Last week, New York Times theater reviewer Charles McGrath penned a piece on Sienna Miller’s Broadway debut. The piece has been roundly criticized for overstating Miller’s affairs with famous men. The story begins by reviewing Miller’s “long and well-documented romantic history,” which includes “flings” with “Jude Law, Daniel Craig, James Franco and most recently the married oil heir Balthazar Getty, with whom she was photographed topless and in a sailor hat.”

Originally, McGrath had grouped Heath Ledger and Puff Daddy in with the bunch. A correction appended to the story later clarified that the”misstates the nature of the relationships that she had with Heath Ledger and Sean Combs. She was friends with both of them; she did not have romantic flings with either of them.” But the problems with McGrath’s piece go far beyond the inflated slut-shaming.

Take the paragraph that follows up the topless sailor incident:

Ms. Miller is opening on Thursday in the Roundabout Theater production of “After Miss Julie,” Patrick Marber’s adaptation of the Strindberg play “Miss Julie.” The audience at previews has included Sienna lookalikes, blond fashionistas in miniskirts and heavy makeup, and scholars less of Scandinavian theater, perhaps, than of her Vogue cover appearances. That some people have trouble taking Ms. Miller seriously as an actress—or don’t even know she is one—is because she has so frequently been her own worst enemy.

According to McGrath, Miller’s fanbase is a group of shallow “fashionistas” who are so dumb they don’t even know that Miller is an actress. Boy, I bet they were confused when they showed up at a Broadway theater to see Miller in a play, and ended up having to sit through hours of acting.

McGrath is concerned that nobody is taking Miller “seriously as an actress.” Perhaps the problem is that McGrath refuses to take Miller’s fans seriously. Apparently, the people who are willing to shell out the cash to see Miller on Broadway are not “serious” because they read Vogue, wear skirts, and apply make-up. In short, they’re girls. Worse, they’re girls who look like Sienna Miller. The fact that McGrath instantly discredits entire groups of people who happen to resemble his interview subject says a lot about his own bias in writing this profile.

McGrath spends the remainder of the piece attempting to convince his readers that Miller is capable of “charming” and “sensitive” performances, as if he is the only one who can see past Miller’s beauty and relationship history. “Not a great many people have actually seen what she can do,” McGrath writes—as if the women lining up to see Miller on Broadway have somehow failed to complete the simpler task of watching one of her films. And despite McGrath’s presumably unique appreciation of Miller’s talent, he continually refuses to focus strictly on her work throughout the piece. Miller, he writes, is “smaller” and “prettier” in person. She manages to be a good actress despite being “beautiful.”

After all this—the rehashing of her former “flings,” the snarking on her female fans, the constant protestations of Miller’s beauty, and the condescending admission that the girl can actually act in addition to fucking dudes and looking hot, McGrath concludes that Miller is not taken seriously because she has “so frequently been her own worst enemy.” I think it’s time Miller transfer the “worst enemy” title on over to Charles McGrath.

Photo by Caroline Bonarde Uni via Wikipedia Commons

I was reading over the Cosmopolitan Wikipedia page today, as you do, when I came across the “Controversy” section of the lady mag’s history. In it, one Wikipedia contributor attempts to resolve the long-standing feminist debate over Cosmo, once and for all:

“And it wasn’t just prudes and conservatives who took issue with the mag: A number of hard-core feminists were anti-Cosmo as well,” writes the contributor. “What they didn’t seem to realize was, Cosmo’s gentler brand of feminism was more realistic and palatable.”

Hey, it’s on Wikipedia. It must be true! The contributor goes on to quote former Cosmo editor Helen Gurley Brown as simply “Helen,” and states that the typical Cosmo reader “loves having a smokin’ hot sex life.” Citation needed.

On Cosmo’s Wikipedia talk page, user Dasani airs her concerns with the history. “This article needs serious help. Who says this magazine is the most popular among women in the world? I highly doubt such a claim,” she writes. This magazine is packed with garbage. Every issue is about how to give good blowjobs or how to lose 112 pounds in a week.”

Sexy Cosmo Confession time: I do not know how to edit a Wikipedia page. So if anybody wants to waste a few minutes of their life to ensure that Wikipedia readers don’t have to read mag-ready phrases about how fun-hating “hard-core feminists” want to keep all the real ladies from lovin’ their “smokin’ hot sex lives,” I will repay my debt to you with a free t-shirt, which I will mail to the address of your choice. Thanks!

The first time I heard Usher’s new gender-bending single, “Trading Places,” the D.J. introduced it as a “backseat jam”—a track that’s very conducive to fucking. “Trading Places,” which follows Usher and his lady-friend as they trade gender roles in the bedroom for an evening, presents gender transgression as a one-off sexual novelty. It’s also not very sexy (in one verse, Usher’s girlfriend orders Chinese food and demands that Usher not wash his hands before they do it. Thrilling). Needless to say, it wasn’t really a jam I was willing to climb into the backseat for—and that was before I knew that the song is also a stealth anal sex anthem!

Let’s analyze the male/female dichotomy through the lens of Usher, shall we?

Now we gonna do this thing a lil different tonight
You gonna come over and pick me up in your ride
You gon knock and then you gon wait
Ooo you gon take me on a date
You gonna open my door and I’ma reach over and open yours
Gon pay for dinner take me to see a movie
And whisper in my ear I bet you really wanna do me
Girl now take me home and get up in my Benz
Pour me up a shot and force me to the bed

Things men do: drive cars, take people on dates, open doors, pay for dinner, pay for a movie, voice their desire for sex, pour liquor, force people into bed.

Things women do: ride in cars, go on dates, eat dinner, watch movies, get propositioned, drink liquor, go to bed.

I’m always on the top tonight I’m on the bottom
Cause we trading places
When I cant take no more, tell me you ain’t stopping
Cause we trading places
Now put it on me baby till I say “oooo weee”
And tell me to shut up before the neighbors hear me
This is how it feels when you do it like me
We trading places

Things men do: Be on top, not stop, put it on people, tell people to shut up.

Things women do: Be on the bottom, not be able to take things anymore, be loud.

I’ll be waking you up to a cup of Folgers
Pancakes and eggs I owe ya breakfast in bed, oh baby
And your orange juice sitting on the coaster
Toast on the side baby strawberry and grape jelly
You finished let me get that drink,
Pull the curtain from the window
Time to get up baby let me make this bed up
Today we going shopping blow 30 on me
Make it 60, spend it like u really love me
Skip dinner and we gon rent a movie
You order chinese food right before u do me
You coming on strong baby let me wash me hands
She said hurry up then get your ass to bed

Things men do: Drink coffee, eat pancakes, drink orange juice, eat toast, get out of bed, spend money, rent movies, order Chinese food, do people, come on strong, tell people to hurry up.

Things women do: Make coffee, make pancakes, pour orange juice, butter toast, make the bed, receive gifts, wash their hands, go to bed.

(yeah) Wash the car
(yeah) I’m gonna walk the dog
(yeah) Take out the trash
(yeah) With nothing but your t-shirt on
(yeah) I’m gonna press your shirt
(yeah) I’m gonna wrinkle mines up
(yeah) In the kitchen girl we crazy we don’t give a—
Where you want me?

Things men do: Wash cars.

Things women do: Walk dogs, empty the trash, press shirts, do it wherever they want.

Stay tuned for part two
You been me, I been you
But we gon switch this thing back
I’ma put it on your ass.

Things men do: Force their girlfriends to play out comical male stereotypes while assuming the role of the subservient female. Then, in order to reclaim their masculinity, threaten to insert their dicks into their girlfriends’ anuses.

Things women do: Play along with the gender stereotype game at the request of their boyfriends. Prepare hard, phallic objects to force it into their boyfriends’ anuses at the height of the gender-bending sex. It’s what men do!

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.”

Last week, Politico’s Melanie Mason tackled the question of why female politicians are so rarely caught with their pants down. Mason starts out with a pretty good theory—”Men far outnumber women in elected office, and statistical probability dictates that if a random politician is caught in a sex scandal, it is overwhelmingly likely that the politician would be male”—and then offers up a bargain basement of half-baked ideas in order to cover all the basis—and sexist stereotypes against women. Most of these reasons would never, ever actually stop a woman from messing around, but that won’t stop us from buying into it all again.

Strong Women Aren’t Hot Enough:

“I guess men in power are terribly attractive to some women, but I don’t think that women in power are attractive to some men,” said former Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-Colo.), who was co-chairwoman of Gary Hart’s scandal-plagued presidential campaign in 1988.

Love Finds A Way: Please. This isn’t true, but even if it were—everybody can find somebody who wants to fuck them. This theory also conveniently lets male politicians off the hook. It’s not their fault! All the women who unexpectedly want to fuck them are to blame, somehow:

male politicians may be lavished with sexual attention they are unprepared to handle. “Most of these politicians were the high school boys that couldn’t get the cheerleader,” said [Suzie] Johnson, whose website GoAskSuzie.com specializes in issues of infidelity. “Now the situation is reversed.”

—

The Media Has Eliminated the Female Politician’s Sex Life:

Being so outnumbered in the political realm can also lead to greater media scrutiny for politicians—think, for example, of the brouhaha over Hillary Clinton’s V-neck blouse that sparked a lengthy discussion on the appropriate amount of cleavage a female politician should reveal.

Love Finds A Way: I won’t argue with the fact that female politicians are often unfairly scrutinized by the news-media. Even when they’re not caught with their pants down, women are often scrutinized over infidelity—Bill’s blowjob meant a lot of obsession over Hillary’s reaction. However, it’s not like the Governor of South Carolina doesn’t have reporters watching his every cross-continental flight—and monitoring his sexy e-mails—as well.

—

Having A Career Is Hard Enough For Women!:

Others say women in high-power careers are so overloaded already that affairs are an unlikely possibility. As Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) points out, “Who has the time? I don’t have enough time in the day to take care of the responsibilities I have between work and family.”

Women tend to be able to juggle a lot, but with so many pressures, throwing an extra romance in the mix may feel like just another item to have to multitask. “In a certain way, it’s a privilege, and it still belongs predominantly to men,” said Williams, who is herself a mother.

Love Finds a Way: First, women were too preoccupied with homemaking and baby-raisin’ that they simply didn’t have the time or energy to hold down a career. They just couldn’t handle it! Now, women are too preoccupied with homemaking, baby-raisin’, and that career they insisted upon, they just can’t manage to squeeze the infidelity in. Are female politicians too busy with their careers to ruin their careers, or are there—again—just not that many women who have had the opportunity to fuck up?

—

Women Can Make Babies, Didn’t You Know!

“The tendency or willingness to transgress sexual boundaries in general is much more likely in men than in women,” said Paul Abramson, author of the forthcoming book “Sex Appeal: Six Ethical Principles for the 21st Century.” Abramson, a psychology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, added that “women are socialized to be much more cautious about sexuality due to the fact that they can get pregnant. Having an affair is a sexual risk, and women are much less inclined to do that.”

Love Finds a Way: As Megan Carpentier points out on Jezebel, these women are in menopause. And if they’re not: condoms.

—

Women Are Too Emotional To Have Casual Sex!

“That’s the reason you don’t see more female politicians having affairs,” Johnson said. “Women are less likely to have physical affairs but more likely to have emotional affairs, and there’s no way to bust those.”

Love finds a way: Emotional affairs leave paper trails, too. See: Mark Foley’s illicit AIM conversations, Mark Sanford’s flowery e-mails. Also, why are we listening to the advice of Suzie Johnson of GoAskSuzie.com again? You don’t have to take the URL literally!

—

Women are wily bitches.

And, of course, there is always the possibility that female politicians have their own sexual indiscretions the public simply doesn’t know about. Those secrets may stay hidden for a while. According to Johnson, “women are way more clever at covering [affairs] up.”

Love Finds A Way: This is likely true—but it’s likely true for many male politicians, as well. The idea that women are inherently better at hiding affairs is a tempting, completely unsubstantiated, and useless theory.

Photo by veni markovski

They came, they researched, they let us in on a “little secret”. Now, “CockBibs,” the first novelty item for keeping your genitals creepily dry, are officially available for sale. And the Inventor of the CockBib has reached out to the females to let them know that CockBibs are for us, too (and certainly not offensive to anyone!). A notice on the Web site reads:

***Attention*** We apologize for any misunderstanding in regards to our appreciation for women as it relates to them orally pleasing us men. We love and have the utmost respect for women. The CockBib is just our attempt at creating a fun and humorous novelty item. It is not our intent to offend or disrespect anyone. Thank You! :)

No, CockBib. Thank you.

In preparation for President Obama’s controversial commencement address at the University of Notre Dame, where he will no doubt speak at length about the virtues of killing newborns, anti-abortion protesters have converged on the University of Notre Dame campus. Some of them are simply rolling around vacant strollers (representing the never-born) or crafting signs reading “I Regret My Abortion”—bush league.

Only one dude is shaming our abortionist president the right way: with a small plane that tows “a banner depicting the remains of an aborted fetus and the words ‘10 Week Abortion.’”

Pwned.

Catholic Universities: respecting the lives of women since probably never.

Photo by Fated to Pretend

This time around: cat fights!

New York Times columnist Mickey Meece (seriously) is here to explain why the recession has resulted in a frightening “workplace bullying” epidemic that threatens to destroy all working women. Why are working girls bitchier than ever to each other? Let me count the ways:

Because “workplace researchers say”:

During this downturn, as stress levels rise, workplace researchers say, bullies are likely to sharpen their elbows and ratchet up their attacks.

Because even though most bullies are male, the female bullies are bitchier (or, cat fights are more interesting than regular old boy office politics):

It’s probably no surprise that most of these bullies are men, as a survey by the Workplace Bullying Institute, an advocacy group, makes clear. But a good 40 percent of bullies are women. And at least the male bullies take an egalitarian approach, mowing down men and women pretty much in equal measure. The women appear to prefer their own kind, choosing other women as targets more than 70 percent of the time.

Because even when you have a career, you still have to be the mother:

Women don’t like to talk about it because it is “so antithetical to the way that we are supposed to behave to other women,” Ms. Klaus said. “We are supposed to be the nurturers and the supporters.”

Because pretending there are “magical keys” to correct female behavior in the workplace makes it easier to market “executive leadership coaches” to women:

“Women are trying to figure out the magical keys to the kingdom,” said Laura Steck, president of the Growth and Leadership Center in Sunnyvale, Calif., and an executive leadership coach.

Women feel they have to be aggressive to be promoted, she said, and then they keep it up. Then, suddenly, they see the need to be collegial and collaborative instead of competitive.

Because men have nothing to do with this:

“As we get into the corporate world,” Ms. Cirocco added, “we’re taught or we’re led to believe that we don’t get ahead because of men. But, we really don’t get ahead because of ourselves. Instead of building each other up and showcasing each other, we’re constantly tearing each other down.”

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

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

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

But for now:

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

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

AMANDA: that makes us more sophisticated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMANDA: pitch it

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

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

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

AMANDA: that’s a question for the ages.

Photo via cbs.com

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.

Bored magazine columnists have debated for years as to why women are, or are not, funny.  Inspired by Tiger Beatdown’s post yesterday on another drop in the unfunny girl barrel—a study that found that women do not immediately react to the sight of a unicycle with humor (I fucking wonder why)—I believe it’s time to rephrase the question.

Why are those who argue that women are not funny so unfunny?

First, let us review:

Funny women are not sexy. According to a 2006 study by Eric Bressler and Sigal Balshine, women rated “funny” men as more sexually attractive than men they didn’t find funny. The opposite was not true. “And women, don’t start trying to tell jokes to attract men,” writes Tom Siegfried of the study. “The study found that men rated ‘funny’ women as no more desirable than the others.”

Women don’t have enough testosterone to be funny, concluded Professor Sam Shuste, after riding around a lot on his unicycle and noting that only men made fun of him. “The sex difference was striking. 95% of adult women were praising, encouraging or showed concern. There were very few comic or snide remarks. In contrast, only 25% of adult men responded as did the women, for example, by praise or encouragement; instead 75% attempted comedy, often snide or combative as an intended put-down.”

Women are too concerned with having babies to be funny, according to this classic Vanity Fair piece by Christopher Hitchens. “Those who risk agony and death to bring children into this fiasco simply can’t afford to be too frivolous,” he writes. “One tiny snuffle that turns into a wheeze, one little cut that goes septic, one pathetically small coffin, and the woman’s universe is left in ashes and ruin. Try being funny about that, if you like.”

Women are not funny because Germaine Greer needs to explain why she said women were not funny. Reasons include: They focus too much on bras and weight loss, cut down other women, are bad at improvisation, aren’t competetive enough, would prefer to marry than work, and they’re not desperate enough to be funny to get laid.

Those tasked with defending women in comedy have their own explanations for why women are not funny.

Women write their own stuff now. Alessandra Stanley begins her Vanity Fair response, “Who Says Women Aren’t Funny?” strangely: “There are people who lament that no women now are as funny as Carole Lombard or Barbara Stanwyck in the screwball comedies of Lubitsch, Sturges, and Hawks. They are missing the point: today’s comediennes are on television, where they are often responsible for their own material.” So, women aren’t as funny as they were before, but at least they write their own material now, which is less funny than the male material they used to do.

The comedy environment is too hostile for women. In a response to Greer, Lynne Parker writes: “Moreover, there has been a common perception that comedy is a hostile environment for women. We are compliant in creating this image. The practicalities of life on the circuit are not for the faint-hearted—many hours on the road and antisocial hours do not engender a traditional home life. Many a promising female act has given up the juggling of career, marriage and motherhood, even temporarily, for the sake of an easier life.”

Women are not socialized to be funny, as men are. On Broadsheet, Kate Harding responds to Greer: “Throughout the essay, Greer keeps offering great setups for an analysis of why women are culturally discouraged from developing and displaying robust senses of humor, then following them up with conclusions that amount to, ‘We’re from Venus — whaddaya gonna do?’”

Since all these arguements as to why women aren’t funny—or why they’re not allowed to be funny—are based on half-baked speculation and anecdotal evidence anyway, let’s float a new theory: Why are people who argue that women aren’t funny so unfunny?

The study by Bressler and Bashine showing that women are more attracted to funny men used the following statement as an example of humor: “Birthday cake is the only food you can blow on and spit on and everybody rushes to get a piece.” The researchers themselves acknowledged that their funny statements were not very funny. “Given the sophomoric nature of some of our humorous statements, it is not surprising that participants did not ascribe ‘intelligence’ to our humorous individuals,” they wrote. Perhaps women are actually more attracted to men who are not funny, and also stupid?

And those unicycle quips? “Equally striking [said Shuste] was the repetitive and predictable nature of the comments from men; two thirds of their ‘comic’ responses referred to the number of wheels—’Lost your wheel?,’ for example.” Hilarious.

Germaine Greer is humorless, but she gets a pass because she has a body that can produce children, and is without a good handle on the inherent comedy of the unicycle. (Christopher Hitchens, actually, is pretty funny).

So, we’re not funny, the birthday cake and unicycle comedians of the world claim, because we’re girls. What’s their excuse?

Breaking girly news from the Financial Times: FT reports that the “Lipstick Index” has been replaced by the “Foundation Index,” signaling a shift in female consumers’ recession-era makeup of choice.

The “Lipstick Index” was coined by Estee Lauder leader Leonard Lauder in 2001 “to highlight the correlation between economic downturns and upticks in lipstick sales.” Now, another cosmetics company—L’Oréal—is claiming that it’s foundation sales that are skyrocketing as lipstick—and everything else—bottoms out.

Here’s a question: Why are the guys behind fucking Estee Lauder and L’Oréal the ones that financial news outlets are turning to to objectively report on the recession’s impact on female consumers?

Lauder’s Lipstick Index has now been discredited—sales are down 5.7 percent so far this year. So why not just invent another index that makes the cosmetic companies look good and makes women appear more frivolous? If it’s not lipstick, it’s foundation! When foundation tanks, it will be mascara! When mascara tanks, it will be Estee Lauder Bronze Goddess Soft Shimmer Bronzer! Call it the “Bronze Goddess Soft Shimmer Bronzer Index.” Quick, ring the Financial Times!

Check out this graf from the FT: “The index may be a frivolous indicator—some researchers point out that lipstick sales have at times grown in periods of prosperity as well as downturns—but in this recession, foundation is the cosmetic to watch.”

Translation: We know these cosmetics indexes to be bullshit, but here’s another bullshit cosmetics index we’ll report on anyway because we get to use fun phrases like “Flawless skin is replacing the perfect pout as a woman’s answer to tough times.”

So what do all these bullshit indexes mean, anyway, if they appear to make no economic sense? Nothing! I don’t know, let’s ask L’Oréal again:

However, L’Oréal says there is one clear conclusion about tough economic times: looking good remains paramount. The group points out the wider beauty market is still growing.

Yeah, if there’s one thing the cosmetics industry can conclusively say about the recession, it’s that women need to keep buying cosmetics. What are you waiting for, ladies?

Photo by Porcelaingirl° {è un triangolo isoscele}

The weird part about this whole thing isn’t that the brothel was called “Heaven’s Gate”; or that he was mysteriously driven there by a taxi driver named “Silky”; or that Bradlee didn’t even figure out what he was paying for until “she started to take off her clothes”; or that he was “glad it happened”; or that he immediately told his mother; or that his mother then dragged him back to the brothel to pick up his prostitute and test her for HIV because Sally Quinn “worries way too much, if you ask me.”

No, the weird part is that this hilarious little Carribean prostitution adventure is Bradlee’s way of introducing a much more serious topic: “Girls.” Bradlee closes out the chapter by wondering why he’s been unlucky with the ladies:

More than anything, I want a girlfriend. I think one of the reasons I have a hard time taking it to the next level with girls is because I had no contact with girls for much of my adolescence. Sometimes I think that I’m a loser, that I’ll never find a girlfriend, that I’ll be a nobody for the rest of my life.

I seem to have the worst luck with women no matter how hard I try. I feel they’re picking up some vibe from me that says I can’t handle a relationship, or I’m not mature enough to be in a relationship. Whatever it is, I am apparently doing something wrong. I’ve taken and followed all of the advice my friends and my parents have given me about dating, but it hasn’t quite worked out for me yet.

I have trouble with reading cues and I can never tell if girls like me sexually. If you’re having an intimate friendly conversation and a woman is smiling and you’re making her laugh, then you think that maybe it’s possible to take it to the next level. But, typically, the day after that kind of thing would happen with a girl, I wouldn’t hear back from her.

It goes on and on. Hmm, okay, perhaps Bradlee should first try skipping the prostitute story, and also, actually, any story where Sally Quinn completely freaks out. He might also pare down the six excrutiating paragraghs detailing why, specifically, women have never liked him down to, I don’t know, zero.

Or maybe I’m wrong: Maybe the “my mom’s crazy, I fucked a prostitute, women don’t understand me” tactic has worked out: Bradlee’s Web site says he’s currently in a relationship.

Attention local cougars and MILFs: The search for “Ms. Senior D.C. 2009″ has begun.

If you are “a woman 60 years of age or older” who “lives in the District of Columbia,” “inspires others with her enthusiasm,” “is poised, charming and articulate,” has a “positive philosophy of life” that “reflects her inner beauty,” and “is an active, vital member of her community” who is “blessed with a special talent” which “defies the myths of aging”—and who isn’t?—you could get a sash, or something.

To get yourself in the running, contact Ms. Senior D.C. Planning Committee Chairperson Gwen Coleman at (202) 289-1510, ext. 1170/1171.

Photo by DerrickT

According to Chris Cilliza’s The Fix, “President Obama will sign an executive order tomorrow [that's today now, readers] to establish a White House Council on Women and Girls.” Cilliza’s intel may be good, but his analysis of the move leaves something to be desired.

Writes Cilliza: “Obama has both personal—his wife and two daughters—and political reasons to make this sort of high profile move to ensure that women’s needs are being addressed by his administration.”

Well, allow me to retort.

Is it really necessary to note that men should be interested in women’s issues because they, like, know a few of them? Does Cilliza report on the stimulus bill by writing, “Obama has personal reasons to pass his bill, because he knows several humans”? Does he report on Obama’s FDA appointments by writing, “Obama clearly has a personal stake in this issue, seeing as the President himself consumes food to sustain life”?

No—only women’s issues would need to be explained through “personal” reasons. Obama’s a man! What the hell would he want to help women for? Oh, he has two lovely daughters.

Ugh. Okay. Back to less infuriating details on the new ladies’ group:

According to a White House memo, “The mission of the Council will be to provide a coordinated federal response to the challenges confronted by women and girls to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies consider how their policies and programs impact women and families.”

The council will be headed by Valerie Jarrett.

Photo by Bascom Hogue

March is Women’s History Month, which I plan to celebrate by ceremoniously deleting the press release the U.S. Census sends out listing boring statistics pertaining to ladies. Welp, here we goooo . . . hey, wait! Something actually interesting!

According to data collected in the 2007 American Community Survey, women workers earn less than male workers in all 50 states. Only in the District of Columbia are women’s median earnings equal to that of its men. Well, almost equal—women who work full-time year-round earn 93.4 percent as much as men who do the same, a difference the census deems not statistically significant.

Women’s wages in D.C. aren’t only more equal than in any other state. They’re also higher. In no state is a woman’s median income above $50,000 a year, but D.C. gets pretty close: Our median is $49,364. Only in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland and New Jersey are median wages for women even above the $40,000 mark.

Photo by ziak

Tom Petty’s got a lot of songs about women. Pretty much all the songs—the ones that aren’t about smoking weed, road trips, rock, or vague generalities—are about girls. So, what women inspired Petty? Runnin’ Down a Dream—while completely awesome—doesn’t offer many clues. These are the only mentions I could find of women in Petty’s life:

- Vague reference to heading out on the road with the band “a couple days” after getting married to a woman, whereupon:

- she is never mentioned again, even when Tom Petty’s house burns down and it’s revealed he has two daughters with her, whereupon:

- Petty delivers a heartfelt testimonial about how much he loved his dear mother, who died too early in his life, whereupon:

- Stevie Nicks keeps asking Petty to let her join the Heartbreakers but he won’t because “there are no girls in the Heartbreakers,” whereupon:

- Stevie Nicks keeps asking Petty to write a song for her but when he gives it to her and she starts practicing on it he steals it back because he likes it too much and wants it for himself, whereupon:

- Eurythmics musician/autobiographical vibrator designer Dave Stewart writes a song for Stevie Nicks, but calls Petty in to write some lyrics and he steals that song, too, whereupon:

- it is revealed that actually, Petty’s mother dieed after a long illness when Petty was like 30 years old or something reasonably old like that, but he never stopped in to see her that often because he was touring Japan with Bob Dylan and dancing with Mary Jane, whereupon:

- we fast forward to “Echo,” an album vaguely about Petty’s vague divorce from his vague wife that nobody in audience can fucking believe has stayed married to him this long, whereupon:

- Dana, Petty’s new wife, emerges on the scene in a skin-tight patent leather bodysuit posed on a Harley, then proceeds to dance seductively on the side of the stage in skin-tight, fringed leather bodysuits for the remainder of the Heartbreaker shows.

What can we take away from this?

Point: Tom Petty doesn’t care about women.
Counterpoint: Tom Petty doesn’t want to air his family’s dirty laundry on film.

Point: Really, though, he doesn’t appear to spend any time with his family! He’s just like, okay, marriage, babies, then peace, I’m going to go create the great American rock band, check’s in the mail.
Counterpoint: The band was really good.

Point: Tom Petty was kind of a dick to Stevie Nicks, though.
Counterpoint: That Dave Stewart song that Petty stole from Nicks? “Don’t Come Around Here No More.” Fucking classic! Plus the Heartbreakers would have sucked with Stevie Nicks in it.

Point: Tom Petty could have been nicer to his mom, at least.
Counterpoint: Yeah, we all could have.

The blogger over at Teaching Artist knows it’s tough. It’s all about ladies. It costs ten bucks. It took Teaching Artist a year and a half to make a visit. Still, TA says just suck it up and go to the National Museum of Women in the Arts:

I’m aware that there may be some apprehension among you out there that you’ll buy a (relatively cheap) ticket only to find the museum is a case of gender politics going too far. Maybe you don’t have art in a museum and you’re bitterly delusional about reverse discrimination. I don’t know. In the least you’ve probably seen art exhibitions that fall short because they assemble a bunch of very different art works on the single unifying principle that they were all made by artists who have similar, non-phallic, genitalia.

It took me five years in D.C. to get over there. Yesterday, I finally did. I’ll have a review of one of the NMWA’s current shows, “Role Models: Feminine Identity in Contemporary American Photography,” in next week’s paper.

Photo: Nikki S. Lee, “The Ohio Project,” 1999

In the spirit of post-election adventure, Slate is starting to work on a new web magazine: Double X. A magazine by women but not just for women, Double X will spin out from our XX Factor blog, where we’ve started a conversation among women—about politics, sex, and culture—that both men and women enjoy listening in on. The new site will do all this and more. It will take the Slate and XX Factor sensibility and apply it to sexual politics, fashion, parenting, health, science, sex, friendship, work-life balance, and anything else you might talk about with your friends over coffee. We’ll tackle subjects high and low with an approach that’s unabashedly intellectual but not dry or condescending. The blog will be at the heart of the site, but we’ll also publish essays, reporting, and other features.

The foundation also breaks down the new female house members’ positions on abortion, after the jump.

7 Pro-Choice Democrats:
Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ)
Betsy Markey (D-CO)
Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL)
Debbie Halvorson (D-IL)
Chellie Pingree (D-ME)
Dina Titus (D-NV)
Marcia Fudge (D-OH)

1 Pro-Choice Republican:
Lynn Jenkins (R-KS)

1 Anti-Choice Democrat:
Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA)

1 Anti-Choice Republican:
Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)

* Feministing has a comprehensive round-up of ballot measures of interest to both women and gays. Overall, the results are “pro-choice, anti-gay,” with three anti-choice measures failing across America. (Feministing also throws in the anti-immigrant and anti-equal opportunity initiatives for good measure). The most ridiculous, Colorado’s Amendment 48, was shut down by 73% of voters who spoke out “against granting fertilized eggs full rights.” Whew, because you never know when you’re gonna get one of those, am I right ladies?

* Jezebel’s Megan (and former Jezebel Moe) discuss the morning after, reflect on grown men crying. Says Megan:

I think most people had pretty good parties, from the looks of things. I was actually sort of fascinated last night, flipping channels, Juan Williams, Eugene Robinson and Roland Martin (Fox, MSNBC, and CNN, respectively) were all crying. I mean, these are men who, while not anchors, are literally quite close to the tops of their professions, and yet it took this to make them feel actually accepted, was the sense that I got. It was kind of amazing.

* And the folks at The Onion put a damper on all our celebration with their funnies:

As we enter a new era of equality for all people, the election of Barack Obama will decidedly be a milestone in U.S. history, undeniable proof that Americans, when pushed to the very brink, are willing to look past outward appearances and judge a person by the quality of his character and strength of his record. So as long as that person is not a woman.

* Shakesville offers “words of hope from an old queer.”

* Meanwhile, Meghan McCain, who has done a great job documenting the campaign, blogs her father’s concession speech. Here’s to hopping Meghan sets off on her own now and starts her own blog.

Welcome back to The Sexist’s Manliest Workplace in D.C. tournament, our ongoing unscientific investigation into the male/female ratios of local employers’ org charts. Last week, we sewed up the Media Bracket, in which the Washington Times crushed the competition with an impressive 94.5 percent manly factor. Now, we move on to an even more high-fallutin’ category of D.C. workplace: “Culture.” Check out the entire 64-workplace bracket here; today, the one-seed Washington Redskins take on eight-seed National Museum of Women in the Arts. May the manliest cultural institution win!

WASHINGTON REDSKINS: These hometown heroes may have the manliest profession this side of the American Presidency, but do they have the manly goods where it counts—the execs? Let’s check out the team’s ownership and coaching staff [PDF]:

Owner Dan Snyder (Male, 10 points)
Ownership Group Member Arlette Snyder (Female, ZERO)
Ownership Group Member Michele Snyder (Female, ZERO)
Ownership Group Member Robert Rothman (Male, 7 points)
Ownership Group Member Dwight Schar (Male, 6 points)
Ownership Group Member Frederick W. Smith (Male, 5 points)
Executive VP Vinny Cerrato (Male, 4 points)
Head Coach Jim Zorn (Male, 3 points)
Assistant Coach Greg Blanche (Male, 2 points)
Assistant Coach Sherman Smith (Male, 1 point)

With only 38 points out of a possible 55, or 69% manliness, first-seed contenders the Washington Redskins prove to be even worse at manliness than they are at football (75% wins this season). No amount of sis-boom-bah-ing from scantily-clad ‘Skins cheerleaders can mediate this stunning blow, which was decided early in the contest when Dan incubated himself with a pair of female Snyders in his ownership group. Consolation prize: Homosocial ass-slap rate in organization remains high.

—

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF WOMEN IN THE ARTS: Oh, man. This does not look promising. But even though this contender stumbles by having “Women” in its very name, an upset against the sorta-manly Redskins is possible. Because NMWA qualifies as a traditionally female workplace, it stands to reap in some free manly points under the Sexist’s affirmative action clause. Accordingly, NMWA will receive a 10-point jump after its index is calculated. Let’s get to the goods:

Director Susan Fisher Sterling (Female, ZERO)
Deputy Director Ilene Gutman (Female, ZERO)
Deputy Director Pam Ayres (Female, ZERO)
Chief Curator Jordana Pomeroy (Female, ZERO)
Director of Library Jason Stieber (Male, 5)
Media Relations Manager Michelle Cragle (Female, ZERO)
Exhibitions Coordinator Rebecca Price (Female, ZERO)
Chief Preparator Greg Abgelone (Male, 2)
Director of Special Events Lori Brubaker (Female, ZERO)
Director of Retail Operations Lynda Marks (Female, ZERO)

Ouch. Even with the free 10-pointer, NMWA scores a weak 17/55 on the manly index, or just over 30 percent manliness. The National Museum of Women in the Arts is so hopelessly unmanly I’ll save them excessive man-punning in this roundup. But check out their new exhibition, “Role Models: Feminine Identity in Contemporary American Photograph,” which I hear is delightful!

Tune in tomorrow for a pan-religious bro-off, when the National Cathedral takes on the Founding Church of Scientology!

Photo by smata2.

THREE! Sarah Palin appeared on Saturday Night Live last week to get back at Tina Fey for being so mean all the time. Palin proved she really knows how to act presidential use that Northern Idaho journalism degree. Let’s go straight to the video (includes Mean Girls-style bitchy stare-off between Palin and Fey)!

TWO! Yesterday, the McCain/Palin camp announced the endorsement of Telemundo actress Katie Barberi, a Mexican-American. The announcement came on the same day some other minority came out in favor of the Obama campaign. “As a Hispanic-American, I understand how important this election is for Hispanics,” said Barberi. A little birdie told me Barberi’s endorsin’ qualifications include an uncredited role as an economics student in a little something called Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.

ONE! Michele Bachmann, a Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota, has the ghost of Joe McCarthy in her, and boy is Congress’s face red! In an appearance on Hardball with Chris Matthews, Bahmann—whom I did not even know existed, much less existed solely to warn the American people against the creeping spectre of communism—made her stunning debut on the national stage. Bahmann accused Barack Obama—who is currently running for president of the United States of America—of being “anti-American.”

“If we look at the collection of friends that Barack Obama has had in his life,” Huffington Post reports Bahmann as saying, “it calls into question what Barack Obama’s true beliefs and values and thoughts are. His attitudes, values, and beliefs with Jeremiah Wright on his view of the United States…is negative; Bill Ayers, his negative view of the United States. We have seen one friend after another call into question his judgment — but also, what it is that Barack Obama really believes?” Following her indictment of Obama, Bachmann called for an investigation into the American values of all members of Congress. “I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out if they are pro-America or anti-America,” she said. Believe us, Michelle—we’re listening!

AND THE BUZZER! Totally non-Republican (educated guess) lovely lady Amy Poehler matches your Palin and raises you a Fey with her Alaskan rap bit (SNL rap bits: Making me laugh since 2007):

Ever since “bro” crept out of the frat house basement and into the mainstream, the now-ubiquitous term has suffered a backlash. Consider the dominant definition of “bro” on urbandictionary.com: “Stupid white trash guys . . . with lifted trucks, wife beaters, shitty music . . . ugly girlfriends, ugly hair, mouths constantly open, retarded as all get up, have no common sense . . . Fags.”

Also indicative of the term’s current status: Even the founder of forthcoming online community BroBible.com —the world’s first online “brocial network“—hesitates to self-identify as “bro.” “The word bro has a negative connotation to some,” admits Doug Banker, the bro behind Bro Bible. “I’m definitely a bro in certain aspects,” he adds. “But I consider myself a well-rounded bro.”

But to Banker, 23, the term “bro” means something different. “We see it in the playful way . . . Really, a bro is just someone who likes to go out and have a good time, who likes to stay connected to their group of friends while expanding their horizons,” he says. “It’s not one of our goals to make the word ‘bro’ more positive,” adds banker. “But yes, hopefully, that will happen.”

Banker, who graduated this year from the University of Richmond with a B.A. in “Leadership Studies,” hopes that BroBible.com will give a voice to what he views as a sorely underrepresented demographic. The Web site, tag-lined “Every bro has a story,” will debut its mix of social networking, open forums, and bro-generated content on Oct. 15. “This is one of the first sites that’s tailored specifically to the needs and interests of the bro,” says Banker. “Finally, there will be an outlet on the Internet where [bros] can truly express themselves.”

The nationwide site aims to connect a diverse network of bros around the country. “The actual type of bro varies, but there are bros everywhere,” explains Banker. “You’ve got the Southern bro, enjoys being outside; the Colorado ski bro; the California surf bro; the Texas down-South bro; the Northeastern preppy lacrosse bro. There are all different types of bros, but they share common attributes.”

Banker hopes to court the bros of the District of Columbia specifically. “A lot of my friends at Georgetown are huge bros, and they really enjoy the nightlife scene there,” he says. “In the bars, you can find a great deal of bros. Any sporting event, a lot of bros. I would imagine that D.C is full of them,” he says. Banker says he is planning to take his promotional bro tour to Washington, D.C. within the next month.

Other types of bros, however, are less welcome in the online community. “It’s not the ‘yo, bro’ type of thing,” says Banker, “We’re not trying to get a guy who’s going to drink ten beers and crash them over his head. . . . The site is not going to be glorifying male conquest and championing their exploits.”

Still, Banker says he hopes to promote an “open forum” where bros “can share all types of stories and not feel embarrassed to get that information out,” he says. “And if that includes beer and hooking up, then so be it.”

Though the bro is typically defined as male, Banker says that female bros—and women close to bros—are also encouraged to check out the site. “I think it’s going to be very popular with women,” Banker says. “Women are really going to enjoy the site. They’ll be able to gain insight into the male ego, the male bravado, how the male mind works. At the very least, they’re going to want to know why their boyfriend is spending so much time on the site.”

Banker is hopeful that, with the help of the online bro community, a new term for a female bro will soon be coined. “I’ve been looking for one. I can’t think of one off the top of my head,” says Banker. “Trust me, I’ve been wracking my brain for a long time.”

Photo by Tavallai.

* For Slate, The Abstinence Teacher author Tom Perrotta explains the political appeal of Sarah Palin’s “Sexy Puritan” archetype:

I’m only trying to locate her within the context of the great American culture war, which she seems to have single-handedly reignited during an election season that was supposed to have been dominated by other issues (and may well be again, now that Wall Street has imploded). With the selection of Palin, McCain succeeded not only in thrilling the Christian right but in scrambling the categories of the campaign. It used to be perfectly clear which ticket represented youth and change, which seemed old and boring, and which had more appeal to women voters. For a moment, at least, Palin seems to have turned these certainties into open questions.

* Also in Slate: How the financial crisis is good for the high-end prostitute business:

Sex workers of the past waited on street corners, outside bars, and around parks, and their transactions were fleeting and usually for a few dollars. Today’s high-end sex workers see themselves as therapists, part of a vast metropolitan wellness industry that includes private chefs and yoga teachers. Many have regular clients who visit them several times per month, paying them not only for sex but also for comfort and affirmation.

Ahh, but what of the comfort and affirmation of your local alt-weekly?

* Stuff Hipsters Don’t Like: Hipsters. Thinking about the economy. Pregnancy:

Hipsters are very torn about pregnancy. On the one hand, they don’t have any problem with abortion seeing as they got their BA in post-structuralist conceptual astrology and have endured hundreds of hours of NPR, Ira Glass’ infanticidal socialist drone lingering in their subconscious. On the other hand, being pregnant is kind of cool. It gives them some sort of purpose in an otherwise directionless post-graduate existence. In fact, some hipster girls dream of having a traditional nuclear family. They fantasize about their husband handsomely dressed in wool flannel and Ray-Bans returning home from his long shift at the record store and coddling their infant son decked out in a vintage neon Morrissey romper.

That said, most of the time they just get an abortion.

* Women dumb! Men lazy! Unfabulouz.com shows “the difference between men and women” in this recovered gender cartoon.

* Guess what’s the only supreme court case Sarah Palin can name! Yeah, that one.

Photo by dreamsjung