"No means yes": It's not just for Yale frat guys, celebrity defense attorneys, and the citizens of opposite land. Nope, that line of reasoning is also a pretty common one among old, privileged ladies, and other groups you may expect to find sitting on the jury of your rape trial!

Last month, Dan Kahan of Yale University Law School released a study examining the cultural factors at play in popular reactions to rape cases. Kahan's research question was straightforward: If a person voices "repeated verbal objections" to a sex act, is it rape?

In other words, who among us thinks that "no" really means "no," and who thinks that "no" is just a handy excuse for loose women? As it turns out, knowing that "no" means "no" has little to do with your gender, and a lot to do with what you think about gender.

People Who Think "No" Means "No": Men and women with an "egalitarian" worldview which "judges the character of men and women by a largely unitary measure, and treats female sexuality as a legitimate expression of individual autonomy." Makes sense, right? Not to some:

People Who Think "No" Means "Maybe": As it turns out, people who can't tell the difference between "yes" and "no" are nevertheless very invested in maintaining differences between "men" and "women." The people most likely to believe that a rape victim actually consented, even though she said "no"? Those with a "conservative, traditional, and hierarchical" worldview, marked by "highly differentiated and stratified gender roles."

Among this group, older women were the most likely to pooh-pooh "no means no": "Overall, women were no more or less likely to favor conviction than were men. However, women who subscribed to the hierarchical cultural style—particularly older women who did—were more inclined to form a pro-defendant view of the facts." And Sady of the the brand-spankin' Tiger Beatdown and I think that requires a Sexist Beatdown.

BUT FIRST, some background: Kahan based his study on the Ironically Fucked-Up Rape Case of the Century, Commonwealth v. Berkowitz. The case surrounded a college sophomore girl and a college sophomore boy who got to know each other—platonically—through a "sexual-assault awareness lecture" entitled, I'm not fucking kidding, "Does ‘No’ Sometimes Mean ‘Yes’?"

Only weeks later, the content of that lecture would be tested when the girl entered the boy's dorm room, and they got to talking:

Before the victim could leave appellant’s room, however, appellant asked her to stay and “hang out for a while.” She complied because she “had time to kill” and because she didn’t really know appellant and wanted to give him “a fair chance.” Appellant asked her to give him a back rub but she declined, explaining that she did not “trust” him. Ap-pellant then asked her to have a seat on his bed. Instead, she found a seat on the floor, and conversed. . . . During this conversation she had explained she was having problems with her boyfriend. .

[After a few minutes, the defendant] moved off the bed and down on the floor, and “kind of pushed [the victim] back with his body. It wasn’t a shove, it was just kind of a leaning-type of thing.” Next appellant “straddled” and started kissing the victim. The victim responded by saying, “Look, I gotta go. I’m going to meet [my boyfriend].” Then ap-pellant lifted up her shirt and bra and began fondling her. The victim then said “no.”

After roughly thirty seconds of kissing and fondling, appellant “un-did his pants and he kind of moved his body up a little bit.” The victim was still saying “no” but “really couldn’t move because [appellant] was shifting at [her] body so he was over [her].” Appellant then tried to put his penis in her mouth. The victim did not physically resist, but rather continued to verbally protest, saying “No, I gotta go, let me go,” in a “scolding” manner.

Ten or fifteen more seconds passed before the two rose to their feet. Appellant disregarded the victim’s continual complaints that she “had to go,” and instead walked two feet away to the door and locked it so that no one from the outside could enter. . . . The victim testified that she realized at the time that the lock was not of a type that could lock people inside the room.

Then, in the victim’s words, “[appellant] put me down on the bed. It was kind of like—he didn’t throw me on the bed. It’s hard to explain. It was kind of like a push but no. . . .” She did not bounce off the bed. “It wasn’t slow like a romantic kind of thing, but it wasn’t a fast shove either. It was kind of in the middle.”

Once the victim was on the bed, appellant began “straddling” her again while he undid the knot in her sweatpants. He then removed her sweatpants and underwear from one of her legs. The victim did not physically resist in any way while on the bed because appellant was on top of her, and she “couldn’t like go anywhere.” She did not scream out at anytime because, “[i]t was like a dream was happening or some-thing.”

Appellant then used one of his hands to “guide” his penis into her vagina. At that point, after appellant was inside her, the victim began saying “no, no to him softly in a moaning kind of way ... because it was just so scary.” After about thirty seconds, appellant pulled out his penis and ejaculated onto the victim’s stomach.

Immediately thereafter, appellant got off the victim and said, “Wow, I guess we just got carried away.” To this the victim retorted, “No, we didn’t get carried away, you got carried away.” The victim then quickly dressed, grabbed her school books and raced downstairs to her boy-friend who was by then waiting for her in the lounge.

Once there, the victim began crying. Her boyfriend and she went up to his dorm room where, after watching the victim clean off appellant’s semen from her stomach, he called the police.

The defendant testified in his own behalf. He admitted that he initiate[d] the first physical contact, but added that the victim warmly responded to his advances by passionately returning his kisses. He conceded that she was continually “whispering ... no’s,” but claimed that she did so while “amorously . . . passionately” moaning. In effect, he took such protests to be thinly veiled acts of encouragement.

Kahan's study presented an almost identical account to study participants, and asked them to judge whether the incident constituted rape or not. 58 percent of people surveyed said they would have found the boy "guilty of rape." 42 percent would not have found him guilty.

AMANDA: Hey, would you like to chat now? Remember: In this chat, "no" means "maybe."

SADY: as it should! i, personally, like to SAY "no" so that my chat partner will not believe i am enthusiastic about the chat that i totally actually want to be chatting.

AMANDA: I generally restrict using "no" and variations on it, such as "stop," with undergraduate rapists whom I have never met before, in order to ensure that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court nows that I truly maybe wanted it.

SADY: right? so, this case. around which this study is based. is actually like some terrifying cartoon of sexist assumptions. girl goes into dude's room. girl has been friendly with dude. dude proceeds to initiate sex, to which girl says no. sex continues on apace. which is rape, right? but instead there are all these discussions of whether she tried to unlock the door or whether he shoved her onto the bed HARD enough to constitute "force" (did she bounce?) and the "no," although admitted to by both parties, actually DOES NOT COUNT AT ALL.

AMANDA: Did she bounce. That's the really, really weird thing about this case: All the assumptions about what makes a "real" rape are totally fucking insane! and the one sane assumption—that if she says no, it means she doesn't want to have sex—is discredited

SADY: right. and at one point, they mention that it was determined that the "no" meant lack of CONSENT, but did not thereby qualify the act as RAPE, since rape requires force and also that you not be married to your rape victim. so the question is, then: why isn't "no" enough? why is "no means no" a problem, and for whom? and the answer is... um, older ladies, apparently.

AMANDA: yeah: the answer is older, privileged ladies that i imagine to be stroking gigantic white cats while informing rape victims that they actually wanted it . . . in order to hold on to their social privilege, and the diamond-encrusted tiaras that go along with it, or whatever. these older ladies are really interesting to me, and i was trying to figure out what exactly about their cultural circumstances made them want to decide this case this way?

SADY: right. like, one SAYS no to the gentleman, dear, that he might not think you a harlot. whilst you have the sex that you said "no" to because you wanted it. oh, and also, if you say no AND MEAN IT there's no way for the dude to know that! because you SHOULD be saying no ALL THE TIME!

AMANDA: And also, implied, I think, is that if any women actually say NO and mean NO, then the women who say NO and mean YES will be considered sluttier than the rape victims. WHICH IS FUCKED UP.

SADY: UH HUH. and, like, if you want to play an incredibly hot erotic sexy game of saying "no" to sex every time you want sex, whatever. for me that is like playing a game of Let's See How Close I Can Stick My Face To This Chainsaw every weekend. but what are the odds that a woman who says no and means yes is going to then up and take her case to a rape court? for funsies? like, that is pretty time-consuming and awful, actually! i doubt anyone is THAT invested in maintaining her reputation as a non-sex-liker! so why should it affect the construction of the law? AT ALL?

AMANDA: beats me. the really scary thing is the assumption that because these jurors will decide based on their cultural attitudes and NOT the law, it doesn't matter WHAT the law says rape is

SADY: right, which is what the study seems to confirm.

AMANDA: however, in this particular case, the jury did decide to convict the dude of rape, and then the penn. supreme court decided 7-0 to reverse it ... based on the law. or ... based on their weird cultural assumptions? perhaps there were some hidden Privileged Older Ladies on the bench?

SADY: it really strikes me that the basic assumption here (in people who assume that "no means no" is a bad thing) is that dudes go around accidentally raping ladies ALL THE TIME and shouldn't be punished for it.

AMANDA: yeah. oops!

SADY: like, the idea is that dudes can't interpret the word "no" correctly, because they are less smart than your dog, and therefore should they accidentally rape someone who is saying "no" a lot you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. like, better luck next time, timmy!

AMANDA: even though, chillingly, the accused and the victim got to know each other in a sexual assault awareness lecture titled “Does ‘No’ Sometimes Mean ‘Yes’?” you really have to wonder how the lecture resolved that question

SADY: Oh, GOD. "in conclusion, no means no except when that is inconvenient for you personally! hope this helps!"

AMANDA: like, if the lecture concluded, "No, No Doesn't Sometimes Mean Yes," the attendees could have said, well yes, but what if No actually means Yes in your conclusion that No Doesn't Mean Yes?

SADY: ah, the timeless "but I WANT ice cream" logical maneuver.

AMANDA: it's terrible, because "no means yes" has always struck me as some sick dirty joke that people tell, but now i see that it has affected the actual reasoning of juries. the main point to take away from this is that jurors need to stop taking their jury duty vacation as an oppportunity to punish women that they think are sluts. if i were a lawyer, i would start asking that question in jury selection.

SADY: ray of light here, though? younger, more sexually active folks of both genders were more likely to grasp the meaning and validity of "no." like, apparently if you get that women CAN consent to sex, you're more likely to not have sex with them until they DO!

AMANDA: yeah. totally.

SADY: which, you know. the slut-punishing vigilante squad aside, makes me feel hope for this new generation, and their ability to understand words you learned when you were two years old.

AMANDA: this study was extremely depressing. i at least thought that the "she wanted it" defense would at least concede that admitting that she actually said "no" would be bad for their case. you'd assume the rapist wouldn't admit that! but when he does, the Old Privileged Ladies seems almost more likely to believe him

SADY: well, you know. he's a poor young man! led astray by that permissive harlot! and so on, and so forth.

AMANDA: no bouncing, so what can you do

SADY: right. NOT ENOUGH PREMARITAL FORCE-BOUNCING, that's what was wrong with this case. so, here's my advice to the world: however you feel about "no," can we hope, maybe, that you are MORE excited to get a "yes?" Because that, I think, is what you should be aiming for. "Yes, I would like to have sex with you." That, I would assume, is a statement that we can all agree is a positive.

AMANDA: . . . Maybe!

Photo by flickr user freeparking under Creative Commons

Some French videogame developer named Stéphane Aguie has created a videogame about killing homosexual rapists. The English version is called "Watch Out Behind You, Hunter," and the goal is to "shoot gay men who pop out of the bushes before they 'rape' the player." There are a couple of problems with this game: It is sickening, and it is also very, very boring.

QUICK QUIZ! This means that Stéphane Aguie is probably

(a) "edgy"
(b) "un-PC"
(c) Le 45-Year-Old-Boy residing in Chez Parents' Basement
(d) lazy
(e) all of the above.

Find out in this edition of Sexist Beatdown—where Sady of Tiger Beatdown and I discuss the finer points of how to protest bullshit violent videogames without channeling Tipper Gore.

SADY: why hello my good woman! care to speak about the evils of video games?

AMANDA: corrupting our children!

SADY: i know! the youth today! once i would have been not-serious about this but now i am not so sure.

AMANDA: i know, i think i'm getting older :(

SADY: well, also: it turns out that videogames, if you research them, are terrifying! like: RAPELAY, the world's leading rape-simulator for your home system. or this new game, in which the goal, i guess, is to run away from rape-minded gay men whilst shooting them in the face?

AMANDA: i played this game.

SADY: did you? did you really? how was your gaming experience?

AMANDA: well, the first thing to know about this game is that it debuted in french. and if you run the French title through some sophisticated language translators, you will find that the original name of the game was "Takes Guard Has Your Buttocks, Hunter!”

SADY: oh, MY.

AMANDA: the second, and most horrifying, relevant point about this game is that the gameplay is extremely boring. and so, we may conclude that the only possible draws of the game are a) shootin' queers or b) briefly catching sight of tiny cartoon penises.

SADY: I'M SORRY I CAN'T HEAR YOU I'M PLAYING TAKES GUARD HAS YOUR BUTTOCKS. but not really. i am just looking at it, some more.

AMANDA: hahahah

SADY: yes, i think that the creators were adamant about it being "humor?"

AMANDA: yeah—there's always this defense from Creators who are criticized over the content of their product. where they contest that the Game is something More than it Appears, when really it's a very simple and boring flash game with no point, except to depict murder and rape as easily and speedily as possible

SADY: right, exactly. but, i mean, these are the perils of online media. this game has peen in it, and raping, and it allows one to pretend to shoot dudes in the face for wanting to fuck you, and in this manner, it appeals to douchebags and gets traffic. it also has peen, and raping, and allows people to pretend to shoot dudes for wanting to sex them, and in this manner, it draws outrage from people such as myself and gets traffic. either way, TAKES GUARD WINS.

AMANDA: and then i played the game! which allowed me to say, This game is not fun and games!

SADY: (i appear to be playing this game wrong, by the way, as no naked men have jumped from the bushes to assault me yet.)

AMANDA: you gotta walk past them!

SADY: (perhaps i have clicked on the new, "non-offensive" version of Takes Guard Has Your Buttocks, in which you just shoot at rocks.)

AMANDA: Takes Guard Has Not Your Buttocks, Carry On Hunter

SADY: ah, well. well: i mean: i think this kind of stuff is actually endemic to a lot of entertainment, particularly entertainments such as this, which are aimed specifically at young straight dudes and are meant to get word-of-mouth. i mean, ladies play video games too! yet most of the videogames i have played are like being hit in the face with a jockstrap, that is how lowest-common-denominator-sexist they have been.

AMANDA: yeah, and i hate to take a Think of the Children approach to this, but i think that many of The Children persuasion also wish they weren't being so obviously pandered to. because anytime a filmmaker or gamemaker passes off gratuitous rape scenes or sexist jokes as "edgy" or "un-PC," what they're really saying is, "i'm lazy."

SADY: exactly. they are like, "LOOK, what we are saying is that men who want to have sex with dudes are predatory and rapey and you should kill them. maybe the reason that you are offended is that you have NEVER HEARD HILARIOUS JOKES ALONG THESE LINES BEFORE." like: no, dude, i have. i really really have. also, don't quite think you understand the definition of the word "jokes." and obviously, i follow a lot of ladies on the Twitter who talk about videogames and sexism and also love the crap out of videogames, so i don't think this is a problem with the base (except for the lazy portion of the base) so much as it is a problem with creators. although the Shoot Dudes Before They Have Your Buttocks Game is a flash game, so, you know. dealing with a whole other subsection of the genre here, primarily there to get you to click on some advertisements for adult friends or whatever.

AMANDA: right. but i think you've touched on something interesting, which is that women are consuming things, but there are often a lot of real barriers to getting women making the things, too.

SADY: OR, they can participate, but only insofar as they are making what is deemed "marketable" within that genre.

AMANDA: although i think the only qualifications you need to make an internationally famous flash game is being 14 years old and having access to Babelfish. right – you're lucky to be involved anyway, so don't try making any changes, because making us accountable for the terrible sexist and homophobic shit we put out would be SO like a girl. in conclusion, when is sarah palin getting into video games?

SADY: um, i believe AERIAL WOLF HUNTER is already a videogame. if it's not, it should be. the wolves fight back! with LASERS! but, you know. if you've solidly defined your audience as "14-year-old boys who are dumb," maybe making stuff that appeals to other people seems like a risky business move. i can understand that! personally, i am designing a game right now where you take away the computers of the Buttocks guys and hit them over the head with their own laptops repeatedly. i think it will be a hit!

AMANDA: will there be blood?

SADY: there will be panicked calls to their moms to come down into the basement and save them. i think that's its own reward.

Quick Quiz! Sex. What is it, exactly?

A. One step past whatever you were just caught doing with that woman who is not your wife.

B. Anything that two people do together in private when they love each other very much, not including whatever those queers are doing.

C. Whenever the one with a penis has an orgasm.

D. Given the obvious power disparity between men and women in the patriarchy, an implicitly non-consensual act—unless two girls are doing it, but only if two girls are doing it exclusively for their own pleasure and not to satisfy the male interest in two girls doing it.

E. Dancing.

Today, Sady of Tiger Beatdown and I will get to the bottom of this mysterious phenomenon, and figure out why the definition of "sex" is not actually any particular combination of penises, vaginas, anuses, and mouths, but rather a tool for cheaters to pretend they're not cheating and homophobes to pretend they're different from gays. Good morning, by the way!

AMANDA: hi

SADY: why hello!

AMANDA: do you want to talk now?

SADY: yes indeed! first off, i think we should acknowledge that approximately 125,000 celebrities will have died by the time we post this. THE GRIM REAPER HAS COME FOR CELEBRITY

AMANDA: and they never learned the true meaning of sex!

SADY: ah, yes. apparently, americans "can't agree" on it! this is something i could in no way have learned from my own personal life of dating. i define sex as a peanut butter sandwich. is that so wrong?

AMANDA: when involved in a high-profile political scandal, i define sex as "one step past whatever i did with that woman"

SADY: i personally define sex as "anything you can't tell grandma about for fear she might lose her tenuous grip on this mortal coil." but the studies themselves are intriguing!

AMANDA: yeah definitely. i think, though, that they may be lacking in context. like, it's not as important to define what "sex" is as it is to define what we're comfortable with people doing with us or with other people. i feel like defining sex is just inviting loopholes. see: anal sex to keep virginity.

SADY: right, exactly.

AMANDA: and any cheater's excuse about anything

SADY: and many many men's magazine think-pieces about how it's not cheating if it is with a stripper or other sex worker

AMANDA: or in argentina. etc.

SADY: oddly, the men's definitions of sex tend to be more liberal than the ladies', though, as per this particular article! like: forty-four percent of men surveyed said that oral sex was doin' it. only thirty-seven percent of ladies said the same.

AMANDA: yeah, that was a surprise to me. i have a theory on this. it's good.

SADY: i eagerly await it!

AMANDA: ok, so women are socialized to downplay their sexual expertise in order to not appear as— i believe the scientific word is "slutty". and so may tend for the stricter definition in self-reporting. whereas men may want to fudge it a little bit in order to be able to put another notch in the bedpost

SADY: there is actually a long passage in that keith gessen novel ("All The Sad Young Literary Men") that backs up your theory. observe how i move smoothly from actual science to literature! but: the dude is trying to figure out his Number and his List and whatever and is trying to figure out how liberal his definition needs to be. he concludes, if i remember aright, that blowjobs should indeed count in The Number!

AMANDA: sha-wing

SADY: whereas ladies might indeed self-identify as Virgins, a la Dionne in "Clueless" (CINEMA! INTERDISCIPLINARIAN THOUGHT!) had they only, say, given the BJs, or received the Lady BJs. actually, this study is weirdly non-specific about Giving and Receiving of sexual favors.

AMANDA: yeah, i noticed that also. allow me to extend an example from yet another genre, the Hip Hopera.

SADY: please do!

AMANDA: one thing that i've always found is important in these definitions is who is doing the sexing or non-sexing. so, a man could get Very Very mad at his girlfriend kissing another man, while he's out Real Penis Vagina sexing some other woman. and maybe it's not so much men excusing their own behavior while demonizing women, but that, as an individual, you can excuse your own guilt because you know the emotional context, the strength of the temptation, etc. etc. See: R. Kelly's Trapped in the Closet, where everyone is fucking everyone else and they all get PISSED when they find out their significant other has been doing the same thing.

SADY: yes, and yet i feel that (since this article is all about contextualizing "sex" in light of certain political figures putting the Thing in the Places Where You Ought Not To) that there has probably never been a case of someone being cheaterly without KNOWING that they were being a cheaterly cheater. i think you can basically define "cheating" as "that thing you're going to feel really guilty about not telling your wife and/or husband and/or unmarried life partner because you know, for some reason, even if there was no Sexual contact involved by any definition, that you did something they would not like."

AMANDA: totally. i think the rush to define it, in the case of the high-profile cheating, is that the public is just honestly curious about the sexy details. not that we like, want to know what sex is.

SADY: right? especially if they took place in argentina! and involve THE FORBIDDEN PASSIONS that you told everyone you were on the Appalachian Trail to cover up! all of the futzing around, semantically, can be useful only when trying to figure out how the other person involved sees your sexual exchange... but no-one's denying that the exchange was sexual, in that case. the actual interest is kind of in knowing what other people have been up to.

AMANDA: and, in the case of say, gay sex, trying to define them out of the mainstream or out of existence. like, sure, you can put your penis in his butt, but it's not sex, whatever it is you're doing. which i refuse to equate with my penis in vagina business.

SADY: ha, yeah, or sex between women, in which case basically everything outside of a strap-on is relegated to "foreplay." never "duringplay."

AMANDA: UGGGGHHHH i feel myself sliding into the inevitable rant about the supremacy of the male orgasm in the sexual blah de blah and how that's what this is all REALLY about and i can't force myself to do it.

SADY: you sure? i have lots of thoughts about how the penis-in-vagina-as-real-sex thing is totally not good even for couples that have, respectively, penises and vaginas! LOTS OF THOUGHTS I TELL YOU.

AMANDA: save it for another sexist beatdown.

Photo by Mike Licht

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feminism: Oooooooooover it.

In this edition of Sexist Beatdown, Sady of Tiger Beatdown and myself of the Sexist talk of DoubleX, Slate's new online magazine for women—it's just like us, except we're the problem! Also, people who don't report their own rapes. It is mostly them (and not, saaaay, rapists) who are the problem.

Oh, problems. They create so many pageviews, which, in turn, solve our main problem ($$$). I think it's about time for Sady and I to CASH IN: What's the problem with DoubleX, anyway?

SADY: hello! are you ready to speak? or are you too busy KILLING FEMINISM?

AMANDA: i actually just thew up a blog post, which, as you shall see, is what i actually think is "killing" "feminism." let me start with the Bust quote on DoubleX's dead feminism obsession, though: "We don't know about you, but we're disappointed. (And we also need to figure out the best way to fight off this new undead feminism before it eats our brains.)"

SADY: yeah. I mean: any new publication that focuses on lady issues is exciting! And, Katha Pollitt! Latoya Peterson! That is super exciting!

AMANDA: did you follow XX Factor religiously (or, subscribed to the RSS) like i did?

SADY: Yes, I did! Every single day! So this new DoubleX thing, with its lead off of

7 reasons why feminism is boring/stupid/dead/anti-feminist" is kind of puzzling to me. the quote of the day on the first day was about hating feminism!

AMANDA: ... april ... fools

SADY: fortunately, today, it is about how dolphins are rapist babykillers. which is a slightly less controversial opinion. FUCKING DOLPHINS, man. they think they're SO GREAT.

AMANDA: it's just kind of bizarre, i think maybe the "conversation" format which worked so well for the blog hasn't really panned out as a "magazine" yet

SADY: yeah, exactly. on XX factor you got to see people talking back and forth, which was exciting! this time around, it's just weird and hard to navigate, because you don't know who's saying what or if anyone has yet spoken up to disagree with them.

AMANDA: yeah. did you read breslin's piece about how DoubleX is an entity "beyond" feminism after its death? her point is, basically, "let's shut up and just do it." But isn’t the point of writing in general to "not do anything and just talk about it"? or more positively, "do something BY talking about it"?

SADY: oh, susannah. i'm happy that she writes in-depth stuff about porn and all, and i like what she writes, but every once in a while she's just like "feminism! I hate it! I ran it over with my truck! Now it is dead! You are all victims!" And it's just like, huh. I like your reading of it, though. That makes more sense than mine. And, you'/Susannah are right, it does make more sense for folks of this generation to LIVE their feminism, given that we have more opportunities to do that than elsewhere.

AMANDA: i don't mind the "death of feminism" so much—hell, i've written a eulogy for feminism before, mostly because it's kind of fun and pretty easy—but the way it's weirdly tied in with rape victims is unsettling.

SADY: yeah, and that "Jezebel is hurting women" piece – it made no sense at all, or rather, made sense on a level I really can't get down with, which was: (a) Megan Carpentier has taken exception to my stuff before, so I will write about how she is a bad rape survivor who makes ladies get raped, or something, and (b) what is a way to get traffic for our feminist blog? Attack another feminist blog in a way that is certain to cause controversy!

AMANDA: rape + Jezebel = $$$$$$$$

SADY: it's odd. i am the first lady in the world to say that feminist (or "post-feminist," whatevs) disagreements are enlightening and good and awesome. HOWEVER. It seems weird to me to lead off your (initially marketed as feminist) site with all of this stuff that is, basically, contrarian for the sake of contrarianism.

AMANDA: and i think that's a problem that affects the blog/commentary world in general: what's around, and how can we be different—let's find something to criticize about something else. i do it all the time, you do it all the time — we just choose different targets. and if they think feminism is boring, i think that's okay! but it's more interesting than talking about why feminism is boring. i'd rather they talked about the dolphins.

SADY: RIGHT? we have got to end this mindless social acceptance of dolphins. and, you know, it's fun to make fun, or to criticize, and sometimes it's easier to define yourself in opposition to something else. like, "see, this is what I DON'T believe, so now I can talk about what i DO."

AMANDA: i think they should have gone meta and asked their contributors what the problem is with DoubleX instead of what the problem is with "feminism"

SADY: yeah. and, you know, probably all of this "AUGGGH DOUBLE X LAUNCH" is going to open up conversations that we can use. at some point. i have a story with a moral about snarky blogging. can i tell you my story?

AMANDA: yes.

SADY: okay. so, a million years ago, when i was a tiny little blog person with a blog that was read by 3.5 people in the whole world, i wrote a very snarky post about john devore from the frisky. and this morning, when i opened my e-mail, there was a message! from john devore of the frisky! telling me he liked my blog! and i was like, "ha ha, um... THANKS?!?!" but the moral of the story is that this dude i wrote a cranky post to make fun of turned out to be a totally reasonable dude who writes very nice e-mails. and this established for me some of the things that you DON'T know when you sit down to write a weinery post about somebody else on the Internet. and, yeah, i like the fact that double x is committed to writing stuff that can be snarky (MUST STOP WRITING THIS WORD) or harsh or controversial. still. maybe peeing all over feminism's bloody corpse is not the best tactic, given the fact that the people who are going to read your new lady blog are likely to be... you know. feminist, and stuff.

AMANDA: definitely. and maybe we should think about why it's almost a guarantee that people who write mean blogs also write really nice emails. ALWAYS TRUE. So i usually just write the blog stuff off as a big game that we're all trying to win, but isn't personal—but that gets complicated when you write about personal stuff (rape experience) and a writer takes that personal life (not reporting your rape) and turns it into snarky commentary. in short, bloggers are people too. people who need pageviews.

SADY: ha. yes, we do. which is why my latest story, "How Linda Hirshman Is Hurting Women, and Me Specifically, Because She Made Dolphins Give Me an Abortion" is going to be SOLID INTERNET GOLD.

For this edition of "Sexist Beatdown," Sady (of Tiger Beatdown) and myself (of the Sexist) would like to extend a warm invitation to all men, children, good mothers, and bad mothers (abortionists will be tolerated, but the childless will be ignored).

This week, up for discussion is Ayelet Waldman: wife to Michael Chabon, mother to four, author of "Bad Mother," in that order! Waldman made women hate her in 2005 after announcing, in the New York Times, that she values her husband over her children. We don't really give a shit about that. What we want to know is: Does Waldman value husbands over children over good mothers over bad mothers over abortionists over the childless?

Let's sort of find out!

SADY: hello! are you ready to talk about how some lady HATES and/or does not maniacally worship her children?

AMANDA: I can barely begin to think about it because i HATE this woman so much!

SADY: i, too, am driven to the verge of madness by her statements! actually, this is technically somewhat true. i mean. i read the "modern love" column that "bad mother" was based on, and: all i could think of was, seriously, you're opposing the fetishization of motherhood by talking about how much you WORSHIP YOUR HUSBAND?

AMANDA: i know, right? where is the response Modern Love column that says, "i probably don't love either of them."

SADY: hahaha. i mean. if the whole weird mother/wife axis is about (1) being an untiring source of boundless Virgin Mary love and devotion for your children, and (2) keeping your man sat-is-fied, writing the article that's like, "i can't be all boundless or whatever with my kids because i'm too busy DOING IT with my hot husband, who I LOVE, and have i mentioned WE DO IT" is kind of... not necessarily a step FORWARD, you know?

AMANDA: yeah. i think she's a controversial figure for another reason, too. she wrote this essay, right, and it's basically a slap in the face to the whole love-transfer idea that's expected of a mother, and she even goes far enough to say she'd basically save her husband's life over her child's if they were like being held hostage by Two-Face or whatever and she had to choose. but then, she's spent about 4 years having to explain herself for that, and EVERYTHING SHE WRITES—her fiction, her nonfiction—is about being a mom! and obviously it's something that she appears to struggle with, but it has consumed her.

SADY: right? like, for someone who doesn't want to be defined by having babies, she sure does write a lot about having babies. and the "bad mother" label – the thing she seems to castigate herself for most fiercely is having an abortion when she knew the fetus wasn't totally healthy.

AMANDA: i know, that part made me so sad, that she has these own expectations for herself, and that even though she freely choses not to meet those expectations, she feels like a bad person for doing so

SADY: right? i mean, i can understand that being a difficult, emotional decision, but it really seems like that would only make you a "bad" mother if you had a really over-demanding list of requirements for being a "good" mother.

AMANDA: yeah. there is another really interesting unspoken element here. she met chabon 12 years ago and has had four of his children since then. she indicates that he was very early on — the day they met, i think! — clear that he wanted children. but that was never a priority for her. when she quits her job, it's not because she wants to spend time with her kid. she makes it clear she finds that boring. it's because she's jealous of him wanting that. you have to state the obvious here — the man that you love so much is the reason you have been burdened with motherhood.

SADY: yeah, exactly. and, i mean, she mentions that they got engaged three weeks after they met! which is clearly indicative of the fact that the whole "let's talk about kids and whether i want them on the first date" thing was not, ultimately, a dealbreaker.

AMANDA: yeah, and was her voice heard there? i mean she spent four of their 12 years just being pregnant with the kids. plus another pregnancy that was physically and emotionally straining. she sure had a lot of kids for not wanting them too much, right? what is the deal with that?

SADY: yeah, and then there's this, from the "modern love" column: "Every so often we escape from the children for a few days. We talk about our love, about how much we love each other's bodies and brains, about the things that make us happy in our marriage... And afterward my husband will say that we, he and I, are the core of what he cherishes, that the children are satellites, beloved but tangential." this is really caitlin-flanagan-y. SOMETHING is going on here, with the husband who tells you he wants kids and then you have four kids and then he tells you that you're the one that's most important, not the kids. SOMEONE is understating how important the kids are here, you know?

AMANDA: add that to the "abortion makes you a bad mother" thing and it's almost like, not making babies when you're able to make babies makes you a bad mother. what else explains the apparent lack of contraception here?

SADY: i get the sense that, really, waldman's either way more into having kids than she's letting on, or she's backed into this corner of defining herself as a mother while constantly talking about how she shouldn't be defined that way.

AMANDA: yeah, and i wish the people interviewing her (ok—i will send her an interview request when we finish this) would ask her these things

SADY: like, the mommy-guilt thing is interesting – "of woman born," by adrienne rich, is a good thing about mommy-guilt – because, yeah, women are constantly told HAVE BABIES HAVE BABIES HAVE BABIES and then they're told YOU'RE NOT DOING WELL ENOUGH WITH THE BABIES, so, it's like, childless or with tons of kids, you don't get to measure up, EVER.

AMANDA: and i get that she feels there are all these expectations that she has to face and can't live up to. but at the same time, there's the expectation to HAVE the kids in the first place, and she didn't have to do that—and then do it again and again and again. it would be interesting to know why, you know?

SADY: yeah, and we sentimentalize maternal instinct to the point that women who express ANYTHING deviating from the message of "i spend all day and all night thinking about my children and wanting more children and then knitting them booties and baby blankets and did i mention they are thirty-four and twenty-three" are demonized. but: there's got to be a way to tell the story of, "ok, so i have kids, and i didn't magically become a caring and perfect person who would allow her children to feast on her own flesh if necessary overnight" without slapping a title on it that's like "BAD MOTHER" and having to state that it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if your kids were run over by a truck. i guess my thing is, there's a good story in here, and i wish it weren't so hyped and Mommy-Wars-ified.

AMANDA: yeah. i do appreciate that she's coming from a place of sincerity (almost to a fault), but i wish other people were asking her the right questions (instead of just, 'star jones doesn't like you what do you think of that'). or why don't you like play doh. ok — i have to GO. have four babies. wait, i mean, do my job

SADY: oh, well, good luck with that. YOU BARREN MONSTER.

Photo by viZZZual.com

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

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

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

But for now:

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

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

AMANDA: that makes us more sophisticated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMANDA: pitch it

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

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

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

AMANDA: that's a question for the ages.

[youtube:v=eLkZTJczirU]

Photo via cbs.com

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.

Parents! Do you know what felonies your tweens could be committing with their very own cellular telephones, and what stupid name the you will coin in order to facillitate freaking out to the newsmedia? Hint: the felony is "child pornography," and the stupid name you have chosen is "sexting."

Before, your children were simply sending naked photographs of themselves to each other in pursuit of eagerly snatching at adulthood. Now, they may be listed as sex offenders well into their adult lives. Good job, team!

Allow Sady of Tiger Beatdown and myself, of The Sexist, to take you back to a simpler time, when a child could only be a child pornographer for taking photgraphs of other children, and scoolgirls had to deliver naked photos of themselves to their classmates uphill in the snow both ways. [Bonus! Read Sady's take on sexting here].

AMANDA: Sexting!

SADY: oh, yes. the sexy teens, sending each other sexy messages. is there no way we can stop it? perhaps through ridiculous charges of child pornography!

AMANDA: that ought to do it.

SADY: what strikes me, with this, is the way that so much of the burden of shame – and sometimes actual, legal guilt – rests on the girls who send naked pictures. instead of the dudes who "accidentally" send these naked pictures to every other dude they know!

AMANDA: yeah, it is a weird double standard. first they're told, don't send naked photos of yourself! it is a form of "dating violence" against YOU. then, don't send naked photos of yourself! you are a pornographer, the objectifier!

SADY: hah, yeah. oh the violence of maybe sending a dude a photo of your boob! oh, the slutty pornographer you will be if you do so! it reminds me of the conversations people are having about "hooking up." (did you know the young people are doing this now?) first, girls are told they're being taken advantage of by men, who are of course the only people to actually experience a desire for sex. THEN, they're told that they're making it impossible for any man to ever NOT treat them like crap, by putting out!

AMANDA: i also wonder how much this is condescending to teens, too. is this a "teen" epidemic? don't older people also regrettably send naked photos of themselves to their significant others?

SADY: i have spoken to many adult women who are in the practice of it, yes.

there was an episode of 30 Rock about it, so you know it is a pressing social concern.

AMANDA: the name is really, really dumb. it smacks of Parent. with the aid of Fox 5 at 10.

SADY: I know, right? It's very late-night-local-news, seven-ways-your-dishwasher-can-kill-you. SEX + TEXTING = SEXTING! Great work, Bob!

AMANDA: yeah. the whole thing really is just old news repackaged for a "new generation." teens have always gotten naked in front of each other. teens have always talked about it to other teens. teens have always coerced other teens to do something they're not really ready to do, in some cases. now their parents can just find out a little bit easier.

SADY: yeah, precisely.

AMANDA: they should just make some iphone app and get over it.

SADY: haha, "THIS TEXT MESSAGE HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO CONTAIN NIP SLIP. ACCESS DENIED." i could use that one, actually.
AMANDA: yeah. another point of concern that i have is: my phone is busted and i can't take photos. why do these teens have way sweeter phones than i do?

SADY: it's their darn permissive parents, i say! in my day, we had to use polaroids, or make crude etchings of our privates!

AMANDA: hahaha

SADY: i think that it's way easier to see the hysteria underlying ANY sex when we look at TEEN sex, because teens are supposed to have bodies specifically under control of their parents. as opposed to everyone else, who is supposed to have a body under the control of DEEP SHAME.

AMANDA: yeah, it takes about 18 years to get that ingrained in you.

SADY: haha

AMANDA: this most recent case in spotsylvania though (real name) one of the girls whose photos were spread around is twelve years old. and even i, as a relatively young person hip to the underage sex, have to pause at that one

SADY: yeah, that one gives me pause. and i think that this is a weird thing, because girls, specifically, are under pressure as soon as they hit any region vaguely definable as "puberty" to be sexy. but not SEXUAL. be hot. but DON'T GIVE IT UP. and i wonder what combination of intimate and social pressures were happening to make this girl think she needed or wanted to do this. because one thing you can't do at that age is walk a line that charged without getting confused or fucking up. and now, obviously, she's being punished for it.

AMANDA: lock her up! lock her up! this all makes me very glad i'm not in school anymore. if my naked photos were sent around to people, i can at least know that most of them would not be people i'm forced to sit still with for six hours every day of my life. it would probably just be on some blog or something. whatever.

SADY: i really think that the technology aspect of it is part of what causes the furor. i mean. not that i've never woken up and thought "oh, god, what did i do last night and is it on facebook?" but you're right, the access to a technology which allows you to notify the whole school of your boobal region, combined with the fact that none of these kids is probably even sure of how to handle sexuality ANYWAY, because they receive NINETY-SEVEN CONFLICTING MESSAGES on a daily basis, makes it scary. particularly for the olden-timey folks who are raising them!

AMANDA: i know, i'm sure they are so very confused. it's just how everything is.future employers can google you, future boyfriends can google you, stalkers can google you. things you do stick around longer but they also get buried in so many things that also stick around that i think they can become less important. not that this isn't a shocking and terrible thing for a 12 year old to go through, but i think shocking and terrible things are just changing.

SADY: right? i mean, i recall passing a note to a boy when i was maybe twelve. because i had a crush on him. and i think it contained the phrase "i wish we could make out." also, maybe lyrics to janet jackson's smash hit "if?" I WAS TWELVE. anyway, the moral of the story is that he did not return my affections and consequently read it out loud to the entire school bus. but AT LEAST IT WAS NOT AN E-MAIL, JESUS.

AMANDA: adolescence is tragic, i tell you. at least we weren't prosecuted for it

SADY: yeah. that note has been lost in the sands of time. only the memory does not fade. unlike some of these girls, who are maybe going to be on a register of sex offenders that shows up, ON THE INTERNET, for the rest of their lives! because that will show them.

Photo by KB35

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.

What do the First Lady's toned arms truly represent, for the future of America? How will J. Crew be remembered in presidential history? Do Joe Biden's teeth gleam when he makes love to Jill?

. . . And other burning questions—revealed!—in this edition of Sexist Beatdown, wherein Tiger Beatdown blogger Sady of NYC and yours truly of Washington D.C. discuss Vogue's latest covergirl, Michelle Obama:

SADY: I cannot believe that I bought a copy of Vogue, first of all. I have not done this in years. Actual quote from Anna Wintour: "when people stop shopping, other people lose their jobs." BUY THIS DRESS OR THE PROLE GETS IT, is what Anna Wintour is saying to you.

AMANDA: coincidentally, there's been a lot of talk about Anna Wintour losing her own job.

SADY: haha, so you REALLY need to buy that dress.

AMANDA: Yeah man. Ok first of all—Michelle is the second First Lady to grace the cover of Vogue. Hillary was the first, and then they skipped Laura! I hope Laura got Good Housekeeping or something at least.

SADY: yes, and only the fourth black lady, which is really shocking to me.

AMANDA: I know, that was truly amazing. I do not follow fashion magazines too closely, but four?? That's crazy

SADY: Yes, well, if it had been Palin it would have been "Guns & Ammo" so I'm happy that it didn't turn out that way. But I really think that like, race, and gender, and Michelle Obama being as smart and as open as she is have sent people into a tizzy. Like, the concept of this woman has driven people out of their minds, everybody needs to write something about what she means and who she is. Including maybe me!

AMANDA: Yes, and all of this has something to do with how cut Michelle Obama's arms are.

SADY: I KNOW. Arms are the new erogenous zone! Some Irish lady wrote! I mean, seriously, I can't help thinking how weird it is – and maybe the fashion magazine aspect of this has something to do with it – that everybody needs to process her as A BODY. and sometimes discussion of who she is gets cut out of that altogether. like, the fascination with her arms is almost fetishy... yeah, she looks like she works out. super. but THE ARMS have come to dominate our national discourse.

AMANDA: well, to be fair, some of the discussion did touch on whether the backdrop was flattering to her skin tone.

SADY: oh, good! i'm glad we are getting to the deeper issues at hand.

AMANDA: I think Michelle Obama is a really interesting figure because she is such a nontraditional first lady in so many ways but really hews to tradition in others. She's clear about being a mom to Sasha and Malia first, and she's I think reluctantly embraced the fashion icon role, too, in a way that other independent first ladies (Hillary) didn't, really. Though Hillary did say yes to Vogue, too.

SADY: True enough, but not during the Presidential race! It's weird how we encourage women to be All About Teh Fashions and then view fashion as somehow trivial.

AMANDA: I know. I think the arms are sort of an interesting thing to focus on, because the discussion around them represents (ARMS REPRESENT SOMETHING NOW) both seeing her as a "strong woman" and still holding her to a physical standard of beauty

SADY: Yeah, exactly. There's all of this discussion of her being tall – yet svelte! and opinionated – yet a mom first! I think some of it is well-intentioned, like they are trying to take her seriously, and thereby demonstrate that they CAN take the first first lady of color seriously, but then it gets into this weird thing where it's like, "have we mentioned she has pretty dresses? She has suuuuch pretty dresses. and is pretty." It's weirdly overeager, like everyone wants to define the Michelle conversation and come out looking good. Oh, holy crap, that was a long speech of mine.

AMANDA: That's an interesting point, actually. I’ve heard a couple people say, you know, "Michelle Obama? I don't get what the whole fuss is, I don't think she's that stunning." Or, "Michelle Obama's dress the other day was not my thing at all." And people will just jump on them for voicing that opinion, it's not really acceptable. But why is the "pretty pretty pretty" discussion acceptable?

SADY: exactly! it's kind of like making a Barbie out of her. I think people get weirdly tripped up around expressing approval of women, like, well, isn't the nicest thing you can do to compliment her shoes? or something?

AMANDA: yeah, and also, I think there's a bit of a compensation going on here, too. she's married to a guy who people just went crazy about—his politics, yes, but his looks, too.

SADY: Yeah, exactly, and I think that – here is the thing where I Get Serious – we need to be careful around that, because people of color have always been portrayed as somehow hypersexual. like: Obama Dildo? editorials about ladies having sex dreams about Obama? that is creeeeepy, and racially charged... and michelle becomes part of that too. like, the "at last" dance was really charged, but then afterwards people were like "I BET THEY GOT BUSY AND NOW MICHELLE HAS A BABY IN HER TUMMY." seriously, can you imagine people speculating about laura bush's sex life?

AMANDA: Yeah, people often voice their speculations about the Obamas doing it. And part of it, I think, is that they're younger, and they seem very happy with each other.

SADY: True true.

AMANDA: But on the other hand, I mean, we all know that Jill and Joe are probably doing it on Observatory Circle. And I have heard NOTHING about that.

SADY: Yeah, I think because you would start to wonder if his teeth were gleaming, it gets into a weird area.

AMANDA: I just did actually imagine them having sex, and that was a weird, foreign image that I definitely have never heard hinted at before. Even though Joe Biden makes borderline comments about his wife all the time!
SADY: I did too, and now need to purge that image from my brain. Oh God. But, you know: the Obamas are young, and they obviously love each other, and they're both attractive people, but the weird prurient interest in whether they're doing it? That pushes so many buttons, for me.

SADY: Here is a quick change: Michelle Obama! In Vogue! Has a centerfold! Wearing J. Crew! I think it is totally hilarious that the First Lady is wearing the only outfit in Vogue that I could actually afford.

AMANDA: That is funny. She's really become a J. Crew model. She really likes J. Crew, I guess! Which seems a little suspiciously brand-y to me but I guess maybe she knows it fits.

SADY: Tiger: Yeah, true enough. And there's talk about her wearing "American" clothes that are "affordable" in the mag. I think she's trying to make an economic statement.
Why not American Apparel, Michelle? Dov Charney needs your support!

AMANDA: I know. It must be a weird shopping trip where you have to think of the impact of every piece of clothing you buy. like, my kids live in the White House and go to private school and we an afford it, so they obviously would be wearing something nice. but not TOO NICE!

SADY: right? It would be very intense to be Michelle Obama. Because most first ladies are probably like, "well, you know, people are going to pay attention for a while, but then later you could be Chester A. Arthur, which is to say: no one will give a crap." not Michelle! she KNOWS people are going to remember this! so the pictures are going to be around FOR A WHILE. and everyone right now wants to know what they mean.

AMANDA: this is freaking me out. she has to dress for centuries of fashion critics. who knows what toned arms will represent in 200 years??

SADY: right, and throughout history, her message will remain clear: i really, really liked this cardigan.