Skip to content

Of particular concern to me.

The Ancient Roman poet Terence declared that “In every endeavor, the seemly course for wise men is to try persuasion first.” The same truth binds wise women as well…

George Marshall noted that our gravest enemies are often not nations or doctrines but hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos. So to create more friends and fewer enemies, we must find common ground and common purpose with other peoples and nations to overcome hatred, violence, lawlessness, and despair.

The Obama administration recognizes that even when we cannot fully agree with some governments we share a bond of humanity with their people. By investing in that common humanity, we advance our common security…

And of particular concern to me is the plight of women and girls, who comprise the majority of the world’s unhealthy, unschooled, unfed, and unpaid. If half the world’s population remains vulnerable to economic, political, legal and social marginalization, our hope of advancing democracy and prosperity is in serious jeopardy. The United States must be an unequivocal and unwavering voice in support of women’s rights in every country on every continent.

– Hillary Rodham “Snuggles” Clinton, representing (a) that “men” is not a generic term for “human,” (b) that people with serious differences – OR MINOR DIFFERENCES SERIOUSLY BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION BY THE MEDIA AND THEREAFTER MADE SERIOUS BY A FEW ASSY SUPPORTERS ON EACH SIDE AND THE SELF-APPOINTED OPPRESSION OLYMPICS JUDGING PANEL, SORRY – may be better suited by working together against their even more serious shared problems, and (c) that feminism matters.

So, do you want to tell me again about how she’s cold and harsh and shrill and a bad person and reminds you of your mom when she yelled at you because, surprisingly, all opinionated, uncompromising women who do not apologize for their ambition or their power do just that? Because that would be awesome right about now. ‘Kay, thanks, great.

THAT’S NOT FUNNY

As one of the world’s leading self-appointed experts on Whether That Is Sexist (spoiler: it is) I am, of course, obligated to spend up to five minutes per day reading headlines and then becoming outraged over them. Then I write things with the phrase “taco farts” in them and post some YouTube clips, and so the world is saved!

Here, dear reader, are some things that have occurred recently, about which one should not make jokes, because that would be terribly insensitive and sexist. Prepare yourself for some somber reflection.

ITEM THE FIRST: Dad accused of selling girl into marriage for cash, beer.

The case started when a Greenfield father reported his 14-year-old daughter as a runaway on Jan. 2. Police now believe the father actually agreed to sell his daughter into marriage to an 18-year-old neighbor, and he wanted the police to help return the girl because he hadn’t been paid.

The agreed-upon price was $16,000 in cash, 150 cases of beer, 150 cases of soda, several cases of meat and two cases of wine.

WHETHER THAT IS SEXIST: Um, yes.

THINGS THAT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO SAY: My God! I have a sister!

No, I’m kidding. My dad totally would have held out for some Neil Young tickets. That’s how I know he loved me.

ITEM THE SECOND: 22-Year-Old’s Virginity Auction Bids Hit $3.7M

Natalie Dylan, a 22-year-old San Diego woman, said she got the idea for the auction after her sister was able to pay for her college education after prostituting herself for three weeks, according to the London Telegraph.

Dylan has a degree in women’s studies. She told the paper she hopes to pay for an advanced degree in family and marriage therapy with the proceeds from the auction.

WHETHER THAT IS SEXIST: It depends on what you feel about the roles of agency and choice? Or: the dudes might be sexist, but the lady might only be taking advantage of a world in which sexism is an undeniable factor? She might be colluding, or she might be playing the system, and I don’t really know the difference between those two, maybe there is none, but… oh, whatever. It totally is.

THINGS THAT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO SAY: When she finds out that this is the only way for a Women’s Studies major to make money in anything vaguely related to her studies, she’ll probably regret spending it on grad school.

ITEM THE THIRD: This thing:


WHETHER THAT IS SEXIST: The feminists are divided! Ann Bartow writes here thatObama can greatly advance the status of women during his Presidency, and I very much hope he will. But I don’t remember hearing Barack Obama describe himself as a feminist… symbolically looking to a male superhero to ‘rescue’ feminism? Very problematic imagery, in my view.” Oh, and also there is some stuff about Hillary in there. Megan Carpentier at Jezebel engages in the representation of diversity and the creation of healthy debate by sensitively writing that Ann Bartow has ugly panties.

THINGS THAT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO SAY: But wait! Doesn’t Barack Obama know that stripping is wrong? Stop objectifying yourself, Mr. President! There is another way!

Tiger Beatdown: Apologia, or: Why I Spend All My Time on the Damn Internet

[So. Not so long ago, I had a discussion with someone in which he asked me to answer some tough questions, most of which had to do with this blog. They were questions like: why have you chosen to write what you write? What change do you think you can affect by writing those things? If you think what you have to say is valuable, why don’t you Do Something With It, rather than scribbling it out on your lunch break or whatever and shooting it out into an essentially uncaring void? And: why are you so mean to Aaron P. Taylor? That conversation got under my skin, not because I think he was wrong, but because they were good, solid points that called the existence of this blog – and the amount that I care about it, which is: A Whole Lot – into question. Then, about forty-eight hours later, someone asked me if I would potentially be interested in helping with a conference presentation about the role feminist blogs – and specifically individual, non-professional feminist blogs – played in the movement. Which was some weird-assed timing! And I did not know what to say! Because I had been kind of thinking that I was wasting my whole entire life at that specific moment! So instead of coping with those questions and doubts directly, I kind of spent the next week or so writing shitty, mean, poorly composed posts that were essentially continuations of an argument that I was having with myself about whether this blog should exist. On the blog itself, I unsurprisingly took the “pro” side, because Tiger Beatdown, which at this point in my life has become an entity unto itself, was like, DAAAVE, I CAN’T LET YOU DO THAT, DAAAAVE, every time I thought about shutting it down. What I thought privately was often dramatically at odds with what I posted. However, in the interest of not being a boring, incoherent asshole any longer, I will share with you the e-mail I wrote back to the nice lady, which is long and crazy – and edited lightly, here! – and probably my most complete and coherent answer, and which goes like this.] 

I think that, when we’re talking about blogs, it’s important to realize the role that small presses and self-created media have always had in the feminist movement, or have had at least since the second wave. Small feminist presses, newsletters, magazines (Ms. was a big deal, but it was also only the biggest and shiniest product of a large and diverse movement to create feminist print media – Bust and Bitch are kind of in the same position now) and feminist bookstores have always been crucial to the conversation, as were zines later on. Blogs are the rational next step: people can create their own media for less money than ever, and can get it out to a wider audience. [EXCISED FOR EXTRA TANGENTIAL CRAZY.] The accessibility and global reach of the Internet have really been embraced, especially by feminists who are isolated due to location or other factors. 
There’s another way that blogs tie into feminist history, and I feel I would be remiss to ignore it. Since blogs can get pretty personal, and since they have comment sections, they can also be seen as an extension of consciousness-raising groups, in which women spoke to one another about their lives in the hopes of finding common experiences and interpreting those in a political context, so as to get some sense of how sexism actually worked. Some comment threads on Jezebel are actually perfect examples of this. They start with “me too,” then get to “I wonder why,” and then get to larger conclusions. “Personal is political,” as a slogan, has a lot of flaws; however, I do feel that, due to the pervasive nature of sexism and the extent to which we have all internalized it, the ability to analyze and discuss your own experience in a political context – and to reach that “me, too” moment – is pretty vital to developing your feminism. 
Paolo Freire wrote that most education was based on “banking” – the students are presumed to know nothing, and the educator, who knows everything, just dumps knowledge into their heads. Freire saw that as a paternalistic model that was based on structures of oppression. He thought this was especially true when students were marginalized. He believed in a non-hierarchical form of education, in which the classroom would be composed of student/teachers – everyone teaching each other, everyone learning from each other – who discussed the subject at hand in the context of their own lived experience, and thereby not only empowered themselves by coming to understand that they were, in fact, “experts” when it came to their own experience, but actually worked together to develop a theory of their own oppression, which would hopefully help them to fight it. This sounds touchy-feely but I think it is true: nobody knows more than you do about your own experience, and what you say may help someone to understand a portion of their own life that has been confusing or weird. When we blog our feminisms, and seek out the work of others, we are engaged in that basic Freirian task of student/teaching. 
Moving that one step forward, I see blogs as representative of pluralism and diversity, which is so vastly important, not only to feminism (specifically Third Wave feminism, which is all about that) but to any kind of progressive movement. I have a Google alert set up for the word “feminism,” and most of the newspaper articles I get through that alert are op-eds which contain statements like “feminism means X” or “feminists believe Y,” which is of course totally screwed up, and is usually followed immediately by a statement like “you’ll never guess what I’m about to say, but: it turns out I totally disagree!” Of course, feminism was always a diverse movement, but during the reign of Old Media it was more possible to view it (or promote a view of it) as an oppressive, monolithic movement that brooked no sass or backtalk. 
If you thought that Ms. was the ONLY feminist magazine (and you might well think that – it was the only one available at most newsstands) then any statement made by a Ms. contributor would appear to be The Feminist Perspective. If mainstream feminism excluded working-class POVs, or POVs from women of color, or from queer women (as with Friedan and “the lavender menace”) then people whose only exposure to feminism came through the mainstream would get the impression that feminism was irrelevant or even hostile to people with those perspectives. [A lot of smart people actually do object to feminism due to the fact that they perceive it as a monolithic, white, middle-class movement – I added this in later, as you can see!] Nowadays, it’s far less possible to believe in The One True Feminism, or The Feminist Perspective. You can’t say that Feministing is “the feminist blog.” Nor can you say that about Feministe or Shakesville or Jezebel. [Lots of young women get their education about feminism, not primarily from print media or even from women’s studies classes, but from these sites; their plurality, the fact that they don’t always agree with each other, and the fact that most of them routinely link out to other, smaller blogs as a form of community-building is a large part of what makes them valuable and engaging. This, also, was added in later!] The essentially random and response-based nature of blogging – the way one can go from talking about Barack Obama to douchebloggers to movies to vibrators within a week – also helps to maintain diversity of viewpoints, in that we are analyzing the culture one piece at a time, casting a wide net, and determining on an individual basis what is important enough to write about. 
[EXCISED FOR MULTIPLE-EXAMPLE-BASED CRAZY.]
On a purely personal level, I started my blog because I was writing on a site for young women, and sometimes I would want to say something that is not entirely in line with what that site was about. I posted about a date rape case, for example, and in the comments there was a discussion about whether the girl in question was “really” raped or whether she had “deserved” it. I didn’t feel that site was the right place for me to get into an argument or to give Feminism 101 lessons, for a variety of reasons, but I knew that I needed a place where I could say whatever I wanted, mostly for my own sake. [EXCISED FOR DEFENSIVE, MORE OR LESS IRRELEVANT CRAZY.] I wanted a blog of my own where I didn’t have to worry about appealing to anyone but myself. Now that some people [but not a lot!] are actually reading it, I get kind of freaked out, wondering if I am always being “responsible” or giving the “correct perspective” on the issue at hand. Then I figure: there is a comment section! Also, it is the blogoworld! If I am stupid, someone will correct me, or just make fun of me via the Internet, and if they are smart and funny, and not the sort of person who argues that one can get a “deserved raping,” I will welcome that. 
Ultimately, I am a tiny, tiny drop in a vast ocean. I will never be the only or the most important voice in the room. What I have to say only matters to the people who choose to read it, or maybe just to me [BECAUSE I AM AN EGO MONSTER IN LOVE WITH THE SOUND OF MY OWN VOICE – FULL DISCLOSURE CRAZY]. And, at least as far as Tiger Beatdown goes, that’s what I want. 

I am going to go on the record here: I never, ever want to get on E.J. Graff’s bad side. I do, however, want to get on her good side – the side that involves going out for drinks and braiding each others’ hair and potentially joining some kind of bowling league. Between this and her magnificent takedown of Susannah Breslin’s “sexual harassment is bad, but maybe not so bad that we should take it seriously, or discuss it, or make any steps to change it, because I have some vague argument about Things Being Bad For Everyone” post a few weeks ago, I have come to believe that she is, in fact, the correspondent on Slate’s XX ladyblog most likely to actually know her stuff when it comes to lady issues. Which, given Slate’s commitment to bringing the “everyone knows this is bad; what my article presupposes is… maybe it ISN’T?” slant into the bold new world of girl stuff, is thoroughly refreshing. 
Me! Liking things! That have been published! It happens, from time to time. 

Terrible Things to Do With Your Time

Well, well! It appears that I will have this particular weekend all to myself! There are so many ill-advised actions I could take within this two-day period. Which will I choose?

1) Comparing My Vagina to a Leathery Old Bag

This is the path taken by Paris Hilton, who quoth:

“I’ve only ever done it with a couple of people. People make up stories, but mostly I just kiss. I think it’s important to play hard to get. Nobody wants the fake Prada bag – they want the brand new bag that no one can get and is the most expensive. If you give it up to a guy he won’t respect you. He’ll want you much more if he can’t have you.”

Feministe points out the gross “my vagina, which is an object, is expensive; marriage is the credit card with which you may purchase it” connotations; however, I think it is far more egregious to coyly refer to your vag as A BAG, WHICH BY DEFINITION IS SOMETHING PEOPLE STICK OBJECTS AND/OR THEIR HANDS INTO. This is by far the sluttiest chastity metaphor I’ve ever read. Personally, my vagina is more like Sparks; maybe it’s not all that great, but you’ll miss it when it’s gone. Also, it will turn your tongue orange. Strange, but true!

2) Having My Soul Devoured by an Undead Babymonster

The Baby Crazy, which is an ill that affects the American Woman Today, and which was recently explored on the factual news documentary program 30 Rock, can drive a woman to do strange and terrible things. Imagine really, really wanting a burrito, but instead of a burrito it is a massive life-long commitment that costs more than you make per year, every year, and also if you don’t do everything exactly right in regard to the burrito it will go mad and start killing sex workers because they remind it of you. That is a lot of pressure! Pressure that can drive a woman Crazy enough to purchase terrifyingly dead-eyed “reborn” babies in lieu of actual fleshbabies, as The Sexist points out, in her chilling gallery of same. My favorite is Natasha, who looks (as a wise commenter points out) a lot like Hitler, and also like the zombie child from Dead Alive.

Childbirth: it’s like this, but with your vagina.

3) Not Knowing What “Boner” Means


Hahahaha, I’LL JUST BET SHE WOULD. To be fair, Unnamed Fisherdude’s Wife has been saying for a while that she wishes her husband would get a Boner, so imagine how thrilled she’ll be when she finds out he’s ordered this!

4) Listening to This, Then Being Morally Obliged to Burst Out with Random YAA HAAAAA WOOO Noises All Day Long Until I Have No Friends Left

Yep, I think this is what I’m going with. GODDAMITBABYOUKNOWIAINTLYINTOYA, IMONLYGONNATELLYAONETIMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHYYYYYYYYYYAHHHH!!!!!

WHYYYYYYYYYY

Does anyone else get the sense that the people who are all, “jokes! They ruin everything! Now, please be civil and attend to my grandma-y prose” are just really sharply aware of how inherently ridiculous they are? David Denby is basically volunteering to become the entire world’s dorky substitute biology teacher, on the very day that we’re all supposed to learn the meaning of the word “organism.” We’re going to hear the phrases “act your age” and “now, settle down” a WHOLE LOT from this dude, in essence.

We’re bored, we hate it here (“here” being the culture at large, I guess), and he’s making it way too easy. (“The most gifted writer of snark in the country!” Is how he describes Maureen Dowd!!!) Yeah, it is probably immature and non-productive to poke fun at Denby. Then again, if he wants to avoid it, he should perhaps practice the tactic used by the above-quoted reviewer, Adam Sternbergh: being right.

— UPDATE: NOW MORE RELEVANT, LESS ASSY —

Okay, so: I guess I think that mean humor is a valid tool of media criticism? Also, you should, in fact, worry about being a boring guy in a sweater. You should worry hard.

SCIENCE FACT: People Who Say "I’m Not Racist or Anything" Totally Racist!

Yes, it’s true: some people who claim not to be racist also tend to not do anything or get upset at all when they witness obvious acts of racism! Finally, a SCIENCE FACT that explains why people read Vice magazine (endorsed by Colt 45: “It’s Ironic that You Drink It, Because in Your Mind You Associate It with Black and Poor People, which You’re Not!”)*

Now, onto the real mystery: what on earth have I been doing to cause this to show up as a contextual Google link in my WORK E-MAIL?

*Yes, I know, this is “Poop on Vice Week,” and it’s getting tired. What can I say? As a time traveler from the early part of this decade, during which some people actually read Vice, I care about these things.

Don’t Let This Happen to You!

Ah, the true promise of metroblogging: coverage of the all-important “ladies determined to be skanks” beat, neatly divided by city for ease of reference. Gothamist has never devoted substantive attention to this issue; Gawker (not really about NYC any more! But, whatever) and Young Manhattanite touch on it only rarely. The exciting new web publication Skanks in NYC promises to fill in the gap, however, kicking off its first entry with, “Ok so there are so many nasty bithces in the NYC scene, so now we can write about them.” Oh, happy day!

The first of the nasty bithces covered by Skanks in NYC is a thirty-six year old Vogue cover model by the name of Liskula Cohen. Liskula Cohen is also the second, third, fourth, and fifth woman covered by Skanks in NYC. In fact, she is the only person covered to date by the exciting new web publication Skanks in NYC. Oh, and also she is suing Google so that they’ll tell her who’s behind it?

Yeah, I know, ha ha, she’s suing the Google! What a quixotic thing to do! The person behind Skanks, if I had to guess, is either (a) a shitty ex-boyfriend, (b) a shitty aspiring boyfriend whom she rejected, or (c) some variety of stalker, so suing a hugenormous corporation for confidential info is an unlikely first step toward discovering his (her?) identity. However, I’m also assuming that she scoured the list of stored numbers on her cell, and was unable to obtain a confession or lead from any of them, so I can’t really judge her for going un poco crazy on this one.

One of the amazing facts of life in this, our modern age, is that since technology is advancing faster than society, dudes (and certain ladies) keep inventing new ways to be misogynist dicks on the Internet. There’s “revenge porn,” wherein your boyfriend makes sexytime movies with you, then posts them to the Internet when you break up. It’s awesome for him, because it’s proof that he has sex, but totally shameful for you, because it’s proof that you have sex. So, that takes care of the “crazed stalker” angle. For creepy, terrifying dude-on-the-street harassment, we have upskirting, wherein a dude can crawl between your legs, take a picture of your crotch, upload said picture to the Internet, and receive zero jail time because you do not have “a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy” regarding your vagina and its photographic presence on the Interwebs and/or use as a masturbatory aide. Fun! Yet only an extreme demonstration of the fact that no-one has a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy on the Internet, or in the world: anyone can photograph or film you at any time, and any photographic or filmed representation of you is subject to uploading and comment by the meanest people in the world, and you cannot make it go away. The pictures on Skanks in NYC were apparently taken from Liskula’s own MySpace. Only the color commentary is new.

This would be no big deal – if your worst problem is the existence of mean people on the Internet, then I envy you your problems – except that, when it happens to women, it’s usually about misogyny, and it occurs within a cultural context where misogyny is not an empty threat. There’s that old Margaret Atwood story – when she asked a man why men feared women, he said “we’re afraid women will laugh at us,” whereas when she asked a group of women why they feared men, they said “we’re afraid men will kill us.” That’s not a baseless fear. In a world where it’s common for defense lawyers to get rapists off the hook by insinuating that their victims are “sluts,” being called a slut on the Internet – or living in a culture where the word “slut” can be applied to any sexually active woman – may, in fact, make you substantially less safe.

Of course, it is up to women to protect themselves! Therefore, I have constructed this questionnaire, to tell you whether you are vulnerable to Internet harassment.

(1)Are you sexy?
If so, have you assented to any requests for sex? Be aware that, by doing so, you may cause people to call you a “slut!”

(2)Are you sexy?
If so, have you denied any requests for sex? Be aware that, by doing so, you may cause people to call you a “bitch!”

(3) Are you unsexy?
Be aware that you can answer “yes” to both of the questions above, and also answer “yes” to this one! This is because beauty is subjective, and also photos can be unflattering. If you are unsexy, like Vogue cover model Liskula, you will cause people to call you things such as “horse faced” and “old.”

(4) Do you use social networking sites, such as MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, etc.?
Seriously, stop that! Using the same technology that everyone else on the planet possesses will only cause people to harass you.

(5) Have you ever been filmed, photographed, or seen in public?
(5a) Have you ever expressed an opinion in an Internet forum, or in a non-Internet forum, or kept a journal, or allowed someone to overhear you talking to yourself?
You should be aware that such actions function as engraved invitations, reading, “pray sir, insult me in a highly gendered fashion, preferably on the Internet, so that all may see!”

(6) Are you a dude?
What? You’re not? My God, you really are asking for it.

Potential Harm to a Dog? Never Have I Seen a Tear-Jerking Plot Device Less Hackneyed!

Just when I was considering not slamming my face into the kitchen table over and over until I lost all memory of Wendy and Lucy, I read this: 

You know what? I’m about to deliver a heartbreaking little fart composed by Destroyer. It’s very self-referential, so if you’re not familiar with his earlier work, you might as well not bother, but if noted indie film director Kelly Reichardt would care to lean into it? I’m sure she’d find it very illuminating. 

Moral Boundaries

Everybody has that one story: about September, and the planes, and where you were, and how scared you felt, and how you kept calling people to see who was and was not okay. My story is, like most of those, pretty standard. I remember being on the phone with an out-of-town friend and saying, “I’m so scared we’re going to go to war. I’m so scared that we’re going to retaliate, and that people will just keep dying.”

“Obviously, we’re going to go to war,” he said, because in a crisis what you really want to do is prove once and for all that you are smarter than the person you are talking to, “and I can’t say I disagree with that. We have to defend ourselves. When I look at the footage… anyone who could do this just isn’t human.”

If I had been smarter, or better educated, or calmer, or possessed of the ability to see into the future (and create comic books based on my visions, is I guess how that works?) I would have had about a thousand well-reasoned critiques of that statement.

“Everybody’s human,” was the only thing I could say at the time.

Which, honestly, is the entire problem facing us as a generation, and as a species. It’s the issue that will define us as moral beings, based on how well we understand and act on it in our own lives. It keeps cropping up, on a variety of scales, even after you’ve finally protested the war or read up on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict or watched The Wire and had your big moment around it all, and even when you think you’re talking about something else – is it OK to dismiss people based on their clothes and music, when you know for a fact they would dismiss you and yours based on the same? The people who complain about “liberal elitism” are striving to maintain the security and dominance of an elite, but does that really take away from the fact that they are sometimes right, that fear of the right’s policies really is often supported or supplanted by fear of people who “look” right-wing (read: uneducated, rural or suburban, poor, “mainstream,” or – for some reason – overweight) regardless of their actual politics? Can you say these things, even to friends, without coming across as hopelessly touchy-feely, can you talk about how people use hatred as a way to feel in control without seeming to condone hatred, can you dismiss the idea of “moral equivalency” and decry the politics of retaliation while also saying that no act, no matter how evil, occurs in a vacuum? – what you are really talking about is the fact that everybody’s human, and everybody has reasons, and how those reasons are often wrong and the actions they inspire are often atrocities, and how tempting it is to classify the people who hurt you as “less than,” and how classifying groups of people as “less than” is the first step towards hurting them, and how impossible it is to negotiate that truth every day.

Here is Sara Roy:

Why have we been unable to accept the fundamental humanity of Palestinians and include them within our moral boundaries? Rather, we reject any human connection with the people we are oppressing. Ultimately, our goal is to tribalize pain, narrowing the scope of human suffering to ourselves alone.

Our rejection of “the other” will undo us… As Jews in a post-Holocaust world empowered by a Jewish state, how do we as a people emerge from atrocity and abjection, empowered and also humane?

How does anyone? In a world that is so persistently, terrifyingly evil, how does anyone, ever?