Skip to content

Sexist Beatdown: How DoubleX Is Hurting Dolphins (Who Are Bastards Anyway) EDITION

Posted on Friday, May 15, 2009 by Sady
As you know, people, I am paid for my Tiger Beatdown contributions on an excruciating ten-cents-per-pageview system. HA! I am just kidding! No-one would pay for this!

It is true, however, that many paid bloggers are dependent upon the will and/or clicking power of the public to survive. Some of them cannot deal with this! They go crazy! They start writing pieces that are basically just designed to piss other, more well-known bloggers off, in the hopes that they will get links from those other, bigger blogs (ah, yes, the “this person is a dick” link: the blogoworld’s most honored form of Aiding Thine Enemy) and therefore PAGEVIEWS PAGEVIEWS PAGEVIEWS! $$$$$$$$$$$! Etcetera! These bloggers shall remain nameless, except for the fact that they are Linda Hirshman and Susannah Breslin of DoubleX, about whom you have read things already. And will read things again!

In this edition of Sexist Beatdown, Amanda Hess of the Sexist and I will discuss the limits of controversy, use the word “snark” far, far too many times, and tell the heartwarming story of how my e-mail inbox taught me a valuable lesson in tolerance. Also, talk about how terrible dolphins are! THAT’S RIGHT, ALL YOU PRO-DOLPHIN BLOGGERS. I HATE THE FLIPPERY LITTLE BASTARDS. WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY TO THAT?

ILLUSTRATION: Look into the totally adorable face of fear.

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

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

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

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

SADY: Yes, I did! Every single day! So this new DoubleX thing, with its lead off of “7 reasons why feminism is boring/stupid/dead/anti-feminist” is kind of puzzling to me. the quote of the day on the first day was about hating feminism!

AMANDA: … april … fools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMANDA: yes.

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

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

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

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (9)

Who Takes Responsibility for the Responsibility-Takers? Hint: Not Linda Hirshman

Posted on Thursday, May 14, 2009 by Sady
Hello! And welcome back to Anti-Feminists Say the Darnedest Things Week here at Tiger Beatdown!

For they do say things, these anti-feminists. DARNED things! Things that sound very dismissive, and critical, and devastating, until you realize that they make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Today, we will be discussing my two very least favorite statements in the history of discussion about feminism. They are:

1. Stop playing the victim! And,
2. Why can’t you take responsibility for yourself?

I hate these statements, so much, you guys. Whenever somebody makes these statements, in the context of a discussion about feminism, I want to hit him or her in the face, with a dictionary, in the hopes that some knowledge of the English language and all of its many definitions for words will somehow penetrate that person’s skull. Because, in all the many years I have seen people employ this rhetorical tactic, I have almost never seen anyone use it in response to someone who is actually pretending to be a “victim,” or shirking actual “responsibility.”

I have, however, seen people use it (frequently!) on folks who are actual victims. Of, like, crimes.

For example: have you heard about this Double X thing? Ha ha, yes, of course you have, because I am slow. However, it is illustrative, in that two separate writers on that site combined their powers to create a near-perfect example of how this rhetorical tactic actually works!

Short version: Linda Hirshman, in the way-back-long-ago, wrote that women who don’t leave their abusers are bad and stupid and wrong, and we should shame them, because that is very helpful. Megan Carpentier, at Jezebel, wrote about Linda Hirshman’s statements, in a manner that basically amounted to, “um, FALSE.” Linda Hirshman can hold a grudge, apparently! Because then she wrote an article to the effect that (a) since current Jezebel writer Megan Carpentier and former Jezebel writer Moe Tkacik have both been raped, and (b) Moe Tkacik did not report her rapist, and Megan Carpentier did not report her FIRST rapist (important distinction, there: take note of it), that (c) Megan Carpentier and Moe Tkacik are personally responsible for the fact that their rapists may have raped other ladies, so (d) everybody who writes for Jezebel is a hypocritical rapist, Jezebel is a website for rapists, and if you read Jezebel you are going to get raped, and it will be your and/or Jezebel’s fault, so there.

Which, you know: this argument (Megan Carpentier didn’t report her rape, and is therefore responsible for rape, and also should not write about rape, ever) would not make any sense EVEN IF MEGAN CARPENTIER WERE NOT CURRENTLY SEEKING TO PROSECUTE HER (OTHER) RAPIST RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS SOMETHING SHE HAS WRITTEN ABOUT MANY TIMES, ON JEZEBEL, LINDA HIRSHMAN. But this is not the point; the point is that the “responsibility” argument is used in the piece, like so:

Given the high level of risk the Jezebel life involves, it is surprising that the offense that arouses the liberated Jezebels to real political fury is the suggestion that women like them might be made responsible for the consequences of their own acts, or that there might be general standards that define basic feminist behavior. Suggest that women report the men who rape them for the sake of future victims, say, or that women should be asked why they stay with the men who abuse them, or urged to leave them, and the Jezebels go ballistic.

Um, “responsible” for what? The crimes that someone else may have commited? Crimes committed against them, which were, pretty much by definition, performed against their will? Both, apparently!

Which, understandably, pissed a whole lot of people off – people like the folks at Feministe, and Feministing, and, um, Jezebel – and they wrote about how this was a really stupid move on Linda Hirshman’s part. ENTER THE BRESLIN – Susannah Breslin, that is – who responded to all of the criticisms of Hirshman (because Hirshman herself was… having a sandwich? In the bathroom? Crying about all the mean girls on the Internet? God only knows; maybe she was just so busy telling other women to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY that she couldn’t take responsibility for writing her own response) as so:

It seems to me that “feminist” sites like the aptly-named Feministe are interested in having it both ways. They want all the power their feminist foremothers promised them—and the right to play full-time victims of the patriarchy. Get over it.

“But, Sady,” you are saying, “you must have quoted this out of context! I even clicked through to the link to the Feministe piece, and it still makes no sense whatsoever! Especially given that the Feministe piece was not at all victim-y!” To you, I say: nope, it didn’t make any sense in context, either. And I read Susannah Breslin’s blog! I like some of her writing! This was still a weird piece: one that managed to address all of the criticisms thus far aimed at Hirshman and/or the site with a resounding, “no, YOU shut up!”

Because that’s how these conversations go, and I have been through them one million times (in e-mails, in blog comment sections, in real life):

1. Somebody makes a dick move.
2. You say, “wow, that was a dick move.”
3. They say, “OH MY GOD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS STOP PLAYING THE VICTIM.”

This allows the maker of dick moves to avoid owning up to his or her own dickishness, or the fact that s/he is the aggressor in the situation, and to pretend that the real problem is that you object to the situation s/he has created. Now, there is something that a person who employs such a tactic is, very obviously, not taking – it begins with the letter R, and rhymes with “phlesponsibility for one’s actions” – but let’s avoid that one, for the moment. Let’s talk about what victims are.

Because the “victim” role is passive, isn’t it? I’m not speaking, here, about people who have been victims of crimes, like rape or abuse, since we all know that you can take every imaginable precaution and do everything that you learned in self-defense class and terrible things can still happen, which are not your fault, but the fault of the person who does the terrible things to you. I’m talking about what the word “victim” usually summons up. I’ve known people who actually do “play the victim,” for whatever reason: they’re reactive, passive, unwilling to do anything to advance their own interests. The world happens to these people, and they rely on other people to take care of them, and to take pity on their weaknesses. They define themselves as weak, and they live up to that self-definition.

These people tend not to be feminists. Because feminists – whether or not they have been victims of crimes – are engaged in continual acts of strength. To be a feminist is to be, on one level or another, an activist: actively engaged in confronting the problems of the world and seeking to change them. They confront injustices. They speak up. They refuse to shut up. They cause trouble. They take responsibility, not just for their own happiness, but for the betterment of the world around them. They also (especially if they are lady feminists) continually make the point that they are not weak, they are not passive, and they are not incapable of independence or self-determination. They are, in short, about as far from being victims as possible.

Because victims say, “what happened to me was fucked up, my life sucks, the world sucks, and there’s nothing I can do about it: I guess I’d better stay at home and weep and hope that some big strong person will come to save me.” Feminists, on the other hand, say, “what happened to me was fucked up, and I think I know why it happened, and I want to change the entire goddamn world so that it stops happening to other people. Also, I think I can do that. The world-changing thing, that is.” Which is a lot of responsibility to take on oneself, especially for a group of people that are supposedly so damn irresponsible.

“Playing the victim?” Hell, there are a lot of people out there who would probably like more feminists to act like victims: it would shut us up and get us out of the way, at least. However, when I look at my own personal life, it’s pretty clear to me that, if I am meant to be playing the victim, I am not doing a very good job – because, alas, when people act like shits, I continue to tell them that they’re being shitty. And that’s not “playing the victim.” That’s refusing to be one.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (21)

My Raging Narcissism: Now Including 51% of the Earth’s Population!

Posted on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 by Sady
Friends, I got a very smart and intriguing comment this morning! It is from Ashley! Ashley points out:

I notice a theme that interests me… Several of the commenters say that you need to “get over yourself,” that “it’s not all about you,” or some variation on the theme that a feminist critique is somehow narcissistic… I am interested in what they are trying to say, because I recently had a guy say a similar thing to me when I made a feminist critique of something he liked.

I’m beginning to smell an anti-feminist trope that I hadn’t particularly noticed before. Theories?

Well, Ashley, I’m glad you asked! Your insightful comment has inspired – yes, inspired – me to write a blog post that is, to a disconcerting degree, All About Me. Because one of the chief points I want to make, concerning feminist critique in general, and (for a more specific example) the feminist critiques leveled by Me, is that most of them are not All About the writer. So, why would someone argue otherwise?

Here is the first and simplest answer: feminist critique is, typically, about women. To be more specific, it is pro-women, and anti-things-that-oppress-women. I am, as it turns out, a woman! As are many feminists! Therefore, when people who don’t care for things such as “reading” or “analyzing arguments” or “paying attention on the most basic level imaginable” read or hear pro-woman critiques from women, they often assume that the person talking about women in general must be talking, specifically and entirely, about her own personal self. At best, they think, she is feigning concern for other women, in order to cover up the fact that she is upset about things that affect her, and would like her own life to be easier.

Now, as far as I am concerned, this is a stinging and terrible and on-point critique, if you assume that being a woman is the single defining factor of my identity. If, that is, you assume that the only thing going through my brain at all times is “woman, woman, woman, woman, woman: boy howdy, am I ever a woman,” it would make total sense.

Unfortunately, however, I am not every woman, it is not all in me, there are plenty of other things that comprise the marvelous package that is Sady, and if I wanted to write about issues that affect me, specifically, I would be doing precisely that. I would not be writing about gender in society, but about 5’4″ brunette white straight women from the Midwestern suburbs who moved to New York six years ago, spend too much time on the Internet, are moving in with their boyfriends at the end of the month, just got moved from full-time to part-time at their jobs due to the ongoing economic fucktastrophe, and need to buy new copies of Microsoft Word but aren’t sure they can afford it given the economic fucktastrophe thing. “WHY DOES MICROSOFT OFFICE COST SO DAMN MUCH: A Problem for Society Today,” my post titles would go, if I were doing such a thing. Or: “I CAN’T REACH THE TOP SHELF: Why Are There Things Up There, Which I Cannot Reach? How Did That Happen?”

This would be very boring! The fact is that I write about gender specifically because it is a thing that fascinates me, and that I like to read and think about, which is pretty much by definition not All About Me. As it turns out, around 51% of the people on Earth are ladies, and I am only one of them! I would assume that most other feminist writers, who spend hours researching and studying issues that affect women, are not doing it specifically so that they can write about themselves, when the fact is that they could do that just by registering and writing at WhyIsThereSoMuchCatHairOnMyCouch.wordpress.com, which would require no research whatsoever. At least, not into anything but the source of the cat hair.

Let’s pretend it is About Me, though, for the moment. Let’s assume that you, and I, and every woman who has ever leveled a feminist critique, have in fact done so because we are upset about things that affect us personally, and would like our own lives to be easier. Let’s assume that we don’t care about the fact that these things also affect other women (which would totally explain the amount of time we spend thinking about and talking about and seeking to understand or counteract their effects on those women, right?) and are only concerned with the things that happen to our own personal selves. Because the next question is: why is that so bad?

“Narcissistic” and “selfish” are, for some reason, particularly potent insults to aim at women. Narcissism or selfishness have been offered as an explanation for lesbianism, female masturbation, “frigidity” and/or clitoral orgasms (yes, ladies, if a dude is not getting you off, it’s because you don’t care about his feelings), women not wanting to get married, women not wanting children, women wanting jobs, women wanting children without marriage, women wanting marriage without children, women wanting children and/or marriage without jobs, women wanting marriage and/or children and jobs, women being successful at their jobs, and basically anything else that even slightly resembles self-esteem. Dudes can get the “selfish” label, too, but they actually have to work at it (in spite of the fact that actual narcissism, the kind that is a personality disorder, is diagnosed mostly amongst men): all a woman has to do is think about or talk about or act on behalf of herself even a little, and the whole stereotype of the self-absorbed, self-obsessed, self-enthralled ladyperson comes down instantly upon her head.

The reason for this – the reason that any level of self-involvement is so terrifyingly repugnant and hideous in women – is that, basically, women aren’t supposed to have selves. You know the drill: we’re empathetic not objective, relationship-driven not goal-driven, givers not takers, team players not leaders, feelers not thinkers, and boundless sources of love and compassion and fluffy sparkly puppy twinkly fairy snuggly wuggly bullshit. Women – REAL women, that is – are supposed to be willing to put others first, all the time, no matter what. So, when you voice anything along the lines of, “can we please stop pretending that your comfort is the most important thing in the world and focus on the crap you just pulled,” somebody is going to get deeply offended, because: you are not playing the game right! You are not supposed to refuse to take shit; you are supposed to put various multi-colored sprinkles on it and pretend that it is a delicious chocolate sundae!

Now, here is where we dive from the heights of generality into the lovely, welcoming depths of talking about voicing feminist critique, because: the fact is that, to do this, you do have to have an unladylike amount of self-esteem. Something in your brain has to click – to go from, “huh, that is sort of messed up,” straight to, “what I have to say about this is important – important enough to interest others!” You, basically, have to stop looking for permission to have an opinion. This scares the hell out of people.

Andrea Dworkin, a lady with whom I have a ton of disagreements, actually pretty much summed up the entire Tiger Beatdown Approach to Cultural Criticism when she wrote this:

[This book] does not narrate my experience in order to measure it against Norman Mailer’s or D.H. Lawrence’s. The first person is embedded in the way the book is built. I use Tolstoy, Kobo Abe, James Baldwin, Tennessee Williams, Isaac Bashevis Singer, not as authorities, but as examples: I use them; I cut and slice into them in order to exhibit them; but the authority behind the book – behind each and every choice – is mine… I love the literature these men created; but I will not live my life as if they are real and I am not. Nor will I tolerate the continuing assumption that they know more about women than we know about ourselves.

And, as we all know, everyone loved Andrea Dworkin and she never had any problems and her opinions were always listened to and debated respectfully and thoughtfully, forever, The End.

Oh, wait! That is totally not what happened! Sorry!

No, what happened is what always happens: people tried to silence her, and they did this, first and foremost, by attacking her as a person. Because, if you don’t like someone, there’s no way they could possibly be right! Is what a second-grader, or exceptionally stupid adult, might think. A slightly brighter adult, who also happens to be evil, might put it another way: if a person doesn’t like herself, she won’t be able to say what she thinks, because she’ll be too busy self-hating and trying to get approval from outside sources.

Which brings us to our final point: the issue of why the “it’s not all about you” or “get over yourself” mode of silencing is so fucking weak and ineffectual. When somebody aims this at you, they’re not actually saying you’re wrong. They’re not demonstrating any kind of flaw in your argument. What they’re saying is that, since you are saying an entirely valid thing about something that affects women, or you (a woman), your argument is unimportant, because women (including you) are not worth caring about. They’re saying that, since men are the more important gender, they’re allowed to hurt or oppress women; since men come first, women should not be allowed to challenge or object to this. They’re saying that the only people we should talk, write, or care about are men. They’re objecting to “selfishness” in the most profoundly selfish way imaginable.

Because, when someone tells you that feminist critique is wrong because it’s “all about you?” That’s not actually why they dislike it. They dislike it because it’s not all about them.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (33)

And Now… Comments of the Week!

Posted on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 by Sady
I know! They are late! What can I say: Monday was a crazy, messed-up time. Also, your comments were all too painfully amazing, and it was difficult to choose but three amongst their glory.

I have made my choice, however! Behold, these nigh-supernaturally amusing (and enlightening!) comments.

Amanda handily achieves the impossible in ADVICE! FOR DELETED COMMENTERS:

I’d love to see someone who can accomplish the feat of “slightly over exaggerating” rape. What do you say, “He raped me, and then, he forced me to watch Seth Rogen raping a lady in a hilarious bro comedy! Oh, fine, you got me. ALL HE DID WAS RAPE ME.”

Regina comments in a very mature and sober manner on historical issues, in Adventures in Comparative Literature:

Between whose glories there my lips I’ll lay,
Ravish’d in that fair via lactea.

I see the motorboat existed even before the invention of the motorboat.

And finally, Ashley, who provides a truly epic explanation of all things TOM in ADVICE! FOR DELETED COMMENTERS:

Much worse things happen every day and much worse things are put into movies every day, and sitting here troubling yourself with a fictional rape will not solve anything.

Mmm, yes. I also get irritated whenever people, particularly people of the lady persuasion, trouble themselves with things that are not The Worst Thing In The World(TM).

The Worst Thing In The World(TM) is carefully selected by TOM and some other very rational and non-hysterical people on a daily basis, according to an algorithm that considers every aspect of everything, scientifically determining with pinpoint accuracy the single most horrific expression of man’s inhumanity to man currently in progress.

Today’s worst thing in the world was women who exaggerate.

As we all know, the best response to any suffering that is not The Worst Thing In The World(TM) is total apathy. This is, in fact, the responsible (and ethical!) response to pain, be it your own or that of others.

TOM, you have won my heart with your reasonableness and ability to take a joke. I can only hope that you will not be too afraid to make totally willing and not at all creepy sweet sweet love to me when we finally meet.

To this, I can say only: thank you. Thank you all. In order to express my appreciation, I will take you out to a movie! Cub (extra shout-out! This is getting crazy, I know) suggests this one:

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (3)

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT: There Are No Chicks In the Future

Posted on Monday, May 11, 2009 by Sady
A Star Trek thing is up! At Comment Is Free! It is by me! In it, we explore important questions, such as: will chicks be able to talk, in the future? Who does a girl have to screw to get a job on the Enterprise? (The answer will… well, it will not really surprise you.) And: what is with the Vulcans’ recently discovered fondness for marrying seven-year-olds who may or may not have been involved with Reality Bites?

Also, there is an amazing headline, which I did not write myself, but which I could look at all day long. I love it so much, you guys.*

Star Trek: warp factor sex

Oh. And the photo caption, too. Click on it! Click on it now, now, now!

*I was rooting for “Pigs in Space,” originally: however, this is ten times sillier and therefore better.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (26)

Adventures in Comparative Literature: Chug (Chug) Chug (Chug) Freshman (Freshman) Freshman (Freshman) Edition

Posted on Friday, May 8, 2009 by Sady

So! I spoke to a gentleman recently. I was like, “hello! How are you? I, myself, am contemplating a blog post on Asher Roth.” And he was like, “Asher Roth? Really? Is this what we are doing now? Wasting our lives?” And I was like, “point taken! CLICK: DELETE POST.” Then we started talking about Robert Herrick (a Cavalier poet! Of the 17th century, I think! In, like, England!) and things got back to a not-stupid level. I think everyone was relieved.

But wait! I thought. What if I could prove that 17th-century (?) Cavalier poet Robert Herrick and noted public idiot Asher Roth are, in fact, the same person? Because I had to study one of them for the GRE, and he annoyed the piss out of me, and then I saw one of them on YouTube and he did the very same thing! Join me now, on this voyage of shocking discovery.

1. For Trulye, The Poet Must Treate on Matteres of Love & Marriage

I’ll hug, I’ll kiss, I’ll play,
And, cock-like, hens I’ll tread,
And sport it any way
But in the bridal bed.

For why ? that man is poor
Who hath but one of many,
But crown’d he is with store
That, single, may have any.
– Robert Herrick, The Poet Loves a Mistress, but not to Marry

Yeah I like you but not enough to wife you
You say I’m nice, true, and you think I’m the right dude
But there’s another girl just like you…

No text’s gonna give me head
Long distance just ain’t my thing
Young single don’t need no ring
I’m a free man now I don’t need no strings, sing
– Asher Roth, Be By Myself

2. Ywis, and of the Boobyes of Wenches

DISPLAY thy breasts, my Julia—there let me
Behold that circummortal purity,
Between whose glories there my lips I’ll lay,
Ravish’d in that fair via lactea.
– Robert Herrick, Upon Julia’s Breasts (see also, Upon the Nipples of Julia’s Breasts, and Upon the Roses in Julia’s Bosom: Julia had quite a set, if Literature is any guide).

pretty girl you know that
you so hot hot hot hot. how about i take you
to my spot spot spot spot… know i’m at my best
when i make you sweat.
when i get sex
i get no rest. smack that butt i’m a
bounce them breasts.
– Asher Roth, Lion’s Roar

3. The Poete Seekes Not to Offend the Fairer Sexe, Womene

O JUPITER, should I speak ill
Of woman-kind, first die I will ;
Since that I know, ‘mong all the rest
Of creatures, woman is the best.
– Robert Herrick, In Praise of Women

I like to know, what makes a rapper?
… What if he’s a she and not a he at all
Or does a broad have to a be a C at least
Or can it be decreased if she real up on the beat?
– Asher Roth, The Lounge
4. On a Topic Separate and Comicall, Dost Thou Know What the Poete Hates? The Fairer Sexe, Womene

THOU who wilt not love, do this,
Learn of me what woman is.
Something made of thread and thrum,
A mere botch of all and some,
Pieces, patches, ropes of hair ;
Inlaid garbage everywhere.
– Robert Herrick, Upon Some Women

I hear a high pitch voice scream my name.
Some dumb ass girl I went to high school with.
While she’s sweating she’s telling me she likes my dick.
I just smile and think ’bout how great it would be
If I can just hit this chick with a quick leg sweep.
– Asher Roth, Bad Day
5. The Poete, On Occasione, Gettes Somewhat Rapeye

WOMEN, although they ne’er so goodly make it,
Their fashion is, but to say no, to take it.
– Robert Herrick, Denial in Women Not Disheartening to Men

you got what you wanted
and flaunted what you wanted
and I went a little further even when you didn’t want it
– Asher Roth, Alone
6. The Poete’s Biographie Provides Ample Opportunitie for Merrye Jest

Not widely read or respected in his day; is rumored to have died a virgin, with his poems being simply a massive campaign of overcompensation.

I rest my case.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (13)

Sexist Beatdown: Kavalier and Clay in: the Case of the Missing Maternal Instinct Edition

Posted on Friday, May 8, 2009 by Sady
Good afternoon! Are you ready for a beatdown? Of SEXISTS?

Well, good news for you if you are. Indifferent news, if you are not! The blog post will be here all day, seriously. Because, did you know that Ayelet Waldman is a BAD MOTHER? She would certainly like you to think so, anyway, because that is what her new book is called.

Amanda Hess of The Sexist and I are not so sure! In this edition of our Gchat-enabled public discussion forum, we ask the important questions, such as: what makes a bad mother, anyway? What does a woman get out of marketing herself as such? Is Ayelet Waldman, perhaps, a PERFECTLY COMPETENT mother in disguise? And: were we really ready to know this much uncomfortably intimate information about the “quickening of desire” felt towards or by Mr. Ayelet Waldman, who is apparently novelist (that I like!) Michael Chabon?

ILLUSTRATION: In the afternoons, we make sweet, tender love, and then we discuss the Yiddish Policemen’s Union.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (9)

COMMENT ISSUES: A Boring Post

Posted on Thursday, May 7, 2009 by Sady
Hi! I have two things to note:

1) TOM is not the Tom who comments here. He is another, evil TOM. Actual Tom sent me an e-mail to clarify the distinction between himself and Bizarro TOM, and I want to share that information with the world.

2) In non-TOM related news (but isn’t all news, really, related to TOM? He seems to think so) some comments on the site are not showing up! They are apparently disappearing into the ether. So, if your comment disappears, I actually may not have deleted you (again, unless you’re TOM). If this is happening to you, can you e-mail me, so that I can get a sense of how often it is happening and maybe go yell at the Google?

Thank you! For permitting me to bore you! You may now go about your business.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (3)

ADVICE! FOR DELETED COMMENTERS!

Posted on Wednesday, May 6, 2009 by Sady
Friends, I got a comment this morning. It is from a gentleman named “Tom,” who knows exactly how you need to deal with your rape trauma. That is, you need to stop having it! And think of TOM!

PLEASE, WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF TOM.

He has a three-million-word-long comment to that effect, which I have deleted, and only preserved the highlights, because I am figuring that his doctoral thesis, “ME ME ME, ME ME ME: ME!” is shortly to be published elsewhere and I don’t want to hurt his sales or anything.

Anyway, his message to the world is as follows:

Seth Rogan’s might not be the funniest guy in the world, but seriously, you people need to stop for a minute and consider what you are saying.

Consideration 64% complete… 87% complete… 99% complete… Consideration: ACCOMPLISHED. Turns out, I’m still right!

There are so many terrible things that exist today and happen to women, what makes you think that what is happening between 2 fictional adults in a shock humor comedy is important? Obviously (or maybe not?) everyone who watches it knows that Rogan is not insinuating anything, and is just trying to get a laugh.

Also, no one with half a brain thinks that a woman who dresses provocatively is “asking for it” regardless of what some die hard feminists might want you to think. However, thanks to said group, I’m literally scared to have sex with perfectly willing women, simply because I know that if she wakes up the next morning and snaps, she can just tell the police that I raped her. And you know what, I’ll go to jail and get raped numerous times.

You know, Tom, there’s a saying I learned at my momma’s knee: “if a guy thinks that what he’s doing to you might possibly be construed as rape, and he does it anyway, that dude’s a fucking rapist.” Me, personally, I don’t have sex with people unless I can tell they’re all there, and they are actively and enthusiastically requesting sex, and also super-into my sexual advances. They basically have to be like, “oh! My goodness! I would certainly like to have sex with you! Please continue with your sexual advances! I am totally excited to be having sex right now, with you, because that is what I would very much like to be doing,” in order for me to be OK with the process, and yes, I apologize for getting you hot and bothered with this extremely graphic sexual talk of mine.

Your process is, apparently, a bit different! Apparently, you either (a) routinely have sex with people who are too wasted to give consent, or (b) distrust all women to the degree that you believe them to be maniacs who go and get rape kits, press charges, pay for lawyers, and go through the victim-smearing and harassment rape trials inevitably bring on, just for the fun of you facing a mild possibility (MILD, given how rarely actual rape convictions are handed down) of jail time!

Another thing, why is it always up to the guy to stay sober enough to stop the act? If I go home with a girl after drinking, and we both have sex wasted as hell, she can wake up and say that she didn’t want it. Then I go to jail. Where does that seem right at all? How about don’t get drunk enough to agree to sex with a random stranger unless you are prepared to accept the consequences? That’s how you “ask for it”.

Hmmm, first a statement about how no-one believes a woman can “ask for it,” because only MONSTERS believe that. Next, a statement about how women “ask for it!” Exciting! Are you, perhaps, possessed by demons, Tom? Are you Sibyl? Is your name Legion? Don’t be afraid to share!

You can tell me whatever stories you want about how terrible life is since you got raped, and I’m sure a lot of you had it rough and I’m sincerely sorry. I hope you can grow to move on with your life. But for the rest of you who either were not raped, or are (dare I say it) slightly over exaggerating, honestly, you’re being really naive. Much worse things happen every day and much worse things are put into movies every day, and sitting here troubling yourself with a fictional rape will not solve anything.

I love Tom, so much, you guys. First, several paragraphs about how scared he is that some woman might just accuse him of rape, which he in no way deserves, cause he’s not, like, incapable of distinguishing rape from consent or anything. Next, a statement about how women who speak out about their own experiences of rape are “exaggerating,” because, as everyone knows, it’s not like a sexual act can take place either (a) with consent, or (b) without consent, in which case it is rape. Nope! Tom thinks it’s totes possible that you DID consent, and just were not in any way aware of that happening, because as we all know consent does not mean “to explicitly give permission”; it means, “anything short of fighting a dude off with a Samurai sword.” Finally, and most precious of all, Tom notes that he is “scared” of having sex due to the unfortunate fact that rape is illegal and if he is found guilty of it in a court of law he might have to do time in jail.

Tom. My darling. A word of advice for you: if you are scared enough to never, ever, ever have or attempt sex again? That would be a very good thing.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (36)

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT:

Posted on Wednesday, May 6, 2009 by Sady

I have a piece up at the Guardian’s Comment is Free! I know, right? NEATO. It begins:

You know, people of the UK, I often wonder why you put up with folks from the United States. Think of what you have given us, in terms of entertainment, over the last few years: Lily Allen, Sasha Baron Cohen, Idris Elba, Daniel Craig as James Bond – the list goes on. Yet what has America given you in return? Well, here’s one answer: Observe & Report, which opened in cinemas – for the British, anyway – recently.

On behalf of my nation, I would like to apologise.

Observe & Report has already caused quite a stir, containing as it does a scene in which the hero, Ronnie (Seth Rogen) rapes an intoxicated and unconscious woman by the name of Brandi (Anna Faris). The scene is played for laughs: after a series of scenes in which it’s shown that Brandi has eaten handfuls of anti-depressants, downed massive amounts of tequila, and is unable to walk, maintain consciousness, or form a coherent sentence, Rogen drags her into her house, and the movie cuts to a shot of Rogen humping Brandi’s passed-out, vomit-spattered body. He stops for a moment. She mutters “Why’d you stop,” without opening her eyes or moving. Cue audience laughter!

The thing is, at the showing I attended (ah, research), that was the only point in the movie at which the audience laughed.

Annnnnnd, the rest of it is over here. Along with an exciting headshot, and my last name. (Also, people who believe that the fact that Seth Rogen is Canadian undermines my entire argument. Um, OK!) That’s me: solving mysteries, right and left, for you.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (24)