http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/feed/

Thanks!

While men-sized revelers will be sporting sweet skeleton costumes like this come Halloween, looks like I'll have to settle for an uncomfortable and oddly sexual costume that CUTS OFF ALL MY SKELETAL LIMBS. Above we have "Sexy Skelly," a stretchy skeleton minidress which turns the pelvis and ribs into erotic suggestions of nearby organs. Sexy Pebbles hair accessory not included.

This skintight ladies skeleton, below, isn't so bad—the hoddie turns into a sweet skull mask, and at least I get pants! (Okay, leggings). Did you know that even girls bones are pink? That's how different girls are from boys!

This next one is my personal favorite: A women's skeleton costume that lights up with the flick of a switch. Unfortunately, it comes attached to a caped tube top.

The "Light Up Sexy Skeleton" costume comes compete with cape, scythe, and batteries, but suggests that the wearer fine one crucial accessory on her own: "This sexy Grim Reaper always gets her man."

The Crafty Bastards Arts & Crafts Fair will be held Saturday, Oct. 3rd from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., rain or shine. The fair is located in Adams Morgan, on the grounds of the Marie Reed Learning Center at 18th & Wyoming Streets NW. There, you can find one-of-a-kind crafts, megaloons, food, music, something for your mom, and for a limited time only, me. Learn more here.

To Izrael, there are four kinds of black men: the "Sugar Daddy," the married dude women have sex with for money; the "Pierre Delacroix," the educated black man who is probably gay; the "Bar-Napkin Poet," the open-mic night poser who will get you pregnant; and the "Bartleby," the poor slacker. Black men, in other words, are not marriage material.

There are only three kinds of black women, however: "Dr. Donhavamon," the PhD who "doesn't know what a dustpan is for"; the "Poetess," the open-mic poser who won't give you head; and "Goldbrick," the girl without a degree who is "jealous of anything you may have going on." All black women aren't marriage material, either but for a different reason: not because they cheat on their spouses, or don't use condoms, or are secretly gay. Black women aren't marriage material because she, in Dr. Donhavamon's case, went to college and was really fucking good at it; in the Poetess's case, went to college and thinks it's important; or in Goldbrick's case, simply wants to go to college. Of course, the one black man who succeeded in college, "Pierre Delacroix," doesn't get off either—Izrael even argues this guy doesn't count as "black" anymore.

Apparently, black men and women are just not supposed to go to college. Make sense? Of course not. It makes no fucking sense. Perhaps, you think, Izrael is simply engaging in an ironic exercise in order to remind singles men and ladies that no one is perfect, and stereotyping the opposite sex can be damaging to everyone? Nope: He's pretty much arguing that while the stereotypes of no-good black men are bunk, the stereotypes of overachieving black women have got a grain of truth to them. The argument, in a nutshell: everyone still sucks, but all these sucky people could, at least, suck together, within the context of marriage, as long as one set of sucky people—specifically, educated black women—take one for the team, quit their jobs, and lower their standards. Also, Michelle Obama something something:

There are a lot of women, but not a lot of GOOD women to choose from, educated or not. For some reason, every woman with a college degree now presumes herself to be a Michelle Obama looking for her Barack, when few of them have any of the other qualities that made Michelle a good catch: patience, vision and a sense of purpose and priority.  She wanted a career, but she wanted to be a wife and a mother more, so she figured out what was important to her and made the necessary sacrifices. She didn’t just have a child baby-mama or turkey-baster-style—she wanted a husband and a family. You see? Love came first, it was the first consideration beyond her career. (What kind of lawyer-on-the-rise shackles herself to a broke community organizer driving a hoopty?) And her decisions paid off.

Love was first: that was her choice.

I don't disagree that Michelle Obama is a pretty great lady who looks happy with the life she has. But I don't know—maybe it's because she lives in the White House, is married to the President of the United States, and has found that, for the time being, she can accomplish her professional goals through her national leadership role and enormous celebrity? No, to Izrael, the only incredible thing about Michelle Obama is that she's the only successful black woman willing to get married and have kids. Nevermind that the dude she married was a highly successful, Ivy-educated black man that Izrael would probably razz as overly white and overly gay if he didn't happen to be necessary to his Michelle Obama myth.

It gets better:

I love me some black women—all the most important people in my life are black women. My daughter will be a black woman one day. The truth? Many “successful” black women have simply made choices they can’t reconcile. They have skewed measures of success. Because if you are the other of 35 with an advanced degree, a high-level career but no man or family to share it with, you have successfully isolated yourself, but I don’t know that we could call your life a success story by any measure.

That may not be what you want to hear and I know it’s hard … but it’s fair.

Yeah. After all of the rambling over the failures of both black men and women, the story circles back to the same sexist classic.  At least black men are responsible enough to reconcile their choices. Women, of course, don't know how to choose for themselves. They don't know what they want. They certainly can't multitask well enough to hold down a job while simultaneously fostering personal relationships. They're so stupid, they don't even understand that their masters diplomas don't magically poop out a baby after a couple of years! If they say they're happy, they're lying. And no matter how successful her choices have made her, no one respects her. Because she wasn't smart enough to let some relationship writer make those choices for her.

"We recently obtained the thesis," Kumar wrote. "Bob McDonnell mentioned the thesis a couple weeks ago when we were interviewing him for another story. We then went to find it. As we indicated in the story, it is available at the Regent library and has likely been there for 20 years."

Why would McConnell  lead reporters straight to a 93-page document which spells out, in detail, how big of a douchewad he is? I'm betting he didn't realize how bad it truly was. McDonell told the Post, "my views on many issues have changed as I have gotten older." It's possible that some of those views changed preeeetty recently.

This Week In Sexist History:

Good Ol’ Day: August 20, 1883

Dateline: Long Branch, NJ

1. Women must be pretty.

2. But they are born ugly, so we must make them pretty.

3. Women who go to the beach make this task very difficult for us.

4. And women who actually swim are nearly beyond help.

5. It is rather amusing, however, just how ugly swimming makes women!

6. Women who swim are so ugly, they don't even want men to look at their ugly bodies! But we do look at them, and then detail their hideousness in the pages of the New York Times.

7. Well, at least they are still wealthy.

8. Though these ugly, oceanic women allow no one to see how profoundly uncomfortable they are, I know they are profoundly uncomfortable, because I understand women. Even the ugly ones.

9. If a woman is not pretty, then she does not enjoy herself. As is proper.

10. But perhaps the water will help to cure her extreme ugliness anyhow.

11. And remember, even Butterfaces could be hiding a sensual ankle in the surf.

12. [Obligatory rhapsodic account of historical beach leering].

13. [Obligatory rhapsodic account of modern beach leering].

14. Foreign women! They are kind of hot, but so ignorant of the customs of our modern American beach leering!

15. This one hot foreign actress wore the ugliest swimsuit one time.

16. She was a shitty actress, too.

17. Yes, I am using the term "dudes." In 1883.

18. Girls can't swim!

19. Well, at least they display their pearly white arms when they're trying. Oh, did I mention that I am also a racist?

20. One reason for women to swim, of course, is to wear an outfit which mimics an animal's yoke, in order to infer that she would make a good, obedient wife.

21. Have I not sufficiently compared women to animals? Women women zebras.

22. Now I am leering at children.

23. Aaaaand back to the racism.

24. Old women are disgusting and must be kept indoors.

25. I like watching girls fall down.

26. Middle-aged women are the most heinous, for they insist upon swimming, though their bodies are universally reviled.

27. Have I mentioned swimming is for men?

Earlier this summer, FOX deciphered the secret sexting codes teens use to fuck each other on their cell phones. But teens aren't the only ones who need to hide their sexual exploits with absurdly elaborate acronyms. Sex workers and their clients, too, are trained to use the whoooole alphabet.

If you plan to patronize sex workers—and obnoxiously detail your exploits on the Internet—you better be versed in these 31 common trade acronyms. While these sex codes are meant to help johns avoid law enforcement, they have the added benefit of making any guy who uses them sound super douchey.

Do you know the correct racial slur for your masseuse/prostitute? The right acronym to obscure your Holocaust survivor fetish? Can you describe a shitty blowjob in just four easy letters? Test yourself in our sex code quiz, below. Answers after the jump.

SEX CODE WORD:

1. AAMP
2. Aircon BBBJ + Hacks
3. Asian Cowgirl
4. Babyback
5. Baja Sur
6. Barracuda
7. BBBJ
8. BBBJTC
9. BBBJTCWS
10. Beret
11. Blue Steel
12. CCL
13. Civilian
14. CMD
15. Date
16. DFF
17. Ed Zachary disease
18. FOV
19. GFE
20. GF3
21. Hardwood Floors
22. HHHJ
23. Interpreter
24. LBFM
25. Man in a boat
26. NQNS
27. PRC
28. Russian
29. Sybian
30. TCSS
31. XOXO

—

SEX, DECODED: Editor's note: I did not make these up. I swear. Not even "Concentration Camp Look." If these decoded answers still do not make sense to you, well, maybe you just weren't cut out for the world of online john commentary. Consider yourself lucky.

1. "Asian-American Massage Parlor. This is the politically correct acronym."

2. "Scenario: When the maseuse ask, 'want aircon?' if yes, she pop one hacks sweet into her mouth and start blowing."

3. "Girl on top, squatting."

4. "Petite, young, attractive Asian."

5. "Genitals. From the spanish 'the low south'".

6. "A professional prostitute who's only purpose is to separate you from your money as quickly as possible, preferably without giving you anything in return."

7. "Bare Back Blow Job (oral sex without condom)"

8. "Bare Back Blow Job to Completion (oral sex to orgasm)"

9. "Bare Back Blow Job to Completion with Swallowing"

10. "A condom."

11. "Viagra"

12. "Concentration Camp Look."

13. "A woman who makes herself available for sexual encounters but not for financial gain. May be less discreet than a provider and more interested in a relationship."

14. "Carpet Matches Drapes (typically a natural blonde)"

15. "A session with a prostitute"

16. "Dead Fish Fuck"

17. "A woman with an unattractive face."

18. "Finger Outside Vagina"

19. "Girl Friend Experience"

20. "Girl Friend Experience w/all three holes"

21.  "Clean shaven pussy."

22. "Half Hearted Hand Job."

23. "Condom (e.g. She spoke French without the aid of an interpreter = BBBJ)"

24. "Little Brown Fucking Machine"

25. "Clitoris"

26. "Non-quitter, non-spitter"

27. "Women from the People's Republic of China"

28. "Penis between breasts""

29. "A mechanical sex device that is in the shape of half-barrel with a dildo attachment mounted in the middle."

30. "Talk Cock Sing Song"

31. "Kisses & Hugs"

Photo by Todd Huffman

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.

The Huffington Post's latest foray into celebrity eye-candy linkbait, "Iconic Swimsuit Movie Moments," comes in two flavors: Male and Female.

The Huffington Post, it seems, has tired of just fetishizing female bodies, and has moved onto more equal-opportunity objectification. Since it's too much to ask for a Web site to refrain from objectifying any humans, is this a cause for celebration?

Blogger Echidne of the Snakes, for one, isn't convinced by the Web site's newfound gender-neutrality. The effort falls short of equal exploitation, she writes, as HuffPo's readership appears to decisively prefer one set of skin-baring pics over the other. So while Phoebe Cates, Ali Larter, and Bo Derek are currently workin' it to the top of the Web site's "Popular Stories" slots . . .

. . . Daniel Craig, Patrick Swayze, and Sacha Baron Cohen are being boxed out of the top spots by such decidedly nonsexual fare as this:

That's right: Huffington Post readers are more interested in discovering the key to happiness than checking out semi-naked dudes. Say it ain't so!

Echidne's got her theories: "Huffington Post wants to make money and advertising money is in clicks. And what gets clicked is bodies of chicks. By dicks? I'm getting carried away here, but let me just add that I would have thought Huffington Post has female readers, too. I guess their clicks don't have the power."

So, is the Huffington Post engineering some sort of mass sexist conspiracy to push naked ladies onto the front-page while subjugating the male bodies to barely-linked territory? Not exactly. HuffPo is just cashing in on that same old mass sexist conspiracy—the one that's been around long before blogs figured out how to make money off of it.

Here's a refresher on that old thing: Young, thin, hairless, and female bodies are for being sexy. Aged, hairy, fat, and male bodies are for making jokes about how un-sexy they are.

By adding the "Male" gallery—and encouraging readers to click through for the hot swimsuit moments—the Huffington Post isn't making an honest attempt to expand the definition of what's sexy, or to ease the objectification of women by objectifying men alongside them. What the Huffington Post is doing, I think, is responding to some recent criticism by turning the heat on its readers, not its editors.

Once HuffPo offers up the naked girls and the naked boys, it's not up to the site's editors anymore to determine which bodies are click-worthy—"you" decide for them.

Unlike Echidne, I don't think the popularity of the female body on HuffPo's site necessarily means that the site's female "clicks don't have the power" of its male readers. I just think that we haven't been taught to objectify male bodies like we have female ones. Cosmo's valiant efforts aside, the objectification of women is a mainstream entertainment standard—and both women and men grow up taking it all in. It's telling that HuffPo's male beefcake gallery has to be filled out with a couple of joke entries—Sacha Baron Cohen in Borat, Eddie Murphy in Norbit—in order to meet sexy slideshow quota. Women—even heterosexual women—are more likely to check out photos of bikini-bedecked females than Speedo-clad males. This trend doesn't let purveyors of female flesh off the hook, of course. Offering men photos of girls in swimsuits helps men see women as objects. Offering women photos of girls in swimsuits helps women feel bad for not looking like them.

Is the Huffington Post's focus on scantily-clad women still sexist? Sure, but it's a sexist view that comes with the support of at least 2,890,011 male and female viewers. Would HuffPo print a sexist op-ed, even if it were of interest to millions of Internet trolls? Probably not—HuffPo readers are usually self-aware enough to shun clear sexism when it's written in black-and-white. But when it's written in tits and ass? Click click.

If the Huffington Post decides to keeps up its gender-neutral exploitation efforts—despite the poor page-views for the male portion—I have just one request. When you're objectifying male bodies, can you try not to ridicule female bodies while you're doing it?

Last week's column on ANC commissioners' bad words, 5C Commissioner Gigi Ransom Censured Over "Potential Hate Crime", has inspired even more incendiary speech, courtesy of the comments section.

Matt Corrigan, on why ANC personality problems should be checked at the door:

I’m in 5C and do the neighborhood walks with John Salatti. He cannot stand to be around people and not hear his own voice chattering along. When it comes to documenting, looking at things from the neighborhood’s view, keeping drains free of debris, John’s the MAN! I Encourage the public to go on the walks Thursdays @ 7pm. You can learn much about our community. John knows many homeowners by name and is demonsterably saddened when they move. Personally I can’t stand him, but as my ANC he rocks!

pacnwjay proposes a final solution to the ANC problem:

When will the good people of DC rise up and force the city (congress?) to rid them of the ANC system??? They are not only embarrassing, but constantly hinder any useful community action in the city.

Bloomingdale Resident pities the fools:

Every single business reporter selected for HuffPo's latest parade of sexism interactive slideshow is a woman. While I love to see women succeeding in business, this particular feature isn't exactly what I had in mind. Let's take a look.

* Where the dudes at? HuffPo chose to only place women on its list. It must be because, as Pukeimmediately points out, men don't have to be attractive to be respected as reporters. And so, Eric Bolling's camera-ready tan and Cody Willard's glorious mane have gone un-dissected by the Internet sexy police:

* Meow! Why not just put a few guys into the mix in order to create the facade of gender-equality? That would ruin the whole Fox vs. CNBC girl-on-girl cat-fight scenario HuffPo has constructed here. Throwing a Cody Willard may boost HuffPo's progressive cred, but progressive cred can be a real boner shrinker.

* Experience bad. In the real world, the more years a reporter has slaved away at a beat, the more valued they are as a journalist. When HuffPo wonders if Maria Bartiromo has "lost some of her hotness to her younger colleagues," however, we see the limits of experience: it's valuable only until you're too old to be hot anymore.

* Boobs good! When it's not knocking FOX Business for low-ratings, HuffPo is commending it for its steady stream of "buxom women." (I wonder where they found that business model?) Some FOX business reporters are so good at their jobs, they actually have the power to make business viewers not give a shit about business. On Rebecca Diamond: "She recently conducted a well-researched interview about commercial real estate, but it was hard to pay attention. She was wearing a turquoise mini-dress with a deep V that nearly reached her belly button." In other words, women must be attractive in order to become journalists, but they still won't be respected in the field, because they are attractive.

* Newsflash: Pretty girl not dumb! HuffPo doesn't entirely ignore these female reporters' professional accomplishments—it just lists them as some sort of surprise twist to their hotness. Tracy Byrnes is hot, and wrote a book! Melissa Francis is hot, and attended Harvard! Trish Regan is hot, and wrote about pot once! Jenna Lee is hot, and looks American! Okay, so HuffPo couldn't dig up a career accomplishment for all of these women.

* And while we're at it: We get it, HuffPo: "Hard-hitting" means more than just "serious journalism." It also means you guys have a boner. Using this double-entendre twice in this slide-show alone is more than enough.

It is a simple formula for both comedy and political commentary:

Take a public figure (Sarah Palin) who holds disagreeable views (abstinence-only education). Zero in on an aspect of her personal life counter to those views (her own teen daughter, Bristol Palin, becoming pregnant). Reveal the comedic irony and/or hypocrisy of the public/private contrast. Repeat ad nauseam on blogs, 24-hour news channels, and late night talk shows.

We should all beware this construction. Though very easy to pull off—and often journalistically and comedically sound—it is a trap. And it will render us all hypocrites. Three lessons from history, after the jump.

SARAH PALIN

[youtube:v=-X6FUwBmclo]

DISAGREEABLE VIEW: Too many to count, but in this case, it's the abstinence thing.

HYPOCRITICAL MOVE: When Palin's 17-year-old daughter Bristol became pregnant months before Palin rose to political fame as John McCain's running mate in the 2008 presidential election, political commentators and comedians held up Bristol's pregnancy as evidence that abstinence is futile—even under the roof of your state's no-sex-before-marriage Governor.

IT'S A TRAP! The revelation came at the height of election season fervor, and liberal commentators ate Bristol's sexual activity up with a spoon. The term "knocked up" became par for the course. When the baby's father, Levi Johnston, told Tyra Banks that he and Bristol had practiced safe sex, Tyra et. al dismissed him as a liar. The late-night comedy cycle feasted on the Bristol-is-a-slut jokes. Even Palin family cheerleader Greta Van Susteren asked Bristol if she had been "lazy."

We forgot that even the most responsible of 17-year-old condom users don't put it on right every time. We forgot that condoms break. And we forgot that, when you're the governor's daughter in the small town of Wasilla, requesting birth control from your family doctor, seeking Plan B at a local pharmacy, or even buying condoms—anywhere—could cause such a shit-storm for you, your boyfriend, and your family, that it would have been hard to mount the courage to even approach the counter.

At some point, we forgot about why Bristol having sex was funny to begin with. The insane glee that we all derived from a teenage girl having sex before marriage became counter-intuitive—and downright creepy. We had crossed the hypocrisy bridge. We were no longer making a point about how young women should be free to choose to be sexually active. We no longer joked to show how bogus abstinence was. We joked to show that Bristol Palin was slutty, and that was enough to make it funny.

—

CARRIE PREJEAN

[youtube:v=8XMvviFbkf0]

DISAGREEABLE VIEW: During the Q-and-A section of  the 2009 Miss USA pageant, Miss USA California Carrie Prejean described her views on same-sex marriage this way:

"I think it's great that americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage, and in my country, and my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be a man or a woman. No offense to anyone out there, but that was how I was raised, and that's how I think it should be. Between a man and a woman. Thank you."

HYPOCRITICAL MOVE: After rising to blogosphere infamy—with the help of question-asker Perez Hilton's videoblog declaring her a "bitch"—Prejean's past modeling career caught up to her. When topless photos of the 21-year-old Prejean surfaced on the Web, Prejean was accused of both violating her pageant contract and preaching inconsistent moral views. Who is she to preach good Christian values when she's flaunting her assets for cash?

IT'S A TRAP! Wait a second—since when did we start caring about women upholding the contractual obligations of beauty pageants? Pageants are among the most sexist and anti-feminist of American traditions. They encourage patriarchal views about the traditional roles women and men should hold in society. And guess what—gays don't have a place there.

But the patriarchy is also responsible for one of the most damaging of all hypocrisy constructions: the virgin-whore dichotomy. Shaming Carrie Prejean—a woman we've elevated through beauty pageants—for taking topless modeling photos is a very short leap for shaming gays and lesbians for expressing their sexuality. That's why this whole thing was hypocritical in the first place—but perhaps we're all too distracted by Carrie Prejean's boobs to remember. We may keep posting them in the interest of "revealing hypocrisy." But we all know the real reason they're on the Web: It's not hypocrisy anymore; it's hotness.

—

LARRY CRAIG

[youtube:v=xWjXedX7pLA]

DISAGREEABLE VIEW: As a Republican Senator from Idaho, Craig often championed conservative moral values. William Saletan got specific in 2007, pointing out that Craig "helped to enact the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy," revealing his "anti-gay hypocrisy."

HYPOCRITICAL MOVE: In June of 2007, Craig was arrested for soliciting sex from a male undercover cop in the Minneapolis airport:

According to the report filed by the officer who arrested Craig at the Minneapolis airport in June, Craig stood outside the officer's bathroom stall for two minutes, repeatedly looked at the officer "through the crack in the door," sat in the stall next to the officer, tapped his foot, and gradually "moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot … within my stall area." Craig proceeded to "swipe his hand under the stall divider for a few seconds" three times, palm up, using the hand farthest from that side of Craig's stall. Most of these gestures, the officer explained, were known pickup signals in a room known (and hence under surveillance for) public sex. When the officer took Craig outside and told him so, Craig claimed he had been reaching down with his hand to retrieve a piece of paper from the floor. The officer wrote that no such paper had been on the floor.

IT'S A TRAP! I'll admit it—this is rich, fertile ground for the hypocrisy construction. Craig blows Palin and Prejean out of the water with this Perfect 10 hypocritical move: enacting anti-gay policies in law, and being gay in private. Jokes at Craig's expense were easy, valid, and very popular.

Conservatives, when not denying that any of this happened, joined in the shit-throwing. After all, this is the stuff homophobes' nightmares are made of—strange gay men attempting to have sex with them while they're taking care of business in a public restroom. For them, Craig reinforced the idea that homosexuals are sick and disgusting individuals just waiting to pounce on your unsuspecting bare penis. In other words, gays can pose a very real threat to their heterosexuality, and Craig proved it.

And yet, those who railed against Craig's institutionalized homophobia were the ones who took the most immense joy in the gay jokes. So—again—reveling in jokes about Larry Craig being gay began to lose their hypocritical anchor. On some level, the hypocritical construction allows people with pro-gay political views to indulge in some homophobic ribbing of their own. They see a rare window where making fun of gay sex is politically acceptable, and they sieze it. It's the same tale with Sarah Palin: People who support progressive sexual health policies, like comprehensive sex education, sieze the opportunity to make jokes about sluts. It's the same tale with Carrie Prejean: People who rail against patriarchal values, like "opposite marriage" and beauty pageants, sieze the opportunity to make sexist jokes.

So, let's all try not to descend too deeply into the hypocrisy construction's rabbit hole. Fall too far, and we become ripe for ironic commentary ourselves.

Moore's point here is that "Sarah Palin's "Outrage" is Misplaced and A Little Late," since she's seemingly ignored a host of inappropriate sexual jokes about her family (and other political families) before finally speaking out against Letterman. To me, Moore's list proves that the outrage has been a long time coming.

Moore writes:

The National Organization for Women named David Letterman to their Hall of Shame. Will Letterman be joining Jay Leno? Conan O'Brien? Craig Ferguson? Seth Myers? Rush Limbaugh? Or John McCain? Of course not! I guess N.O.W. didn't bother checking Sarah Palin's "feminist" credentials.

Actually, Limbaugh is a repeat offender in NOW's media Hall of Shame. As for other notable sexists who have so far escaped direct criticism from the Palin camp in the past: Sexism in comedy and politics is so wide-spread that it would take up all of NOW's—and Palin's—resources to dutifully record every instance of it. Imagine if Palin responded to every sexist attack hurled at her from anyone ever—it would be a debilitating task, one which would totally derail her life, her family, and probably the entire state of Alaska.

That being said, Palin happened to hear a joke that was particularly inappropriate, Matt Lauer asked her about it, and she responded. Palin's lack of public reaction to these past jokes does not rob her of her right to react now. There are too many sexist jokes. Palin's acceptance of the Republican vice presidential nomination does not rob her of the right to speak out against sexism. There are too many sexist politicians.

And when Rush Limbaugh or John McCain or yes—Sarah Palin—makes their next sexist comment or enacts their next sexist policy, I hope that liberal commentators don't hold back just because they chose not to defend Sarah Palin now.

Moore thinks Palin's outrage is "late." Better late than never.

My beef with HuffPo's nipple slip coverage, Huffington Post: Liberal Politics, Sexist Entertainment, inspired a range of responses this week. One commenter was peeved that I appear to "take no joy" in my work—an assertion that I roundly deny. Another sees rogue nipples throughout HuffPo's political coverage, as well: "They couldn’t find Hillary’s nipple, but they got as close as they could." And the Huffington Post chimed in, too—though not about the nipple thing.

The best of the rest are after the jump.

Theo Goodwin:

Having been on campus since the 1960’s and having shared my life with all those on the Left, let me tell you that the Left’s objectification of women is no secret, not even on the Left. Self aware members of the Left have said for decades that if abuse of women were to become a serious topic of conversation then all the leading men on the Left would have to line up and take their medicine.

tim33ny:

i read huffpost everyday at work, lots of good reads. judging from your article, it would appear as if you are a conservative. try this, stop focusing your energy on trashing liberal entertainment media and propaganda, and start to focus on how to take back the lost dignity of the right wing. if you try that you may actually get something done. also thanks for letting me kno that huffpost has nipple shots, i never knew that, ill be sure to check them out. btw dont bother replying to this comment because i will not be back to this website to check it. peace.

a liberal democrat from new york named tim

ps. dont forget to hail to the chief!!!

jason:

hahahaha. tim33ny is a prime example of huffpoop’s readership.

-libby mcliburul

Sociological Images accuses Facebook of sexism and ethnocentricsm for using a "white and male" image as its default avatar to represent a typical user, while opting for "orange avatars of both sexes" to represent its "global connection" capabilities.

So why does this shadowy male figure look just like me?

Sociological Images writes:

So when Facebook wants to represent global humanity, the avatars are orange and of mixed sex; when Facebook is charged with representing an individual, the avatar is white and male. This is not random or accidental. Globally, as Facebook, ironically, reminds us, people are not “white.” Representing people in this way centers men, Western countries, and whiteness (because there are non-white people in Western countries, too) and marginalizes women, non-Western countries, and non-whites (though one might argue that at least ALL of the avatars aren’t white and male).

What Sociological Images fails to note is that the Facebook avatar is only as exclusively "white" as a silhouette artist's subject is exclusively black (which is to say, not at all). Similarly, the avatar is only as exclusively "male" as its haircut—short hair with a funny cowlick. Nope, can't be a woman!:

All woman.

Facebook's "global" avatars don't represent users of both sexes—they represent users with both long and short hair. As far as a vague shadow drawing of human can ever have a gender, the avatars looks pretty gender-neutral to me. I identify more with the short-haired "dude" than the more substantially-coiffed orange "lady." It seems to me that the argument for a more "female" avatar is actually just an argument that the androgyn get a girlier haircut.

Perhaps Sociological Images should be asking why Facebook is so sexist and racist, but not sufficiently heteronormative? Why, Facebook, is your default avatar so vaguely androgynous for all users—male, female, gay, straight, cisgendered and trans? Shouldn't real men be able to choose a manlier avatar (the chin could be better-defined), and women one with a less queer-looking haircut?

I am outraged.

A new reality television show pilot will be filming in the District next week. Casting director seeks locals willing to fulfill standard network television stereotype of a black woman. Successful applicants will be rewarded with the ultimate fantasy of all stereotypical women on network television: makeovers!

Casting Call Information
City: Washington DC

Seeking LOUD, FEARLESS, OPINIONATED African American women to get a FREE MAKEOVER by a celebrity hairstylist.

You will be participating in a docu-reality pilot set in Washington DC for a major cable network.

The pilot will be taping between April 7- 11th in Washington DC.

Apply within.

Photo by nicolasnova.

Via Feministing comes news of the new "True Fantasy Football" league, a professional football organization that is currently recruiting sexy-yet-sturdy ladies to suit up in mouth-guards and panties in the "Lingerie Football League." The league is comprised of ten teams across the country, with names like the "Seattle Mist" to the "Miami Caliente."

The "New England Euphoria" is the closest team to the District; try-outs will be held in Revere, Mass. tomorrow at 10 a.m. The league will officially kick-off on September 4 at Chicago's Sears Centre.

Feministing had this to say about the league:

objectification at it's most pernicious–give women an opportunity to participate in a sport that they haven't had the chance to do for pay and publicly previously, but only let them do it if they're stereotypically pretty and willing to do it in their underwear.

If that's not enough irony for you, check this out: In a stunning display of gender equity, the sexy lady football players will be cheered on by sexy lady cheerleaders.

The Euphoria Dance Team will feature some of New England’s most talented/beautiful dance and cheerleaders creating a high energy atmosphere for the thousands of euphoria fans in attendance. The euphoria dance team will also be active in the community with charitable and promotional events throughout the year.

Don't you love how the Lingerie Football League is already challenging your perceptions of reality through careful word association tricks? Observe:

TALENTED = BEAUTIFUL
DANCERS = CHEERLEADERS
CHARITABLE = PROMOTIONAL

It's almost too easy.

My God. What could it all mean?

Google regularly offers up alternate search terms if they're similar to your phrase, but a more popular search. Strangely enough, "iron my shirt" became a popular Google search term after a heckler called out the phrase over and over again at a New Hampshire Hillary Clinton rally in January of last year. Relive the moment:

[youtube:v=jsocCWiLh3s]

Clinton responded by declaring that "the remnants of sexism are alive and well." Later, it was revealed that the wrinkled shirt hecklers were two "radio geeks trying to create a radio stunt," one of whom identified himself to the newsmedia as Hugh Jas.

The Iron-My-Shirt guys (actually Nick Gemelli and Adolfo Gonzalez Jr.) may not have been out for real political protest, but look at where we are, one year later: Hillary Clinton is not the President of the United States, and Google is a little bit more sexist. Harmless prank or vast anti-woman conspiracy? You be the judge.

Screencap via Tom McMahon

* The city of South El Monte, California, has imposed a nightly curfew of 11 p.m. for its mayor, Blanca M. Figueroa, the New York Times reports. Figueroa had a habit of burning the midnight oil in her office, often staying late to help citizens with "home foreclosure problems, layoffs and even buying groceries." How sexist is this shit? Let me count the ways:

(1) She can't protect herself. "One council member, Hector Delgado, said the curfew was needed for 'safety and liability reasons.' 'What if something happens to her?' said Mr. Delgado, who is also mayor pro tem, noting that on hot summer nights Ms. Figueroa left her door open to a hallway that led to a parking area."

(2) She speaks her mind. "Councilman Louie Aguiñaga said tension over the mayor’s office hours had spilled over into the Council meetings and disrupted city business. ''She wants good things for the city,' he said. 'It’s just the way she talks out at meetings and disagrees with everything. I think the other council members finally got fed up.'"

(3) Decision result of creepy voyeurism. "Most nights, she said, she assumed that eight fishy eyes were her only audience. But security cameras captured her nightly work habits, Mr. Delgado said, and the images of her prompted him to propose the curfew, which the Council has not decided how to enforce."

(4) Infantilization of women, anyone? "Mr. Delgado recommended confiscating the mayor’s keys."

Photo by Bohman.

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!