1. The leader’s behavior
2. The organization’s demographic composition
3. The experiences of people within the organization
4. The organization’s practices & systems
5. The organization’s product, and
6. The organization’s social impact.

Harquail can't give offer a definitive judgment in any of these categories. "To be sure, whether or not an organization is sexist is a complex call—There are arguments for and against The Daily Show’s sexism, on every criterion," she writes. But after performing her own analysis, Harquail concludes that the show "squeaks by with a 'pass.'"

As it turns out, that fawning defense of The Daily Show by its women employees illustrates exactly what's wrong with the show's hiring practices. They write:

Jon’s not just a guy in a suit reading a prompter. His voice and vision shape every aspect of the show from concept to execution. The idea that he would risk compromising his show’s quality by hiring or firing someone based on anything but ability, or by booking guests based on anything but subject matter, is simply ludicrous.

You see, The Daily Show hires only the best comedians; it books only the best guests. And if the best of the best are reliably, overwhelmingly male? Well: Perhaps men are just better than women.

But first, a quick recap of Jezebel reporter Irin Carmon's findings on the show's gender disparities: In the past seven years, only one woman, Olivia Munn, has been considered an able enough comedian to be hired as an on-air correspondent on The Daily Show (and she's still in try-out mode). Past employees have reported a boys' club mentality in hiring and firing. And this year alone, the show's roster of guests has featured 63 men, but only 13 women.

Here are a few possibilities for why this might be the case:

(a) Overt sexism. Jon Stewart, let's just suggest for the sake of argument, is a tyrannical sexist who deliberately keeps women off the air and out of his writer's room due to a deep hatred of the gender. This appears to be the argument the women of The Daily Show are dismissing as "simply ludicrous."

(b) Societal forces. Comedy is an overwhelmingly male industry, and The Daily Show is at the very top of the pyramid. As show co-creator Madeline Smithberg told Carmon, "The planet is sexist." She explains:

"I don't think Jon is sexist," she says. "I don't think that there is a double standard at the Daily Show. I do think that by the time it gets to the Daily Show it's already been through the horrible sexist double standard of the universe. You're not hiring someone right out of school. By the time they get to the candidates of the Daily Show, the herd has been thinned by the larger societal forces."

(c) Ingrained prejudices. The comedic culture naturally views men as comedians and women as audience members, regardless of "ability." And as Amanda Marcotte notes, this form of sexism is hardly overt:

Our culture does believe there is a female and a male sense of humor that differ. We tend to say that men have a sense of humor when they say funny things, and that women have a sense of humor when they know when best to laugh when men say funny things. This sense is so ingrained that I had a few occasions when I was younger where I'd say something funny, and get blank stares, only to find a man stealing my joke a half hour later and getting giant belly laughs for it.

(d) Ignorance. Stewart is not (a) a tyrannical sexist, but he does fail to take into account (b) societal forces and (c) ingrained prejudices when making hires and booking guests. He and his show operate in a culture that values men over women, both as comedians (his staff) and people (his guests). And he—according to every woman on his staff—believes that by hiring and booking the people (men) who reliably rise to the top in this sexist system, he's making decisions based on merit—and nothing else. Attempting to counteract the ingrained sexism of comedy by deliberately seeking out women performers and writers would "risk compromising his show’s quality."

Of  course, my guess is (d). I'm sure that the women employees of The Daily Show aren't lying when they describe Stewart as "the word that means the opposite of sexist." But it's not enough for him to be Jon Stewart, Really Swell Guy anymore—he's the head of a comedy institution, one with the power to either contribute to or counteract the overwhelming sexism of the field. In order to challenge structural inequalities and actually recruit the best people for the job, the men who run comedy—men like Stewart—will have to do more than just not be overtly discriminatory.

Here's an easy rule for any manager to live by: If you haven't considered the societal forces and ingrained prejudices that may contribute to gender disparities in your hiring practices, your hiring practices are probably sexist. And if you respond to suggestions that your hiring practices may be sexist with a letter signed by all the women on your staff dismissing these claims out of hand, then your hiring practices are almost certainly sexist. That, or men are just better than women.

In response to my break-down of all the ways that Playboy tried to get a look at Olivia Munn's areola, Zelda Lily's Sarah Arboleda submits, instead, that Munn is perhaps just a lying, bitchy idiot with a bad publicist who regularly "flaunts" her "female sexuality" and thus deserves only our mockery. Arboleda:

Let’s say Playboy called you up and asked you to be their cover model. Would you be shocked and disgusted to learn that they expect you to be naked in the pages of a magazine that has specialized in nude photos for over fifty years? Really? I’m a vegetarian. It’s like if I walk into a restaurant called “Joe’s House of Meat” and demand to know why Joe doesn’t have tofu stir-fry on the menu. I don’t walk into places called “Joe’s House of Meat.” If Olivia Munn wants to keep all of her clothes on, she probably shouldn’t agree to pose for Playboy.

. . . let me get this straight: an enormous contract was drawn up where every detail of your exposed flesh was pre-approved up to and including the crack of your ass, and your agent or manager was not on-set to make sure that this lengthy and thorough contract was honored? Really? If that’s the case, why bother with the contract at all? Either Miss Munn is lying, or she really needs new people.

. . . why does the model/fake news correspondent capitalize so heavily on her female sexuality? Take, for instance, the cover of Suck It, Wonder Woman. More to the point, which of Munn’s career moves have not somehow capitalized on her sexuality? . . . The easy answer is that Munn wants it both ways. She wants to be able to flaunt her junk for money and fame, but is outraged when people claim that she’s only famous and rich because she flaunts her junk.

Some context: Previously, Arboleda had called Munn out for making rape jokes, fat jokes, and jealous-bitches jokes. Fair enough. In the same post, Arboleda also dismissed Munn as a "bikini-clad" "Maxim model with bad comedic timing" whose career is "such blatant pandering for money and male attention that it borders on distasteful, even sexist." Hmm. And then there was this: "what I dislike about Munn is that her guy’s girl routine is so clearly an act. If it were genuine, it would be fine."

I get it. We live in a world where flaunting your junk, bashing other women, and acting the guy's-girl is a pretty effective strategy for getting ahead for a very small group of women, and that is sexism at work. But the solution is not to take the women who manage to squeeze some personal benefits out of that sexism and to tear them down in the most sexist ways possible. Believe it or not, even women who make careers out of "pandering" to this system are themselves constantly battling misogyny—they're cut down for wearing bikinis, ridiculed for having personal limits as to how their bodies are used, and called "bitches" for not being sufficiently grateful for their role. And until we start turning our attention to all those men who get "famous and rich" by "flaunting" their "male sexuality" in order to "pander" for "female attention," we've got a major social problem here—not an Olivia Munn problem.

Feminism has to be for all women. Even women you think are stupid, naive, or "tragically unfamiliar with the content of Playboy." Even women who walk into the wrong room. Even women with bad publicists. Even women with no publicists. Even women who expect professional photographers and stylists to honor professional contracts without question. Even women who have lied. Even women who have bashed other women. Even women who you think have capitalized on their "female sexuality." Even women who "flaunt [their] junk for money and fame." Even women with cleavage on the cover of books. Even women who sometimes wear bikinis. Even women who don't perform all of these feats of "female sexuality" naturally, even women from whom it's all "an act." Even women you think are bitches. Even women who talk about it.

Sure, most women don't rise to the top of this system like Munn has. But we all participate in it in some way—we've all denigrated other women, or "flaunted" our "female sexuality," or put on some sort of feminine "act" in order to get by. And if that means that we all deserve anything that's coming to us, then that's it for feminism. So let's keep our focus on the institutions that really benefit from this—the ones that are so reliably misogynist, coercive, and plain skeevy that our knee-jerk reaction is to blame women for even discussing how misogynist, coercive, and skeevy they are. Because Munn has provided us the Hot Girl's view from the top, and it looks like a lot of stuffing phallic objects in your mouth and fighting off men who want your nipples, until you get too old and are replaced.

Photo via Gage Skidmore, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

PR flacks sure know how to sell to the ladies. Every week, I receive form e-mails from them containing the latest in lady-centered information—on everything from permanent Sex and the City nerve damage to the world's preeminent male cougar experts. Alas, I don't always have enough time to pass these insights onto you, the ladies. Today, let's play catch-up:

Lady Pitch #1: The oil spill is sexist:

Biological Recovery And InterNational Zoological (BrainzGroup.com) Founder, Edna Hazel Celadine offered their unlimited resources and assistance directly to BP CEO Tony Hayward only to be turned away with no official response. "It's men like this who cause these problems and then turn their nose up to women like us with real, proven solutions," Ms. Celadine said.

. . . Contacted for comment, BP had no response. But, Ms. Celadine was less than reserved with her comments. "It is sexism as its core, on its surface, through and through, top to bottom. The government's response has been worse than Katrina and BP has insulted the whole world with their lack of solutions and their closed little minds. Turning us away only because we are women. . . . The White House wouldn't even take our call as the President must have been busy offering jobs to politicians to bribe them from doing this or that. It's insulting that BP has used our systems without crediting us, yet, rejects our efforts to assist or license the systems for free for fear of a woman getting credit for solving the problem," Ms. Celadine stated.

"BP says they've already spent $1.25 billion in the containment and cleanup efforts. Money wasted, as we would have already capped the rogue well and cleaned up all the spilled oil for $250 million. But with BP and the Government and their sexist policies and programs, we are left with the worst man-made ecological disaster in human history; all caused by a lack of Brainz."

Record stop. Isn't is awesome that an all-female Biological Recovery and InterNational Zoological Group exists, and that its acronym is BRAINZ? And isn't it also awesome that the same group suggests that they could have already "capped the rogue well and cleaned up all the spilled oil" for a fraction of the cost, had BP only had BRAINZ? BRAAAAAINZ. Too bad this presser is accompanied by conspiracy theory as to why BRAINZ wasn't immediately patched into the Oval Office when BRAINZ called up the White House and told the operator that BRAINZ needed to speak with the president on an urgent matter. So close. BRAINZ.

—

Lady Pitch #2: Sex and the City 2! It gets the attention of ladies every time:

With Sex and the City 2 sweeping the box office, many women are undoubtedly going to theaters to indulge in the over-the-top beauty, fashion and of course: the shoes.

Carrie Bradshaw is a style icon who is known as a master of doing just about anything in stiletto heels. But in real life, wearing high heels all the time can not only slow you down, it can do some serious damage to your feet.

Shoe-related injuries can range from bunions and calluses to more extreme pain in the ball of the foot that can quickly cause permanent nerve damage. And, studies show that women will continue to wear high heels even if they cause them pain and discomfort.

Chris Luhur, founder of Scarpasa–the ultimate source for stylish AND walkable flats, sandals, boots and low and mid-heeled shoes of the highest quality–believes that shoes should never send women home early from a fun daytime stroll or night out. The unique online shoe boutique delivers a carefully curated selection of shoes that are fun, functional AND fashionable—making for an effortless transition from day to night.

Any flack that can manage to frame Sex and the City 2 as a cautionary tale in order to move a completely unrelated product is fine by us. Ladies love that.

—

Lady Pitch #3: You cannot possibly get married the way your body currently looks!:

I am writing to let you know about BodySmith’s selection to participate in People magazine’s Bride-to-Be Weight Loss Challenge, which will be featured in the magazine this fall. BodySmith is one of six gyms nationwide that has been selected to provide training for the contestants.

Glover Park resident and bride-to-be Cendrine Robinson was chosen along with five other future brides from around the country to participate in the Challenge. The women, all Fall 2010 brides, have been provided with a trainer and nutritionist for nine months (January – September 2010). Since January, Cendrine has been working out with BodySmith trainer Shane Beatty three times a week with weights and attending 2-3 classes per week.

When getting skinny for your wedding isn't good enough, try competing with other brides to get the skinniest.

—

Lady Pitch #4: Finally, a book strong enough for "cougars"—but written by a man:

“There is a tremendous shortage of older single men who are willing to date women their own age,” says author Rich Gosse [of The Cougar Imperative: Why Midlife Women Must Choose Younger Men]. “Once women hit 40, the pickings are slim. A parallel fact is that there is a shortage of younger women for younger men to date, because so many of these ladies are dating older, wealthier guys. The solution is obvious: Younger Men/Older Women.”

. . . Rich Gosse is unique among all cougar authors:

* He is the first man to publish a major cougar book. All the others are by women.

. . . Let's stop Rich right there. If there's one thing the cougar phenomenon has been missing all these years, it's an "imperative." And if there are two things the cougar phenomenon has been missing all these years, it's a male perspective.

Photo via NASA Goddard Photo, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

"Science."

For this edition of Sexist Comments of the Week, I cede the floor to my honorable colleague from Ontario, Chanda. Chanda really knows what the eff she's talking about when it comes to sexism in the sciences, so she's the perfect person to respond to the male scientist who reported being 'rankled' by a dinner for women scientists. Take it away Chanda:

[I'm] a woman in science, and actually what upset me about this email is that it reminds me of a time when the undergrads were asking for a women-only pizza dinner in the physics department, and some of the women grad students opposed it saying that it was discrimination against the men. Now that I’m finishing grad school, I’ve seen a lot of that. Many of the women who decide to stick around in this bullshit atmosphere are either people who manage to bury their heads in their asses or people who are so afraid of being on the outs with the men that they will sell their sisters down the river.

. . . Not to mention in a physics department that it’s possible that you have a specific situation you want to discuss and the aggressor is in the room.

I could fill a book with stories about women who were afraid to speak up because the repercussions for their career were too enormous. Creating safe, private spaces with people who are allies by experience is very important. You might argue that some men might want to be allies, but it is also the case that men sometimes claim to be allies when they actually aren’t. In the case of women, some of them don’t want to be allies. That’s fine. They generally just don’t show up.

The reason you want to hold an official event, as opposed to a private one like the ones we have at the institute where I work, is because the department’s endorsement sends a message about the department’s attitude toward these issues. That they recognize women are having these experiences and that they support their every effort to find ways to not only challenge but also simply cope with them. That kind of messaging alone can go a long way toward challenging department culture. If the chair of the department or other people in positions of power are saying, “I endorse women having these events,” you’re probably going to be a lot more careful about what you say and do, realizing that you can’t just get away with overt and maybe even covert sexism.

. . . calling it discrimination is a misnomer that belies the reality of the situation and also the reason that events like this exist. This kind of stuff is there to level an imbalanced playing field. It is simply nonsensical to call methods that are used to counteract the effects of discrimination, discrimination. These kinds of things are very small spaces that are arduously carved out so that women and minorities have a chance.

Photo via Bennett 4 Senate, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

* Racialicious on the "flip side of racial profiling," as evidenced by this PostSecret submission: "those who do not carry the stigmatized features aren’t simply treated fairly, they’re given a benefit of the doubt that allows them to get away with the very thing that others are suspected of doing."

* Fannie's Room on "manly products with secret lady features. Namely, the 2010 Chevy Equinox's "woman-friendly modifications" that Time describes as "so subtle that men may not even notice them." Writes Fannie:

Here, the implication is that a company should not modify its products unless the changes are so subtle as to go unnoticeable by its regular (that is, male) customers. Reading between the lines, there is also an assumption that if men knew that a product had lady features, they would not buy that product, hence the need for "subtle" modifications.

Many products are designed for men and/or those who do not wear the costume of femininity like, say, high heels, thus posing a functional problem for many. Yet, when products are designed with the male consumer (or non-high-heeled lady, but really, the male consumer) in mind, there is no need for subtlety. It is, after all, the default. Invisible in plain sight.

Also, if the modifications are so subtle as to go unnoticed, how much an improvement will they really be for women drivers?

* At Bitch, Andrea Plaid on sex-and-age-isms in  the Twitter response to the Al and Tipper Gore split:

Some of the tweetizenry also argued back and forth about the break-up, with some folks on my timeline rubbing their figurative hands (and thighs) in lust  . . . after the former vice-president. Hell, I even rubbed my thighs in horny glee that the man is on the market again. (Yeah, I felt sort of bad about it—it’s too soon to lust, it’s tacky to get all fast in the panties when the man’s mourning the ending of his life-partnership. But, I’d be lying if I said that those reasons didn’t curb my hotness for the Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize winner.)

Then I started pinpointing where my discomfort rested: though people—including me—sexualized Al Gore (on Twitter, at least) either as object of lust or of sexual derision, rarely did I hear anyone say the same either way about Tipper. At most, someone said the “hottest thing about Al was Tipper.” (Sincere praise or backhanded compliment?) The worst was that someone wanted to put a parent advisory sticker on her. (No explanation beyond that was given.)

Also, ew.

* Clarisse Thorn worries that deconstructing gender may destroy "what’s beautiful, surprising, and hot" about the binary:

I mean, don’t get me wrong: I think it would be awesome if gender stereotypes stopped negatively influencing the way we hire people, make friends, treat lovers, and so on. But it’s also kind of awesome when, for example, drag queens dress way more femininely than I do. I love that kind of display; I love almost all subversive, or sexual, or just plain playful deliberate usage of gender ideas. I would be kind of sad if all gendered associations disappeared from the universe. I would be kind of sad if we so thoroughly encouraged gender-bending and gender evolution that gender distinctions blurred out of existence.I’m not saying that my sadness is an argument against the destruction of gender. I understand and acknowledge that, sometimes, nostalgia is the enemy of necessary progress. I recognize that saying, “Well, drag queens are awesome and so maybe we shouldn’t try to destroy gender distinctions” could be as blind and flawed an argument as, say, the women who argued against women’s right to vote because “I like to convince my husband to vote the way I want him to.” I recognize that I could be making an argument similar to one that I’ve deconstructed about BDSM — an argument I hate that goes, “Let’s not destigmatize BDSM sexuality because I think it’s hot for S&M to be transgressive.” The fact that we can work within — and even enjoy — The System does not mean that The System is not fucked up.

Still …. I’d like to believe that we can hold on to what’s beautiful, surprising, and hot about The System. Can we keep the stereotypes and have justice too?

Your guide on this tour of "that delightfully mystifying creature known as the Russian female" is Russia Today scribe Robert Bridge, who left the feminizing influence of Pittsburgh twelve years ago to pen faux-anthropological investigations of fucking foreign chicks, finally earn respect for thinking with his "clumsy tool," and sit for this portrait (above).

Bridge's top ten tips for fetishizing Russian women while worshiping your own klutzy penis:

1. Russian women have suffered too long under the weight of not being objectified by American men.

After all, on the western side of the Iron Curtain, the iconic Soviet female—with a sickle in one strong hand and a balalaika in the other—was believed to be more industrious than beautiful, more blustering than blush. Indeed, the practical value of a Russian woman ranked somewhere between a good tractor and a surplus wheat harvest: extremely useful in the right situations (snowstorm, famine, revolution), but certainly not the most likely candidate to grace the cover of a glossy fashion magazine, for example, or win Playboy playmate of the year.

2. You may think that all Russian women are trying to kill you, but at least they will not try to pay for anything.

You are sitting in a trendy restaurant in the booming heart of the Russian capital trying to forget about your jetlag and lost luggage when you are suddenly slapped with the bracing realization that you aren’t in Kansas anymore. Across the table from you is seated an attractive Russian woman, your Internet flame, a deadly femme fatale for all you know. But definitely a Russian woman. . . . Anyways, things get off to a bizarre start at the restaurant. Before you even set foot into the place, ‘Natasha’ lets you open the door for her; in fact, she coolly expects it, and doesn’t even say ‘Spasibo’ as she sweeps past with a violent toss of her blonde locks. Somehow, this gives you a strange sense of male liberation and empowerment, which might just be the world’s biggest oxymoron.

3.  Feminism has robbed men of the sense of purpose provided by owning women.

The svelte Slav at your side expects you to help her with her fur coat, position the chair just right under her awaiting derriere, order the food, and yes, even pay the exorbitant bill without even so much as feigning to open her Gucci pocketbook. Wow, you think, there might just be a purpose on this nutty earth for a six-foot-two stumbling male after all. What the heck is going on here? It’s as if that Boeing 747 that hauled you across the Atlantic Ocean was actually a time machine, transporting you back to the 19th century.

Suddenly the reason hits you: feminism, or rather the glaring absence of it.

4. In Russia, your zany inclination toward "accidentally" assaulting and/or harassing women will not be prosecuted.

In the United States, every action on the part of the klutzy man is liable to be misinterpreted, overanalyzed and even persecuted in a court of law. Even one of our otherwise great presidents, William Jefferson Clinton, was laid low by this ridiculous national pastime. In America, as one wit observed, “when a man talks dirty to woman, it’s sexual harassment. When a woman talks dirty to a man, it’s $2.95 per minute.” Even opening the door and letting her pass first may be the ticket to a ruined night. Eventually, some feminists began to realize that it’s no fun to spend your life walking on glass.

5. The legacy of goat-milking has prepared Russian women for the task of aspiring to have sex with you.

Russia, which was geographically isolated from many of the West’s most famous fits and starts (the Enlightenment, Capitalism and Industrialization, to name a few), developed more or less at its own leisurely pace until at least the beginning of the twentieth century. Thus, painful questions concerning the rightful place of western women in the early industrial system (exposed for its cruelty by progressive writers of the time, like Upton Sinclair, who wrote The Jungle in 1914) were being debated in the West while, half way around the world, Russian women were peacefully picking raspberries and milking goats in the idyllic countryside.

6. On the other hand, in some ways, Communist Russia treated women equally to men. This was bad for men.

Communism, despite some nutty megalomaniacs, made no distinction between the sexes when it came to receiving an education. And upon graduation, Soviet men and women (with some glaring exceptions in favor of the males, easily discernible on May Day on the top of Lenin’s mausoleum in Red Square, and even more visibly in the kitchen) enjoyed equal opportunities. A heavily subsidized educational system, complete with daycare centers for infants and children, gave both the mother and the father the freedom to advance themselves. In some strange ways, communism was a boon for the females and a bust for the men.

7. Russian women do not appear on Oprah.

As it is, Russian women, who deftly use every inch of their femininity—high heels and mini skirts included—to their general advantage, have no desire to ‘lower themselves’ in an effort to obtain equality with men. Moreover, you actually get the sense that Russian women truly cherish the fact that they were born females, and not the victim type that cries daily on Oprah Winfrey.

8. Russion women are forever approaching the splash pool in the Crocodile Mile of oppression.

Moreover, Russian females seem to feel completely at ease with themselves, and more importantly, their femininity. The female body is not concealed like a horrible scar, but rather decorated, accentuated and put on parade for every eye to behold. Nobody will point and stare at a woman in Russia for exposing a bit too much leg. In Russia, if you’ve got it, there is absolutely no problem to flaunt it. An object of male desire? Undoubtedly. But somehow Russian women manage to navigate the slippery road of being attractive without sliding into the wall of oppression. They are at the controls of their womanhood and the miniskirt and high heels only adds to the sense of their feminine powers that no man has been able to fully explain. Oppressed? Don’t bet on it.

9. Russian women will starve themselves for you, restoring your sense of purpose.

The Russian woman sitting across the table from you understands very well the price of a dinner, at least from her end of the bargain. According to female insiders, she will spend at least three hours in front of the mirror applying her makeup, seven hours shopping for shoes, three days finding a dress and five days with little or no food to fit into it. Add to all that the price of a pedicure, manicure and trip to the hairdressers. In other words, don’t be surprised if your date arrives looking like a million bucks.

10. Russian standards of footwear will render your date incapable of traversing home without your assistance, providing you an opportunity to attempt to have sex with her.

So let’s imagine that the date was a stunning success and it’s time to say goodnight to Natasha. First, although the metro (subway) is a very convenient form of public transportation in the Russian capital, as well as in other Russian cities, it is better to blow your last rubles on a taxi ride. Her feet, already bleeding inside of tortuous high heels, will appreciate the thought.

Naturally, throughout the course of the ride, you may be asking yourself: ‘Oh boy, what happens next?’

Insider airline misogyny! On Monday, Continental Airlines CEO Jeff Smisek announced the company's merger with United by leveling the following burn against United Airlines: "Smisek told analysts and reporters Continental began a whirlwind courtship with United after learning it was in merger talks with Tempe-based US Airways because it didn't want United to end up with 'the ugly girl.' He called Continental the pretty one."

United U.S. Airways shot back by claiming the "ugly girl" comment was offensive to women—but more importantly, it was offensive to U.S. Airways:

CEO Doug Parker addressed the slam, which he called inappropriate, in a memo to employees Tuesday afternoon, and said Smisek has apologized for the remarks.

"Like me, many of you found his comment both chauvinistic and offensive to the hard-working people of US Airways," Parker said.

. . . He said one employee asked, "Why are we the ugly girl?"

So which is it? Either you denounce the comment as being legitimately offensive to women, or you act all butthurt that your male-run airline has been compared to the most worthless form of woman (the un-pretty kind!).

Listen: I'm a heterosexual cisgender thin able-bodied atheist white lady. If someone attempts to insult me by using a slur that's offensive to gays, or trans people, or a racial group,  or the disabled, or fat people, or a religious group, it's unhelpful for me to respond by saying, for example, "That's offensive to gays, and also, I'm personally offended that you would ever compare me to a gay person."

Also unhelpful: How U.S. Airways chose to resolve the flap:

[Doug Parker] said Smisek sent him an apology in which he said he "got carried away in the moment" and "really felt badly."

"I believe Jeff was sincere in his apology, have accepted it on behalf of all of us and am ready to move past it," Parker's memo said.

In conclusion, some guy has decided that he's ready to move past some other guy's sexism.

Photo via chrisny2, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

In an e-mail last week, Sexist reader Ari Sahagun wrote in objecting to some "incongruous" advertising accompanying a Sexist blog post. She writes:

So I was reading some articles in The Sexist blog; mostly about feminism, women's rights, women's issues, etc.  I came to this page, where I was shown an ad about weight loss with a skinny, busty, blond woman in a bikini.  I'm attaching a screenshot for your reference [it's above -ed].

Can you, writers and hosts of a feminist blog, create a healthy space for feminist discussion, or must our entire lives be littered with this unhealthy imagery of women?

Good question! The short answer, unfortunately, is: No, I can't create a safe space here free from the encroachment of busty advertising. But I can write at length about my thoughts on that busty advertising! Below, a more involved rumination on sexist ads on a feminist Web site:

At the Washington City Paper, the newspaper that employs me and hosts this blog, the editorial and advertising ends of the paper are completely separate operations. The two sections of the paper are so uninvolved with one another that I generally have no idea who advertises in the paper; I simply pay no attention to it.

In many ways, this is a very good thing. Because the ads have nothing to do with my job, I can write about any subject I like in any way I like without fear of offending an advertiser. And if I do offend an advertiser, I don't care.  Last year, for example, I wrote a long story that took a critical eye to Catholic University's student sex ban. At that time, Catholic U. had a healthy advertising contract with the paper—a contract that was severed when my story hit, the university immediately ceased advertising in the newspaper, and  all copies of the City Paper were removed from its campus.

The busty dieting ad is far from the most problematic ad you'll find in this paper. After I wrote a blog post mocking local prostitution enthusiasts, one so-called prostitution "monger" informed me in the comments section that he had "found out about [several] massage parlors from their ads in the City Paper, and I have paid for sex with several prostitutes whom I found through their advertisements in the City Paper." If I cared about who advertised in the paper, I would have to determine that, because my salary is paid by these ads, it is in my self-interest to encourage support for massage parlors that offer "happy endings," and not write blog posts mocking people who frequent them. Thankfully, I don't care, so the mockery stands.

What does the City Paper's advertising department think of my blatant disregard for the advertisers who pay my salary? I don't know, because I don't care enough to ask, but I do know that no one has ever approached me and asked me to print something positive about an advertiser, or to not print something negative about an advertiser. And I afford our advertising department the same professional courtesy: I don't take issue with the ads they decide to book. And so, when an advertisement appears next to my blog which tells readers to "Learn the FREE tip discovered by a mom to turn their flats into a sexy body that they dreamed of," I have a lot of personal reactions to that ad. Like, how does a "mom" have "their" flats? Who are "they"? What are "flats"? Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that this tip is not truly free? I might even deem the ad enough of a train wreck of misogyny and copy editing to warrant commentary on my blog. What I won't do is go down to our advertising department and ask them to remove it.

Our advertising department does have its own internal standards that it uses to determine which ads are acceptable and which ones aren't. Again, I don't generally concern myself with those standards, but City Paper managing editor Andrew Beaujon did unearth some of the paper's classifieds guidelines last year: "In a City Paper ad, says [Classifieds director Heather] McAndrews, you can't post a photo of genitalia or penetration. 'Nipples are kind of on a fence,' she says." That being said: If you, as readers and potential consumers of the products advertised on our Web site, are ever turned off by any of the ads here, please contact our advertising department and let them know. I'm sure they'll be happy to hear your concerns.

Last week on the Sexist, readers sounded off on the new Kotex ad that isn't allowed to utter the sound "vuh-jahy-nuh," we parsed the difference between the "vulva" and the "vagina," and one commenter received some Very Special terminology instruction on the meaning of "tampon." Let's do this point-counterpoint style, shall we?

POINT: Censoring the word "vagina" is an absurd and sexist practice. Washington Post columnist Gene Weingarten on the Post's history of not saying "vagina" in print:

On this subject, I’d like to reprise a Comment I once made in this very forum a few months ago:

Meanwhile, I’d like to share a story apropos of the argument about whether women “are” their body parts. Back in the 1990s I was editing a story by Laura Blumenfeld about the then-trendy topic of the female condom. When we were done with it, the story had to be approved by a top editor at the paper, because it was about sex, and The Post was very, very nervous about sex. The editor liked the story, but he asked us to take out the word “vagina,” which he found distasteful. (Er, he found the WORD distasteful.)

Laura and I argued strenuously that you cannot write a story about the female condom without indicating how it is used, and that it is absolutely impossible to explain this without using the v word. And that there is nothing wrong with the v word.

The editor got all huffy and declared that he would rewrite it himself, which he did. And so there appeared the following line in The Washington Post; it is still in the archives: “The female condom lines the inside of a woman.”

Voila! In trying to be tasteful and sensitive, this editor put into the Washington Post a line SPECIFICALLY equating a woman with her ladypart.

COUNTERPOINT: Censoring the word "vagina" is an absurd and sexist practice . . . inflicted against men by those danged feminist groups! Also, forget "vagina!" Why can't I say "pussy"? Jeff lays it all down for us:

Did you ever think that women will complain if the word vagina is used and the networks don’t want letters and calls from thousands of women. It’s why words for male genitals are used routinely throughout every show on TV, but you will never hear a slang word for female genitalia. I have heard balls, nuts, dick, pecker, prick, dickhead, and even cock during prime-time on all channels. Why can’t tits or pussy be used? It’s because of the backlash from women’s groups and many women in general.

Could you imagine how many letters and calls NBC would receive if the show Parks and Recreation used the word pussy. But I heard the word dick and balls during the last episode. It’s ok for mainstream media to be sexist and bash men, use words for male genitalia, portray men as bumbling idiots, but not women.

It’s even ok to show men nude in basic cable shows, but never women. Movies and cable shows even have started showing penises regularly, but a vagina is forbidden. It’s given an NC-17 if they try to show it. Only pubic hair or a boob is allowed because women think showing a vagina degrades them. Even the show Spartacus shows penises every episode, but they won’t show a vulva so they make the women wear merkins to cover them up.

So in the end, blame women and women’s groups for acting like a vagina is so vulgar.

Does "A Vagina Is Forbidden" sound like a catchphrase used to sell diamonds to anyone else? And speaking of the difference between the vagina and the vulva, I, too, am interested in basic cable showing more of the internal canal leading to a woman's uterus. Also, why aren't these ancient Roman women depicted with totally bald genitalia? Sexism!

We most recently revisited the issue yesterday, after a study showed that women who observe public acts of sexism—like sexual harassment against other women—tend to direct more anger at men in general. The study demonstrates (among other things) that when men sexually harass women, they also hurt men who are not harassers. Pointing out ways that sexism affects men can provide men with a valuable access-point to feminist issues. It can also be seen as an invitation to throw a pity party for male victimhood.

As one commenter on the story wrote, "Here we go again. The poor menz! They have to experience the suspicion/scrutiny of women who have been put down, kept down, abused emotionally, fiscally, professionally, sometimes physically, yadayadayada." I don't think this is about feeling sorry for men; I think it's about recognizing that men can be valuable allies in working against women being put down, kept down, harassed, and abused. Is it fair that women have to first show men how sexism affects them in order to get them to care about how it affects us? No. But it sure is helpful.

So without any further ado, I'd like to introduce the first installment in a new Sexist feature: Interviews with experts on the subjects that most vex us around here. First up: Thomas MacAulay Millar, my favorite feminist writer who is also a man. Millar, which is not his real name, is a New-York based attorney and feminist writer. You may remember him for his essay condemning the comodification of sexuality, "Toward a Performance Model of Sex," which appeared in the Yes Means Yes! anthology last year, or from his work on the wonderful Yes Means Yes! blog. Below, Millar on the beginnings of a feminist man, how to find feminist access-points for boys, and what it's like to be a feminist with male privilege.

What personal experiences in your life contributed to your identification as a feminist?

TMM: My mom was a feminist, and raised me to understand that the world was unfair in big, structural ways, so I was in large part raised with it. She wasn’t an overtly ideological parent. She just believed in telling me how things really were, and I drew a lot of my own conclusions. I remember her telling me that my cousin (who was an evangelical), terminated two pregnancies. She was a clinic protester. But when it was her life, she thought it was different. Another cousin was molested, and when she wouldn't stop complaining, she was sent away to live in another state. (Eventually, she sued her abuser and got some justice.) My mother would tell me the parts of the stories in real life that people try to hide from children. I can't possibly thank her enough for that. I mean I literally can’t, because she died a decade ago. I thanked her a lot for being a great mom, but never enough.

As I got into high school, I started seeing issues like sex education and reproductive freedom through lenses heavily influenced by my women friends. I took my first women's studies class in high school, read some Steinem and some other feminist writing in high school. My mother had a bunch of feminist writing around the house that I read. And I started to see GLB issues through the prism of my friends' lives, and to see sexuality and sex education as my friends and I developed.

In my teens, too, I began a long process of growing into BDSM and figuring out what that meant for identity, and one of the early things I figured out what that there was a sort of mainstream position that wasn't overtly anti-sex in my area, but that was sort of very pro-partriarchally constrained models of sexuality, and that I was necessarily a dissident to that, and that I was therefore a natural ally to anyone else who didn't feel the official model fit them. So, in my mind, the idea especially around sexuality and gender expression that dissenters and dissidents should be in solidarity with each other developed early. So it was a pretty direct line from there to being active in college on choice and GLBT issues and doing my first minor in women’s studies. And also, people telling me when I said stupid things and learning from that, rinse, repeat.

I think most importantly, I began to hear one story after another about how women — mostly my women friends, and also some relatives — were molested and groped and raped (some men, too, but I didn't become aware of that until later). Women friends told me they had been raped, and not infrequently they had never told anyone else. The thing that stuck with me then and still does is how little space they had to safely process and heal. They felt that they couldn't say what had happened, let alone talk about how they felt, without being judged and shamed. And I think they were right about that, sad to say. They couldn't tell people. The reactions they would have gotten from parents and peers would have done damage. So they stayed silent, which is a very hard way to deal with trauma. Unfortunately, that's not something I see changing. Women I know are still telling me that they were raped, or that something happened that was rape but that they can't label, and that they have not or cannot talk about to anyone else. And I have a daughter and that scares the shit out of me.

How can we get more men and boys interested in the feminist movement?

TMM: Well, we can bullshit them and tell them that it's all upside, and that fighting for their relative privilege in an awful system that's no good for them doesn't have any benefits. But they'll quickly realize that's not true. And we can tell them that there are no downsides to participating in a movement where they have to confront their privilege and change how they do things. But they’d quickly find that that isn’t true.

You can’t sell a movement to cure structural unfairness to the beneficiaries of the unfairness unless there’s already a point of access. That means they have to really have a grievance against the way things are, for themselves or for people they love. But there are a lot of those. There are a lot of guys whose sister has needed an abortion, or whose wife was raped, or whose brother is transitioning, or who feel that the masculinity imposed on them is crushing them. If someone who knows that guy finds that point of access, like a pinhole in the patriarchal curtain, and starts pulling at it, eventually the hole gets so big that they accept that it’s not a matter of stitching the hole, it’s a whole panel or whole curtain that needs to be replaced. (And roman shades would look better in this room. Also, this paint is kinda tired. Let’s see how far I can stretch this metaphor ….*snap* Oops.)

. . . Or we can get them young and try to build into them a sense of fairness that is actually fair, and not one based on a set of artificially assigned roles based on two categories. I’m working on that. I’ll let you know how I did in about twenty years.

How does male privilege affect the way you approach feminist issues?

TMM: First, it means I don’t know everything and my personal leanings and experiences are not a trustworthy guide. I just have to accept that I’m going to be wrong and mess things up, and be gracious when people tell me what a schmuck I am. Because I am.

Second, it means forever keeping one eye on the dynamics of speaking for. In some ways it’s easier, as an affluent educated able bodied cis het white man, because I don’t have to think about the relative issues of when I’m privileged and when I’m not. I’m virtually always in the advantaged side of the structural issue, so I can keep the “I have an unfair advantage” light permanently on.

It’s something I talk about with friends a fair amount. In writing, a lot of what I do is talk about what something means for men, how men should read or deal with something, what it means as a parent, etc., where I’m interpreting my own experience and the experiences I have a better handle on, in light of the dynamics I’m talking about.

But I don’t do that with everything. Some of what I write is overarching theorizing, like Toward A Performance Model of Sex. I realize I don’t have any kind of omniscience, and my privilege informs what I write. I think there are three things I can do about it. I can decide that my understanding is so constrained by the limits of my experience and the dictates of my privilege that I should just shut up (some posts have ended their lives in the delete folder for that reason); I can try to learn and educate myself and improve and beat back my own privilege, which I’m forever trying to do and never fast enough; and I can put what I can out there and try to be as humble as I can about the limitations of it and then not get defensive when people move the discussion forward by pointing out the flaws in what I’ve done. I’ve edited a lot of posts to say, “I messed up, see comments.”

Do you think there are some feminist issues that are more readily accessible to men and boys than others?

TMM: There are things that should be feminist issues that are more the province of men and boys. Masculinity and manhood are becoming contested terrain, and that’s important. The most common discourse on masculinity reads to me like this: “I don’t know what it should look like. What we have is terrible in the following ways, and we should fix it. But I don’t know what it looks like when it gets fixed.” I have both so much and so little to say about that. Masculinity isn’t just “what men do,” but it is bound up with manhood. So we need women in that conversation, both those interested in masculinity and those that in some ways perform it. And we need people who reject binary identifications like “man” to weigh in. But mostly, whether cis- or trans-, the folks we need to help define masculinity are the people who perform it most, and that’s people who identify as men.

Also, there are angles and spaces that men have on feminist issues, where their understanding may be deeply limited by privilege, but where their position in the structural distribution of power is such that they can do more to make change. Men can do feminist work, even if they don’t apply the label to it, if they use what’s at their disposal to do the fair thing. Just as one example, George Tiller was a great hero for reproductive self-determination, not because he freed himself from male privilege, but because he was a doctor who would do that work, under the most terrifying circumstances. I know a guy who says the most awful shit, often to wind me up. But he also once physically intervened to prevent several men from raping a woman who was so intoxicated she didn’t know who she was with or what was going on. Security wouldn’t act, so he just started throwing punches. It worked, at significant cost to him which I won’t describe. That’s not a guy who self-identifies as feminist, but it was a deeply feminist act.

Less dramatically, just calling out rape jokes and rape-apology is something where guys’ views can influence other men a great deal. A guy who mentors younger women colleagues and makes sure their work is considered on its merits may not identify as feminist, or may have a very poor ability to check his own privilege, but that guy can to a lot of good with what he has, where he is.

So I guess I’d say that we need men to be situational allies where they can be, even if they are not (yet) able to make broader connections. Getting them to understand and see the unfairness of a specific situation or act is the first stage. If that creates the gateway for that guy to see those kinds of dynamics as pervasive, and pervasively unfair, great. If not, one person doing the right thing in one situation is better than not.

Are men in the position to play any unique roles in the feminist movement?

TMM: Leaving aside doing what we can with what we have where we are, because I don’t think that’s what the question calls for, I think the primary area where men have something specific and important to bring to feminism is in defining men and masculinity.

Those issues ripple through a lot. To take a particular class-specific issue, for example, take an opposite-sex couple with the same degree, working, say, as lawyers. They may have met in law school, gotten BigLaw jobs, proceeded on parallel tracks through the associate years, and then … that world is not perfect on treating women equally, but I see the social dynamics as the real hold-back. It’s very difficult for both partners to be driven professionals. They can pay for childcare solutions that leave them both free to work long and irregular hours and to travel, but many folks don’t want to do that for a lot of good reasons. Usually, someone takes a step back in professional responsibilities to parent. It’s almost always the woman. Some folks will tell you it has to do with women’s innate desire to mother, but I’m very skeptical of those explanations. Some people want to parent more than others, but I’m not going to accept anyone’s glib generalization that because it’s true for them, it’s an innate sex difference. Instead, I think it has a great deal to do with men’s unwillingness to take that step back. How men see their selves and role, and how their female partners will see them, and how they think their female partners will see them, is all about masculinity.

Of course, it’s more often the case that by the time a middle-class opposite sex couple decide to have kids, they are already in different careers with different compensation, and whoever makes less money becomes the parent with less professional responsibilities. And that has everything to do with the social construction or gender and work roles, tracking of women, conflation of some work identities with masculinity and femininity, etc.

All that is a narrow and class-bound analysis that leaves a lot out; a full treatment of just that example is a book topic. But that’s just one of many ways that construction of masculinity flows through work and distributional issues and other things that seem far removed from the direct performance of gender. I don’t think we can fully understand how much about masculinity is assumed until men start trying to take it apart, examine it and refashion it. And it’s principally men’s job to do that.

E-mail interview has been condensed. . . . a tiny bit.

If you think it's possible that you have been discriminated against in the District of Columbia in housing, public accommodation, or employment, head over to the D.C. Office of Human Rights' free clinic at the DC Center next week for advice on filing a discrimination complaint. Details after the jump.

Location:

The DC Center
1810 14th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 682-2245

Time:

Wed., February 17th
1 p.m. to 4 p.m.

and Wed., March 10th
1 p.m. to 4 p.m.

Eligibility: In order to file a complaint, the discrimination must have occurred sometime in the past year within the District of Columbia. According to Fight HIV In D.C., you can file a discrimination complaint in D.C. based on any of the following criteria:

- HIV status

- disability

- sexual orientation

- gender identity or expression

- race

- religion

- national origin

- sex

- age

- personal appearance

- political affiliation

- family responsibilities

- familial status

- matriculation

- marital status

- source of income

- place of residence or business

We're in the middle of the worst recession in our lifetimes. The state of Maryland is hanging at a 7.2 percent unemployment rate. And one Maryland employer has found a silver lining in the desperation of his countrymen: The potential for hiring a total babe.

Last week, an area job seeker alerted me to this Craigslist ad for an office assistant job at a Rockville, Md. automotive repair company. Necessary qualifications: Sexy "gal" who knows how to "take direction." Unessential: Actual knowledge of cars.

Here's the ad (it's since been flagged for removal):

I am seeking an attractive self motivated, mature, detail oriented female with good computer and telephone skills to help me run my business. This is a full time position with full company benefits. Knowledge of the Automotive Repair business is a plus, but not essential to performing the requirements of this position, however a good sense of humor is. I need a gal that is confident with her sexuality and does not mind working around a bunch of guys. This is a very fast paced business so I need a gal that can think fast on her feet take a proper message and take direction and do what is needed of her. This job is not for everyone, I need a gal that can interact well with the general public and handle a large volume of incomming calls on a day to day basis. A good clear voice and good communication skills are essential to this position. Reply with resume and photo if available to this post, I like to have a face to go with a name. If you think you can keep up with me and our work environment then I want to hear from you.

Seeing as this job ad alone blatantly defies Montgomery County human rights law, which specifies (and I'm paraphrasing here) that you cannot exclusively hire hot chicks on the basis of their glamor shots. This employer better hope his new hire isn't too confident in her sexuality. She may just end up suing his ass.

Why is the Superbowl commercial line-up, hailed as an achievement in advertising industry creativity, often so casually sexist, racist, and homophobic? Credit the watchful eye of the CBS Standards and Practices department, which ensures that Superbowl ads bring in millions of viewers looking to be shocked—without offending the delicate sensibilities of the American people.

In order to achieve this difficult balance, ad-makers are forced to play within a very small range of acceptably "outrageous" topics. Since casual sexism, racism, and homophobia are main sources of shock-jock humor—and since these attitudes are too pervasive to inspire true outrage in the average American—companies compete to put the most creative twist on the lazy stereotyping without going too far off the deep end. And so: CBS bans an ad that shows two gay men kissing, but greenlights several commercials that play off "gay" stuff for laughs. It bans an ad that shows a guy's head up his own ass, but lets fly a commercial that makes fun of those silly, backwards South Asians who answer your tech support calls (racism: officially less controversial than asses). Even the advertisement decried as the most "controversial" of the evening—college football superstar Tim Tebow's anti-abortion ad—concluded not with a politically controversial rallying call to life, but with Tebow totally sacking his own mother. That's gotta sting!

Some advertisers choose to side-step this paradigm, of course, with varying success (See: Cute farm animals in love; everyone has T-Pain's voice; coffin filled with Doritos). The ones that don't end up being mildly but reliably offensive, and extremely boring.

RACISM:

This was one of the only Superbowl ads I noticed that featured people of color. The other was a Doritos ad where a black man walked into his date's house, checked out her ass at length, and then received a firm slap in the face from his date's small child. In Superbowl ads, people of color are never employed to, say, return an Orca to the ocean after a wild bachelor party; they're just here to get some laughs out of racial stereotypes.

SEXISM:

Welcome female sports superhero Danica Patrick, who stars in the most Meta Controversial ad of the night. In this series of commercials for GoDaddy.com, Patrick is going around living her normal life—receiving massages, appearing on television news programs—when she unwittingly finds herself at the center of a "controversial" Superbowl ad. Wherever she goes, blonde ladies are just itching to take down their hair, rip off their shirts, and become the next scandalously hot Superbowl GoDaddy girl. This ad could have been a clever subversion of standard Superbowl bodice-ripping if Patrick's character had been allowed to point out how totally fucking weird this is. Instead, viewers are asked to head online to check out the even sexier action. Just a reminder that even women who excel in traditionally male fields (a girl who's really good at driving!) are still forced into traditionally female representation (boobs!).

Ah yes: the "men have turned into demoralized, overly feminine wusses who can only be saved by big machines that go RRRRARRRR" category. This ad, for the Dodge Charger, really opened my eyes, you guys: It really sucks to be a man, especially one in a serious relationship with a woman! (Seriously, guys, if it's this bad, just break up with us. We're not worth it). I have one question, though: Why are you carrying my lip-balm? As a member of the gender generally expected to carry an expansive purse instead of utilizing her limited pant pockets to store items, I have often carried this proverbial lipbalm for my significant other. And it has never been so traumatizing that I've been forced to shell out $30k for a Dodge Charger to heal the pain. But then again, I don't know what it's like to be forced to carry lipbalm as a man. I'm sure it's very tough.

Did you know that men are also extremely stupid? Men are only interested in beer, sports, and sex; women are from Venus.

[youtube:v=RrJnv2peeZw]

HOMOPHOBIA:

This ad subscribes to the same theory of gender as the Dodge Charger ad, but this time men can only be saved from their spineless, overly feminine lifestyles if they buy a hand-held television. Bonus: this ad is even clearer in its assertion that men who do anything attributed to the mysterious realm of "female shit" aren't true men. Change out of that skirt, Jason.

I believe that this Megan Fox ad contains the Superbowl's sole same-sex couple: Two guys who slap each other with dramatically limp wrists when they discover that one of them has been checking out Megan's sexy pix on the Internet. Apparently, gay men can only be represented in Superbowl ads in the pursuit of hilarity. We are truly living in a post-sexual-orientation America, people.

At first, this Careerbuilder.com ad was is headed firmly down the casual homophobia route: Naked dudes! Around other dudes! Touching their own nipples! But then a couple of underwear-clad female co-workers show up, and the ad refuses to go the aggressively heterosexual route with them. Careerbuilder.com actually reveals itself to be the rare Superbowl advertiser that doesn't exploit boobs for faux "sexy" controversy. Ah, the complexity of Superbowl ad politics.

"Principles 101: Feminism, Manhood, and You" [PDF], a guide to Men's Rights Activism from Manhood101.com, contains tips on everything from restoring your manhood to fighting feminism to . . . brushing your teeth twice daily. (Thanks to a reader for the tip).

Seven golden style tips for the Men's Rights Activist community, after the jump.

1. SPEECH. "Many people make the mistake of not speaking because they have no new information to convey," the guide laments. " They fail to realize that new information is not as stimulating as how you experience things." Let's see how this applies to the realm of picking up women:

Bad pick-up line:

“Hello, how are you?”

Good pick-up line:

“Wow . . . I like how your hair is straight in some places, and then there are these little strands that curl off of it. They remind me of some fashion magazine cover where the hair is perfectly arranged like a little piece of art, but since you’re here in person, I feel like I’m talking to the cover in real life. I want to touch your hair and feel how soft it is. I picture it smelling like coconuts or something sweet. Your hair is making me think dirty thoughts. I want to tug on it and kiss your neck. I have a crush on your hair. It gives me a nice ‘ahhhhhh’ feeling deep inside like when you eat a warm chocolate chip cookie right out of the oven.”

2. BODY TYPE. It's OK if you're short, but DO NOT BE FAT:

First, you must recognize the difference between a disorderly physical appearance and the symptoms of a disorderly life. Being short is not under your control. You were born that way. Being fat, however, is under your control.

Being fat is a result of disorderly eating habits. Although people today claim that discriminating against fat people is wrong, disorderly conditions should be discriminated against, especially when a person has control over their disorder. Smoking, obesity, bad hygeine, decaying teeth and other symptomps of a disorderly life are naturally offensive to others. You should do whatever is necessary to rectify such disorderly conditions.

3. FOOTWEAR: Avoid stylish elevator shoes.

[B]eing short is not unattractive in itself, as are many other perceived shortcomings society arbitrarily invalidates you for possessing. The problem begins when society attaches an undesirable assocation to your height. Because society invalidates you for being short, you believe yourself to be unattractive. This belief causes you to become anti-social and express unattractive social behaviors. . . . . The solution is not to change your physical characteristics, rather you must change the negative associations made with those characteristics.

. . . Stylish elevator shoes, plastic surgery and laser hair removal are not the answer. The solution is twofold; you must develop a functional perspective regarding attraction that emphasizes your ability to create order, and you must break the dysfunctional, negative associations held by women.

4. BODY LANGUAGE. Pretend as if you are human.

When appropriate, use your hands and arms to enhance what you're saying. Drawing with your hands or using gestures to indicate something relevant reinforces what you're attempting to express.

5. DRESS: Men who can properly exercise their authority do not require pants.

Being stylish is unnecessary (not to mention a pointless preoccupation with a dysfunctional social expectation). Having an orderly appearance should be your only focus where clothing is concerned. Properly exercising your authority can accomplish much more than a pair of designer jeans. Being unable to create orderly social interactions is what prevents most men from attracting women. Not lack of fashion sense or good looks.

6. HYGIENE: Although women are more stimulated by power than physical appearance, you still have to brush your teeth, dude.

Studies show that facial symmetry is attractive. If your eyeball was an inch lower, it would break your facial symmetry, causing
disorder to your appearance. This would be a major breach of your natural physical order.

Order in any form, whether in nature or in our physical bodies attracts us. This is why an orderly appearance is important. Granted some men were born with deviated septums or crooked teeth, but thankfully, women are more stimulated by the order generated from exercising your male authority.

However, this does not mean you should neglect your physical appearance entirely.

It's important to practice good hygiene because it maintains an orderly physical appearance. Brush your teeth at least twice a day. Shower. Shave if necessary. Comb your hair or cut it cleanly.

7. STARING ETIQUETTE:

Look directly at people instead of staring at them out of your peripheral vision.

Photo via Migraine Chick, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

On Saturday, hundreds braved the first snow of the year outside BJ’s Wholesale Club in Fairfax to get a live glimpse at Sarah Palin, there to sign copies of her new memoir, Going Rogue. Having filed into the shopping center’s parking lot, the Palinites were sitting ducks for reporters with questions like this one: What does Sarah mean for women?

“I think she speaks her mind, and I think sometimes she speaks a little bit unguarded, so she is a little—she’s not conformed to speaking planned speech. Planned. It’s not planned,” Dee, a Palin supporter from Haymarket, Va., explained. “So I think she speaks her thoughts, and I think that she goes ahead and talks. I think she’s a strong woman. And she allows herself to express that … she’s not afraid to speak. And she’s fairly attractive, and that doesn’t seem to interfere with her being intelligent.”

“As a younger female, I like the fact that she has her own opinions and is not afraid to share them with others,” Chantilly, Va.’s Celia Coughlin submitted. “Also, that she can stand on her own and pave her own path and not really follow the line of any particular thing.”

Elizabeth from Gainesville, Va., says: “For women, she represents principles, life principles, and for the country she represents principles also.”

“I think she’s representing the women the way they should be,” says Patrick Darby of Rockville, Md. “You know, independent, strong, capable of doing whatever she wants to do, standing up for moral issues. And rights.”

Who could ever argue with “rights”? Or with refusing to conform to “speaking planned speech”? Therein lies the appeal of the Palin as culture warrior. Since she debuted on the national scene last summer, conservatives have attempted to corral this outspoken personality into a politically expedient persona: Palin as feminist. The November issue of conservative magazine Newsmax featured Palin on the cover, under the headline “Sarah Palin and the Leaders of the Newer Feminism.”

In the issue, Newsmax situates some notorious female conservatives, like Palin and Dr. Laura Schlessinger, alongside more traditional feminist icons, like Ms. Magazine executive editor Katherine Spillar and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Pegging Palin, darling to anti-feminist voters everywhere, as America’s hottest new feminist is a clever trick. As the crowd at BJ’s attests, Palin’s feminism contains none of the messy political agendas of former feminist waves—it is all personality, all self-reliance, and no politics. It’s about speaking your mind, even when you don’t know what you’re talking about.

It’s a bizarre twist on the old feminist adage that the “personal is the political.” Instead of identifying the structural influences over the day-to-day lives of women, this feminism focuses tightly on choices that have been fully operational for decades: Pants or skirt? Family or career and family? Maybelline or Cover Girl?

In “newer feminism,” every woman’s choices are valued—no matter what those choices mean for other women. Schlessinger isn’t an enforcer of rigid gender roles; she’s a facilitator of women’s choices. Palin’s opposition to abortion rights and comprehensive sex education isn’t anti-feminist; it is her choice to deny reproductive choices to other women. Under this model, Girls Gone Wild founder Joe Francis isn’t an exploiter; he’s a liberator of women’s breasts.

Last fall, Palin did some yeoman’s work in the rebranding of the “F-word.” After telling Katie Couric that she was a “feminist who believes in equal rights,” Palin quickly added that she believed that all of feminism’s work had already been achieved. This “newer” feminism isn’t shy about devaluing feminism: The Newsmax report casually accuses Gloria Steinem of “man-hating,” celebrates Schlessinger’s statement that feminism has “turned the family life upside down” as a welcome “departure from the feminism of old,” and raises the bogeyman of feminist “bra-burning” four times. In her contribution to the Newsmax piece, FoxNews.com writer Andrea Tantaros floats a new definition of feminism: “choice.” Feminism, she writes, is now “defined by each and every woman.”

The democratization of feminism brings us back to the parking lot outside of BJ’s Wholesale Club. If feminism is now “defined by each and every woman,” why not by Mary Ellen Hood, a D.C. resident who eschews politics but loves Sarah Palin?

“I’m not so sure I would put a label on her as a feminist,” says Hood of Palin. “She presents herself feminine … The impression is that feminists are women who don’t like to value their feminine qualities, and they like to put it down and be like a man, and I don’t think that’s appropriate for women. I kind of like her in that regard, that she’s sort of celebrating her womanhood as well.”

Loretta Teele of Fairfax is also more comfortable defining Palin in opposition to feminism than in concert with it. “She’s more godly, loving, and she’s more into her family,” says Teele. “She’s not out there like some of the past feminists—and I do not want to call names—that are bashing men and everybody around them. Feminists have a tendency to bash men. They’re cruel, and she’s not that.”

Caroline, a Herndon resident, is open to seeing Palin as a “new” feminist. “I think in a way. You know, not in the classic kind—you know, I came of age in the feminist revolution and there was a lot of kind of anti-male and anti-traditional female roles, like kids. There was a touch of that, there, back in the old days. And so, in that sense, she’s surely not. She kind of does kind of integrate it all—family, husband, everything, so I do think that that is really good.”

Others aren’t budging. “A feminist? Maybe borderline a little bit,” says Coughlin. “But I don’t really see her—no, not really.”

“I don’t even know what that means,” confirms Dee.

Feminism is now “defined by each and every woman,” and some women are still content to define the movement as those godless, mannish, childless specimens of women who hate men. The latest wave of the women’s movement is all about women having choices—as long as they make the right ones. Call it “newer” feminism, or Sarah Palin feminism, or anti-feminist feminism—just make sure you get a woman to say it, to make sure that it will be above all criticism.

I recently scolded Chris Brown for employing the phrase on the Wendy Williams Show, citing four criteria (a) "I Love Women" essentializes an entire gender; (b) it really means "I love having sex with women"; (c) it is generally employed as a thin cover for a blatant sexist phase; or, worse: (d) it is assumed to be a get-0ut-of-jail-free card for past misogynistic behavior.

But Weingarten insists that he's not using "I love women" in the Chris Brown sense of the phrase:

Washington, D.C.: As a regular user of the phrase "I love women" right here in this very chat, what say you about this?

Gene Weingarten: This is interesting, and a comeuppance for me. Except when I say "I love women" I do not mean "I love to have sex with women." I mean something less crude, but no less objectionable, I suppose. I am saying that I find a combination of certain traits—compassion, empathy, the ability to wield sexual power with sophistication and adroitness and mercy, the sometimes comical pursuit of decency and cleanliness, a distaste for the vulgar and common, an instinctive kindness, and instinctive appreciation of tastefulness and decorum, a charming embarrassment over coarse bodily functions, and several other attributes—to be adorable and enviable and worthy and beyond the understanding of many men. In this sense, I am, in fact, both generalizing (all women are not alike) and diminutizing (I find these things, God help me, "cute"). I am guilty of this and apologize.

Gene Weingarten: Here's how much I respect women: If I were a gynecologist, I would administer ma'am-ograms.

So, Weingarten isn't using "I love women" in a (b) "sex!" or (d) "excuse for hitting his girlfriend" way, but he is using "I love women" in an (a) "generalizing" and (c) "deminutizing" way. Basically, he's batting .500 on "I love women." But hey, at least he's honest about it.

Via Feministing: Glenn Beck has slapped down rumors of a Palin-Beck presidential ticket in 2012. Why? Because Glenn Beck would be an even worse Vice Presidential pick than Sarah Palin was is really sexist!

"I was just thinking, what, I'm going to take a back seat to a chick?" Beck said, before resorting to the most clichéd remark ever:

I'm just saying, Beck-Palin, I'll consider. But Palin-Beck—can you imagine what an administration with the two of us would be like? She'd be yapping or something, I'd say, 'I'm sorry, why am I hearing your voice? I'm not in the kitchen.'

So . . . Glenn Beck is too sexist to consider being vice president. Everybody wins!

Need a convenient way to evaluate any charge of sexism? Pull out the "If It Were A Man" defense. Here's what you do: Isolate an instance of sexist behavior against a woman. Now, imagine a man is the target of the allegedly sexist scenario. Would the man be treated any differently? If yes, it is sexist! If no, it is not sexist!

This theory was recently tested out on a particularly incendiary Sarah Palin Newsweek cover. The magazine ran a photo of Palin posing in short shorts alongside the cover line: "How do you solve a problem like Sarah? She's bad news for the GOP—and for everybody else, too." Charges of sexism were instantly refuted by the "If It Were A Man" defense: It can't be sexist because it happened to Barack Obama:

"Was This Magazine Cover of Obama 'Sexist?'" Andy Ostroy of the Huffington Post asks of Washingtonian's May 2009 cover, which featured President Obama walking shirtless on the beach. Answer: Nope, it wasn't sexist. Therefore, no other cover image can ever be sexist:

To the Republicans who've been critical of Palin's mistreatment by the big bad liberal media, I say, stop your whining. Nothing's more unflattering than a thin-skinned conservative. The Newsweek shot is no more "sexist" than the May Washingtonian cover of a bare chested beefcake President Obama, who the publication called its "hot new neighbor."

Sorry folks, but that's not how sexism works. Ostroy is right, of course: The Washingtonian cover was criticized for a variety of reasons—from photo-shopping a public official to selling sex for page-views—but nobody accused the magazine of sexism. But Ostroy ignores two major distinctions between the Palin and Obama covers. One, Washingtonian used an ab-tastic photo of Obama to illustrate how hot he is, whereas Newsweek used a leggy photo of Palin to illustrate how bad she is. Second, Palin is a woman and Obama is a man. And the second distinction has everything to do with the first one.

First, perhaps we should do a little bit of a primer on what "sexism" actually is. Let's turn to the Gender Bender Blog for a reminder:

There is no such thing as reverse sexism. . . . Just like how racism = power + prejudice based on skin color, sexism = power + prejudice based on gender. When talking about the various forms of oppression, many people often confuse prejudice with the ism. . . . Therefore, a person who does not exist with the necessary institutionalized power and privilege of belonging to a dominant in-group, cannot be racist, sexist, ableist, etc. Women can certainly be prejudiced or discriminatory against men (which is not acceptable either) but they cannot be sexist or “reverse sexist” simply because they lack the institutional power to systematize their prejudice against men.

Why is it different for a publication to run a photo of Obama's hot bod and Palin's hot bod? Because male and female bodies signify different things to the people who publicize and consume them. These magazines applied explicit value judgments to the Palin and Obama bodies—hot Obama is just "hot," while hot Palin is "bad."

Women's bodies aren't just their bodies: They're also a reflection of their value as a person. This is why underage Taylor Lautner can prance around wearing next to nothing and be praised as "hot," while underage Miley Cyrus shows a bit of back skin and is condemned as a "disappointment." This is why male political commentators don't resort to insulting each other for being old and/or fat, like Meghan McCain and Laura Ingraham famously did earlier this year—because a man's looks aren't seen as a reflection of his worth, whereas women in the public eye are routinely judged on age and weight.

Sexism is not a copy-and-paste sort of thing—it can't be applied to males and female equally in all situations. Sexism is a structure. And particularly when it comes to appearances, that structure is stacked against women. Yes, men are criticized for their looks. But the "suitably male appearance" is far more forgiving than the "suitable female appearance," which must strike that delicate (almost impossible) balance between too sexy and not sexy enough. That's not to say that sexism exclusively functions through people conflating women's legs with their brains. But it is helpful to put these body issues in some context: This is a country where the images of George H. W. Bush and Barack Obama are both considered fit for the White House. I don't have to remind you that we've yet to deem a female body suitable for that position.

How condescending is this photo? It's not the fabled (and fake) American-flag-wearin', gun-totin'  bikini photo that surfaced on the Internet shortly after Palin reached national fame, but it's about as close as Newsweek could get to the real thing.

I am generally in agreement with Palin supporters when they accuse the media of hurling sexism toward the former Governor. David Letterman's joke about Palin's underage daughter fucking Alex Rodriguez? Inappropriate. Ridiculing Bristol Palin for getting knocked up, while laughing it up with Levi? Sexist.

And I tend to agree with Palin's response here, too: Yesterday, Palin took to Facebook to denounce the cover's sexism. "The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now," she wrote. "If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention—even if out of context."

Is the Newsweek cover sexist? Yes. But let's put the photo back into context for a minute: Sarah Palin's entire existence is sexist.

Let's try to imagine, for a moment, the thought process that went into creating this Newsweek cover image : "We need to convey that Palin sucks really bad! Let's take some photo of Palin lookin' sexy, slap it on the cover of Newsweek, and then use her sexuality in attempt to draw attention to all the terrible things this woman has brought upon us."

Hey! That sounds kind of like what John McCain did when he chose Palin as his VP: Found an attractive lady, slapped her on to his campaign, and used her image as a sexy lady in order to distract people from her scant qualifications, her total lack of concern for women's issues, and her complete suckiness as a candidate.

Sarah Palin's very existence as a national figure depends upon people being sexist. It's not just the bad things that have happened to her that are a result of sexism—the mud-slinging about her daughters, the circulated upskirt photos, the intense scrutiny over her appearance and her clothes. But sexism tends to help individual women, too, and it has certainly helped Palin. Sexism allows women to earn insane amounts of money for simply taking their clothes off, and it allows women to earn an insane amount of political power for simply being a hot conservative lady with no particular skill at public speaking, reading comprehension, telling the truth, or articulating a single political view that makes any sense, ever.

At that point, can we really get bent out of shape every time we see the media reflecting the reality that Palin is a product of sexism in their coverage of her? We have crossed the Rubicon, people. Everything about Palin is sexist. When it comes to sexism, I'm a big advocate of hating the game, and not the player. But the game works both ways. And I am sick and tired of only having to care about it when that sexism means something bad for Sarah Palin.

"What do the 'N' word, the 'W' word and the 'F' word have in common?" asks Tim Bloedow of NoApologies.ca, a Web site dedicated to "punching a hole in political correctness." According to Bloedow, refusing to use these racial, sexist, and homophobic slurs (the 'F' word isn't fuck here) displays a "complete disregard for using God's name in vain."

Bloedow explains why refusing to invoke the "N" word, the "W" word, and the "F" word is insulting to the almighty. (Note: I won't use those words here, because I'm an atheist, but be warned: Bloedow is a man of God, so he gleefully invokes the three slurs throughout the video):

"The Third Commandment says don't take the name of a larger God in vain," he says. "As Christians, we see the Lord's name taken in vain everywhere—on the TV, in movies, in the news, in just about every area of life, as we walk down the street, among our colleagues. Constantly God's name—'God,' 'Jesus Christ,' are used as cuss words and nobody seems to blink an eye. Yet I've been very frustrated in the last couple of weeks as I've observed the self-censorship in our media over other areas of sensibility."

To recap: White dude in a sweater and a mustache who records himself announcing racial slurs over the Internet? The work of God. Saying "Oh my God, that Tim Bloedow dude appears to be a huge racist"? Sacrilege.

Yesterday, Feminist Law Professors drew my attention to the Miami Daily Business Review's "Rodent" column, a weekly anonymous rant written by various members of the legal community. The latest missive, "Lady Lawyers Should Dress the Part," warns female attorneys that they may be sabotaging their careers with overly sexy business attire. Actually, I think it's more likely that the conveniently anonymous Rodent, who spouts off platitudes like "women who dress like Barbie dolls get treated like Barbie dolls," is the force that's keeping women down in the workplace.

According to the Rodent, otherwise capable female lawyers are ruining their chances at being taken seriously by forgoing pantyhose, wearing heels, and revealing their cleavage:

Women who dress like Barbie dolls get treated like Barbie dolls. I know a lawyer who is in her mid-30s. She is stunning—tall, long blonde Lady Godiva hair and a body that would make a porn star jealous. This woman also happens to be a crackerjack lawyer. But she dresses to emphasize her looks, not her mind; as a result, her career seems to have stalled. Though she is an extremely bright woman, no one sees past the stilettos and low-cut blouses.

The vermin continues:

Clients tend not to hire women who look like hookers unless they hire them as hookers. Don’t show your “girls” at work unless you are looking for a one-night stand.

All right, let's hear one more:

I knew an associate who wore shoes that looked like she was a bridesmaid. She was a good lawyer, but there was a real disconnect between those gold sandals and the notion that she wanted to go the distance as a lawyer. She didn’t, and the shoes were a tip-off.

The Rodent's theories are convenient: The lawyer who looks like a porn star stumbled because her shoes are too high. The lawyer who looks like a bridesmaid is not serious about her job because her shoes are too strappy. The lawyer who looks like a hooker is not successful because her breasts are too prominent. Beyond the offensiveness of grouping female professionals into categories like Barbie, porn star, hooker, and bridesmaid, the Rodent appears to be going to great lengths to deny the obvious. Perhaps the lawyer who looks like a "porn star" is devalued because people think she's too attractive to be smart, not because she dresses like a Barbie. The lawyer who wears anything other than a turtleneck is devalued because she's got boobs, not because she dresses like a hooker. And the lawyer who looks like a bridesmaid, whose strappy shoes are a "tip-off" that she's not a serious lawyer? That sounds like a pretty insane explanation for a career misstep to me.

The Rodent, of course, is attempting to explain away a more offensive aspect of the legal profession: women are consistently partnered and paid less than men are. A commenter on Feminist Law Professors draws the obvious comparison between devaluing a woman's work based on her attire to outright sexual harassment. She writes that men have informed her of the harassment rule: “If she’s going to dress like trash, then she’s going to get treated like trash.”

Blaming a woman's clothing choices for her professional failure is simply a strategy for selectively discounting women without being called on your sexism. All you have to do is project your biases on to "her choices," and you can discriminate away.

This becomes clear when the Rodent gets specific about what aspects of a woman's appearance are unacceptable. Interestingly, several of the Rodent's tips are not specific to female lawyers. "A tattoo that shows is NEVER appropriate when you are a female attorney," the Rodent writes—as if face tattoos are generally accepted among lady litigators' male co-workers. The Rodent then offers up a weak defense for focusing on lady ink—women sag. "I promise you that once you are a woman of a certain age, your skin will lose elasticity, and that cute Asian saying . . . simply won’t look good when it’s sagging."

Many of the Rodent's recommendations are inconsistent. According to the Rodent, "Frumpy is the opposite end of the spectrum, and I see a lot of that these days, too. Looking like an unmade bed—wrinkled clothes, no makeup, dirty hair—doesn’t inspire much confidence either." Apparently, femininity-enhancing attire like heels are unacceptable, but makeup is required. The anonymous ranter also points to Condoleezza Rice as an acceptable style icon, even though Rice hardly shied away from figure-hugging, sexy-heeled outfits in her tenure as Secretary of State.

The lesson we can learn from this is that the standards regulating female appearance are largely arbitrary, and are designed that way to keep the door open for criticism. Men may either be labeled "sloppy" or "professional," but women must also navigate between being "frumpy," "professional," and "overly attractive." And since the "too sexy" meter can often be set off by simply looking like a woman, not dressing like one—having breasts, hips, legs, and a waist—hitting the right note can be a lot more difficult than learning to knot a neck-tie.

Feminist Law Professors' Bridget Crawford concurs with the Rodent on some points:

I myself am on record against visible toes in the office, so I am inclined to agree with the Rodent on this topic. . . . Displays of exaggerated female sexuality (cleavage, heels, etc.) are tools that some women attempt to use to their benefit. Kathleen Bergin explains this in her article Sexualized Advocacy and the Ascendant Feminist Backlash Against Female Lawyers . . . the Rodent reminds us that the same tools can be used against women, too.

I agree that this double standard—be attractive, but not too sexy—is used against women in the workplace. But I disagree with the Rodent's conclusion that the solution to workplace sexism is for women to modify their behavior by buttoning up and trashing the sandals. Apparently, no matter what a lady lawyer wears, there will be some vermin waiting on the sidelines to tell her it's not appropriate.

Photo by markusram, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

According to fraternal historian ­Nicholas Syrett, America’s fraternity culture has thrived on a fear of homosexuality since the 1920’s. All-male fraternal organizations, Syrett writes, “compensate for what might be perceived by outsiders as either feminine or gay behavior by enacting a masculinity [of] aggressive heterosexuality.” In order to preempt homosexual interpretations of the fraternal bond, the brothers employ ritualistic paddling, frat house sex, and homophobic epithets to fight their way back to straight.

The Syrettian fraternal tradition poses some pre-professional problems for the young men on the campus of George Washington University.

After all, GW’s fraternity brothers are the nation’s future congressmen, investment bankers, and CEOs. They won’t reach those positions if their Google profiles turn up associations with homophobic and misogynistic fraternities. So GW’s frat boys—and don’t call them that!—are straining to undo the legacy of “aggressive heterosexuality” and gay-bashing forged by their predecessors. It’s an effort that involves a good deal of re-education, some new alliances, and a compensatory vice or two.

RUSHING. Each September, GW’s potential pledges navigate a monthlong schedule of university-sanctioned rush events. The activities provide a brief introduction to each fraternity’s social reputation. Will the future fraternity brother enjoy s’mores at Kappa Sigma’s “acoustic jam” or feast upon Kappa Alpha Order’s steamed Maryland crabs? Will he chat up Sigma Chi’s favorite sorority ladies or help Sigma Nu launch a frozen turkey down a Slip ’N Slide? Will he scarf Lambda Chi Alpha’s Chipotle burritos or watch the brothers of TKE take a sledgehammer to a car?

This year, Beta Theta Pi decided to trade the food porn and the masculine displays of destruction for a more meaningful approach. “The events that I rushed into initially were food-focused,” says Stephen Molldrem, the fraternity’s vice president. “This year, we’re trying something completely different. Other fraternities will pick men who share their values out of the ones who show up for the Maryland blue crabs. We attract men of values, and we then just happen to serve them Maryland blue crabs when they show up.”

Beta Theta Pi Vice President Stephen Molldrem

That formula—values first, crabs later—helps weed out the homophobes with the hungry. In Beta Theta Pi’s first rush event this year, titled “Frat Versus Fraternity: Myths Debunked,” Molldrem and his brothers discussed popular misconceptions about “frat boys” with potential pledges.

William Zelenty, the fraternity’s rush coordinator, says the strategy had helped establish Beta Theta Pi as an organization of principle. “In the past, the fraternity was about upholding the status quo and letting the sexist and homophobic stuff fly,” he says. “Now, we’re dealing with it. If you’re the kind of person who goes around and says that kind of stuff, you’re not the kind of person I want involved in our chapter. Not everyone is perfect, but if any homophobic comments arise in a meeting or on the Listserv, I can tell you right now that it’s quelled immediately.”

Also not welcome at Beta Theta Pi: stereotypical comments about sexist and homophobic “frat boys.” “It’s just patently offensive,” says Molldrem, who is gay. “Even using the words ‘frat boy’ together can connote a bias.”

Beta Theta Pi rush coordinator Will Zelenty

HAZING. When one GW sophomore pledged an off-campus fraternity last year, he was relieved that the hazing process did not involve the “grotesque display of homosexual actions and physical pain” he had heard rumors of back home in Alabama. But what the hazing lacked in homophobia, it made up for in Kentucky Gentleman.

The night he officially pledged the fraternity, the student and his pledge class assembled in the frat house. “A trash can was brought out and put into the middle of the floor, and we were told to stand around the trash can,” he says. “We were then asked to drop our pants, but to leave our underwear on,” he says. The light homoeroticism—and the trash can—proved red herrings for the main event. Once the pants were dropped, the student says, “a bottle of Kentucky Gentleman bourbon was introduced to the circle, opened, and passed around among the circle of pledges.

As the pledges drank, the brothers sang. “You would have to drink until they stopped singing,” he says. “The first time, it was not that bad—they didn’t sing for that long,” he says. “The second time, they sang for maybe 10 to 12 seconds—an extremely long time.” When the bottle was finished, the pledge pulled up his pants as a newly minted member of the fraternity. “Shortly after that, I blacked out,” he says.

The student awoke in Georgetown University hospital to learn that he had left the post-pledging party, entered another student’s dorm room, and urinated all over his possessions. The student called the University Police Department, which administered the pledge a breathalyzer test. He blew a .24.

All hazing activities—from “paddling” to “scaveneger hunts”—are banned on the GW campus, and many fraternities honor school rules. When GW frats do haze, the activities—low on the homoerotic domination, high on the blood alcohol content—comport with the campus’ progressive nature. When fraternity brothers don’t fear associations with homosexuality, they’re a lot less likely to turn their hangups into a good paddling. But chugging alcohol is universal. Stereotypically, “frat boys are thought of as sexist and homophobic, but I don’t know if I’ve ever really heard that at GW,” says Josh Brown, rush coordinator of Zeta Beta Tau. Brown, who doesn’t drink, says that even GW’s wildest frat parties involve only “drinking to prove yourself,” not “drinking to get a girl drunk.”

PARTYING. Todd Belok, a GW sophomore, was a member of the school’s Naval ROTC program when he decided to pledge Beta Theta Pi. Belok wanted to make sure his potential brothers “didn’t hate who I am,” so he casually informed a couple of brothers of his sexual orientation over the course of the pledge process. “I was taking a course with one of the brothers who happened to be in my class,” says Belok. “I asked if I could bring my boyfriend to [a fraternity] party, and he said that would be completely fine.” Later, inside the Beta Theta Pi house, another brother “pulled me over and told me it was totally OK, and they didn’t have a problem with it here.”

Beta Theta Pi brother Todd Belok

The fraternity house quickly became a safe haven for Belok. A few weeks later, Belok was again partying with his boyfriend in the Beta house when a couple of Belok’s fellow NROTC midshipmen saw the couple kissing and reported the infraction to their superiors. “I had seen the guys at the party, and I was a little bit concerned,” says Belok. “But I thought it was really wrong to keep on hiding.”

The incident, which led to Belok’s dismissal from NROTC under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” revealed a growing rift between two of the nation’s most masculine traditions—fraternity life, which embraced Belok’s sexual orientation, and military life, which rejected it. Belok’s dismissal hasn’t prompted Beta Theta Pi to take a more discriminating approach to its guest policy. “What are you going to do? Stop everyone at the door and ask them about their thoughts on various social subjects?” says Belok. But it has renewed the house’s commitment to its idea of fraternity culture. “A lot of the brothers were really angry that it happened,” says Belok. “And they were really angry that it happened here.”

Photos by Darrow Mongtomery

Tucker Max's message board has launched a Photoshop competition for the best reimagined protest signs from the "I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell" protests. Creative Max devotees are working off images from the film tour's photostream in order to ridicule students from the NC State women's center, which staged a Raleigh protest of the film. Predictably, the submissions are sexist (above). Since this is a contest to ridicule people who care about rape, sexism is to be expected. So why are the submissions so racist?

You can view all of the submissions here. I agree with some of Max's defenders that "Tucker Max culture" encourages a hatred of pretty much everyone—not just women, fat women, or black people, but also white men who Max considers douchey. I don't agree, however, that it hates everyone equally.

Some of Max's fans have championed his committment to women's rights because he believes that "women should be able to make their own choices." Yes—Max believes that women should be allowed to choose just as much crazy drunken sex as he does. Except that when those women choose that path, they are publicly embarrassed, reduced to the size of their vaginas, and literally vomited upon for doing so, while Tucker Max is held up as a hero (albeit a hero who admits, jokingly or not, to hate himself).

But at least thin, white, able-bodied women are allowed that one choice: They can choose not to have sex, and be ignored; or they can choose to have as much sex as they want, and be labeled a "whore". As the Photoshop contest shows, fat women and black men and women aren't afforded that privilege among Max's fans: their size and race is reason enough to bring on the hate.

When I first learned of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' new "Save the Sea Kittens" ad campaign, I was confused—and not because re-branding one species of animal (fish) as another (kittens) doesn't make any fucking sense. No, I was confused because PETA's campaign just doesn't seem overtly sexist enough! There are no Playboy models, lettuce bikinis, or shrink-wrapped naked ladies to objectify in this campaign—just some cute fish you can dress up in costumes in an attempt to humanize them.

I know. I was suspicious, too.

Thankfully, PETA supporters accustomed to sneaking a bit of lasciviousness into their animal rights advocacy can dress their cute fish in a variety of super sexy fish costumes. Ta-da:

This is my sexy sea-kitten, complete with string bikini, pageant tiara, fetish-y cat whiskers, and porno lips.

Your BDSM sea kitten can sport a pink studded collar, or opt for a more traditionally sexy ruffled tube top. The truly kinky sea-kitten, though, ties on a bonnet.

On the accessories side, choose from bloated sex-doll lips or a tray of kitty litter (if your sexy fish is into the whole scat thing).

Umm . . . for the sea-kitten into furries?

Of course, as we've seen from PETA's other sexy ad campaigns, dressing up your spokesmodels in sexy outfits actually tends to dehumanize them instead of the other way around. Oh, well. At least it keeps dudes interested.

Aww, I miss the '80s, when the media pumped a veritable sea of licentiousness into American ears through the radio waves instead of this half-assed T-Pain shit. Also: He's talking about Prince, right?

Anyway, Georgetown University proved itself almost perfectly manly in the contest, with nine out of ten of the institution's top staffers men. But a new report from campus blog Vox Populi reveals that—say it ain't so!—the Man Madness tournament was perhaps less-than-thorough.

Vox Pop looked "beyond the top ten" to find that Georgetown's leadership is actually surprisingly balanced, gender-wise.  Juliana Brint found that "women hold a majority of positions in the administration of the College, the SFS and the NHS, and also constitute a majority of academic department leaders in NHS and in the College’s humanities programs"—though the school's science departments, administrators, and school of business are still male-heavy. Brint's most intriguing finding concerned the contrast between the gender-make up of staffs managed by men versus staffs managed by women:

Interestingly, areas that are mostly female-run tend to be more equally divided, with between 48 and 37 percent of the positions filled by men; male-dominated areas are more polarized, with only 30 percent or less of the positions filled by women.

But don't take my word for it—they've got graphs!

This week, I cornered people on the street, pushed a camera into their faces, and asked them if they've ever experienced sex discrimination in their lifetimes. Most of them had at least been called a "sissy" once. Above, D.C.'s men and women tell their tales of low-cut T-shirts, unwelcome sexual fantasy, and one too many Zoolander jokes.

Sexual discrimination in the office has come a long way. Once predictable—spurning male secretaries and sexually harassing female underlings—on-the-job sexism has since tackled more subtle arts, from cutting strategic holes in female bartenders’ uniforms to mocking the diet of male models. A recent hunt for sexism on the streets of D.C. revealed an evolution of sexism, from its golden age to its next frontier.

THE DISTANT PAST.

When Vernon Moore, 74, entered the workforce half a century ago, only women typed. “We, as young people, were told that women did clerical work,” says Moore. “I went to Cardozo Business High School, where they said that typing was for sissies.”

When Moore went out in search of a secretarial position, he found himself surrendering job opportunities to employees traditionally assigned to “sissy” work—women. When Moore did land a clerical job, he was pushed out of sight. “I was not put in an office, as an administrative aide would expect,” he says. “I was assigned to the shops. And in the shop section, you know, you’re basically right in the middle of the paint shop,” he says.

Even the backroom position proved too visible for a black man. “At the end of my year as a temporary employee, they let me go,” he says. “When I did go back [to the shops], there was a white female in that job. So it was definitely discrimination.”

THE RECENT PAST.

Mary Lou Walen, 68, can recall two instances of sexual harassment in her medical career. In the mid-’70s, Walen had been working at “a very large prestigious institution” for four-and-a-half months before the head of the pathology department thought she was ready for a private conference.

The doctor called her into his office at around 5:15, after the rest of the workplace had cleared out for the day. “He sat across from me at the desk and said, ‘First of all, I want you to know that what I’m going to say you’re not going to be able to repeat, because nobody will believe you—you’re a new employee, and I’m the head of the department.’” Walen repeats. “Then he said, ‘I can’t stop thinking about you. I have sex with my wife and I see your face. I think about you all the time.’ And then he propositioned me.” Walen thanked him and immediately left the office. “He didn’t bother me again,” Walen says, likely because she kept up her side of the deal: “I didn’t say anything.”

Years later, Walen experienced some harassment she couldn’t stand to keep quiet. “I got chased around the desk once,” she says. This time, the male higher-up who beckoned Walen into his office got a little bit more physical. “As soon as I got into the office, he said…‘I find you incredibly attractive’—or something like that—‘and I just can’t hold it back anymore,’” says Walen. “He came around the desk with his arms out to grab me and kiss me, and I just started running,” she says. “I said, ‘Doctor!…Don’t! Stop!’ He said, ‘No, I can’t!’”

This time, Walen talked: “I told the CEO. We just laughed,” she says. “There was nothing more to it.”

THE PRESENT.

Women in the booze-pouring profession experience so many advances from across the counter that they can become numbed to harassment from the back of the house. When asked if she’s ever experienced sex discrimination, Chantal, 26, is initially noncommittal. “I think so, but I can’t think of a specific example,” she says. Once she delves a bit in her employment history, however, the anecdotal evidence mounts. “I used to be a bartender,” she recalls.

At the bar, Chantal’s male manager often required some last-minute wardrobe changes for the female staffers. “He would cut my shirts—my T-shirts,” Chantal says, miming a pair of shears tearing into her chest area. Chantal’s girlfriend, Bre, chimes in to fill out the remainder of the uniform, which required no modification to achieve objectification. “You had to wear high heels and short skirts,” Bre reminds her. “Yeah,” Chantal says. “It was a requirement.”

At the bar, lucrative shifts were awarded to competent male employees—and flirtatious female ones. “For guys, it was the guys who could sell the most, the ones who were the good bartenders,” says Chantal. For women? “How much you flirt with the manager.”

THE FUTURE.

Once brazen sexual advances and modifying fellow employees’ clothes go out of style, workplace sexists may have to settle on more outlandish exercises—like ridiculing male models for eating cake. Jason Cooper, 23, and Rabon Hutcherson, 25, may very well be on the cutting edge of sexism. The male models are regularly subjected to the type of sex discrimination usually reserved for women.

There’s the wage gap: “It’s almost a female-driven industry, with the Heidi Klums and the Naomi Campbells,” says Hutcherson. “And in general they’re paid more—a lot more—than the male models.”

There’s the stereotyping: “When you’re a model, your goal is to sell something, whether it’s a product, a look, or a message,” says Cooper. “Most of those products are geared toward females.” Even products geared toward men—like alcohol and cigarettes—often require a female hire. “Sex sells,” says Hutcherson. That leaves Cooper and Hutcherson shilling for “the things that men are stereotypically better at,” says Cooper. In the advertising world, men are good for wearing suits, working out, and grilling.

And there’s the sex-based harassment: “All of my friends that don’t model or act have a real hard time dealing with it,” says Cooper. “It gets old. Dropping a Zoolander line is not funny,” says Cooper. “They’re not the first person to do it; I hear it all the time. If you’re going to be annoying about it, at least be funny and original.” Hutcherson says that ribbing from male friends can border on the obsessive. “If they see you eating a piece of cake, it’s like a news flash,” he says. “Oh he’s eating cake; let’s take a picture of this; what are you doing; you can’t eat that,” he says. “I still do eat cake.”

The would-be first Latina justice faced a committee with only two women members in order to get confirmed by a Senate with only 17 women for a seat on a court with only one woman. And yet Sotomayor had to prove that she wasn’t biased: "Men and women [are] equally capable of being wise and fair judges."

Behold a common argument deployed by modern sexists:

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

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

3. Declare anyone who says otherwise a sexist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[youtube:v=eVLKArzODO4]

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

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

The modern sexism was swift and barely intelligible:

From MysteryManoLove:

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

From LovelyYTRocks:

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

From Nickyrinkydinky:

To Lowfuellevel and the rest of the whining sexist bitches.

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

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

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

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

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

Photo by late night movie

The Huffington Post has finally discovered the porthole through which its sexist entertainment content can jump off of the Entertainment page and onto more explicitly political verticals. What is this valuable new discovery which suddenly makes sexy naked women so politically relevant? It starts with a P, ends with an Eople For the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and it has been pulling this liberal sexist bullshit for years.

Well, PETA and HuffPo are together at last, with two super-sexy animal protection stories making their way onto the site's "Green" page this week. After the photo-accompanied "Lydia Guevarra, Che's Daughter, Poses Semi-Nude for PETA" made a semi-nude splash in the Web site's Popular Stories last week, HuffPo cashed in on the theme with the full slide-show: "The Sexiest PETA Ads of All Time." Click on it for the environment!

To HuffPo—and PETA's—credit, the collection of PETA's notoriously naked ads includes its share of topless dudes alongside the unclothed women. But as the interactive poll feature demonstrates, Huffington Post readers are not so down with this nudity-for-all tactic.

Readers are allowed to rate each PETA rep's naked ad on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 signifying "Rather have meat" and 10 "Pass the produce!" Here are the current rankings, from hottest to not-est:

Charlotte Ross 8
Alicia Silverstone 7.6
Annalise Braakensiek 7.6
Sophie Monk & Maggie Q 7
Dita Von Teese 6.9
Jenna Jameson 6.7
Pam Anderson 4.7
Kathy Najimy 3.7
Jamie Bamber 3.7
Two male models making out 3.4
Tommy Lee 2.2

Let's take a look at the hierarchy here. The nine women on the list all score higher than the four men. The women lose points as they get closer to the porn spectrum, with the exception of Kathy Najimy, who is un-young and un-skinny enough to rank just above the men. At the bottom, we have the four guys: The dude from Battlestar Gallactica ranks above the overt display of male homosexuality, but the kissing guys still beat out the universally reviled Tommy Lee. In my opinion, Tommy Lee's low-ranked bare chest alone is enough to debunk HuffPo's "sometimes a nipple is just a nipple" theory. Nobody wants to see that shit.

The Huffington Post brushes off the idea that the female nudity focus on its Entertainment page has any impact on its progressive political cred. In passing off interactive nude slide-shows as environmentalism, however, HuffPo wades into explicitly political sexist territory. PETA paved the way here by exploiting women in the hopes of ending the exploitation of animals. HuffPo joins the fray not by presenting a counterpoint to PETA's sexist tactics, but by reveling in it—asking its readers to rank the "hottest print promotions."

I have to wonder if PETA's T&A has ever convinced a soft-core porn enthusiast to stop eating beef. I bet the naked stuff is actually used more of a peace offering to the general public—they may be annoyed by PETA's radical vegetarianism, but at least there are naked chicks.

But unlike PETA, the Huffington Post is not a one-issue newspaper. PETA objectifies women in order to save the lives of the poor, helpless bunny rabbits, but it never professed to care about women. HuffPo objectifies women in order to save its entire politically progressive business model. Why not pull a fast one on PETA and stick to objectifying wallabies instead?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Huffington Post's Vice President for Communications, Mario Ruiz, responded to my inquiry by copy-pasting Kurtz' column into an e-mail, adding: "There's nothing much we can add to what she already emailed Howie."

Huffington to Kurtz:

Huffington dismisses this argument by e-mail, calling it "silly and highly limiting to assume that all progressives can't wait to get to the orgy and all conservatives have a chastity belt in their drawer. . . . As the Washington City Paper's blogger herself points out, we have a wide range of news and opinion on all our sections — including our Entertainment section.

"Looking for hidden political agendas in every article and every photo on HuffPost will lead to some very convoluted conclusions. As Freud said, 'Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar' — and a nipple slip is just a nipple slip."

Huffington misses the point here. This isn't about valuing promiscuity or chastity. It's not about whether liberals or conservatives should or shouldn't like sex. This is about objectifying women by reducing them to their nipples, which is, in my opinion, anti-feminist. And personally, I would hope that progressives would make very basic women's issues like this a priority.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a woman is just a nipple.

UPDATE: Ruiz has written back with an expanded version of Huffington's statement:

At The Huffington Post we feel that trying to analyze everything in life by looking through a right vs left political prism — including Entertainment and celebrity coverage — will lead to a very distorted view of the world. In fact, we feel that looking at politics in that tired way will lead to a distorted view of the world (compare Dick Cheney’s view on gay marriage to Barack Obama’s and get back to me about right vs left). It is silly and highly limiting to assume that all progressives can’t wait to get to the orgy and all conservatives have a chastity belt in their drawer. History has proven otherwise again and again and again.

[As you pointed out last week], we have a wide range of news and opinion on all our secctions — including our Entertainment section. Looking for hidden political agendas in every article and photo on HuffPost will lead to some very convoluted arguments. As Freud said, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar” – and a nipple slip is just a nipple slip.

Right on, Siskind. I'm right with you on that one!

Let's see what popular story HuffPo invites you to go clicky-clicky on right next to Siskind's post:

Sexism on a liberal Web site is still sexism.

I have a confession to make: I love Dude Comedies. Any film where Two to Five Douchey Guys Shirk Their Societal Obligations to Embark on a Night They'll Never Forget can probably coax ten bucks out of me. I'll even watch the Dude Comedies where all female characters are relegated to the Fun-Hating-Wife or Slutty-Sex-Object category, as long as it allows for maximum high jinks. Superbad: Loved it! Old School: Great! 40 Year Old Virgin: Totally convinced me to overlook the whole chastity message! Talladega Nights: Watched it!

I understand these movies are literred with sexism and homophobia and penises; I am simply immune to it. My condition has become so severe that this is looking pretty good to me, honestly.

But no Dude Comedy can draw me in as douchily as the Judd Apatow Dude Comedy. I am powerless to it. I have a theory: Paul Rudd is often one of the dudes. But even a Clueless pedigree can't justify my apparent obsession with man-children, marijuana-fueled Lord of the Rings fantasies, and underlying date-rape themes.

Help me.

In this week's Sexist Beatdown, Sady of Tiger Beatdown tries. We laughed, we cried, we had a shmashmortion.

SADY: hello there lady. are you prepared – prepared, that is, to debate the fine points of dude comedy?

AMANDA: i can't say i'm as prepared as you are, sady. but i am willing to confess: i believe that i enjoyed nearly all the films you profiled in your apatow series. when i saw them. in the theater.

SADY: yes, it's true: apatow has become my great white whale. he is basically all i think about these days. i dream in Apatowvision. well: i enjoyed some of them too! (shhhhhh.) I enjoyed "Knocked Up" immensely, for example.

AMANDA: i CRIED at the end of knocked up. i was on a really bad date, which may have had something to do with it.

SADY: OH GOD. YOU SHARE MY TERRIBLE SECRET. i cried too. also, broke up with the dude i saw it with?

AMANDA: same. well i'm glad we've cleared the air.

[youtube:v=lVam-fshUgw]
Judd Apatow craftily inserted this song into the film's end credits in order to make me cry.

SADY: yeah. my reactions to "knocked up" kind of define my relationship to the Apatow canon. I was totally digging Leslie Mann's character – oh, that poor lady! She is totally at the end of her rope! – and then left the theater, and discussed it with people, and realized that YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ROOTING FOR PAUL RUDD. In that particular sub-plot.

AMANDA: i think i had the same reaction as you did, honestly. i thought she was sympathetic, but totally pathetic. all of apatow's male characters are pathetic, too, but they seem to ease out of that gracefully without having to think about it too much.

SADY: right – plus, they are pathetic in a totally fun way! they get to hang out and do bong hits and fart on each others' pillows and such! so, by the end, where it's like, "sadly, we realize that procreative monogamy with one of these strange 'woman' creatures is necessary to maturation" you kind of get their sadness at giving up the pillow farts and lightbub battles. whereas women are just grown-ass-adults by the time they hit puberty, apparently. or at least they're scripted that way.

AMANDA: yeah, so the women are just haggard at the end. one thing your reviews always touch on are these coiteries of man-children that apatow scripts. and you mention the rejoinder from defenders of the movie that 'you're not supposed to LIKE or IDENTIFY with them.' and i do think that you are supposed to like these characters, and even like them for (and not despite of) their date rape punch-lines. but they're still in a context, i think, where they're there to provide a contrast to the hero of the story. their douchiness must be overcome, basically.

SADY: yeah, exactly. they're given such loving attention, and their little world of date-rape jokes and vague bromosocial lady-avoidance is presented as so much fun. so you forgive them for being immature in order to forgive your own immaturity, like, "well, my wife may be at home sobbing but i can't help it! i'm a regular bro!" and then you get a Valuable Life Lesson that sticks for maybe ten to fifteen minutes.

AMANDA: ... but they're funny!

SADY: it's true! sometimes they really really are! I subconsciously repeat Jonah Hill's pronunciation of "abortion" as "shmushmortion" at least once a week! and then i realize it's a joke about making a lady have an abortion because obviously her fetus is YOUR decision!

AMANDA: yeah. and apatow's versions of women i cannot excuse. they are either bitches or whores. but caricatures of douchebags, even lovable ones, i cannot resist. see: paul rudd in wet hot american summer. i think it's just possible to love the character and not the character if they were a real person / your boyfriend.

[youtube:v=ND7yJ7sMosk]

SADY: exactly. question: where the lady douchebags at? where are the stoned ladies that can't get it together to have an actual apartment, and get jobs that require nothing of them because they're afraid real jobs would be too much of a commitment, and pretend to be gandalf or some business when no-one's looking? the ladies who would rather watch "the muppet show," again, than do anything useful with their lives? WHERE ARE THOSE LADIES? Because I want movies about them! They exist! So I am told in a way that has nothing to do with my own personal life, at all.

AMANDA: i know, which is why I desperately want Apatow to write a movie for them. partly because i think his brain might explode, but also because i think it would be funny.

[youtube:v=V4QVGcnjZeM]

SADY: exactly. like, writing a movie about a lady that is not a sexy/stupid harlot or a knife-tongued scold would be fantastic. because the closest we've got to an Apatowomany character, right now, is Juno. I DON'T WANT JUNO.

AMANDA: sometimes i look at popular culture and i think of the female characters who have had abortions and i get really sad that like carrie bradshaw is the only one i can think of. but that's a tangent.

SADY: yes, well, my forthcoming feature movie film, "50 First Abortions," will be an exciting new direction for film, i think.

AMANDA: indeed. I think we should start a letter campaign that mirrors the request of Pixar to make a film with a heroine who is not a princess.

SADY: but, you know? i think that women have all the same maturity/commitment/not-being-an-idiot problems that these dudes have. PLUS, what with all the work we have to do to make our bodies presentable, there are many more occasions for gross jokes about our inherent schlubbiness. HUMOROUS BIKINI WAXING SCENE? I think so!

Today I thought I'd just cut to the chase and find out what ladies on the Internets think is sexist today. Modern sexism, reveal yourself!

* Gender Goggles reviews Yoko Ono's feminist video project Cut Pieces, thinks jokes are sexist, but not as sexist as sexual assault: "You might argue that there is a world of difference between laughing at a sexist joke and committing mass sexual assault in Central Park, and while this is obviously true it’s also all of a piece. They are on the same continuum of subjugation of women."

Also sexist, according to the Goggles: some newfangled "Ladder Theory" of relationships.

* Jezebel thinks Bukakke-esque advertising isn't as sexy as it is sexist.

* Shakesville's Melissa McEwan thinks cartoon e-mail forwards are sexist, except when they contain visual poo jokes: "we started emailing each other any dumbass forwards we got, especially ones with 'hilarious; sexist jokes and cartoons, with intros like 'This is the best email forward you'll ever receive!' We also send each other good email forwards, too, like the one I sent her of a guy wearing see-through plastic pants and crapping himself, which is a classic."

* Tiger Beatdown thinks that maybe she herself is sexist, but also right, for writing this tirade about rom-coms:

I can hear your cries of shock and denial! But es one hundred percent verdad, ladies: people who watch—and consider themselves fans of—such high quality cinematic entertainments as "Runaway Bride," "Maid in Manhattan," and "The Wedding Planner" do, in fact, tend to have crappy relationships, due to the fact that they believe in "predestined love," immediate commitment, and the idea that "if someone is meant to be with you, then they should know what you want without you telling them."

Photo via trialsanderrors.

The Manliest Workplace in D.C. tournament is live! Over the next several weeks, the Sexist will be rating 64 D.C. organizations to find the manliest local workplace—the one that employs the most men, all the time, and in the highest positions. Who's manlier—the National Cathedral or the Founding Church of Scientology? The Supreme Court or the U.S. Postal Service? Only the Sexist's unsophisticated and highly arbitrary ranking system knows for sure.

Stay tuned with The Sexist as the tournament continues to see which workplaces are manly enough to ignore all those pesky cracks in the glass ceiling. Also stay tuned for Crack Watch!—where we tally the number of women we find creeping into the org. charts of D.C. institutions.

Think you know manly from mannish? Fill out a bracket by Monday, Oct. 20, to be submitted in our contest. The entrant with the bracket that most closely resembles the Sexist's findings will win a City Paper prize pack!

Ask The Sexist "is this sexist?" and she will whisper back softly, "maybe." Contact The Sexist with your queries.

Dear Sexist,

What is a woman to do when sexist decor appears in one's office? My government office uses art "on loan" from the artists. When we moved into the office two years ago, a bizarre picture of fat, smirking, hairy men was placed between the office doors of two "high feminist" workers. Bad enough. But now a new picture has appeared in the reception lobby. It is placed directly over the head of the receptionist. It has a bright yellow background. The object in the picture looks like a bright blue tattooed penis. The original title, "Welcome," had been crossed out and changed to "Lady of the Lake." An unusual nickname for one's penis.

Upon exiting the elevator and looking up, a common response is "Whoa!" I find that this oppression is hurting my productivity and that of my fellow workers. I believe a guerilla incursion is required. Your thoughts?

—A Reader

Dear Reader,

Is a man's penis implicitly sexist? It is not. Are fat, smirking, hairy men implicitly sexist? They are not. Is the placement of a collection of fat smirking hairy man penis art in your feminist work environment sexist? Maybe.

Typically, I will defend the right of any individual or institution to display any piece of art, anywhere, regardless of the art's quality, the artist's pedigree, or  the patent offensiveness of its subject. Nevertheless, seeing as you work for the government, I'm sure you can find some way to have the artwork removed through official channels. Perhaps former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft can direct you to the proper series of forms through which you may file a complaint.

But consider this: While your office's art collection is quite possibly sexist, it is most certainly hilarious. The absurdity of this situation must be exploited for as long as the penis remains on your walls. The office lurker who revised the name of your government-sanctioned tattooed penis has set the precedent for tomfoolery in this case. I suggest that you and your feminist cohorts brainstorm a host of ridiculous names for the penis. Daily, cross out the former name of the artwork and write in the new title. You might begin mildly, with "Bright Blue Tattooed Penis," then proceed with increasingly ridiculous titles, many of which will invoke the names and personal habits of your supervisors. Soon, your office will have no choice but to replace the artwork with a shoddy O'Keefe knock-off.

—The Sexist