ingrained prejudices. The comedic culture naturally views men as comedians and women as audience members, regardless of "ability." And as Amanda Marcotte notes, this form of sexism is hardly overt:

Our culture does believe there is a female and a male sense of humor that differ. We tend to say that men have a sense of humor when they say funny things, and that women have a sense of humor when they know when best to laugh when men say funny things. This sense is so ingrained that I had a few occasions when I was younger where I'd say something funny, and get blank stares, only to find a man stealing my joke a half hour later and getting giant belly laughs for it.

(d) Ignorance. Stewart is not (a) a tyrannical sexist, but he does fail to take into account (b) societal forces and (c) ingrained prejudices when making hires and booking guests. He and his show operate in a culture that values men over women, both as comedians (his staff) and people (his guests). And he—according to every woman on his staff—believes that by hiring and booking the people (men) who reliably rise to the top in this sexist system, he's making decisions based on merit—and nothing else. Attempting to counteract the ingrained sexism of comedy by deliberately seeking out women performers and writers would "risk compromising his show’s quality."

Of  course, my guess is (d). I'm sure that the women employees of The Daily Show aren't lying when they describe Stewart as "the word that means the opposite of sexist." But it's not enough for him to be Jon Stewart, Really Swell Guy anymore—he's the head of a comedy institution, one with the power to either contribute to or counteract the overwhelming sexism of the field. In order to challenge structural inequalities and actually recruit the best people for the job, the men who run comedy—men like Stewart—will have to do more than just not be overtly discriminatory.

Here's an easy rule for any manager to live by: If you haven't considered the societal forces and ingrained prejudices that may contribute to gender disparities in your hiring practices, your hiring practices are probably sexist. And if you respond to suggestions that your hiring practices may be sexist with a letter signed by all the women on your staff dismissing these claims out of hand, then your hiring practices are almost certainly sexist. That, or men are just better than women.

Today, Amanda Marcotte filed a helpful post identifying how media outlets routinely describe assaults against women in collaborative terms, as "fights" or "altercations" between people. She writes:

Do not be fooled, people! In the mainstream media, “fights”, “conflicts”, or “altercations” between men and women they’ve had relationships with are rarely fights, conflicts, or altercations. If you read down, you find that this woman was no more engaged in an “altercation” than Wile E. Coyote is with the piano that squishes him.

Marcotte points to press coverage of an assault that David Vitter aide Brent Furer allegedly committed against his ex-girlfriend. Reporters characterized the assault as a "knife-wielding altercation." Here's the actual story: "Furer was accused of holding his ex-girlfriend against her will for 90 minutes, threatening to kill her, placing his hand over her mouth, and cutting her in the hand and neck."

In Corey's case, the Washington Examiner not only characterized her assault in terms of a collaborative "bar fight," but went on to focuse most of its attention on Corey as the aggressor. In one story, the paper described Corey's self-defense as "slam[ming] a man (if provoked)," and referred to her choice to defend herself as a "controversial decision." The nature of the "provocation"—sexual assault—does not warrant a mention in the story. When a man kidnaps a woman at knife-point, that's an "altercation"; when a woman fights back against an assault, it's a "controversial decision."

* Figleaf points us to the myth that masculinity is perpetually "in crisis," from Rip Van Winkle onward.

* Amanda Marcotte on risk assessment in child-rearing:

There's so much pressure in our society not to talk about the very real risks of child-rearing, usually because of superstitious fears that talking makes it true. But I tend to think that it's best if people walk in with their eyes wide open. If you know that the risks include strained or terminated marriages, constant stress, and the inability to move about freely for many years, and you decide those are risks you're willing to take, then that's great. And I certainly believe the sense of satisfaction will outweigh the headaches for that person.

* Via Geek Feminism Blog: Is there a lady track at your workplace?

* Tracy Clark-Flory asks why more women don't shop at Best Buy. Speaking as a woman who has continually marveled at the fact that Best Buy stores still exist, I'm frankly impressed that anyone shops at Best Buy. Turns out there's also some sexism involved.

* D.C.'s Catholic University has got itself a new president. He's not a priest—the first not-priest to lead the university since 1982. So how does he feel about premarital masturbation?

Photo via The Library of Congress

Role-playing time! Let's say you're having sex, with a partner, in whatever manner that you both enjoy. And let's say that toward the end of your time together, your partner asks, "Hey, would you mind if I brought several million of our closest friends in here, just to observe this?" And you're like, "Oh, please, no. I would not prefer that." And then your sex partner invites millions of people into the room anyway, instructing each of them that you would really prefer they not come in. This excites them! They are willing to pay $10 a pop to observe what you do not want them to see.

So: What does this experience say about you, as a person? Let's take a representative sample of public responses to people who once privately videotaped themselves during sex many years ago, and then later saw that videotape disseminated to millions of people without their consent:

* You don't deserve reproduce, or ever succeed at any job: "[to] all the little girls and boys out there who one day hope to be famous/have a family/have an awesome career. Don't make a sex tape."

* You're either a calculating liar, or too dumb to fuck: "Spare us the outrage at how you feel sooooo betrayed, how you have no idea how this could have fallen into the wrong hands. . . . if you are actually dumb enough to make a sex tape and think it won’t get leaked, you are too dumb to ever have sex again."

* If you express discomfort at having your sex tape disseminated without your consent, you're a whiner: "Forgive us if we don't feel too sorry for Paris, given that the sex tape helped transform her from a two-bit reality TV star and wannabe to an internationally famous tabloid darling and blonde icon."

* And on the off-chance that you are not embarrassed by the tape's release? Well, you're a whore: "Like any mentally unstable famewhore, she's speaking out about the entire debacle."

Sady Doyle of Tiger Beatdown and I disagree with these sentiments! Join us in this edition of Sexist Beatdown as we chat consent with girls on film, until the conversation devolves into a demonstration of OUR FEMINIST HULK RAGE:

SADY: Well, good morning! Who wants to discuss... THE EROTICIZATION OF NON-CONSENT????

AMANDA: Oh me! Me! Wait ... I believe I am meant to feign disinterest in this discussion, in order to make it hotter. THE CHAT THEY DIDN'T WANT YOU TO READ.

SADY: Perhaps you should hire a lawyer to stop me from chatting with you, so that I might go ahead and continue chatting anyway!

AMANDA: For that is the consequence of having a Gmail account.

SADY: EXACTLY. And we all know that, however many verbal and/or legal refusals a woman may utter, she SECRETLY WANTS YOU to do whatever the hell you want and/or will profit from, anyway. If she didn't WANT you to release her sex tape, why did she make a sex tape? If she didn't WANT you to penetrate her vagina, why did she have a vagina? And so on! And so forth!

AMANDA: Right? So, the whole wink-wink "taboo" behind the "leaked"-but-not-actually-leaked sex tape doesn't bother me so much – I know that some people get off on the idea of watching people have sex on tape who don't normally have sex on tape. . . as long as all parties are actually just playing the "leak" card for its erotic potential. The problem is that the people who are selling, downloading, and writing about these things don't appear interested in differentiating between "leaked" sex tapes and. . . leaked sex tapes.

SADY: Right. That's the thing. And the assumption, among people I've talked to, is that these things ARE leaked purposefully. Thus making their subjects total sluts! But when one brings up the idea that maybe, JUST MAYBE, someone like Kendra Wilkinson may be repeatedly saying that she doesn't want people to sell or view her sex tape because SHE DOESN'T WANT PEOPLE TO SELL OR VIEW HER SEX TAPE, then the reply that comes back is, all too often, "well, then she's just stupid." Stupid for making the sex tape, stupid for not thinking strangers would jerk off to it without her consent. Which MAKES the non-consent involved in your jerk-off time... okay? Because you think she's not smart? How does that work? As far as I can tell, we value consent no matter who it comes from. It's not like you have to pass the SAT in order to decide whether or not you want a certain sexual experience. You just want it or you don't, and if you clearly don't, it's not okay for anyone else to proceed with that against your will.

AMANDA: Right. I am also confused as to why some people assume that people who fight the release of their sex tape in court are simply doing it for publicity purposes? Because I have been involved in a civil court proceeding like one time on a relatively minor matter and it was hugely inconvenient and horrible! And I imagine that when a video of you having sex is involved in evidence collection it is even more unpleasant!

SADY: Right. And the fact is, even when we all assume the release of the tape was fully consensual — instigated by both or all of the people in it — the idea of it not being consensual IS kind of eroticized, by the people selling it. That, I am actually NOT okay with — the way there were, according to Tracy Clark-Flory, mocking speech bubbles over Kim Kardashian's face on the packaging of her own sex tape, reading like, "OMG!" or "PWNED" or whatever. The idea that you're dominating this specific woman — er, excuse me, stupid fauxlebrity bitch, I believe, is the term we for some reason think is appropriate when discussing her — and doing something sexual to her against her will IS CAPITALIZED UPON. As is the idea that legal court proceedings are just cute little gestures of resistance so you won't think she's a slut. That, to me, is exactly what rape culture looks like.

AMANDA: It is. And it's also this really weird phenomenon where even people who are OK with other people having consensual sex the way they want to get all confused once that sex is transferred onto videotape and commence with the slut-shaming again. Like, one of the biggest arguments I've heard against people who make sex tapes and then don't want them released for strangers to jack off to them, is that they don't understand the "consequences" of sex. REALLY? Because while I understand the practical concerns involved here, and think everyone should be educated about the risks of sexual intercourse, people who trump up "personal responsibility" while doing no fucking work to help make bad "consequences" of sex any better just essentially think people who have sex OUGHT TO BE punished for it. These are the same arguments against abortion, the same arguments against working to stop HIV, the same arguments against working to stop rape.

SADY: Right. It's the "well, she's stupid, so she deserves it" argument. And people can make sexual tapes or photos or whatever for a lot of reasons, aside from being stupid. They can be young, they can be drunk, they can be getting off on it, they can be trying to get their partner off better, they can have trusted their partner's multiple protestations that he'll never in a million years show it to anyone and in fact he'll erase it once he gets home HE SWEARS and... whoops, your partner lied. As far as I can tell, "you trusted your partner and then he lied to you and hurt you" isn't a "consequence" of sex. It's a "consequence" of your partner being abusive. And we're placing the onus of guilt on the victim.

AMANDA: Exactly. And I just want to give a shout out to Amanda Marcotte and Lena Chen here, who have written about this stuff a lot, and I really wouldn't understand any of the dynamics at play here if not for their work.

SADY: Yeah, Lena Chen really clarified a lot of this in her own writing, as far as my reading goes. Because she's experienced this form of assault first-hand. And the shaming that goes along with it.

AMANDA: One of the things Lena spoke to me about in an interview I did with her is that at Harvard, where she blogged about sex, she would get so much slut-shaming from other college students who were also having sex, and also probably had taken some photos during sex at some point, but who a) didn't write about it publicly, and b) didn't have some douchey ex leak those photos on a blog. The assumption being made by all of the people shaming people who make sex tapes is that it would never happen to them because they're not idiots. When really, it probably won't happen to them because they're not targets. Lena was a target because she talked about sex; Kim Kardashian was a target because she has a name that could sell copies. If random Internet Commenter makes a sex tape, they will likely never see the "consequences" of having sex on tape, because no one is particularly interested in watching random Internet Commenter do it, and yet they glean some sort of moral superiority out of that.

SADY: Right. Another thing that crops up, in these discussions, is the idea that if the woman ALREADY has expressed some of her sexuality in public, ALL of her sexuality belongs to the public. Like, Megan Fox is shooting a nude scene in a movie — where she probably has a carefully worked-out deal about how much is going to show up on screen and how it will look, or whatever — and that's assumed consent for some random douche to take a photo of her for the Internet. Lena Chen blogs about sex, so that's assumed consent for people to leak and/or look at sexual photos of her. Kendra Wilkinson has made porn, so therefore anything she does on film can be distributed as porn. Whereas the reality is, if someone as comfortable with being naked on-screen as KENDRA FREAKING WILKINSON is saying "no, I don't like this, this is hard for me, don't sell or watch my tape," I think that REALLY, REALLY SUPER-DUPER MEANS that she doesn't want you to do those things.

AMANDA: Exactly. Christ. It's that really awful anti-sex impulse rearing its head again. Like, you're allowed to make a sex tape – as long as you stay married to the other person in the sex tape forever and ever and never betray each other until you go to Heaven. Or you can make a sex tape – as long as you keep your head down and never make a name for yourself, because people who reach some level of success deserve to be shamed for having sex.

SADY: Exactly. They're successful, and they're often already "impermissibly" sexual, so the whole "humiliation" — we can see your cleavage! We think you're skanky! You belong to US now, whether you give consent or not — is really just about scaring women out of being sexual. Again.

AMANDA: And people who give the "skank" treatment to celebrity women? They're actually talking about all women, everywhere, but they use the fame as a convenient excuse. We all hear these messages.

SADY: Exactly. No matter how comfortable you are with your own sexuality, no matter how well you think you can set your own boundaries, you don't belong to you: You belong to the people looking at you. They decide what to do with your sexuality, not you. So don't flirt at the bar. Don't wear that short skirt. Don't go to the bar. Don't go out. And when you're in the house, don't make a sex tape. Because we'll find it if we want to. I mean, so many people don't even watch this stuff to get off: They watch it to mock. To feel superior. They watch it, pretty bluntly, to shame.

AMANDA: It's just really sad to me that when it comes to "sex tapes," we can't even reach the level of common courtesy of your standard Girls Gone Wild shoot, where at least the women being videotaped expect what it's being used for, and are generally forced to sign a contract stating as much. Like, that's a really really low bar.

SADY: Yeah. I mean, there's basically no responsibility at a GGW shoot. Girls are young and girls are WASTED. GGW goes over the line of consent pretty continually. BUT AT LEAST THERE IS THE ILLUSION OF CONSENT, you know what I'm saying? When we, the American public, hold ourselves to a lower standard than Joe "Alleged Rapist" Francis, things have gone pretty far in the direction of Hell.

AMANDA: Yeah I'm pretty depressed about this whole human enterprise right now. Thank Christ for Lena Chen.

SADY: Dear Lord. Woman is sharp and woman is strong. She has dignity like I will never in a million years have. Although, right now, I am also developing a real affection for Kendra W.

AMANDA: For real.

SADY: In conclusion: YAY for the survivors. Especially the ones who keep telling us that this is fucked up even though occasionally real live grown adults keep finding reasons not to listen.

AMANDA: I know. I am seriously proud of them for being brave enough to speak out about this. Even though they know people will turn around their honest commentary about how fucked-up this situation is in order to accuse them of trying to make money off not consenting. UGH. I'M LOSING IT AGAIN.

SADY: "SURELY YOU ARE NO ORDINARY SLUT! SURELY YOU ARE A MONEY-HUNGRY SLUT AS WELL!" "You only want your rapist to go to jail because you support the prison-industrial complex!"

AMANDA: URRGGGG

SADY: "Something something! No legal recourse for slatterns! Something something word barf!"

AMANDA: Someone get FEMINIST HULK on this.

SADY: FEMINIST HULK NOT KNOW MUCH ABOUT HOW TO APPROXIMATE NOT-HULK TALK. FEMINIST HULK STILL PROBABLY UNDERSTAND WORD "NO."

Photo via ed.ward, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

* A new sex blogger writing for THE LINE asks: Does writing about your sexual experiences veer into non-consensual territory?

how could I write on a blog, about consent of all things, personal details about MY sex life, which of course involve other people? That I’d share without their knowledge or consent? Or course I won’t use their names, but a hookup is (or should be) built on a foundation of trust and communication. Part of that is the assumption (and hope) that one party won’t share private details with everyone they know or go bragging to a vast amount of people—which is essentially what I would be doing by sharing it here. Outside of writing on a blog, in my real life, I want to be open with the people around me – especially the ones I’m sleeping with.

How can I talk about my sexual experiences and not cross the line?

I suppose the obvious question is why the only option presented is to share these details without first obtaining the "knowledge or consent" of his sex partners?

* Emily Nagoski argues that men have higher sexual motivation than women. Commenters get into it on the nature v. nurture tip.

* Amanda Marcotte submits an abbreviated history of anti-feminists who call themselves feminists. From the "'Independent Feminism' Anti-Feminism" section:

Iconic Leader: Camille Paglia

Other examples: Christina Hoff-Summers, Wendy McElroy, Kathleen Parker, Heather MacDonald.

Basic argument: The important work of feminism is over, and whatever movement is left exists primarily to demonize men and the awe-inspiring male sexual spirit.

Classic quote: From Camille Paglia: "You have to accept the fact that part of the sizzle of sex comes from the danger of sex. You can be overpowered."

* The Chicago Tribune thinks Philadelphia Flyers defenseman Chris Pronger plays hockey like a girl. So they gave him a girlie name and put a little girlie skirt on him. GIRLS. THERE IS NO WORSE FATE.

Photo via the Library of Congress

* I am in love with Kerry Howley's book review of Paco Underhill's "What Women Want"—an examination of the consumer behavior of what Underhill terms "the female of the species" of humans. Marry me, Kerry Howley's book review:

Instead of telling us what women actually buy, Underhill considers a product and deigns to divine its male or female origins. Often, the thing he doesn't like is the "male" thing. The product he does like he attributes to the growing and glorious power of the woman consumer. McMansions, which Underhill considers vulgar and atomizing, he deems male. For New Urbanist communities, we are told without benefit of explanation, you can thank women. And because women are in charge now, McMansions are going out of style. ("Good-bye, McMansions. And hello to a new species of home that accommodates the female of the species.") In a typical passage, Underhill notices that pillow quality in American hotels is improving. He attributes this, on a hunch, to pillow-demanding women travelers, which sounds plausible. But might good pillows merely be a response to the taste preferences of an increasingly wealthy society? Would a world without women necessarily be a world with a smaller proportion of soft pillows?

* Who wants to go see Love Ranch with me? Alyssa Rosenberg describes the plot: "Older couple fights for the legalization of their brothel and prostitution in general while [wife] falls for a much younger, exceedingly sexy Latin American boxer." I'm sold.

[youtube:v=cC4i83ejkbo]

* Via THE LINE, it's a headline fail!:

Hmm!

* Speaking of pillows: Are dead ladies sexy, and are they sexier having expired from a girls-only pillow fight? Sociological Images points to some recent instances of sexualized violence for fashion's sake, including "a fashion shoot in which women were depicted as having died in a pillow fight."

* Amanda Marcotte on D.C.'s "modesty police" who shame Supreme Court nominees for leaving their legs uncrossed and First Ladies for showing just a touch of cleave:

The modesty police here or in Saudi Arabia use sex as cover to shame women for having the temerity to walk around in public while possessing lady parts. Creating a situation in which everyone is staring at your crotch or boobs in hopes of finding some transgression from arbitrary modesty standards is just a way to pick on women for being women. I've often been tempted to take pictures of what I was wearing when some guy on the street harassed me, just to point out that if your harasser is determined enough, a hoodie sweatshirt and a pair of jeans can be considered hoochie-mama clothes that somehow demand harassment.

Photo via Romantic Crafts, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Good morning, Sexist readers:

* Salon's Mary Elizabeth Williams got me all excited when she titled this post "Fighting for Ke$ha's Right to Suck," because . . . come on, she does. But isn't it interesting how aggressive sucking is pretty much exactly the vibe that  Ke$ha's music is going for? I mean, the woman is auto-tuned within an inch of her life, her music is all about getting extremely shitty in the most self-conscious way possible, and her stated cultural icon is P. Diddy. Even her cultural appropriation (from the horrific "native" garb to her confused appreciation of "the transgender community") is half-assed. Also, I know all the words to her songs. Accordingly, I was extremely pumped for Williams to commence pontificating on how Ke$ha's brave, brave suckiness is actually a subversive feminist rejection of the expectation of perfection placed on young girls today, but instead Williams suggested that maybe Ke$ha won't suck forever. Oh well.

* 14-year-old  Jordanna blogs about her experience dealing with street harassment:

What would have happened if he had come closer towards me?  I felt so completely powerless; I could have done almost nothing to protect myself from this man.  At that moment I hated myself for being so small, for wearing something one day that actually made me feel pretty, for walking with my head held high.  Because I was running so fast I had a few minutes alone at the bus stop. My breathing was heavy, my heart was pounding.  At that moment I felt so utterly alone.

* Amanda Marcotte grades country songs on "family values" criteria on the spectrum from sin to salvation. Truth: "Ramblin’ is sinful behavior."

* Thomas at Yes Means Yes!, describes the patterns emerging in the accusations against Ben Roethlisberger:

As the number of accusations mounts, and the accusations themselves look like classic engineered acquaintance rape situations — pick victims with little recourse and/or use alcohol, test boundaries, physically isolate, deny — there may be some people stupid enough not to see it. But mostly those who choose not to see it are those who don’t want to see the problem because they’re in favor of the problem. They think that any woman who wanders too close to Big Ben is a very bad girl and deserves something of his stuck up something of hers whether she wants it or not. The serial rapists themselves may be a small percentage, but the number of people who are basically their fan club is large enough to allow them to operate with impunity for a good long time.

* Check out SAFER Campus' policy suggestions for dealing with sexual assaults on college campuses.

* Bitch Magazine reminds us that some people employ the term "sweater puppies" to refer to boobs, and I am saddened.

Hi, Sexist readers. Welcome to a new daily item, in which I link to the sex-and-gender pieces of note from around the Internets. I'd love to link to what you're reading, as well; file your suggestions here!

* After writing a diatribe against rape victims that begins "I agree with Alex Knepper," romance novel reviewer Rachel Potter has resigned from her spot at All About Romance. Potter claimed that a "reading funk" inspired her resignation; romance fans suspect that it actually has more to do with her claims that slutty women cause rapes against chaste women by "teasing men into a frenzied rage," forcing these men to "vent that rage on a bystander."

* Amanda at the Undomestic Goddess has launched a great reguler feature on SAFER Campus called "Beyond the Campus," which rounds up the week's reporting on issues of sexual assault.

* Amanda Marcotte adds another layer to the discussion of feminine performance-as-labor. In order to conform to the cultural script, women aren't only required to perform femininity and make that performance appear effortless. They must also take no joy in it:

That fashion is pleasurable for many women is why it’s considered “frivolous”, due to the long-standing cultural belief that if a woman is feeling pleasure, something must have gone wrong.  So I look to the cultural pressure to look good to explain why women are stuck in this catch-22, where they’re supposed to shop and pull themselves together, but they’re shamed if they enjoy it. . . . That women insist on taking pleasure in clothes shopping while being shamed over it is admirable.  It’s not like the world’s greatest act of bravery to continue applying lipstick after a man snits at you that he prefers “natural” beauty, but it does take self-assurance.  (Or, if you want to move up a level of bitch, echo Dolly Parton in “Steel Magnolias”: “There is no such thing as natural beauty.") I admire the courage of women who say no to beauty standards, but I also admire the women who decide to take audacious pleasure in femininity.  Both are rejections of the restraints of femininity, one of the standards themselves, and one of the taboos against women showing their work or taking too much pleasure in it.

I wonder how this keys into the expectation that women smile for men—are we meant to appear to enjoy performing femininity, but internally take no pleasure in it?

* Alyssa Rosenberg on the emotional space between the music of Madonna and Lady Gaga:

I've always thought of Madonna as kind of the Belle Watling of pop, the woman who despite the fact that she's gotten around a bit, and in fact because of it, understands the euphoria of true love and sexual chemistry.  I hope to dance to "Cherish" at my wedding.  But while I find a lot of resonance in certain shards of Lady Gaga's lyrics, she's working in an emotional photo-negative of a lot of Madonna's best songs, exploring loneliness, aloneness, heartbreak.

* David Mitchell on the liberal use of the word "empowering":

Having stumbled upon the word "empowering", which can be deployed under so many circumstances—I use it about charging my phone—they've let it trick them into thinking that they've framed an argument.

Photo via Zawezome, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Hooking up: We know it's all the rage among kids these days! But for us Elderly Folk who are, like, three years out of college, questions remain.

For example: Sex is great and all, but wouldn't girls be happier if they consumed several meals paid for by men who clearly only want to fuck them before they gave it up? Would girls be better off if they just stepped away from the blow job, twiddled their thumbs in their parent's house, and waited until a suitor deigned to call? Hold on a second—don't different girls want different things out of a relationship? But more importantly, will hooking up EAT THEIR BRAINS?

In this edition of Sexist Beatdown, these questions—and more!—will remain pretty much unanswered. But Sady Doyle of Tiger Beatdown and I will talk a lot about blow jobs, and other academic topics encompassed by the new field of Hook-Up Studies. Join us!

AMANDA: Well hello!

SADY: Hello Amanda. Before we go any further, I should let you know that I am not too "committed" to this chat. This chat will not buy you dinner! This chat will not visit your many relatives in Phoenix, Arizona! This chat is a "no strings attached" form of chatting.

AMANDA: Is this why I overheard you silently weeping throughout your college years?

SADY: And AT THIS VERY MOMENT, yes. Actually, I feel like the least qualified person in the world to discuss Hookup Culture! Since I have always been a visitor to it from my own home town of Serial Monogamyville.

AMANDA: And as such I assume that you have never had any boy problems!

SADY: Well, it's interesting. Did you know that if someone calls himself your boyfriend, and you are in a relationship in which there is substantially more emotional vulnerability in play, this person is LEGALLY AND MORALLY OBLIGATED never to hurt your feelings? Like, ever! To be fair, though, I think that the Simmons piece—and I have always really liked Rachel Simmons' work, so maybe I am partial – did have SOME interesting points in play. As did the amazing [Kate] Harding response!

AMANDA: And Amanda Marcotte's, too.

SADY: Oh, yeah. That did lay open some of the structural issues, in terms of what needs men and women are even allowed to HAVE, much less express. So what I think Simmons is saying is that if we have a "dating culture" where the obligation is to act like things are casual even if one or more parties would not like them to be, and if this is particularly based on the idea that the males are skittish creatures who will basically shit themselves and die if you are too affectionate or make it clear that you consider them boyfriends or whatever, well: peoples' needs don't always get served in this culture.

AMANDA: True, and I think one of the problems with most of the critiques about the "hook-up culture" is that they look longingly back on the "good old days," instead of admitting that perhaps there is a third option beyond accepting the "hook-up culture" as-is or going back to the 50s. Or the 1850s. People talk about it like it's "freedom to have sex!" or "abstinence," and forget that there are a lot of ways to have sex and to talk about having sex.

SADY: Right! Because, basically, sometimes people really DO want to just have some sex and not get too involved. And in a monogamy-and-courting-centric dating culture, THOSE peoples' needs (particularly if they be lady people) are shamed and hard to fulfill. So, yeah: I think Simmons is interesting, but (maybe inevitably) not really taking the WHOLE ENTIRE picture into account. What about shy dudes who see sex as this really intimate thing and get crushes afterward? What about them? They are missing from this analysis! They might also not be served by The Hook-Up Culture!

AMANDA: I've been constantly disappointed by the reluctance of researchers in the field of Hook-Up Studies to talk to boys about this stuff. I mean, I knew many guys in college who wanted girlfriends badly, and who were dissatisfied with casual sex.

SADY: Yeah. I mean: I have to tell you, that is one reason I am at the very least more charitable to the Simmons piece than I am to the many anti-hook-up screeds which I have delighted in tearing to pieces. Because a lot of them go so far as to MAKE UP BRAIN CHEMISTRY REASONS why a person who is a lady can never have casual sex, ever, without crying all over the binder on which she is compelled to write the dude's name 9,000 times.

AMANDA: Along with rough sketches of wedding dresses.

SADY: And plans as to what you will name your first baby. So at least Simmons is not gender-essentializing TOO much in that regard. But dudes and their vulnerabilities – and the problems with the idea that dudes want sex, nothing but sex, all the time, and that sex is therefore a good which women must trade in exchange for a dude agreeing to Totally Be Your Boyfriend OMG—always kind of get left out of these conversations, which is interesting to me.

AMANDA: Yeah, I mean, they tend to just support stereotypes. The women who are interviewed are all miserable about it, and the men are all just basking in the blow jobs. The End. There are no women who are getting what they want, and if we actually interviewed those women—I don't know—maybe we would come to a better model of sex?

SADY: Right! Exactly! I mean, I feel like a lot of OH NO THE KIDS ARE HOOKING UP is, like, just this weird hysteria over what are pretty common dating experiences.

AMANDA: Yeah, I mean, mistakes must be made. There's no use of us Elderly Folk attempting to make kids get it right on the first person they fuck.

SADY: Yeah, exactly. And, I mean: when you first meet someone, or even for a few months after meeting someone, you might be unsure as to what they want, and there's the potential that you might not know them that well (in fact, a certainty that you don't) and they therefore might turn out to be a jerk in various exciting ways. Like 97% of Jane Austen novels are about that! Except that nowadays, Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy would have been banging ever since that first party they attended together, so you might end up having sex with someone while getting to know them. OH NO!

AMANDA: Oh, no. And it's not that I don't appreciate narratives about female sexual dissatisfaction. There are definitely a lot of structural ways that the dating culture values men's pleasure and devalues women's pleasure, and so if women aren't satisfied, I understand that! The problem is when you try to just stuff all women into another structure — well, maybe girls would be happier if they didn't give it up so fast — that also devalues them

SADY: Exactly. Like, that's the thing, and where I have to depart from "hook-up culture" critiques. If you, lady, will be sad if the guy you have sex with does not want to be Your Boyfriend, well... don't have sex with that guy? Like, conversations about consent and boundaries and why it is OK to have the needs you have without apologizing are a lot better, in my experience, than telling people to have sex or not have sex in these specific ways.

AMANDA: Right. The problem isn't with this "new trend" in sex, but that our sexual culture dutifully follows trends at all. I know this is not "cool" of me to say! But perhaps kids would be better off if we didn't crumple under the weight of hysteria over kids having sex and just emphasized that they should be having sex the way they want.

SADY: Exactly! And emphasized that you might want different things at different times, and with different people... like, it's not like I have never BENEFITED from The Hook-Up Culture. Sometimes you are just like, "okay, this dude and I are never going to run skipping through a field of daisies, but he is cute, though." And other times, you are like, "well, I don't necessarily want to be putting myself out there for someone unless I think that person and I have the potential to get along real well." And sometimes you are me! And you just don't care! Because you have one million other things to do!

AMANDA: Yeah. A recent study came out that said that abstinence-only education could be effective in delaying sex among young teens. And the headlines were like, "Abstinence-only education works!" I mean ... I guess it works if you think that the point of sex education is for people to just call the whole thing off because it's too hard? But really we should be focusing on what happens when kids DO decide to have sex—what that sex is like.

SADY: Yeah. And, I mean, that's where sex leaves the level of the biological and the health-related and the ideological and enters the realm of the personal. And, like... I don't think, no matter what "dating culture" we have, we are ever going to avoid the fact that girls are going to crush out on unavailable or unattainable dudes. Or dudes on the unattainable or unavailable ladies! I mean, we have basically explained the careers of Taylor Swift AND Megan Fox right here! But getting girls to the level where actual SEX is something they know they have options regarding and the right to say "no" or "yes" to depending on what is up at the moment... that probably should be the goal, yeah?

AMANDA: Right. Not just "sex" or "not sex," when you've heard that "sex" consist of "giving a guy who refuses to be your boyfriend a million blow jobs that are never reciprocated"

SADY: Haha, yeah. Let's just get to the point of "blow jobs should always be reciprocated." MAN, I have NO IDEA why I am not working in the public schools right now! "Ladies, blow jobs are fun... TO RECEIVE, THAT IS!!!!!" And that is the story of how Sady Doyle got sued by thirty sets of parents at the same time, the end.

* From the New York Times' Motherlode blog: Why do seasoned parents insist upon hazing the pregnant with parenting horror stories?

* Want longer eyelashes? Of course you do, because even the most minute detail of your appearance will somehow never be good enough. Introducing "Latisse," the "first federally approved prescription drug for growing longer, lusher lashes"—from the makers of Botox (really!).

* Amanda Marcotte reviews the news anthology Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape, which posits that a "culture of rape" stems from misconceptions of men as predators and women as prey: “If we began to imagine that sex is something that happens because every party involved is burning with desire, instead of something that one person gives up reluctantly to another as a token for love or even just to get him to shut up, then that would make it easier for people to see rape for what it is, and it would make rape that much harder to excuse or rationalize away.”