<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Sexist &#187; dita von teese</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/tag/dita-von-teese/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist</link>
	<description>Sex and Gender in D.C.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:08:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The Morning After: Dastardly Cuomo Glasses Edition</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/04/28/the-morning-after-dastardly-cuomo-glasses-edition/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/04/28/the-morning-after-dastardly-cuomo-glasses-edition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:09:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond DC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dita von teese]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dr. drew]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feminism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[glasses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kate harding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[melissa mcewan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[moms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[morning after]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[racism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rivers cuomo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sady doyle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[teabaggers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=9972</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
* Writing in the Awl's Sex Offender week series, Sady Doyle goes long on Rivers Cuomo and why he (and his cute glasses) have messed you up "forever."
* In an attempt to disprove the allegation that teabaggers employed racial slurs against black members of Congress at a rally, Andrew Beibart has agreed to donate $100,000 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3317/3248135030_fc5184cc33.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="380" /></p>
<p>* Writing in the <strong>Awl</strong>'s Sex Offender week series, <strong>Sady Doyle</strong> <a href="http://www.theawl.com/2010/04/sex-offender-week-rivers-cuomo-messes-you-up-forever">goes long</a> on <strong>Rivers Cuomo</strong> and why he (and his cute glasses) have messed you up "forever."</p>
<p><span id="more-9972"></span>* In an attempt to disprove the allegation that <a href="http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/fishin_with_babe_breitbart/#When:21:12:00Z">teabaggers employed racial slurs against black members of Congress</a> at a rally, <strong>Andrew Beibart </strong>has agreed to donate $100,000 to the United Negro College Fund if anyone can produce "video and audio evidence that this occurred." Somehow, none of the accused racists attending this rally have stepped forward to donate a bunch of money to this organization. Hmm!</p>
<p>* Is <strong>Dita Von Teese</strong> a feminist? The answer is <a href="http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-frisky-qa-dita-von-teese/">complicated</a>, according to this interview with the burlesque performer:</p>
<blockquote><p>Hmmm. Well, it’s a question that’s posed to me quite often and it’s  frustrating, because if you look at the definition of what it means to  be a feminist, it’s to have the same rights as a man. If someone tells  me that I cannot create, produce, direct these shows and star in them,  that that should be for a man should do, then that doesn’t really jive  with feminist ideals. It’s kind of an argument I hate even addressing  because I think it’s just a stupid thing to ask. I’m sorry, but you  know, I get asked it all the time! I’m, like, how can I be anti-feminist  if I’m pro-woman and all my fans are women, so if you say it’s  anti-feminist and you come to my show, or you come to one of my book  signings, and it’s 80 percent women, how do you explain that means being  an anti-feminist? A lot of women look to me as someone who is embracing  her sexual power and confidence and trying to explain you don’t have to  fit into the media’s mainstream image of “sexy.” I feel like the only  time someone should call me “anti-feminist” is if they don’t understand  what I do and who my fans are and what I’m standing up for<span style="font-weight: bold;">. . . </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span> It’s not a word I don’t really like to address, you  know? It’s not even that I want to call myself that, I just sort of go,  “Oooooh!” It’s an eyeballer roller. (<em>Laughs</em>) You know what I mean? It’s  like, oh man, it’s a weird question. The word “feminist” is so broad.</p></blockquote>
<p>* <strong>Melissa McEwan</strong> tells<strong> Dr. Drew </strong>to <a href="http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2010/04/important-announcement.html">shut up</a>.</p>
<p>* <strong>Kate Harding </strong>takes down <strong>Peter Beinart</strong>'s campaign to put a "<a href="http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/04/27/supreme_court_moms/index.html">mom</a>" on the Supreme Court, in order to provide a role model for girls who want to snag one of the unlikeliest positions in American government, and also make babies. First point: There's already a mom on the Supreme Court!</p>
<p><em>Photo via <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/floridamemory/3248135030/sizes/m/"><strong>State Library and Archives of Florida</strong></a></em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/04/28/the-morning-after-dastardly-cuomo-glasses-edition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Huffington Post Sexism Goes Green</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/06/23/huffington-post-sexism-goes-green/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/06/23/huffington-post-sexism-goes-green/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:05:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond DC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alicia silverstone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[annalise braakensiek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[charlotte ross]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dita von teese]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GLBT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[homosexuality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Huffington Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jamie bamber]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jenna jameson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kathy najimy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[maggie q]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nudity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pamela anderson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[people for the ethical treatment of animals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PETA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sophie monk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[t&a]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tommy lee]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=4598</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Hey, this isn't the exploitation I signed up for!
The Huffington Post has finally discovered the porthole through which its sexist entertainment content can jump off of the Entertainment page and onto more explicitly political verticals. What is this valuable new discovery which suddenly makes sexy naked women so politically relevant? It starts with a P, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/06/dudes-kissing-1.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-4599" title="dudes-kissing-1" src="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/06/dudes-kissing-1.jpg" alt="" width="420" height="201" /><br />
</a><em>Hey, this isn't the exploitation I signed up for!</em><a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/06/dudes-kissing-1.jpg"></a></p>
<p>The <em>Huffington Post</em> has finally discovered the porthole through which <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/06/09/huffington-post-liberal-politics-sexist-entertainment/">its sexist entertainment content</a> can jump off of the Entertainment page and onto more explicitly political verticals. What is this valuable new discovery which suddenly makes sexy naked women so politically relevant? It starts with a P, ends with an Eople For the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and it has been pulling this liberal sexist bullshit for <em>years</em>.</p>
<p><span id="more-4598"></span></p>
<p>Well, PETA and <em>HuffPo </em>are together at last, with two super-sexy animal protection stories making their way onto the site's "<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/green/">Green</a>" page this week. After the photo-accompanied "<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/21/the-sexiest-peta-ads-of-a_n_217731.html">Lydia Guevarra, Che's Daughter, Poses Semi-Nude for PETA</a>" made a semi-nude splash in the Web site's Popular Stories last week, <em>HuffPo</em> cashed in on the theme with the full slide-show: "<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/21/the-sexiest-peta-ads-of-a_n_217731.html">The Sexiest PETA Ads of All Time</a>." Click on it for the environment!</p>
<p>To<em> HuffPo</em>&#8212;and PETA's&#8212;credit, the collection of PETA's notoriously naked ads includes its share of topless dudes alongside the unclothed women. But as the interactive poll feature demonstrates, <em>Huffington Post</em> readers are not so down with this nudity-for-all tactic.</p>
<p>Readers are allowed to rate each PETA rep's naked ad on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 signifying "Rather have meat" and 10 "Pass the produce!" Here are the current rankings, from hottest to not-est:<br />
<strong></strong></p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Charlotte Ross</strong> 8<br />
<strong>Alicia Silverstone</strong> 7.6<br />
<strong>Annalise Braakensiek</strong> 7.6<br />
<strong>Sophie Monk &amp; Maggie Q</strong> 7<br />
<strong>Dita Von Teese</strong> 6.9<br />
<strong>Jenna Jameson </strong>6.7<br />
<strong>Pam Anderson </strong>4.7<br />
<strong> Kathy Najimy</strong> 3.7<br />
<strong>Jamie Bamber </strong>3.7<br />
<strong>Two male models making out </strong>3.4<br />
<strong>Tommy Lee </strong>2.2</p></blockquote>
<p>Let's take a look at the hierarchy here. The nine women on the list all score higher than the four men. The women lose points as they get closer to the porn spectrum, with the exception of <strong>Kathy Najimy</strong>, who is un-young and un-skinny enough to rank just above the men. At the bottom, we have the four guys: The dude from <em>Battlestar Gallactica</em> ranks above the overt display of male homosexuality, but the kissing guys still beat out the universally reviled <strong>Tommy Lee</strong>.<strong> </strong>In my opinion, Tommy Lee's low-ranked bare chest alone is enough to debunk <em>HuffPo'</em>s "<a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/06/16/huffington-post-sometimes-a-cigar-is-just-a-nipple-is-just-sexist/">sometimes a nipple is just a nipple</a>" theory. Nobody wants to see that shit.</p>
<p>The<em> </em><em>Huffington Post</em> brushes off the idea that the female nudity focus on its Entertainment page has any impact on its progressive political cred. In passing off interactive nude slide-shows as environmentalism, however,<em> HuffPo</em> wades into explicitly political sexist territory. PETA paved the way here by exploiting women in the hopes of ending the exploitation of animals. <em>HuffPo</em> joins the fray not by presenting a  counterpoint to PETA's sexist tactics, but by reveling in it&#8212;asking its readers to rank the "hottest print promotions."</p>
<p>I have to wonder if PETA's T&amp;A has ever convinced a soft-core porn enthusiast to stop eating beef.  I bet the naked stuff is actually used more of a peace offering to the general public&#8212;they may be annoyed by PETA's radical vegetarianism, but at least there are naked chicks.</p>
<p>But unlike PETA, the <em>Huffington Post </em>is not a one-issue newspaper. PETA objectifies women in order to save the lives of the poor, helpless bunny rabbits, but it never professed to care about women. <em>HuffPo</em> objectifies women in order to save its entire politically progressive business model. Why not pull a fast one on PETA and stick to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/23/wallabies-are-the-new-law_n_219676.html">objectifying wallabies</a> instead?</p>
<p><iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/31390031#31390031" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
<p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">News about the Economy</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/06/23/huffington-post-sexism-goes-green/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

