Megan Fox, everyone’s least-favorite super-hot chick, gets the New York Times Magazine treatment this week. We all know Megan Fox as that hot sassy vixen who claims to be female-empowered (“I would eat Robert Pattinson”) as she poses in wet bikinis for men’s magazines. And we know that that combination, uh, usually doesn’t go over so well among feminists. But here’s where things get trippy, you guys: Like, is it all an act? And what does it all mean?

Take one of Fox’s most well-publicized stunts: Publicly comparing Transformers director (and noted wet bikini enthusiast) Michael Bay to Hitler. Could there by a lesson hidden beneath the headline? I’ll bite: Why do feminists spend our time hating on the Megan Foxes of this world instead of focusing their efforts on the Michael Bays? Is dancing in a bikini under a waterfall for Bad Boys II empowering? It was pretty empowering for 15-year-old Megan Fox ($), and it was really empowering for Michael Bay ($$$$$). But it’s probably not so empowering to women. Is projecting all of our hatred of entertainment-industry sexism onto one 23-year-old starlet empowering to other women? Nope, but it is empowering to snarky celebrity bloggers, who squeeze out their own ($) in mean-spirited Fox-based blog posts. Me? I like to empower myself by putting the word “boobies” in the titles of all of my snarky Megan Fox posts ($$$)!

So! On that note, join Sady Doyle of Tiger Beatdown and myself as we embark upon another Sexist Beatdown. This time: What the fuck do we do with Megan Fox, then? Pray that she crashes, burns, and ends up managing a Hooters in Tennessee, even if she’ll never bring Michael Bay down with her? Hope she has the strength to uglify herself just long enough to win an Oscar? Start a campaign to get that girl into some dry bikinis for once? We decide, after the jump!

SADY: megan fox has ARRIVED! PRAISE THE LORD!

AMANDA: and she has fake “boobies”!

SADY: I feel that I am not meant to like Megan Fox, based on this NYTM piece, which is all about how she is clearly (and candidly!) a market-tested persona product in the midst of rebranding. But (a) how many celebrities are not, and (b) how many public PEOPLE are not, and (c) the fact that she talks about the fact that she IS makes her weirdly seem to be less of one than, let’s say, Zac Efron, and (d) BOOBIES! SHE TALKS ABOUT HER FAKE BOOBIES IN FRONT OF THE INTERVIEWER! SHE DEBATES WHETHER OR NOT TO INSERT THEM IN HER BRA! CAPSLOCK! I like this!

AMANDA: i like this, too. but i’m left wondering what the point of this piece is. half of it seems like a disingenuous way to get around the low-brow celebrity scoop on megan fox while still cashing in on that scoop. NYT isn’t going all Us weekly and making the headline “MEGAN FOX USES FAKE BOOBIES,” [Editor's note: But hey, I'm not above it!] but i’m not sure this form of pseudo-intellectual celebrity gawking is really that different from the tabloid version.

SADY: fair enough: the article does seem to hold her at a weird distance. like, it is supposedly about The Spectacle Of Megan Fox, and how she’s got all this weird projection-based hate and love and whatever around her, but also invites us to take part in that and deplore her for her fake booby usage or frequent anti-”middle-america” statementing.

AMANDA: and her affinity for Hitler jokes.

SADY: she is fond of a hitler joke every now and again! it’s true! but i also thought, after reading stuff like the Rolling Stone cover piece a while back, that it was kind of refreshing to read an interview that was not just asking her whether she drinks human blood during sex or which celebrity penis she’d prefer to keep company with.

AMANDA: yes. i agree, and i don’t think this piece is bad. i just think it’s barely there in terms of transcending the tabloid thing. but one thing i found really interesting in this piece was the idea of Fox manufacturing a persona of “female empowerment” for men’s magazines. it’s an old trick to give an interview to a men’s magazine next to photos in your undies that talks about how you want to eat Robert Pattison, and how you’re an empowered woman, and how using your body in Hollywood and being frank about it is better than the alternative, but it’s interesting to see her quote at the end that, actually, she doesn’t like men looking at her body.

SADY: well, i am kind of unclear on megan fox’s personal philosophy of female empowerment. like, it seems to be not that well-defined! projecting myself into the head of megan fox, which i know only through interviews, and in which (as you note) she is always only saying what she has chosen to convey to the world at large, i THINK she thinks that being all sexy boy-eatery is not in and of itself the empowerment? that using that image to your own benefit and being a canny manipulator of that image is the empowerment? BUT, as you say, she does seem pretty sick of it and is maybe kind of trapped by that image to a greater extent than she once expected to be. in the Golden Years! when she put her underage self in a bikini and did a waterfall dance for Michael Bay’s cinematic vision and got a whole FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS in extra pay for so doing!

AMANDA: yeah, and more than that, she fucking loved it! she felt that she belonged dancing in the waterfall.

SADY: like a bikini-clad nymph dancing in the fountain of Underage Youth.

AMANDA: but, since you are perhaps a more studied Fox scholar: is Fox’s version of female empowerment any different from Joanna Krupa’s statement that posing for Playboy is feminist? That, because this activity makes one super hot woman super rich, that means it’s empowering?

SADY: well, that’s the thing, right? that’s the reason we get all pissy about this? because this is actually the divide that I most frequently fall into and die a thousand intrablogular deaths. there’s one school of thought that is like, “no, it is not actually empowering,” and another school of thought that is like, “no, it is not empowering, and also any woman who participates in it is BRINGING FEMINISM DOWN and must immediately run straight to the consoling zombie arms of andrea dworkin and claim that she was brainwashed into doing it whether or not this was actually the case.” and i am of the “no, it is not empowering” school myself. i think the only people who think it is empowering are people who don’t get structure, and are kind of libertariany and weird.

AMANDA: yeah. “i do something, and i am a woman, so that thing is empowering for women” doesn’t really make sense

SADY: but i also don’t think yelling at the actual women who participate in it is kind of weird, because: as a person without a steady paycheck, I get that you do what you have to do in order to get by. and one of the options open, if you look even vaguely Fox-like, is to do the Hot Girl thing.

AMANDA: and on the other hand, “i wear bikinis and hang out around cars” is not empowering to women, but “i wear bikinis and hang out around cars and point out what a skeevy hack michael bay is, and how weird it is that this is my job” is better, i think. and that’s something Joanna Krup totally fails to recognize.

SADY: yeah, exactly. i mean, fuck the michael bays of the world. who come in many forms and at many pay levels. i’ve known girls whose main source of employment was dressing up in kind of sexy outfits and going to bars and convincing dudes there that this one specific kind of beer was superior to all others. the michael bays of marketing! but, yeah, obviously, part of our fantasy around those women is that they’re totally thrilled and turned on by jobs that are about selling their sexuality – compliance is the biggest part of the fantasy, like that policy at hooters that you have to engage in “friendly banter” that is most likely about your titular Hooters – and so when girls complain, you know, they’re subversive. and subject to the typical blowback. even if they’re only doing what everyone else in the world does, which is bitching about the uncomfortable aspects of their jobs. sorry, SPEECHIFYING.

AMANDA: THATS OK. so, moving on to the virgin-whore aspect to all of this … i think it’s really interesting that Fox has been able to be in more control of her tabloid stories because of the fact that she dates boring Brian Austin Green and they’ve been boringly dating for five years. all the tabloid stories are like, “megan fox SAID THIS,” not “megan fox fucked some dude.”

SADY: yeah. BRIAN AUSTIN GREEN. a compellingly boring choice! because if she were out actually having actual sex, she’d be portrayed as a train-wreck.

AMANDA: it’s really sad.

SADY: yeah, but it’s another part of the narrative about Hot Girls: that they’re out behaving like trollops and possibly crazy and messed-up and lost and blah blah whatever. like, female sexuality can’t exist without us feeling the need to punish it, or see it punished. and i don’t think women feel that need to the same extent that a lot of men do, or in the same ways, but i think it’s disingenuous to say that a lot of us don’t feel it. basically, I am using the word “lot” a lot, in an attempt to parse this. but Fox can always fall back on the old, “I have a BOYFRIEND! My sexy sexiness is merely an ACT” thing. which brings us to this whole Meta Fox level where admitting that something is an act may in fact be part of another, overarching act.

AMANDA: METAFOX. well, it’s interesting, because we all know that the Jennifer Aniston Act about her being a hopeless spinster who can’t find love is created by the tabloids. and we know that the Jessica Simpson Is A Stupid Bitch act is created by the tabloids. But whether or not those narratives are based in truth, those celebrities will not be able to escape it, no matter what, so it doesn’t matter. with Megan Fox setting herself up from the get-go as being entirely fake, it may give her some more power to control that fakeness later on.

SADY: yeah. i mean, i think that coming from someone who was basically hired as a cinematic boner dispenser before she was even old enough to vote, and who really hasn’t been hired for jobs outside of that context, she seems remarkably in-control.

AMANDA: well-said

SADY: but i do question how in-control anyone hired to be a cinematic boner dispenser actually is, in the long run. i mean, the weight of The Patriarchy and all of its various Deep-Rooted And Contradictory Sex Issues does not rest lightly on one’s shoulders.

AMANDA: that’s certainly true, but at the same time—and i really don’t mean to insult megan fox here, because i don’t know what she’s capable of—what is she going to do, become a senator? be a mid-level manager? write? she has always wanted to be an actress, she says, and she’s noted that the only reason she can do that is because she’s hot. Fox isn’t going to be getting many Oscar-bait roles (although Jennifer’s Body was an improvement), but does she have to do that kind of acting in order for her to be acceptable?

SADY: uh, probably? i mean, i’m trying to think of someone else who’s made this kind of transition. and, weirdly, the only people i can think of who have made the transition from Object of Desire to Serious Actor are men. like: johnny depp! he was once a mere hot dude! or brad pitt! he was that also! or george clooney! those dudes all started out being valued primarily for their hotness, and then later we were like, “oh, ACTING!” marilyn monroe tried it, but it didn’t really happen. angelina jolie, maybe? oh, hey, here’s an option for megan fox: retire at the age of thirty-four, and spend your entire life rolling around on a bed of cash money.

AMANDA: right. marry someone more successful than brian austin green. is it mean that i keep making fun of brian austin green?

SADY: uh, NO. fox needs someone with an eye for investments, and fewer anecdotes about that time he was on “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.” it got CANCELLED! it was AWESOME!

AMANDA: it sounds awesome. but some women do do that. Halle Berry did that, and then she just kind of receded back into the boobie rolls. there’s a short window of opportunity for Hot Girls to be Oscar-Worthy Hot Girls, and then they must retreat to the Elder Hot Girl Processing Area. I know what it is! Megan Fox hasn’t gotten to her “purposefully ugly” stage yet. then she can really be an Actress

SADY: right? she needs to talk to Mariah Carey’s people! they can de-Glitter her! i just used the phrase “talk to [X]’s people.” without shame. that is a sad thing i did. i think i must leave now, and contemplate my sins.

AMANDA: haha. well i need to go put on my knee-pad leggings myself. dont tell the blogs about that one

When Laura Ingraham covered hosting duties for Bill O’Reilly on the O’Reilly Factor last week, she sought out to answer the age-old question: Why do feminists hate Sarah Palin so much? Hmm—I can think of a few reasons. The resulting discussion between Ingraham, Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn, and Republican pollster KellyAnne Conway produced some pretty interesting theories. Let’s check them out:

Theory #1: We hate her because we’re childless spinsters.

CONWAY: I think of some of the spinster childless columnists who have attacked this woman for her right to choose . . .

INGRAHAM: Can you name names?

CONWAY: . . . and have five children. There are too many to name and then it would make them relevant on such a great show.

INGRAHAM: Spinster columnists, OK.

—

Theory #2: We hate her because Todd is cute.

CONWAY: . . . I think she makes some women feel inadequate because she has five children, no household help. Not only is she not anti-man, but she has, as we could tell, a supportive husband and father.

INGRAHAM: And cute, too. He’s real cute.

CONWAY: . . . the extended family. He’s cute to go.

—

Theory #3: We hate her because Palin lost weight after having the 5th baby we never had because we were too busy being childless spinster abortionists without cute husbands:

CONWAY: . . . And look, she lost all her baby weight. It makes some women crazy. They’ve got 1.3 children and a Pilates schedule they have to keep, and it makes some of them crazy.

QUINN: . . . Well, let me just say first that she has a point about people being jealous about her losing her baby weight. I have to say.

NGRAHAM: OK, we’ve gotten that out of the way.

CONWAY: But you did too, Sally.

INGRAHAM: I got that.

QUINN: No, I’m crazed about that.

INGRAHAM: Right.

QUINN: And I have to admit it right here.

INGRAHAM: You’ve always been fit.

QUINN: Yeah.

INGRAHAM: So we’re not going to hear that from you.

—

Theory #4: We hate her because she’s a woman:

CONWAY: And look, I just want to say this, that with Palin, she looks so feminine. She acts like a woman, but governed like a man.

—

Theory #5: We hate her because we’re jealous that she’s pro-life:

INGRAHAM: Admit it right now. Palin is hot. She is pro-life. She shoots. She hunts. She has a big family. And all these feminists are like just seething with jealousy about it.

—

Theory #6: We hate her because she is against everything that we stand for:

QUINN: . . . I have to say that of all the people I know, I don’t know a single person who feels jealous about her. I think that most of the people I know who are not Sarah Palin fans just don’t like what she has to say.

Photo by lifeisaprayer, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

First up: “A Milli,” a track off Tha Carter III:

Relevant Lyrics: “The Bible told us every girl was sour / Don’t play in her garden and don’t smell her flower / Call me Mr. Carter or Mr. Lawnmower”

Feminist: Weezy’s lawnmower is here to destroy all those antiquated ideas about female sexuality.

Misogynist: A man’s lawnmower chopping up a woman’s flower is not exactly the most sex-positive imagery.

—

“Mrs. Officer,” a song about a sexy cop.

Relevant Lyrics: “Doin a buck in the latest drop/ I got stopped by a lady cop/ She got me thinking I can date a cop/ Cause her uniform pants are so tight . . . And I know she the law, and she know I’m the boss / And she know I can hide above the law / And she know I’m raw, she know it from the street / And all she want me to do is fuck the police.”

Feminist: He’s attracted to women in positions of power!

Misogynist: . . . as long as their pants are tight, and he can neutralize their authority by pulling out his wang.

—

“We Like Her,” a song about wanting to fuck every girl in the world. Every single one!

Relevant Lyrics: “Open up her legs then filet mignon that pussy / I’m a get in and on that pussy / If she let me in I’m a own that pussy / Go’n throw it back and bust it open like you ‘posed to / Girl I got that dope dick / Now come here let me dope you / You gon’ be a dope fiend / Your friends should call you dopey”

Feminist: Every woman is beautiful.

Misogynist: Just beautiful enough for Wayne to declare ownership of her genitals and describe their courtship in sexual assault terms.

—

“Lollipop,” a song about oral sex.

Relevant Lyrics: “I get her on top / She drop it like it’s hot / And when I’m at the bottom / She Hilary Rodham.”

Feminist: He just name-checked Hilary Rodham. In a positive way! And without the Clinton, even!

Misogynist: I’m not sure that riding Weezy is exactly the type of women’s liberation Hil is working for.

—

“Prostitute Flange,” a song about not caring if your lady previously turned tricks.

Relevant Lyrics: I wouldn’t care if you were prostitutin’ / That you hit every man that you ever knew / See it wouldn’t make a difference / If that was way before me and you girl.

Feminist: An anti-slut-shaming anthem: Her sexual history is not an issue, even if she had sex with every man she has ever met. That’s pretty progressive!

Misogynist: Well, the history is unimportant as long as it’s ancient—”way before me and you”—and as long as she’s now only his forever: “Three letters: I do.”

—

“Project Bitch,” a track from Lil Wayne’s Hot Boys days.

Relevant Lyrics: Wayne’s contribution to this track is devoted to the ladies who ” be puttin’ they mouth on it / and they suck everything out of it / and they catch it and swallow it. . . . When I come through in a Rolls Royce / I leave them with no choice / but to hop up in it an just let me make they throat moist.”

Feminist: Hmm.

Misogynist: Yeah.

“Russian Roulette” has been branded Rihanna’s “comeback single” in order to mark her first solo effort since being assaulted by then-boyfriend Chris Brown in February of this year. Following the assault, the feminist blogosphere exploded with criticisms, defenses, and theories relating to the R&B singer’s personal tragedy. In the following months, Rihanna became a staple on feminist blogs.  The pop star has been consistently mentioned in discussions of sexual assault—but she’s just as often been invoked to fawn over her clothing choices and speculate about her love life. In places like Jezebel, where feminist issues and pop culture obsessions both receive heavy coverage, Rihanna’s abuse has only fueled interest in her more traditional pop-star duties, like carving out a unique style and churning out catchy songs. In 2009, Rihanna’s public identity has emerged as a conflation of high-wattage pop star and domestic abuse survivor.

Rihanna herself, on the other hand, has felt comfortable only playing the pop star part—and has remained extremely tight-lipped about her abuse experience. She has never publicly identified as a feminist or an advocate for victims of domestic abuse. As I prepared this post, I realized with amazement that I had never actually read any full interview with Rihanna. (And, full disclosure, I really like Rihanna, and tend to follow the domestic abuse coverage alongside potential Justin Timberlake hook-up news). The pop star has managed to maintain an extremely high profile in feminism without saying much of anything at all. Rihanna is certainly no Lady Gaga, who has positioned herself in the center of the gay rights movement, even as she releases decidedly apolitical pop tunes (largely about heterosexual sex). It’s not so strange for a pop star to opt out of discussing politics (and her personal life). But it is an odd formula for crafting a feminist idol.

Recent critiques of “Russian Roulette” have made clear that feminists are yearning for Rihanna to step into that role. After hearing the song, Alyssa Rosenberg wrote about her personal wishes for Rihanna’s career. “When ‘Silly Boy’ leaked as a Rihanna track a couple of months ago, I thought it was a perfect career move for her: upbeat, vocally playing to her strengths, and by far most importantly, a rebuke to a guy who would treat his girlfriend badly,” she writes. “I do understand that it’s extremely difficult to leave an abusive relationship, and I respect that.  But I thought it would have been terrific for someone to overcome such a relationship in public.  Instead, Rihanna is using a song about embracing being terrorized as her comeback single.” Jezebel’s North was similarly creeped out by the song, writing: “What I’m actually most worried about is her label’s thinking on this song . . . if anyone pushed a domestic violence victim to record a comeback song about gunplay, that’s something to get angry about.”

But the disappointment and anger over the subject matter of Rihanna’s new single has also been accompanied by concerns over aesthetics. Rosenberg admits that the song “isn’t much good”; North writes that it “kind of sucks.” Perez Hilton, writing exclusively on the track’s artistic merits, expressed that he was “shocked and saddened” by the lackluster production (though apparently unconcerned with the overtones of domestic violence). Rosenberg and North disclose the song’s suckiness as if it’s beside the point, but I wonder if the double expectation that Rihanna be both a successful pop star and a model survivor of domestic abuse is responsible for the perceived feminist failure here. The song’s aesthetic problems extend to its lyrics, which, while “dark” and “edgy,” don’t appear to mean anything in particular, and certainly don’t qualify as a clear “defense” of domestic abuse. Couplets like “As my life flashes before my eyes / I’m wondering will I ever see another sunrise” and “So many won’t get the chance to say goodbye / But it’s too late too pick up the value of my life” clearly connote violence. But I can’t agree with Rosenberg that the song is about “embracing being terrorized”—the main problem with the song is that the lyrics don’t convey any specific perspective on the darkness.

“Russian Roulette” may not have succeeded as Rihanna’s “comeback single,” but it’s important to make clear which comeback we’re talking about—is it her return to the world of pop, or her recovery from an abusive relationship? Rosenberg “thought it would have been terrific for someone to overcome such a relationship in public.” But why does Rihanna’s return to music have to come only after she’s ready to announce that she’s “overcome” domestic abuse? And given Rihanna’s obvious reluctance to make her private life public, how could anyone expect her to live up to the feminist obsession that’s been brewing over her life and career for the past nine months? Perhaps she isn’t ready to play the public role of empowered survivor, and perhaps she never will.

I doubt that Rihanna’s critics would be raising the same concerns over her missed feminist opportunity if she had released an infectious club jam like “S.O.S.” or “Disturbia” which completely steered clear of an abuse theme. Problematically, both Rosenberg and North argue that the lyrics of “Russian Roulette” do evoke issues of domestic abuse—and go on to suggest that Rihanna is either doing it wrong, or being coerced by her handlers to do it wrong. I don’t think we should expect Rihanna to incorporate her new-found feminist fame into her pop songs—like Perez Hilton, I’m more disappointed that the song isn’t so hot. But when Rihanna does decide to make a public nod to her experience with domestic abuse, shouldn’t we refrain from suggesting that she’s not expressing herself correctly as a victim?

Depressing Feminist Graph #1:

According to the Economist, safe abortions worldwide decreased markedly between 1995 and 2003. Unsafe abortions, though—holding strong as ever! The good—and totally obvious—news is that banning and restricting abortion does not decrease abortions, so you might as well just make them legal and safe. In fact, in places where abortions are legal and safe, women have fewer safe abortions, too, probably because the contraception is flowin’ freely there as well. [Depressing Feminist Graph hat tip to Pukeimmediately].

Depressing Feminist Graph #2:

Unfortunately, when that contraception flows all the way into the strip club, it can have some negative economic effects for exotic dancers. The second depressing feminist graph comes courtesy of Julie Sunday, who notes a recent study which found that “women on the pill are attracted to more ‘boyish’ features in men.” The feminist blogs are all over the study’s more widely reported findings. But Sunday read, like, the whole fucking thing, and mined this interesting economic tidbit:

Strippers who are not taking the pill report an increase in lapdance revenue around ovulation whereas pill-taking strippers (who are thus not ovulating) do not see a spike in their revenue and earn less throughout the cycle. No, really.

Dotted line: strippers on the pill; solid line: strippers not on the pill.

Damn, girl. That’s a 50-dollar-per-shift difference during the menstrual cycle, and a full 200-dollar-per-shift-difference at the stripper’s most fertile. Somebody should do this study on women in other professions and see what they can shell up. Julie Sunday suggests that strippers looking for safety in the bedroom and success in the workplace ought to just go hormone-free, but not every type of contraception works for every woman. Would you change your method of contraception to get more tips?

The Republican Governor’s Association has launched a new attack ad against Creigh Deeds, the Democratic candidate for Governor of Virginia. The ad catches Deeds fending off a female reporter’s line of questioning about proposed tax increases by telling her, “I think I’ve made myself clear, young lady.”

“Did you catch that?” a female voice for the GOP’s ad asks, incredulously. “Young lady?” The ad then rewinds the tape to replay the money quote: “I think I’ve made myself clear, young lady.”

I don’t know the age of this particular reporter, who has not been identified, but she’s clearly a fully grown woman and not some spunky cub reporter grilling Creigh Deeds on tax reform for class credit. That’s unimportant—dismissing a reporter as “young lady” is offensive, regardless of the age of the woman behind the microphone. Deeds obviously fucked up here. Interestingly, the people calling him out on it are supporters of Bob McDonnell, the Republican candidate. McDonnell has voiced some pretty fucked up ideas about women himself, ideas which have translated to a seriously dangerous voting record.

After playing “I think I’ve made myself clear, young lady” a second time, the ad’s incredulous female voice chuckles softly and promises: “It gets worse.” As proof, the ad points to DeedsUncut.com—not an uncircumcised porn site, promise!—which reveals Deed’s entire back-and-forth on the tax issue.

But it doesn’t get worse. It’s just more footage of Creigh Deeds explaining to a group of reporters if and when he would raise taxes in the state of Virginia—no more sexist dismissals, verbal slip-ups, or misogynistic attitudes on display. Because to Republicans, taxes are worse than sexism!

The “young lady” line was bad. Also bad: when politicians with bad track records on women’s rights use sexism as bait to try to get people outraged over raised taxes. To the Republican Governor’s Association, sexism is only an issue when it’s somehow involved with the only issue they really care about: that if Creigh Deeds becomes governor, rich white dudes may have to pay more taxes. Did you catch that?

Recently, the problem of consent arose in two porn-inspired real-life incidents. In one, a teenage girl claims she was coerced into having drunken videotaped group sex with four men in her dorm. In another, a teenage girl apparently consented to drunken videotaped group sex with four men in her dorm, then instantly regretted it. Scenarios where four men have sex with one woman carry obvious challenges for establishing consent. Each sex partner must establish consent with every other partner. Each sex partner must be able to listen to every other partner to establish that each new sex act is OK. And each sex partner must realize that a group power dynamic can be a seriously coercive sexual environment for everyone involved, and discuss the act accordingly.

I don’t blame porn for these incidents, but I do think that if enthusiastic, informed, and sober consent were featured in pornography to the extent that gang-bangs are, it might help teenagers clear up consent issues before sex begins—not in the press, through the student judicial process, or in the courtroom.

But how do we make consent porn-ready? Let’s start at the beginning: Punny consent porn titles! Here are mine:

ID Check XVIII: Girls Your Own Age

The Mile High Club: Consent From Above

Consenting Adults II: Double Checking

Doggy Style: Consensual Seduction

Safe Word III: When “No” Doesn’t Have to Mean “No”

Totally and Completely Legal

Night of Refusal: No Anal Sex This Time, But Maybe Next Week

Sex, Extended Consultation Over Each Party’s Feelings, and Videotape

Backseat Bangin’: The Honda Accord

Suggestions?

Last month, Tucker Max’s cross-country movie premiere tour hit Raleigh, where students from the North Carolina State Women’s Center were on hand to protest the screening. Max’s people, predictably, had some anti-feminist fun with it, and posted the video online. In the video, Max sends out his minion to interview the protesters while masquerading as a gay Duke student writing a thesis on “the linguistics of rape culture.” Of course, anyone actually interested in the linguistics of rape culture need only watch “I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell” to figure out what it sounds like. Basically, there are a lot of references to “cum dumpsters.”

In the Raleigh Q & A, Max himself expounded upon the rape culture issue. “Fucking rape sucks, dude,” Max said. “It’s, like, not a joke, and I feel like [the protesters'] hearts are probably in the right place, to be honest. But I fell like they’re fucking it up, man, because what they’re doing is really kind of devaluing the seriousness of an actual crime. . . . Dude, I mean, the discussion about where consent lies and doesn’t lie is an important one, and should be had, but this is not the fucking forum. And, uh, and that’s never been an issue for me, so, I don’t know man, I feel like if that’s an issue to you, that’s great, and you should pursue it, but pursue it with the people who it needs to be pursued with. And not with me.”

Of course, “where consent lies and doesn’t lie” is a consistent issue in Max’s work. Max’s stories succeed on orchestrating sexual conquests that are increasingly outrageous, drunk, dubiously legal, painful, objectifying, and embarrassing to his sex partners. In order to continue to one-up himself, Max intentionally pushes the line of consent—getting drunker, getting her drunker, leaving his sex partners to fend for themselves—naked—on the street, hiding his friend with an undisclosed video camera in his closet while they’re doing it. It’s not hard to think of the ultimate scenario these increasingly absurd sexcapades are inching toward—it’s, like, rape, dude. And now—thanks to Max’s movie tour—undergrads everywhere can compete to have the consensual sex that’s most like rape without actually being a prosecutable offense. Sure, some dudes might fail and actually rape chicks. Oh well!

In the middle of Max’s protest video, an actress from the film criticizes the protesters for failing to “read and watch any of the material!” She’s right: Max’s words are the best ammunition his protesters have, and it helps to get specific. So let’s take a look at the rape-culturiest quotations from “I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell.” Shannon Johnson, the director of the NC State Women’s center which staged the Raleigh protest, has collected some highlights of the film for future protesters to use in their arguments:

On women:
- “She may be a vacuous slut with no taste, but at least she’s not a stripper.”
- “I’d rather mainline Drano than listen to another minute of your whore prattle.”
- “Your gender is hardwired for whoredom.”
- “I don’t like her because she’s a negative fucking bitch, not because she has tits.”

- “Fat girls aren’t real people.”

- “Cum dumpsters.”

On fun:

- “Ready to get shit-faced and grab some titty!?”

- “We can’t all go after the girl with low self-esteem.”

On what women are good for, beyond fucking:

- “I will gut you and grind you into pig fodder.”

- “Get away from me or I’m going to carve a fuck hole in your torso.”

- “I want to shoot every one of these bitches.”
- “The only way I can cut you deep is with a battle axe and a running start.”
- “Rape’s not funny, but murder can be.”

]]> http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/11/the-rapiest-quotes-from-i-hope-they-serve-beer-in-hell/feed/ 105 http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/09/bob-mcdonnell-campaign-courts-the-ladies-not-the-gays/ http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/09/bob-mcdonnell-campaign-courts-the-ladies-not-the-gays/#comments Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:14:31 +0000 Amanda Hess http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=6331 In the wake of the fallout from his inane masters thesis degrading women and homosexuals, it’s nice to see Virginia gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell offering something just for the ladies: A handsome magenta bumper-sticker, yours for only $0.99.

Alas, there is not yet any conciliatory  “Gay for McDonnell” campaign merch to speak of. The McDonnell for Governor online store does, however, offer up a host of campaign materials for McDonnell supporters of every other conceivable interest group—including hunters, paramedics, and babies. All of which, I’m betting, are much more likely to feel McDonnell’s message than are the ladies.

There’s Hunters for McDonnell:

Paramedics for McDonnell:

Golfers for McDonnell:

Under-socialized children for McDonnell:

Sauna enthusiasts for McDonnell:

Babies for McDonnell:

And for the low price of $54.99, you can even become a Chump for McDonnell:

Oh, C’mon Bob: That seductive Life Size Right Wing Wall Cling is just screaming for the votes of ladies and gays!

My wife has convinced me when I’m elected governor we’re going to have a working mom government simplicity task force so all the smart women in Virginia can help tell me how to run Virginia,” McDonnell said. “[They will] help cut down some of that bureaucracy, I think that would be a good idea.”

Any government program tentatively named the “Working Mom Government Simplicity Task Force” which aims to include the perspectives “all the smart women in Virginia” is sure to cut down on bureaucracy! Oh, and in case you were wondering: he got that idea before all the smart women in Virginia turned against him:

When asked by a member of the media after the speech, McDonnell said he proposed that idea to his team before his thesis was brought to light.

But Wakeman errs in her either/or assumption about the sex act: that facials are either grounded in mutual respect, and elicit pleasure, or are grounded in degradation, and elicit humiliation. In fact, facials can imply all of these things, though we rarely analyze it all in the moment. Plenty of sex acts made popular in mainstream pornography, like facials, are based on achieving male pleasure. Under this model, the female’s pleasure is derived by successfully pleasing the male—and in the process, allowing herself to be degraded. As Amanda Marcotte writes, “our culture constructs sex as something women do for men, and men do for fun.” That model of sexuality is undoubtedly objectifying for women. But it nevertheless—voilà!—conjures up an idea of “pleasure” for both sex partners.

Interestingly, Wakeman concedes that the facial is an act loaded with objectification and subjugation—in porn. When this act is removed from the context of pornography and placed into the bedroom of a Man and Woman Who Love Each Other Very Much, however, those demeaning undertones disappear for Wakeman. I can understand that: actually thinking about the implications of why we like jizz on our face tends to put a damper on the whole mutual-attraction-to-degradation thing. So what do we do? We compartmentalize. When porn stars do it, it’s degrading; when we do it, it’s respectful:

I think leaving facials up to the porn stars—actors who are making the facial appear to humiliate the woman—is what keeps it looking demeaning. Certainly some facials are depicted in porn as humiliating or degrading, but not every man who wants to give a facial wants it to degrade and humiliate just like it looks onscreen. Many do love and respect their partners, and know, to varying degrees, that porn isn’t real. Likewise, some of those female partners enjoy the act as well.

When Wakeman liberates the facial from the demeaning clutches of the porn industry, she performs a useful little trick for us feminists—she separates her sex life from her personal philosophy. We all perform this function in our daily lives—detesting cruelty to animals while eating meat, denouncing philanderers while cheating on our wives, denouncing corporate America while smoking cigarettes. But it’s a particularly common move when it comes to sex. Why? Because getting off is very necessary, very much informed by a tradition of male dominance over women, and can be very, very hard to accomplish if you only allow yourself to get off progressively. Of course, that doesn’t mean that enjoying performing or receiving facials means that you hate women, or that you have no self-respect, or that you’re a bad feminist. It just means that the patriarchy affects a lot of the things that we perform and enjoy on a daily basis, and it’s good to remember that our attempts to recast these acts as “empowering” isn’t so much transgressive as it is convenient.

See, facials are like weddings. We all know that the institution of marriage is one of the patriarchy’s all-time greatest hits, in which women are sold into sexual slavery from father to husband in exchange for livestock. And yet, who derives the greatest joy from weddings? Women! It’s the craziest thing. But even though we all know that weddings were clearly institutionalized to facilitate the willing subjugation of women, feminists figure out a way to do it anyway. Why? Probably because even though we all know it’s sexist as fuck, weddings—like facial ejaculation—still make some people happy.  And feminists deserve to be happy, too. But that doesn’t mean we should forget about the sexist tropes that sometimes inform our happiness (and our sex lives).

Martin, to her credit, stays pretty upbeat on Palin’s aftermath, striking three positive notes on Palin’s political ascension: she’s taught us that “women across the country are hungry for their strength to be acknowledged, without sacrificing their femininity”; that “defending women against sexism means defending all women against sexism”; and that “we’ve succeeded in so many ways!”

I, too, believe that feminists have learned a lot from the rise of Palin. But since I’m kind of a downer, I think it’s important to point out the less-than-positive flip-sides of Palin’s Feminist Primer:

Lesson #1: Women across the country are hungry for their strength to be acknowledged, without sacrificing their femininity A Female Politician’s Image is Always More Important Than A Man’s.

Martin finds an interesting silver lining in Palin’s lasting contribution to “American electoral rhetoric”—the pit-bull with lipstick. The phrase, Martin argues, was a rallying cry for the powerful woman who refuses to be underestimated because of her feminine identity.

“Feminists need to get better at explaining that, in fact, feminism is opposed to anything that narrows human beings’ choices around gender identity and expression,” writes Martin. “Whether you are Sarah Palin and you want to wear a perky ponytail while standing by your ‘dude,’ or you’re Rachel Maddow and want to wear thick black glasses while standing by your partner, we defend your right to do so.”

The shade of one’s lipstick and the style of one’s glasses should never have any bearing on a woman’s political career. But while this election cycle exposed many liberal commenters eager to ridicule Palin for her perky ponytail or productive womb, it also produced rampant sexism among Palin supporters. For many of her conservative backers, Palin’s femininity wasn’t just tolerated—it was magnified, obsessed over, and valued above her qualifications. Palin’s femininity wasn’t respected as a personal choice—it was practically a prerequisite for her position.

The feminist lesson we can learn from Palin isn’t so much that ponytails are as valid as Maddow’s black-framed glasses or Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits—it’s that no matter what flavor of female political figure you are, your looks matter.

Even in extremely visible careers like politics and cable news, strict standards of appearance have relaxed a bit for female employees. But the expectation of femininity has far from disappeared, as any side-by-side comparison of Palin and Clinton will make clear. Even Maddow, Martin’s example of the anti-Palin, is a smoking hot babe—a smoking hot babe who doesn’t wear those signature glasses on the air.

—

Lesson #2: Defending women against sexism means defending all women against sexism.

Actually, I totally agree with this point. Awesome!

—

Lesson #3: We’ve succeeded in so many ways! Palin’s Failure Is Not A Feminist Success.

Martin takes a time-out here to detail How Far We’ve Come—and she’s right to remind feminists to soak up their successes once in a while. “Sarah Palin doesn’t represent feminists, but she surely represents the success of feminism’s long, hard-fought battle to get women leading roles on the political stage,” writes Martin. “It may have made feminists squirm to see that the movement’s fight produced a moment ripe for a soldier like Sarah Palin, but from another vantage point, her candidacy (and more importantly, Hillary Clinton’s) prove we’ve won certain battles. Women are taken seriously as political candidates. Plain and simple.”

Well, I have to disagree there. Sarah Palin was not taken seriously as a political candidate—she ranks up there with The Economy in helping to totally derail John McCain’s presidential campaign. Since November 4, we’ve learned enough about Palin’s uninformed, inexperienced, and dubiously ethical approach to politics to know that she shouldn’t be taken seriously as a political candidate in the future. I’m not sure why Sarah Palin has risen to the forefront of the Republican Party, but it’s not because she’s the best and the brightest the party’s got to offer. Unfortunately, I’ve gotta think it has a lot more to do with image (see Lesson #1).

*BONUS* Lesson #4: Let’s Get Our Shit Together.

Though Martin doesn’t headline it as such, she does touch on Palin’s most lasting feminist lesson at the end of her essay. “I feel thankful that she inadvertently pushed feminists out of complacency,” writes Martin. “No matter who she claims to be, we need to keep pushing ourselves to clarify who we are.” This is Palin’s real contribution to feminism: Her frustrating combination of power, femininity, destructive reproductive health positions, and incessant winking presented a puzzle for feminists to hash out at every Palin public appearance. In other words: Hey! She gave us something to blog about.

Behold a common argument deployed by modern sexists:

1. Establish your concern for the women’s movement by admitting that things used to be pretty bad for chicks, back in the olden days when institutionalized sexism dictated that women couldn’t vote or hold jobs out of the home.

2. Your feminist prowress now established, assert that since women are now legally freed to pursue activities beyond babymakin’, all sexism has miraculously disappeared in the workplace, in inter-personal relationships, and in entertainment.

3. Declare anyone who says otherwise a sexist.

This sexist argument—that sexism used to exist, but no more—tends to collapse whenever vintage sexism rears its ugly head. Modern sexists, like moths drawn dangerously close to the flame, can’t help but defend the olde-tyme sexism. You know, the kind that was par for the course back when women couldn’t vote or work or take birth control or avoid being legally raped by their husbands.

I learned this lesson personally when I began posting the “Sexist History” feature, which mines the New York Times archives for the hilariously overt degradation of women in vintage journalism. Whether the vintage sexism is objectifying hordes of women, asserting that female ignorance is cute, or blatantly rejecting the idea of women’s suffrage, there is, without fail, at least one modern defender of the sexist NYT reporter, may he rest in peace.

Take this commenter’s response to a 1909 sports reporter’s rhapsodic, objectifying, and paragraphs-long detailing of all girls in the audience. It’s an account which has apparently aged well over the past 100 years:

How on earth is that sexist? I don’t see one comment that is disparaging of women. He’s simply admiring the abundance of women at the event, and his writing is actually fantastic, much better than most of the BS that’s out there today.

Or another commenter’s response to a 1900 New York Times piece which admonished female Cuban exchange students for taking too many sexual liberties in America, posted on IvyGate’s coverage of the story:

Heh. So now it’s sexist to notice pretty girls?

More vitriollic defenses of olde-tyme sexism can be found everywhere vintage sexism is on display. YouTube, of course, is an infamous repository of bigotry. Check out the commonts on this YouTube clip from the 1963 movie, The Courtship of Eddie’s Father, which posed the question about the following dialogue: “The Most Sexist Line in Movie History?”

“The man who will love me on equal terms. That old saying, ‘behind every man is a woman’—that’s not for me. I want to stand right alongside. Is that asking too much?”

“Well, now I think you’re going to have to be satisfied with the vote right now,” TK responds. “I don’t think that will ever become a national movement.”

The modern sexism was swift and barely intelligible:

From MysteryManoLove:

You are DUMB, feminism has it’s good points as Nazi Germany did too, thonly parallel is that feminists are taking the rights away from every one. They arn’t making more “rights” anymore, it’s all privilige, affirmative action, Title ix education amendment, ect.

From LovelyYTRocks:

Women? Equal to man? Lololol. I remember in P.E., not so long ago: A 15-year-old girl needs to cover 3 kilometres in 16 minutes to receive 10/10. A 15-year-old boy needs to cover 3 kilometres in 12 minutes to receive 10/10. 0 girls has completed this task so far, and nearly all boys has completed this challenge (except the really fat ones).

From Nickyrinkydinky:

To Lowfuellevel and the rest of the whining sexist bitches.

1. My father is a HOUSE-HUSBAND and looks after my sisters and brothers WHILST going to work during the day time. On top of that MANY men i know DO have 2 jobs in order to support their families.

2. There is literally little/no sexism today. You complain just for the sake of it. Ive been brought up well by my mother and i respect women. Yet all i see is sexist comments from “feminists” nowdays.

Yahoo! Answers—and its fellow community-based advice sites—may be the most frustrating forum for even the most innocuous feminist sentiments. After user Lindseylillian asked other Yahoo! users for examples of sexism in film, the resounding response was: No films are sexist. Lindseylillian is the only one who is sexist:

Oh great another feminist taking pure entertainment and making it into something so complicated and offensive. You know what YOUR sexist, because nobody even thought of that before you, people all saw people, you saw woman being held back….you sexist.

I used to enjoy a good laugh at vintage sexism, partly because it demonstrated how far we’ve come. Now I know that while the films and newspapers may have aged, there’s nothing “vintage” about the sexist sentiment behind them.

Photo by late night movie

I don’t know what I did to deserve this, but I just received this little gift in my inbox courtesy of Ayn Rand philosophy emporium / Objectivist dating site “The Atlasphere.” It’s called “Who Is Glenn Beck?,” and it’s written by John Stossel.

Usually, the photograph of Stossel’s sensuous mustache would be enough to make me click through to an Atlasphere column. Here, we’ve got an even sweeter prize, however. Glenn Beck’s sexism: explained!

Stossel notes that he’s not the first to tackle the “Who Is Glenn Beck” question. Kieth Olbermann, Whoopie Goldberg, and Jon Stewart have all claimed to have figured the guy out, concluding that Beck is “the worst person in the world,” a “lying sack of dog mess,” and “a guy who says what people who aren’t thinking are thinking,” respectively.

But Stossel may be the first to get to the deep psychological core of “Who Is Glenn Beck.” After ticking off his parents’ divorce, his mother’s alcoholism, and her eventual suicide, Stossel lands on the woman behind the sexist: Beck’s hot Mormon wife.

When Stossel asked Beck why he decided to become a Mormon, Beck replied:

“I apologize, but guys will understand this. My wife is, like, hot, and she wouldn’t have sex with me until we got married. And she wouldn’t marry me unless we had a religion.”

Beck’s wife, Tania, confirmed it to Stossel: “He’s not joking.”

So far, “Who Is Glenn Beck” is providing more questions than answers. Why would you marry someone to have sex with them? Why would you become a Mormon to marry someone to have sex with them? Does making a man become a Mormon before having sex with him actually make you hotter? Which “guys” will understand this?

Still, Stossel thinks he’s hit on something with the hot Mormon wife thing:

Now Beck says that Mormonism has grounded him, so he’s grateful to his wife.

Whatever grounded him, I’m glad something did. Because it’s good to have a super-successful cable-TV host arguing that life would be better if government—Democrats and Republicans—just left Americans alone.

Listen, I’m not going to blame Tania Beck for Glenn Beck’s idea of limited government, or for convincing anyone else that Glenn Beck is “grounded.” Still, Glenn Beck’s assertion that marrying a no-sex-until-Mormon babe is the thing that really leveled his head may have affected Beck’s perspective on women in general:

* On Nancy Pelosi: “Girl, you better check yourself before you wreck yourself!”

* “Cindy Sheehan is a tragedy slut.”

* On Gloria Steinem: “You self-centered self-righteous socialist out of control dangerous man-hating bitch. Shut your mouth. We might have bought into this crap in the 1960s because too many people were doing LSD. We’re not on LSD anymore—we need to start making sense.”

Ooh boy, it’s National Offend a Feminist Week!

You know, as a feminist blogger, I spend most weeks out of the year not getting offended by anything. Frankly, I’m sick of raking up obscure sexist bullshit to be offended by! That’s why I always look forward to National Offend a Feminist Week, when I finally get to sit back, relax, and let the anti-feminists shower me with free sexist bullshit. Thanks for helping me do my job, fuckers!

But wait—AUUUUUUGH! AUUUUUUUUUUGHHHHH!—I’m ALREADY OFFENDED by this! The very idea of Offend a Feminist Week is offensive enough for me to write a blog post about why it offends me! The anti-feminist bloggers have caught me in an Offended Feminist Mind Meld! I can’t stop using explanation points! Nor italics! NOR CAPS LOCK! AUGH!

OFFEND A FEMINIST WEEK MALE PRIVILEGE SHADES OF RAPE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY ALEC BALDWIN SOMETHING SOMETHING ABORTION!!

Whew. That was a close one.

Photo by Rich Anderson.

To the Employees of Several Washington-Area CVS Stores:

I understand that your CEO, Thomas Ryan, has stated that the CVS name stands for “Convenience, Value, and Service.” This letter takes issue with the third.

It has recently come to my attention, upon purchasing Sensitive Lady Products at several Washington-area CVS stores, that the employees tasked with accepting my payment for these products have not received proper training in How to Not Act Like A Jerk to the Ladies Who Purchase Sensitive Lady Products.

I understand it may be difficult to know how to handle the sale of a Sensitive Lady Product. Perhaps you’re afraid of offending a lady who may be sensitive about purchasing a Sensitive Lady Product; perhaps you have personal religious or political beliefs that require you to be sort of a jerk about doing your job. But you guys are Sensitive Lady Product sales professionals, and you should know how to properly conduct yourselves. Here are some tips.

How to Not Act Like A Jerk to Ladies Purchasing Sensitive Lady Products:

1. When your supervisor asks you to open the locked glass case that holds the Sensitive Lady Product I require, do not make small-talk speculating as to why I require it.

2. Don’t suggest which one I should get, either. You’re a dude.

3. On second thought, just don’t lock up your Sensitive Lady Products.

4. Instead, try to consider why you might have needed to lock them up in the first place. Hmm, maybe it’s because you’re total jerks to the people who buy them?

5. When it comes time for me to exchange money for the Sensitive Lady Product, look me in the eye.

6. Respond when I say “thank you.”

7. If you really cannot acknowledge that I am a human, at least ask if I have a CVS card! I can use some savings on these Sensitive Lady Products!

Sincerely,

A purchaser of Sensitive Lady Products.

Earlier this week, I explained, ever-so-respectfully, why I thought sex-positive feminism was boring and dumb. In this edition of Sexist Beatdown, a chatty-thing, Tiger Beatdown’s Sady kindly explains how she came to personally identify as a “sex positive feminist” by being the only employee in a sex shop who didn’t know her anal nerve endings from the ones in her “cooter,” and I realize that a preponderance of rope restraints may be the only thing keeping me from the dark “sex-positive” side. Enjoy!

AMANDA: ok. so. sex sex sex sex feminism sex

SADY: Indeed! I have, at times – many, many, MANY times – identified as a “sex-positive” feminist. Yet your article demonstrated for me some of the reasons why that can be annoying even to my very own ears!

AMANDA: yeah, and the issue is actually a lot more interesting than the form it was presented in my post (”rant”)

SADY: Well, I feel like “sex-positive” is kind of a necessary construction, or was, at a certain point, when people were arguing with each other over whether porn, or heterosexual intercourse, was inherently oppressive to the ladies because of The Sexism. I even feel like right now we need to talk about ladies having sex drives and bodies that can enjoy sex and how that is not just necessarily some thing women inexplicably do to gratify man boners!

AMANDA: incidentally, i identify as a man boner gratifying feminist. i definitely agree with you, and i think the history of “sex positivity” and “feminist” is part of the reason it sort of nonsexually rubs me the wrong way. i just think at this point it’s so obvious that feminists are not sex-negative. but i am a young female feminist-identifying person, so maybe it’s not as obvious to, say, feminist-hating middle aged men.

SADY: RIGHT? They probably think you are out luring the man boners into wood chippers or something. OR marrying dudes so you can then divorce them, which I hear is quite popular. OR, you are a big old slutty slut slut boner slut. ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE TRUE, in the mind of the Middle-Aged-Feminist-Fearing-Dude.

The Visions in Feminism conference, an annual feminist symposium held at American University, has chosen its 2009 keynote speaker: Annie Sprinkle (right) a porn-star-cum-academic who claims to be “the first porn star to get a Ph.D.” She is also the creator of such titles as “Hardcore from the Heart: The Pleasures, Profits and Politics of Sex in Performance” (book) and “Annie Sprinkle’s Amazing World of Orgasm” (DVD).

The theme of the 2009 VIF conference is “Pushing Boundaries: Queering Feminism & Queer-ying our Communities”; its goal is to “explore ways of queering ourselves and our communities; that is, unfixing definitions of feminism while pushing our boundaries to re-examine our relationships to feminist praxis.”

While we’re “unfixing definitions of feminism,” may I humbly submit that we unfix this “sex-positivity” shit from the entire praxis? Because if I have to endure another essay on the mysteries of the female orgasm in the name of feminism, I may never have an orgasm again.

Let’s take a look at the rest of the VIF conference: It includes workshops on the “Asian Pacific Islander Domestic Violence Resource Project,” “Transsexual Women’s Experiences and Queer Feminism,” and “Dork as Third Gender.” Sounds good to me.

Then, things get sex-positive-y. The conference ends with a workshop (complete with “live demonstration with rope restraints“) run by “a sex positive polyamorous pansexual bi-gendered individual who enjoys nothing more than talking about and/or having sex,” then Sprinkle’s keynote address.

Meh. Yes: Sex is great! Talking about sex is great (except when it’s not)! It’s no surprise to anyone that tons of people really like having sex, including—ooooh—feminists!

This is the worst part of sex-positivity role in feminism: It pretends to be totally outrageous, but it’s actually very, very boring. Take Sprinkle’s “Interview with an Anti-Porn Feminist,” in which she argues for porn’s place in the feminist movement. Sprinkle kicks off the questions by asking her subject, “Don’t you think it’s so totally interesting to see people naked, or to watch them having sex?”

I’m not an anti-porn feminist, and even I have to say—No. Just, no. It’s fine, but it’s not “totally interesting,” and talking about it is even less interesting. Of course, there are a lot of feminist issues involved in the porn industry, sex work, and in human sexuality; I just don’t think “sex positivity” is one of them. So you’re a feminist, and you like sex—well, that’s normal. So do a lot of people, including a lot of non- and anti-feminists. So what does that have to do with feminist identity?

And yet, sex-positivity has wormed its way into the feminist movement. Why? One reason, of course, is that for a long time, women weren’t allowed to want or like to have sex. And sure, I’ve been lucky to grow up in a time and place where I haven’t needed a porn star PhD mentor to tell me it’s okay to like doin’ it.

But there’s another reason, too: If people who like sex see sex-positivity as a part of the feminist movement, maybe they’ll see feminism as less prude and scary and icky and straight-laced and serious and anti-man. And I think it’s condescending to the feminist movement that we have to bring orgasms in to be taken seriously.

What does it all mean, etc.

Welcome back to Sexist Beatdown, the weekly feature wherein Sady of Tiger Beatdown (white, heterosexual, cisgendered, American) and myself of The Sexist (white, heterosexual, cisgendered, American), chat. Except for last week, when we did not do it. My fault. BUT THIS WEEK WE ARE BACK, to discuss whether the feminist blogosphere is a form of digital colonialism, and if so, does that explain why feminist blogs are sometimes very boring? Ready, aim:

REFERENCED:

What If The Feminist Blogosphere Is A Form of Digital Colonialism, in which two lady bloggers, Brittany and Mandy, postulate that the feminist blogosphere may, in fact, be a form of digital colonialism.

An Apology From Brittany and Mandy, in which the aforementioned bloggers apologize for postulating that the feminist blogosphere may, in face, be a form of colonialism.

Well Allow Me To Retort, in which an alleged victim of said digital colonialism argues that she is not, in fact, a victim of digital colonialism.

Then: a series, in which alleged digital colonizer Feministe talks, and talks, and talks about whether it is, in fact, guilty of digital conolialism.

Our turn!

—

SADY: it is time for the discussion of why GUEST BLOGGING WILL DESTROY THE WORLD, apparently! did you even get through all the billions of words in the links i sent you? i have been re-reading them myself this very evening.

AMANDA: i got through many of them. i got very tired. let me start off by saying, i apologize for featuring your words in a weekly token guest blog. i did not mean to offend

SADY: you know, i will have to think that over. as a LARGER ELITE BLOG, i am aware that my decision to work with you is based on my own misguided naivete, so really, i have only myself to blame!

AMANDA: you’re white though, so i think it’s better? or maybe worse, i can’t keep it straight.

SADY: i am a white lady, yes. therefore this argument is not nearly so insulting to me as to many! but what frustrates me in the “what if the feminist blogosphere is a form of digital colonialism” post is that its one central point—women of color who guest post at Big Feminist Elite Blogs are being exploited and don’t know it somehow—is so very NOT REALLY THE POINT AT ALL, if you read it closely. it mainly seems to be about Big Feminist Blogs and how they are keeping people—like maybe the authors of this very post!—out of the spotlight, and guest blogging is… causing this? i do not know. what i do know, from reading feministe, is that one of the authors once had a fight with jessica valenti

AMANDA: i see. i read a lot of the stuff, but i got bored around the middle of the feministe series.

SADY: awww

AMANDA: yeah, i’m sorry. i did get a little frustrated at how vilified the two women who wrote the post were by these other blogs that they had implicated in the post, to the point where they felt the need to write a long and excessively delicate, i thought, apology on it

SADY: yeah, i sort of read through that apology but i kind of was not able to keep my attention on it. i should say that i originally found the post through Shark-Fu’s response.

AMANDA: Shark-Fu’s response was great, and actually this whole exercise has brought up a criticism that I’ve had about some of the larger group blogs for some time, which is that they can be very, very boring sometimes. regardless of the identity politics of the writers, most of which i’m not really familiar with—this being on the internet and all—i think that the smaller individual blogs are where great voices are really cultivated and stranger issues are addressed, and when they’re filtered into these larger monoliths i think a lot of that gets lost. (except for Shark-Fu, whose voice can never be silenced). take jezebel, for example, which i like—after reading that blog for a couple years, it just begins to feel very safe. though there are points of daring writing by some of the women who blog there, i wish there was a little more branching out in terms of content and voice.

SADY: yeah, i definitely agree with you about jezebel. although i think some of jezebel brings up the issue of maybe Blogging While Corporate, in that a lot of the writers I definitely sought out on that site were lost or started posting a lot less after they were moved to “part-time.” but i agree that single-person blogs, where you really get to watch one voice grow and develop and chart out the areas of its obsession, are usually more fascinating to me.

AMANDA: definitely. also, the very sad loss of Pot Psychology. i think one of the problems with blogs is that they are for people to just talk and talk and talk (see: this very blog post), and so these areas of opinion are worked over and over again, which draws a lot of conversation, but which doesn’t always advance the scope of the topics we’re actually talking about. which is the sad fallout of the fall of dead tree journalistic outfits i suppose.

SADY: ha, yeah. i also think that this one post we’re talking about now has some interesting stuff to say, but that stuff is (ironic!) drawn from critiques, largely framed by ladies of color, that they didn’t link to directly except through WEIRDLY ACADEMIC FOOTNOTES BECAUSE THEY ARE BORING, sorry. but the questions of who gets “authority,” who gets to be “representative,” and how that lines up with the class or racial privilege you have, i definitely think are worth investigating. i mean, blogs are for talking and talking and talking, but are we also listening and listening and listening? and to whom? and what are we doing with what we learn there?

AMANDA: i thought their original post was very interesting, and often right, and also wrong, and that the bigger blogs (i suppose i am only talking about feministe here) did a sort of cop-out move to focus only on the criticisms that were easy to shoot down. (not only . . . largely). i think one of the very interesting aspects of the original post was that it made the point that, hey, the Internet is great because everybody has a voice, but actually, there are so many voices on the Internet that the little blog representative of one aspect of feminism is not heard if it’s not picked up by the larger sites. so really, no, not everyone has a voice.

SADY: true enough, and there may be a lot of factors (like, if someone is writing from a marginalized perspective within feminism—if they are a trans feminist, or a feminist sex worker, or a lady of color) that may cause people to view those as… i don’t want to impute ill will to anybody, but let’s say those are viewed as “specialized” whereas if you are writing from a more privileged place you get to present your concerns (and have them accepted) as “universal”

AMANDA: definitely

SADY: am i saying any of this right? i am pretty sure i am not!

AMANDA: yeah, and i wish that jezebel and some of the other blogs would touch on more glbtq stuff sometimes, but they’re allowed to define their content area as they please. on the other hand, they’re in this position to do so much interesting stuff that i think a lot of times they don’t take the opportunity to. and part of that is because they’re getting cut, they’re overworked, underpaid, etc.

SADY: yeah, right, and here’s where i think the questions about money and audience and status and whatever get very interesting. because if you’re getting paid, let alone paid WELL, to be a feminist blogger (and are dependent for your paycheck on the goodwill of a dude who is not precisely known for being warm and cuddly, in jezebel’s case) then… well, you have to write in a way that will capture your audience’s attention and justofy those ad purchases on your site, and that might lead to the kind of “safe” stuff you were talking about, where you go back to things that you know will work and don’t get to have the same sense of adventure as a blog without those concerns. which is not to say that i don’t get a lot of news from jezebel! or even that i think jezebel is what they were talking about rather than feministing, feministe, shakesville, which i’m told make far less money, and which i also read.

AMANDA: yeah. i think it’s just like any other capitalist industry, really, it’s a meritocracy but it’s not, and it’s important to remember that. at the same time … hell, it offers a lot of opportunity for a lot of discussion, and that’s great! though very very extended discussions about Why We Are Not Racist i’m pretty much over with for now. thankfully, once the pageviews subside the blogs will move on to something else.

SADY: yes, thank god for the Internet: proving once and for all that if you just stop paying attention to some people, they will go away. and then maybe you can actually pay attention to people for doing something good! like being talented! it’s sad how much easier it is to talk and talk forever about someone you don’t like.

AMANDA: it is sad, but that is the internet in a nutshell. it’s also easy to come up with reasons you don’t like something that you might even have good things to say about.

SADY: it’s also easy to say purposefully inflammatory things to get attention. I DON’T LIKE NUNS OR BABIES. Next baby I see: I’m punching it, HARD. see how easy that is?

AMANDA: piece of cake.

I don’t know how I missed this, but in her unending pursuit of pissing off Ashley Judd / discovering new chili ingredients / proving her own brand of feminism, Sarah Palin has it out for the Alaskan belugas. According to a Salon piece:

But for all the amazing ways that the Cook Inlet belugas cope with their stark environment, there’s one imminent threat for which they have no adaptation: Gov. Sarah Palin.

Chilling.

On Jan. 14, 2009, the Alaska governor announced that the state had filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the federal government for protecting the whales, arguing that Alaska is already doing enough for the whales in the Inlet. Palin’s chief of staff published an Op-Ed in the Anchorage Daily News on Jan. 28 titled “Protection Requirements for Cook Inlet Belugas Are Silly.”

Yeah, Sarah Palin is suing the federal government because protecting whales is “silly.” I can’t wait until this plays out in the courts.

Photo by steews4

“It is time that we take back the term ‘feminism’ and restore its dignity and honor . . . maybe Ms. and the former national women’s movement will return in the sequel as Superwomen once again,” wrote one complainer. “This seems designed to mock people who supported Hillary Clinton during the Democratic Primary,” wrote another.

When did “feminist” become code word for Hillary Clinton? Is it possible that these people simply never want to have a feminist president? Don’t we want all of our presidents to identify as feminists (except Sarah Palin, who will never be president and does not understand the meaning of words)?

I want a female president, too. But there’s a difference between a female president and a feminist president. We’ve got one. It doesn’t mean we’re going to stop working for the other one.

“[T]he easy to please feminists over at Ms. Magazine put Barack Obama on the cover and gush like teeny-boppers that Obama is some Feminist Super Man who will, presumably, save us little wimin,” wrote the Tennessee Guerilla Women.

“[O]h, the irony of picturing a feminist as a superMAN,” wrote a poster on Hillary’s Village.

“This seems designed to mock people who supported Hillary Clinton during the Democratic Primary. Why does Ms. want to do that now?” writes Feminist Law Professors.

I’m not offended by the cover’s assertion that Barack Obama looks like a feminist, but I am disappointed that his Vice Presidential pick and fellow feminist Joe Biden hasn’t received the same ridiculous superhero photoshop treatment. I implore you, Ms.: release a Biden version! Check out my blinged-out Biden entry, after the jump:

Glitter Graphics

You’re welcome!

1. Electing President Barack Obama.

Feminist Milestone. Hawaiian beefcake president Barack Obama along with storied train enthusiast running mate Joe Biden, pinky swore that they would work to further women’s rights this election season. Despite Obama having swapped one controversial religious figure for another (this time with more misogyny!) I’m going to give Barry a pass on this one and hope that when he drops the “elect” nonsense and gets to be President for real, no take-backs, he’ll get his Lady Issues cap on straight and start pandering to us.

2. Hillary Clinton: 18 Million Cracks.

Feminist Milestone. Concession Shmussceshion. Good speech, Hills!

3. Gov. Sarah Palin: Firing Up Feminists

Thing That Happened. Remember when every feminist in America was forced to submit an op-ed piece to her local newspaper to explain why just being a woman wasn’t the same as being a feminist, but who really cares because she didn’t appear to know what any other word meant either? Yeah, that thing. Well, the same rule applies here—just because everybody got mad at the dumb lady who thought she was running for president doesn’t mean we deserve a self-congratulatory “top moment” back-pat for doing so.

4. Unmarried Women Tip 2008 Election in Favor of Barack Obama

Thing That Happened.

5. Sex and The City Movie Inspires New and Old Generations

Thing That Happened. The writer of this list saw a movie this year.

6. Bitch Magazine Forges Ahead in Fiscal Crisis

Feminist Milestone, if only to show solidarity with lady-themed print offerings. Remember me when you’re profitable!

7. Workin’ 9 to 5 Goes to Broadway

Thing That Happened. The writer of this list saw a play this year.

8. Female Bloggers Take On The Internet

9. Sex Slavery Finds A New Face Of Justice

Feminist Milestone. “This year,” Nedeau writes, “Somaly Mam was awarded the World’s Children’s Prize for the Rights of the Child in Sweden for her ‘dangerous struggle’ to defend the rights of children in Cambodia.” Wow, heh, must hurt to land after the Sex and the City movie and that Dolly Parton revival thing.

10. Female Human Rights Activist Released From Captivity

Feminist Milestone. So, Ingrid Betancourt was released after spending six years in captivity. Yeah, well, Parton had to wait 28 years to see her movie become a real live Broadway musical, so let’s keep things in perspective here.