But isn't the impressive public concern over sexualizing young girls outweighed by the fact that most people seem to truly enjoy watching these videos until they go viral—even if they then turn around to condemn the inappropriateness?

As Sady Doyle wrote in this very space, on the Important Cultural Issue of How People Generally Regard Miley Cyrus:

A lot of it was just grown men (and women) being all, “I’m afraid this might turn me on! And I’m scared!” And, yeah, you ought notta be eroticizing the teenagers. But constantly monitoring this one specific female teenager to determine whether she’s inappropriately sexy is, like . . . Not that much less creepy?

I think young women’s sexuality is often put in that place of overtly well-meaning, covertly creepy monitoring. Like, we’re SO OBSESSED with young women not being sexual (which they really usually are) that we constantly evaluate how sexual they are. And then there’s all the teen-eroticizing that takes place ANYWAY, because it’s so taboo. And the result is Britney, America’s #1 Virgin, dancing in a Catholic schoolgirl outfit, and later sort of cracking under the weight of how VERY many contradictions she was expected to represent.

Of course, there's a world of difference between what's deemed culturally appropriate for 17-year-old Cyrus and these 7-year-old dancers. But the monitoring of these girls is no less creepy, and their young age actually makes the fervor over the display even more suspect.

At some point, the outrage over the suggestive costuming and dance moves is just a convenient narrative for us to facilitate the distribution of the video to more gawkers. Somehow, those who had a hand in making the video are either exploited (the dancers) or sick (the parents and choreographers), but everyone who keeps watching the video (and forwarding it, and re-posting it on their blogs) are—what? Performing the valuable service of informing the world what displays are appropriate and inappropriate for young girls to parrot? Please.

I'm not writing this to throw stones—I re-posted the "Single Ladies" video on this blog, and I've watched it more than once. I'm writing it because I know as well as anyone that as much as this is about taking a stand for our nation's girls, it's also about the spectacle of watching a group of 7-year-olds dancing sexy. Somehow, my faith in humanity has not been restored.

"Think of the children" is an argument consistently used to justify adult insecurities. Hate gay marriage? Just argue that it erodes a "child's sense of innocence." Disgusted by sex workers walking the streets in "broad daylight"? Argue that a child could see them. Uncomfortable with people openly discussing alternate sexualities? A child could hear them. Explicit rock music? Think of the children.

The concern for kids here is disingenuous—"think of the children" is a convenient way for adults to protest stuff they just don't like. But let's step away from those earmuffs we've got permanently attached to our kids' ears for a moment and think about "thinking of the children." When can thinking of the children help to reveal aspects of adult society that are problematic for people of all ages?

Take, for example, the public reaction to the above video, which shows a group of young girls dancing to Beyonce's song "Single Ladies"—while imitating a very adult version of female sexuality.

Tiger Beatdown contributor Silvana has this to say of the display:

The performance has been roundly criticized, including some commenters saying that it is so bad that the adults in question shouldn’t have even allowed their daughters to participate. The way these little girls move their bodies is a surprisingly good imitation of how adult women who are performing “sexy” dance, and people DO. NOT. LIKE. THIS. Even worse, their outfits are supposedly more scandalous than the dance moves themselves. This is despite the plain that that they’re not particularly revealing and don’t show much more skin than a ballet leotard would. The discomfort isn’t because what the outfits reveal, but what they allude to. The lace, the stockings, the corset lacing on the “bodice” are, it seems, too much like what adult women wear when they are trying to evoke maximum sexiness. Doing this dance and wearing these clothes is, in our cultural estimation, firmly in the territory of not appropriate.

She concludes: "I think it’s pretty telling that when femininity is performed by non-standard actors, we either get really uncomfortable or laugh our asses off."

The general reaction to the above video is that these girls are growing up far too fast. But as Silvana points out—if we can stop thinking exclusively of the children for a moment—they're also growing up into a version of female adulthood that's marked by an absurdly hyperfeminine sexual performance. We know that little girls performing femininity is disturbing. About a decade down the road, though, this type of performance will be absolutely expected of these women, as Beyonce's latest video helps to reveal:

[youtube:v=FKqIgqJEH-o]

Kids are our second chances. They give us an opportunity to reassess what is means to be a man or a woman, and to try to change the bad parts before it's too late. It's not fair to focus our cultural insecurities on our kids, but it is easier. Let's take another example: Makeup. Last month, Douglas Quenqua delivered a New York Times trend piece on pre-teen makeup use:

It began for Alyssa Pometta, as these habits so often do, with the soft stuff. We are talking, of course, about lip gloss.

She began wearing it in fourth grade—Bonne Bell’s Lip Smackers, a girl’s rite of passage—after years of wearing ChapStick and pretending it was Revlon. But the thrill of flavored lip gloss was fleeting, and in January, 11-year-old Alyssa asked her mother, Phyllis Pometta, if she could graduate to the hard stuff: lipstick, eyeliner and mascara.

When the piece dropped, Salon's Margaret Eby accused the Gray Lady of "hand-wringing" and alarmism, writing:

The idea that painting your face leads to wanton acts of harlotry is downright Victorian. . . . The most popular birthday party activity for my fifth-grade class was visiting Priscilla's Beauty School, where I would inevitably come out with crimped hair and electric blue eyeshadow, looking like some sort of miniature '80s-inspired clown. Did I then fall down the slippery slope to TV-anchor levels of makeup? Not exactly."

Eby has accused Quenqua of Thinking of the Children in the most disingenuous way.  But if you read Quenqua's piece, he never intimates that experimenting with eyeliner will send girls down the road to olde-tyme prostitution. He doesn't say that Bonne Bell is a gateway drug to whorishness, or even to clownishness. When Eby sarcastically accuses Quenqua of a "slippery slope" argument, she misses the point, which is: When girls start wearing makeup, they will keep wearing makeup-–probably for the rest of their lives.

Of course, young girls don't deserve any extra scrutiny for applying concealers and colors to their faces—most women do this, and tweens don't need more eyes focusing on the way they look. Nevertheless, focusing on the cosmetic industry's point of entry—for American girls, around the tweens—is still a convenient way for us to reassess the expectation that women of all ages paint their faces. When girls stumble into the awkward tween years, they're introduced to a world of extreme body consciousness, vanity, and yes, beauty industry allegiance.

The point of entry is also the point when women's makeup use is at its most visible. When girls go from plain-faced to painted, we notice the change. Just as some sexy lingerie on a 7-year-old girl will show you immediately how ridiculous sexy lingerie is, a young girl with a full face of makeup can really make you think about lipstick, and why we put it on. One parent Quenqua interviewed said that makeup makes her daughter "look too old. It immediately ages her." But it's not just that tweens are entering the adult world of makeup application; it's also that they're not terribly good at it yet. They may be inexperienced in matching colors, blending blushes, or applying eyeliner without poking their eyes out. They may, like Eby did, emerge from a slumber party "looking like some sort of miniature '80s-inspired clown."

In short, girls are not very good at doing what adult women are trained expertly to do: Applying makeup, and then immediately obscuring the fact that they are wearing makeup at all. This is where Eby's critique really falls apart. For her, problematic makeup—the kind of makeup parents might really be concerned about—comes down to a question of gaudiness. Teenage makeup use is only a potential problem if it encourages women to perpetually paint their faces like olde-tyme harlots, or clowns, or TV anchors. Actually, the biggest danger of becoming a life-long consumer of the cosmetics industry is that women will learn to hide their beauty industry investment at all costs, to refuse to tip their hand and reveal that it's all an act.

When young women engage in overt feminine performance, we think of the children, but deep down, we're thinking about women, too. As these girls enter into adulthood, how do we deal with our discomfort at the version of womanhood they're taking on? We tell them to keep performing femininity, but by God, to just keep it to themselves. Makeup is to be worn "naturally," never garishly; sex is something to perform for men behind closed doors, never to be spoken aloud; plastic surgery is tacky, unless it's good plastic surgery, which is still better than looking old; extreme diets are to be kept private, in favor of of "I just keep in shape by running after my kids"; and feminine performance is in all cases an entirely personal choice, never a culturally-informed one. When we Think of the Children, we're not disturbed that girls are beginning to adopt feminine performance—we want them to do that. We're disturbed because they've forced us to to notice how ridiculous it is.

* Feminists With Sexual Dysfunction photographs her awesome family collection of antique prophylactics. Among them: Vintage versions of the awesomely bad brand Contempo Condoms, which still employs the following catchphrase: "Unleash the man you truly are and do it YOUR way with the ultra sensual range of lubricated Contempo Condoms." Perfect for the guy with masculinity issues who is unconcerned with his partner's pleasure!

* Tiger Beatdown speculates as to the many reasons why you may not love Beyonce:

2. A STRONG BELIEF THAT ROSIE THE RIVETER WOULD NOT WEAR HOT PANTS. It is true: Beyonce does in fact dress as the iconic proto-feminist industrial worker when she has a particularly tough mechanical project to attend to. And she is, in fact, wearing hot pants! However, I think Beyonce’s connection to the history of women in the workplace ought to be applauded. And, for those who take issue with the accuracy of her costume, remember: We only ever saw Rosie the Riveter from the waist up. We don’t know what kind of pants she was wearing. Rosie the Riveter may not have worn pants at all.

[youtube:v=TA-QMT2P-9I]

* And Sociological Images comments on the subversive twist of Beyonce playing the stereotypical "perfect housewife":

And that twist is very political.  Consider this: In American politics today, the “perfect” mother is one who does not work and stays home with her children.  Unless she’s poor.  Poor women who want to stay home with their children are called lazy, welfare cheats.  If you’re poor, you can only be a good mother by working.

* MAN SALE.

* Via Sexuality & Society: Jesuit institution Marquette University has withdrawn a job offer to sociologist Jodi O’Brien because the university "found some strongly negative statements about marriage and family" among her works. Marquette said that its decision related to the school's "Catholic mission and identity." O'Brien—who has taught at another Jesuit institution, Seattle University, since 1995—is an out lesbian who has written extensively on religion and sexuality.

Photo courtesy of K at Feminists with Female Sexual Dysfunction

Last week, my post on the Top 5 Pseudo-Feminist Anthems inspired a spirited discussion over what the meaning of "it" is. The "it" in question appears twice in one pronoun-heavy line from Beyonce's "Single Ladies": "If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it.

What is this "it"?

In the song, Beyonce uses the line to taunt an old flame who wouldn't make Beyonce his wifey. Beyonce shows this guy what he's been missing by dancing "up on" another man in the club as her ex watches on. That scenario is followed by the it-heavy verse:

If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it
If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it
Don't be mad when you see that he want it
If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it

Beyonce's man wouldn't ring up; ergo, he is no longer treated to Beyonce's love in the club. The "it" refers to Beyonce—and more specifically, to Beyonce's sex. Even kids today know what doing "it" means; what else could a random guy in the club "want" from getting "up on her" while she's "up on him"?

But that's not all "it" signifies. Beyonce uses the dual "its" to objectify herself on two levels: first, as a sex object; second, as a wife. Beyonce asks her man to mark his territory by putting a "ring on it." Later in the song, Beyonce implores her man to "say I'm the one you own."

But that's just my opinion. Your theories are below.

Iris thinks "it" means "ring finger":

The “it” refers not to Beyonce as a person, but to her ring finger. You put a ring on a finger, get it. In a relationship, a ring also signals commitment. Otherwise, we wouldn’t symbolize engagement/marriage with rings, as a society in general. I suggest that you read the lyrics or listen to the song again. Because Beyonce is saying that she’s moving on with her life, even though she still has some feelings for the guy. But she is going to leave him because he won’t seriously commit to her. She’s telling the guy he had his chance, and he blew it. The song is not only a feminist anthem, it’s kick ass and infectious as a song can get.

Dave thinks "it" does not mean "ring finger":

So Beyonce is really saying “If you like my finger then you should have put a ring on my finger”? What does that mean? Is Beyonce’s boyfriend some kind of finger fetishist? Does he have photos of physically perfect fingers on his bedroom wall? Does he subscribe to Finger Monthly magazine?I think your interpretation of the pronoun subtext here is a little shaky.

Richard thinks "it" is beside the point:

On “Single Ladies”, I do not think what the pronoun refers to really matters. You can take the lyrics literally or not, but the point is clearly that the person should have committed to marriage or faced losing “it.”

I’m sure why this song would necessarily have to be considered feminist or anti-feminist. Its just about a guy who was unwilling to commit to the relationship and now is regretting it as the woman moves on. It might be misunderstood as feminist because a lot of women really empathize with and like this song.

Also just for fun to throw another interpretation of the “it” out there, I always thought “it” was the relationship. With the “put a ring on it” as a simple metaphor for committing to the relationship.

Gabrielle thinks "it" means "the relationship":

I take the “it” to mean the relationship or the woman’s ring finger. Regardless, it’s all about the guy should’ve committed to the relationship if he wanted Beyonce to stay in his life. Feminist fall in love and when a relationship isn’t working for them they get out it. I think that’s a very feminist approach to relationships.

i interpreted it as being addressed to her boyfriend’s ex though. hence “all my single ladies, put a ring on it!” not “all my single men, put a ring on it!” it’s saying “women, if you don’t put a ring on the man you love, eventually you’ll break up, and then you could end up watching him dance all sexy-like w/ someone like me and you’ll be steamed.”

I’m so glad I’ve inspired this lively discussion about pronouns!

This proves that Beyonce is a very grammatically challenging (not challenged) songwriter. The last time I heard a song where punctuation played such an important role was “Lola” by the Kinks.

“I’m not the world’s most masculine man/but I know what I am and I’m glad I’m a man/and so is Lola. L-O-L-A, Lola.”

Is Lola also glad the narrator is a man? Or is Lola, herself, also… A MAN!?!?!

Sorry for just blowing all your minds there.

After much discussion of traditionally feminine passivity in ostensibly empowering lady-pop, I think it's high time for a list. Ever since the Spice Girls made "Girl Power" cool, sexy, and (above all) lucrative for record producers, empowerment has been a convenient posture for pop music to assume—lyrical cognitive dissonance be damned!

Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon put it best: "Once again, I feel that the music industry is cleverly positioning songs that kind of sort of sound powerful but reinscribe traditional female passivity as a substitute for songs that might actually give women ideas."

Let's see who did it best!

5. Alanis Morissette's "You Oughta Know"

[youtube: v=dR6mEu5-egA]

Alanis has laid down some legitimate feminist anthems in her day (okay, I'm mostly thinking of her parody of "My Humps"). "You Oughta Know," the song that catapulted Morissette to feminist-y prominence, isn't one of them. Yes, she is announcing, screaming, and growling her perspective into the public sphere. No, she is not going to take shit from any man. Yes, it's awesome that this song is purportedly about Dave Coulier. But no, it is not cool to turn your Coulier-hate into some extremely scary thoughts concerning the Other Woman:

I want you to know, that I'm happy for you
I wish nothing but the best for you both
An older version of me
Is she perverted like me
Would she go down on you in a theatre
Does she speak eloquently
And would she have your baby
I'm sure she'd make a really excellent mother

Hating the guy who fucked you over? Sure. Projecting that angst onto another woman's sexual proclivities / reproductive health? Creepy, Alanis. Creepy. And not helping.

4. Katy Perry's "I Kissed A Girl"

Sexual experimentation! Bisexuality! Kissing! And liking it! On first glance, Perry's hit single offers up a positive, fun, and inclusive vision of female sexuality. On second glance, it's none of that.

Perry's song winkingly reinforces bisexual and lesbian women as objects of male fantasy ("hope my boyfriend don't mind it"). Then, it situates bisexual and lesbian women as nothing more than an "experimental game" for heterosexual women to play with ("It's not what I'm used to / Just wanna try you on"). Finally, it turns girls kissing into some sort of crazy taboo "It felt so wrong / It felt so right / Don't mean I'm in love tonight"; "It's not what good girls do").

At the end of Perry's video, the producer sets up the ultimate safety-net for this bit of experimentation: Perry's little same-sex kiss turns out to be nothing more than a dream. Really?

3. Taylor Swift's "You Belong With Me"

[youtube:v=EPNKQl8on3M]

"You Belong With Me," a song about Swift's secret crush on a friend, could have been girl-power declaration about women pursuing their romantic and sexual interests without shame. Instead, it's another ode to romantic passivity. Swift spends the song "Dreamin' about the day that you wake up and find / That what you're looking for has been here the whole time."

Meanwhile, she manages to edge in some vaguely slut-shaming commentary about her fantasy boy's real girlfriend—a high school cheerleader who wears high-heels and short-skirts. Gross!

2. Beyonce's "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)"

[youtube:v=x1nixzYHDus]

Yo Taylor, I'm really happy for you, and I'ma let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best pseudo-feminist anthems of all time!

(Sorry). The sheer awesomeness of this song is almost enough to make me overlook the anti-feminist weirdness. Beyonce looks and sounds even stronger on this track than she does in the more traditionally girl-power songs in her catalog ("Independent Women Part I"; "Survivor"). I mean, she has a bionic arm in the video. What's not to like?

Well—a few things. Beyonce referring to herself as "it"? Equating herself to bling? Handing herself over to a man who will determine her self-worth through a demeaning, years-long game which can only end with Beyonce emerging triumphant as his symbolic property, or crawling away as a meaningless ex?

As Marcotte writes: "isn’t that the implicit idea? To get women together to say, 'Ring or door, your choice,' without asking why on earth you’d want to marry someone who puts you in that spot because he enjoys the sadistic pleasure of seeing how far along he can string you before you break."

I don't care how triumphantly Beyonce announces "If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it." That shit is messed up.

1. Meredith Brooks, "Bitch"

[youtube:v=PuP8VBroyyg]

I have a sneaking suspicion that Meredith Brooks tricked me into feminist awareness. The summer I turned 12 years old, I received two singles for my birthday: Hanson's "MmmBop" and Meredith Brooks' "Bitch." My best friend Lindsay and I listened to them both on repeat. I learned so much that summer. Hanson taught me how to cultivate a guilty pleasure—even among white middle-class sixth graders, Hanson wasn't very cool. Meredith Brooks introduced me to feminist theory.

Lindsay's parents objected to us listening to the song, because they saw "bitch" as a derogatory term for women, and we were 12. I remember sort of indignantly explaining to them that the song was pro-woman because, like, Meredith Brooks can be whatever she wants to be, and she doesn't have to conform to any one idea of what a woman is told to be like, by people like her parents. Meredith was free to be both a bitch and a lover, and for some reason, that really spoke to me. As a 12-year-old. I wasn't familiar with the phrase "virgin/whore dichotomy" back then, but if I had been, I probably would have employed it.

Anyway. Several years later, I heard "Bitch" again and realized how fucking annoying this song is. There's no substance here, just a laundry list of false dichotomies—bitch v. lover, child v. mother, sinner v. saint— followed by the declaration that Meredith fulfills all of them and "nothing in-between." The song is sung to Meredith's man, who had up to this point been feeling "confused" about Meredith's complicated personality.

Meredith reassures him: "Do not worry about abandoning your rigid double-standard of femininity in order to understand me as a person! I promise to satisfy both aspects of your virgin/whore complex!" Damnit!

But as a consumer of nipple shots, such versatility can become confusing. It's often difficult to know the socially acceptable reaction to every stray projection of skin that catches your eye. Should you high-five your buddy or vomit discreetly into your hands? I'm here to help.

Taking a page from our friends at the Huffington Post, I've compiled some photos of famously exposed nipples—complete with "NSFW Zoom" (Not Janet Jackson, she's too obvious). First, review the Guidelines For Socially Acceptable Reactions to Nipples. Then, check out some Famously Exposed Nipples (NSFW-Zoomed into focus) and see if your gut response to each biological structure is in line with society's nipple norms.

Guidelines For Socially Acceptable Reactions to Nipples:

* All of a woman's breast revealed except for the nipple, which may be obscured by clothing, hair, or paint: sexy.

* All of a woman's breast revealed including the nipple: sexy; obscene.

* Renaissance-era artistic rendering of a woman's breast including the nipple: art.

* All of a man's chest revealed including the nipple: null. Unlike female nipples, which are either HOT or TOTALLY GROSS, male nipples are just there.

* All of a woman's breast revealed including the nipple while breastfeeding: not sexy; not obscene; to some, however, still totally fucking gross, far more disgusting than a normal female nipple, whose only reproductive function ought to be arousing you on-sight (Note: it is not yet socially acceptable to take photos of women breastfeeding in public in order to engineer "gotcha" nipple slip headlines).

* All of a woman's breast including the nipple, which the woman inadvertently flashes for the camera (also known as a "nipple slip"): sexy; obscene; still, manages to maintain the relative innocence of the woman who has inadvertently revealed the nipple, making the it that much sexier; unless of course it is Pamela Anderson's nipple, in which case the nipple slip is simply very obscene and not sexy at all, because Pam Anderson is agreed to be too slutty to pull off the treasured nipple slip dynamic.

—

Famously Exposed Nipples:

A. B.

C. D.

E. F.

G. H.

—

Socially Acceptable Reactions to These Nipples, Revealed:

A. Natalie Portman's nipple slip: sexier. SUITABLE REACTION: High-five.

B. Pamela Anderson's nipple slip: obscene; not sexy. SUITABLE REACTION: Vomit discreetly into hands.

C. Lindsay Lohan's nipple, obscured by hair: sexy. SUITABLE REACTION: Retweet.

D. Ian McKellen's nipple (male): null. SUITABLE REACTION: Curse your "celebrity nipple" google search for leading you astray.

E. Lady Gaga's nipple: sexy; obscene. SUITABLE REACTION: High-five.

F. Beyonce's nipple slip: sexier. SUITABLE REACTION: High-five.

G. A Real Housewife's nipple slip, obscured by clothing: sexy. SUITABLE REACTION: High-five.

H. Mona Lisa's nipple (rumored): art. SUITABLE REACTION: Scratch chin.

Sady of Tiger Beatdown and I were totally prepared to have a Very Serious Discussion Concerning Our Feelings on the Defense Of Marriage Act and Why Obama Was Or Was Not A Dick About It (VSDCOFOTDOMAAWOWOWNADAI) today.

But then we read this awesome piece by Steve Haruch, dude in Texas, about why post-post-feminism in pop music is just pre-feminism in disguise, and we thought, "fuck it, let's talk about Beyonce in a cop outfit."

Can pop music ever be more than just, as Steve says, "Feminist Lite"?

Spoiler: Yes it can, but only under certain delicate conditions involving Beyonce acting like a jerk, tacos, and Britney Spears cutting the crap already and just hiring me as her feminist advisor.

SADY: lady! are you ready to have a discussion about postpostpostpostpostfeminism?

AMANDA: hi! Sorry! first of all, since you seem to have been doing a bit of "research" into modes of feminism lately can you tell me what post-feminism is? and what post-post-feminism might be?

SADY: post-feminism is the one where progress has been accomplished so we can all be SEXY again and also camille paglia can blame us for our date rapes! post-post-feminism is... um... feminism again? or the one where we have to fight each other in Thunderdome. no wait, that's post-APOCALYPTIC-post-

Okay, before anything else: Please read this. I'm not sure what it is—more on that later—but it appears to be a column for the Globe and Mail penned by Lynn Crosbie about the true definition of "Samoan," the reason why "Two & A Half Men" is "excellent," and whether women in popular culture have been effectively replaced by mere "warmins." Anyway, it's a must read, but mostly because I could never possibly fucking explain it to you.

Ahem. Welcome to Sexist Beatdown, hosted by Sady from Tiger Beatdown and myself of the Sexist. Every week we do this little experiment where we drink a couple glasses of wine, sip a bit too plentifully from the NyQuil, and leave long, rambling voice messages on each others' telephones that we then transcribe and place on the Internet for public consumption. Oh wait, that's not us, that's the way we imagine Lynn Crosbie's latest column came into existence. My bad.

Although: Sady. Darling. WE SHOULD TOTALLY DO THAT ONE WEEK.

But for now:

AMANDA: "a woman is anyone who once was a tiny gamete with XX sex chromosomes instead of X plus Y." oh boy. we're getting into really enlightened conversation here.

SADY: oh, yes. apparently, "feminism" is about defining exactly who gets to be or not be a real lady on a profoundly restrictive biological basis! did you know ladies have the "indoor" "plumbing"?

AMANDA: that makes us more sophisticated

SADY: it does, in fact. sophisticated enough to appreciate the excellent sitcom, "two and a half men!"

AMANDA: I like this woman's style! I could never write a sentence like this: "It is this, the plumbing, not the chromosomes, that define and estrange us from the brothers." I think this is written in some sort of code. See: lede, "What is a real Samoan?"

SADY: right? in the end, we are told that defining Samoans is USELESS. there IS no such thing as a person of Samoan heritage or citizenship! i guess my question as to what this means for feminism in pop culture – the subject (?) of her article – is, HUH?

AMANDA: wait, is that what we learn? i truly cant tell if the sendoff is a joke: "Next week: Your American Idol! Comments?" hmm, yes, I have a comment. umm ... get an editor?

SADY: hahaha this seriously reads like someone drank a whole bottle of nyquil and hammered out an article 1.5 seconds before deadline. like, her complaint seems to be that women can't be defined a certain way although also she can define women but women in pop culture have not been sufficiently indefinable, so, what's with defining things, Media?

AMANDA: i'm not sure why "Obsessed" will be good for feminism in pop culture but "The Reader" isnt? yeah, she seems to have an aversion to defining anything, like her point, or subjects of sentences

SADY: well, in "Obsessed," we learn the very important lessons that women are natural energies and also that you should STAY AWAY FROM MY MAN. ENEMIES, not energies. i have been stricken with ill-definedness!

AMANDA: "the very image of a woman so fluid in her possibilities." as is this essay, which i like to imagine was transcribed from a drunken voicemail

SADY: women are the trees, and the rain, and the wind.

AMANDA: the only thing i can say for sure about women is that they clearly ALWAYS have two XX sex chromosomes!

SADY: allow me to quote to you one of my favorite recent bits of feminism in pop culture, from singer/songwriter ben lee. it is called, "i'm a woman, too."
AMANDA: haha. great. ok

SADY: It’s true, it’s true
I’m a woman too
I move with the flow of the seasons

I do, I do
Cause I’m a woman too
I don’t make sense but I got my reasons

AMANDA: this whole thing makes me want to bang my head on my keyboard. maybe the results could be published in the globe and mail?

SADY: yes, in womanly fashion. MOVE WITH THE FLOW OF THE SEASONS, my fellow woman. if there is one thing we have learned from ben lee and/or the globe and mail, it is that women make NO SENSE.

AMANDA: hear hear. incidentally, i have a small obsession with two and a half men. because—i've never seen it—but i always catch about 2 minutes of it before gossip girl comes on. and it's always the sweet conclusion, which is usually charlie sheen sitting down on a couch and drinking a beer or something, and the other guy exiting and a laugh track. whatever happened before that may have been crazy interesting, but the end is always the same. it could be the same episode! i have no idea. and then the song comes on that's like "Men, men, men MEN MEN MEN men men men MEN MEN MEN men men men"

SADY: that sounds amazing! why don't women have a show like this!

AMANDA: pitch it

SADY: LADY LADY LADY: IS SHE SAMOAN? No way of knowing!

AMANDA: i do want to give lynn crosbie one credit here, which is, when I read the word "warmins," i laughed out loud. i'm still laughing

SADY: yes, a show about how women may change from summer to spring to fall but Warmins are eternal i have a question for you: "What would you rather do: Consider seducing your hot boss in a bathroom stall or watch Queen Latifah being chased by bees?"

AMANDA: that's a question for the ages.

[youtube:v=eLkZTJczirU]

Photo via cbs.com

[youtube:v=T-pzlZPRvx8]

Super hard, the Associated Press reports. Though the line-up for this Sunday's Obama inaugural concert at the Lincoln Memorial includes some of the nation's hottest performers, the notoriously lame "American spirit" promises to dampen each mammoth recording artist's luster. According to the AP, "artists won't be performing their big hits, but will be asked to perform material appropriate to the occasion."

Beyonce! U2! Bruce Springsteen! John Mellencamp! Usher! Stevie Wonder! Shakira! Sheryl Crow! Josh Groban! James Taylor! All stars whose performances will be rendered lame by the American "standards" they will all be forced to perform in honor of Barack Obama. Only John Mellencamp, Sheryl Crow, and Josh Groban will be spared, by virtue of being already pretty lame.*

"The list of stars is impressive," said executive producer George Stevens Jr., who is nevertheless bent on ruining all of them. "[T]his is not a show biz, glitzy occasion. It's going to be rooted in history, remembering the great president (Lincoln) who led us through difficult times."

Ugh, just tell it like it is: No "Single Ladies."

*possibly also James Taylor.

Here's one I hadn't seen before—some " fierce, fierce dancing" by a spirited and scantily-clad fan of Beyonce's Single Ladies video. Enjoy:

[youtube:v=SGemjUvafBw]

* On Slate, Dahlia Lithwick serves Joe Biden with some rules on how to fight a girl. Lithwick, a former parliamentary debater (side-note: totally awesome), gives Biden a frank run-down on how not to lose the Veep debate to Governor Palin. Most of the advice is fine—don't leer, don't condescend, don't stoop—until Lithwick slips from the particular Biden/Palin scenario to a generalization about all male/female match-ups.

When Lithwick writes that her "insanely successful college debate friend told me recently that the way he won against women was by always behaving like they were men," the implication is that minus their feminine wiles—the lipstick on their pit bulls—women will lose. After a long explanation of why Biden shouldn't respond to Palin with Palin tactics, Lithwick's kicker—"My best advice to you for dealing with Gov. Palin? Fight like a man. She will."—is both confusing and lame. Who's the man what now?

* The Washington Post marches boldly on with their "Wedding Week" coverage. At 1 p.m. today, join the authors of The Bridal Wave: A Survival Guide to the Everyone-I-Know-Is-Getting-Married Years for a live online chat. Ask Erin Torneo and Valerie Cabrera Krause how people who desperately wish they were married manage to be more tragic than the people who actually publicly declare how they're going to love each other forever in front of everyone they know. Including their parents.

* Wait, coverage of marriage issues that doesn't include pandering to the wedding industry? The Blade tips you off to a panel discussion on marriage rights in California and Massachusetts, tonight at 6:30 at the University of California Washington Center. UCWC is located at 1608 Rhode Island Avenue NW.

* The New Gay chronicles the "hidden history" of the women behind the writings of Victorian author Michael Field.

* Via Wonkette: Michelle dances with Ellen. Possible next First Lady jam: Rihanna's "Don't Stop the Music." Last year, Barack got down to Beyonce's "Crazy in Love." Umm, I only watch Ellen when an Obama is on the show, does she make everyone do this?

Photo by NCinDC.