Readers, I get so many weird e-mails. So far, I've just been letting them accumulate in my in-box, never to be read again—even the ones with the attached shirtless photos. But now, it's purge time.

Some context for our first Sexist e-mail: Six months ago, I wrote a post called "Women And Gay Men Are Sluts," which explained how the sexual double standard—as Jessica Valenti so aptly summarized, "he's a stud, she's a slut"—pretty much goes out the window when gay men are concerned. As I wrote—six months ago—when gay men are sexually promiscuous, they're not considered "studs"—they're decried as bad, immoral, evil sluts, just like us girls.

And now, after all this time, a reader has written in to explain the real sexual double standard to me. In short: Forget about gay guys! Are you aware of the great social problem of straight men being denied sex because they are just too nice?

Why yes, I am aware of this. But I digress:

Concerning your article, 'women and gay men are sluts',

We as humans don't respect or value what is handed to us. We only value what we have worked to acheive. That is probably why you don't feel respected. Nice guys don't get respected because they are too easy. It's the same thing. It's human nature.

It's not like guys are coming out and disrespecting you, calling you a 'slut'. It's probably more that you don't 'feel' respected. Neither nice guys or sluts get respected because they are too easy. And neither get top choice when it comes to a relationship.

The only difference is we actually give sluts what they want, but women don't give nice guys the sex they want. It's ok if you want to be promiscuous, you just have to accept that way of life. You won't get disrespected verbally. Men just won't want to go out with you, that's all. It all depends on what you want..

We only respect or put value on what we have worked to achieve. It makes more sense when you think of it that way..

The death of feminism ain't news. Feminism has died a thousand deaths by this point. But wait a second: Today, someone is killing feminism in a totally new way, and this time it involves something called a "diamanté phone cover," whatever the fuck that is. This, according to Nina Power in her book "One Dimensional Woman." Power writes:

Stripped of any internationalist and political quality, feminism becomes about as radical as a diamanté phone cover. [Jessica Valenti] ‘truly believes’ that feminism is necessary for women ‘to live happy fulfilled lives’. Slipping down as easily as a friendly-bacteria yoghurt drink, Valenti’s version of feminism, with its total lack of structural analysis, genuine outrage, or collective demand, believes it has to compliment capitalism in order to effectively sell its product. When she claims that ‘ladies, we have to take individual action’, what she really means is that it’s every woman for herself and if it is the Feminist™ woman who gets the nicest shoes and the chocolatiest sex, then that’s just too bad for you, sister.

That's right, everybody. You know that sparkly, fun-loving, chocolate-coated feminism that's so popular among capitalists nowadays? Not familiar? Well: It is killing feminism! And how: By making it accessible to more women. Wait, what?

Valenti herself has already responded to Power's critiques on behalf of non-humorless-feminists everywhere, and her points are quite reasonable, particularly when you consider the fact that she's responding to a person who has just compared her to a yoghurt drink. "First of all," Valenti writes, "why anyone wouldn’t want feminism to be the latest must-have accessory is beyond me—because that would be awesome." Agreed.

Join Sady Doyle of Tiger Beatdown as we draft an application for inclusion in the Real Feminists Club, bedazzle our feminist credentials, and attempt to get to the bottom of this feminist yoghurt drink analogy once and for all. I'll tell you one thing: There better be some fruit at the bottom of this sucker.

SADY: Hello! I have chosen to make myself accessible! In the name, of course, of FEMINISM.

AMANDA: On to it!

SADY: Yes! Are too many of the kids today into it? Should we make it harder for them? SHOULD THERE BE A WRITTEN APPLICATION? Such are the questions before us now.

AMANDA: I have to admit, I found the whole accusation that Jessica Valenti is not a serious feminist a bit ... puzzling. If Jessica Valenti is a fluffy feminist, then what are we? Are we like marshmallow feminists?

SADY: I am a pure spun sugar feminist made of glitter and twinkles. I am the feminist that floats upon the air, so lightweight am I. And this is the thing, the thing that gets me kind of so angry: For years and years and years upon years, people have been like, "Well, of course The Patriarchy will attack us for being humorless and dour, but that is a harsh stereotype and a lie!"

AMANDA: Hah!

SADY: And, yes: Yes it is. So why is this lady suddenly piping up to tell Jessica Valenti to keep it down over there and not have so much fun?

AMANDA: Well: I understand the general argument. If people accuse me of being "too serious" about feminist issues—which they do, whenever I write about harassment or assault or rape or whatever—the appropriate response would not be to just sexy up my sexual assault coverage. However! There are issues related to feminism that are, in fact, not depressing at all! Like, when feminism happens, and then we can all have sex with whomever we want to when we want to without being assaulted or called whores. This is, indeed, a sexy development! And I fail to see the harm in celebrating that.

SADY: Right you are! It is extremely sexy. And, I mean, I think there's a line between "feminism that is accessible"—let us say, YOU, for I am in a complimentary mood this evening—and "feminism that is so very accessible that it is even accessible to people who are not feminists because it is not actually feminism at all" —let us say, Sarah Palin. And I think that a lot of people are just trying to figure out where that line gets drawn. I understand the calls for more "seriousness," insofar as they are asking you to "seriously" think about the issues in question. But I do not understand "seriousness" insofar as it is like, "I am sorry, this must be written in some modern super-language, for I can read it even without a post-graduate education in Ladyology."

AMANDA: Right. Like if you're a teenager who happens to not identify as a feminist, which is the group Valenti was largely writing her book for. I think one of the arguments against the happy-go-lucky feminism was actually like, Oh No! If we pretend that feminism is a wonderful happy thing, these women will be sorely disappointed when they become feminists and realize that there are like, some serious issues to deal with as well. Again ... I fail to see why the soft pitch ends up being a bad thing. If a girl decides she's interested in feminism because she understands what Valenti has to say about the more "girl power" type stuff, and then she ends up realizing why it's important to support feminism for ALL women, what is the problem?

SADY: Right. And, I mean, there is something to be said for the gateway drug. The only problem is if the kids don't get past the gateway. Like, let's just point out that I am not talking about Feministing or Valenti here, because they have in fact always managed to cover the hard stuff as well as the basics—more of the hard stuff than I have, in fact, because my goal is basically to be the Skittles of feminism—BUT. There is, in fact, something to the idea of "consumerist feminism" or "lifestyle accessory" feminism. Which is, I do think there are some ladies whose involvement with feminism is exclusively confined to their own problems, which they elevate to the position of WORST PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD, even though they are like, "a guy won't like me unless I shave my personal regions" or "I worry that women nowadays are taking the pole-dancing classes, which is gross!" Which: nothing to be said against those problems! Mandatory bodily presentation or the idea that women are always sexual and that "sexual" equals "sex industry performance" at all times are things we can talk about! BUT, it's when we get stuck there, because then feminism becomes sort of obsessively, exclusively personal, and you're not thinking about anything else.

AMANDA: Agreed. I'll reiterate that presenting Valenti as the representative of that kind of feminism is whack, however. I mean, Nina Power compares Valenti to a "friendly-bacteria yoghurt drink.” What the fuck does that mean?

SADY: I have NO IDEA. It reminds me of those Activia commercials, though. And, on the overpersonalizing-feminism thing, can I say? I think that's a line everybody has to walk, and I fall on the wrong side of it sometimes. If by "sometimes" you mean "A LOT OF TIMES." But I think that this is the thing, like the core problem with the argument insofar as I understand it: she IS CONFLATING "accessible" with "shallow."

AMANDA: Yeah. I’ll tell you one thing that's not going to make feminism accessible to the masses: Feminist infighting! I realize I may be implicating this very Sexist Beatdown by saying this, but feminists arguing about who is the bestest feminist? Not particularly riveting to non-feminists.

SADY: BUT I WAS GOING TO GET THE BEST FEMINIST AWARD! WHY ELSE WOULD I BE DOING THIS.

AMANDA: But since Nina Power is concerned with feminism becoming too accessible, perhaps this was her plan all along! "I know. I'll write a book dedicated to feminist infighting that makes absurd claims about several well-known 'accessible' feminists. That's sure to throw them off their work of making feminism more accessible! At least for a few blog posts!"

SADY: True! Now we can all quote Serious Theory at each other until we fall asleep. Also, in the morning, there might still be some sexism? But whatever! I get Cixous!

AMANDA: I get Yoghurt.

SADY: Um, OK. Lightweight.

Photo via love♡janine, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

I'm not an Difrancophile myself. But WAM! did, apparently, get a hold of my secret feminist crush diary in order to seriously entice me with a couple of items. Here are my top three weak spots:

3. Target: Women creator Sarah Haskins records your outgoing voicemail message.

Current Bid: $60

I have no idea what I would ask Sarah Haskins to record as my voicemail message. "Hi this is Amanda leave a message" has served me well over the past five years. But the terms of the auction note that "Winning bidder will communciate with Haskins to agree on a script or outline for the message in advance of recording," which means that Sarah Haskins totally has to respond to one of your e-mails! Sweet!

2. Shapely Prose creator Kate Harding edits your nonfiction manuscript.

Current Bid: $55

Anybody know where I can find a nonfiction manuscript on short notice?

1. Feministing editor Jessica Valenti has dinner with you.

Current Bid: $160

If I won dinner with Jessica Valenti, I would suggest we go to the Brazillian restaurant the New York Times listed as the location of Valenti's first date with now-husband Andrew Golis. Do you think she would find that funny or creepy? Probably creepy, right?

Jessica Valenti is right about the Miss Universe Pageant: As offensive as the public ranking of female swimsuit parts may be to the feminist eye, there's something very comforting about pageantry. Every year, the Universe comes together to televise an event that proves that sexism exists. In other words, they make for a really easy blog item.

And what's even better for a feminist critic than a beauty pageant? A beauty pageant with judges who try to bolster the Q-and-A with some feminist-lite questions, only to crown the winner who answers with the most sexism-denying rhetoric.

"I believe that nowadays we women have overcome many obstacles, and I do believe that we have reached the same level that men have," said Miss Venezuela, now Miss Universe, when asked what women can do to overcome sexism in the workplace. "We must realize there are no longer any barriers amongst us." And the crowd—along with us bored feminist bloggers—goes wild.

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.