The Guardian's Julie Bindel (no stranger to Jezebel) writes that while British men who kill their wives often use the defense of "provocation" to reduce their sentences to manslaughter, women who kill abusive husbands or boyfriend are often convicted of murder. She contrasts the case of Sara Thornton, who killed her husband after he repeatedly beat her, with that of Joseph McGrail, who kicked his common-law wife to death. A judge in Thornton's case said she should have "walked out or gone upstairs" instead of killing her husband; she was sentenced to life in prison. The judge in McGrail case, meanwhile, expressed "every sympathy" for him, and said his wife "would have tried the patience of a saint." He got a two-year suspended sentence.

Bindel writes,

For men who kill their partners, the defence of provocation is tailor-made. Provocation will reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter if the defendant can show that things were said or done to provoke them, causing them to experience a sudden loss of control. In such cases they will often justify their actions by claiming that they "just snapped" or "saw red". Judges have been known to express sympathy for men who claim they were nagged or cheated on by female partners, but often appear to have little for women who kill after being raped by their partners or experiencing domestic violence. This tends to be because when women who are being regularly beaten by their partners kill, their dominant emotions are usually fear or despair - not exactly a sudden, explosive "loss of self-control".

Judges may be more sympathetic to male killers because they see their anger at more justified, or because violent outbursts are more accepted from men than for women. But Bindel implicitly buys into double standard by writing that women's "dominant emotions are usually fear or despair." Society may expect the dominant emotions of abused women to be fear or despair, but that's a stereotype — one that may cause judges and juries to treat women more harshly when they do turn angry or violent. Killing an abuser obviously isn't a good solution for anyone, but the idea that it's somehow more natural for men is deeply damaging.

The view that men are provoked and somehow forced to kill, while women should know better, jibes with recent research on perceptions of male and female responses. Women who get angry are seen as emotional, while men are assumed to be reacting to some outside stimulus. Bindel illustrates this upsetting dichotomy in her analysis of Thornton's case: "as the judge's comments made clear, little was known about what drives a battered woman to kill her abuser." Wouldn't that be abuse? If McGrail's wife's actions drove him to kill her, why couldn't the beatings Thornton received drive her? Again, murder is never justified, but why can the British courts explain it away for men but not for women?

The research on emotion implies that people see women as flighty and fragile, but the cases Bindel discusses bring up another stereotype: that women have a greater obligation to control their tempers than men do. Bindel mentions Alicia Crown, who killed her boyfriend in what she says was self-defense. Her lawyers argued that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder from her boyfriend's abuse and from a difficult upbringing in Jamaica, but the jury rejected this defense, seeing her as "remarkably resilient." Domestic violence expert Marai Larasi comments, "In my experience black women are particularly susceptible to being viewed as 'strong', able to cope and somehow not vulnerable." In this case it wasn't Crown's fragility that got her in trouble, it was the assumption that she, a black woman, should be "strong enough" to take abuse and not fight back.

Kirsty Scamp was sentenced to 12 years in prison for killing her abusive boyfriend Jason Bull. Scamp worked in a home for adults with behavioral problems, and Bindel writes that "the judge commented to the jury that Scamp should have been able to tolerate Bull's erratic outbursts because of her experience at work." Again, the assumption is that women have the responsibility to "tolerate" abuse.

The cases of Thornton, McGrail, Crown, and Scamp show that the way we perceive men's and women's emotions can have a terrifying impact on people's lives. We see men's feelings as determined by outside factors — if someone "provokes" them, it's natural for them to respond with violence. Yet for some reason we don't think of women's anger as being triggered in this way. The assumption that women's emotions come from within — that women are simply "emotional" creatures — delegitimizes these emotions. When a woman gets angry, or when she turns violent, it's not because of something someone else did — it's because she didn't sufficiently control herself. This leads not only to unfair gender disparities in sentencing, but also to victim-blaming and indifference to domestic violence. Certainly murderers deserve justice, but so do abuse victims, and no one is going to get this justice until we stamp out the view that a man's anger is justified, while a woman's is somehow her own fault.

Driven To Kill [Guardian]

Earlier: Study: Women Are "Emotional," Men Are "Having A Bad Day"

Although the photos included captions explaining the cause of the expressions (such as "buried a family pet" or "was threatened by an attacker"), participants still attributed the women's emotions to internal character, while only the men's were a response to external stimuli. Newsweek's Sharon Begley writes,

In other words, he's angry because of context: he was cut off by another driver, for instance, or because he was elbowed in an elevator. She's angry because of disposition, personality, temperament - she's emotional. And he's fearful because he's reacting to the situation - he found a rattlesnake in the house, say, or was trapped in a burning building. She's afraid because that's her nature.

Even though there may be no difference between men's and women's actual facial expressions, people still view women's responses as emotional outpourings from within (read: irrational) while men's stem directly from outside situations (read: appropriate, even logical). Study authors Lisa Feldman Barrett and Eliza Bliss-Moreau say this may explain why "women continue to be under-represented in positions of economic and political power that require a level head and a steady hand. Jobs that require rational decision-making and high levels of performance in demanding circumstances would presumably be unsuitable for those who cannot keep their head under pressure." It may also explain why women who cry at work are viewed more negatively than men who do the same thing.

It's upsetting that women as well as men in the study bought into the "emotional/bad day" double standard. If, as Begley says, "what we believe determines what we see," then we need to remember that women are no less rational than men, and their emotional responses no less valid. Otherwise we'll keep living in a world where people look at a woman who "was threatened by an attacker" and just see a fragile scaredy-cat.

Face To Face [Newsweek]

The Phoenix's list is a bit random (it reads like it was written by a slightly bitter 35 year old man) : everyone from Robert Pattinson to Bernie Madoff to the top spot, Rush Limbaugh, is included. And while the arguments for general douchiness, obnoxiousness, and skeeviness make some of their selections make sense, there are a few choices that we just can't get behind.


Patton Oswalt: The Phoenix argues that Patton Oswalt is funny, but fat. "Would it be unsporting to wonder if this schlub has partaken in a few too many of those KFC entrées that he derides as "failure piles in sadness bowls"?, the Phoenix asks. Uh, yes, it would. Patton Oswalt is hilarious. And smart, and adorable. And frankly, we'd rather go on a date with Patton (though we can't- he's married) than on a date with the type of person who makes fucking KFC jokes about someone else's body and deems them "unsexy." Whatever.


Russell Brand: The Phoenix notes that Brand has "a head that looks like an extravagantly groomed vagina." And then the paper deems him "unsexy." We'll remember that the next time a men's magazine bitches about women not having extravagantly groomed vaginas.


Joaquin Phoenix: I can not be the only one out there who has a ridiculously inappropriate crush on the batshit crazy version of Joaquin Phoenix. I just can't be. Especially with the likelihood of this "rap career" all being an elaborate Kaufman-esque stunt.


Pete Wentz: Now look, I am not a Pete Wentz fan. But I'm also not a fan of this: "If the Fall Out Boy-toy was nailing the hot Simpson sister, we might want to hear about his sexcapades. But he's married to the busted one, so we've had enough, homey." Have you, homey? Is that right, bro? Is that brotally awesome, bro?

Herein lies the problem with a list like this: if the title were "100 Unsexiest Women" we'd all be flipping our shit, no doubt. But the same ridiculous sexist horrible language is applied here: the men are ridiculed for being too fat, beady-eyed, dirty, etc. The list is, for the most part, relatively unfunny and obvious: Bernie Madoff is a dick! So is Rush Limbaugh! John Mayer is fucking annoying! So is that American Idol kid! For every take down of someone's persona, there are the fillers; men who were seemingly chosen to round out the top 100 (I mean, Hammer? In 2009? Really!?!), and who take the hits regarding their bodies.

The list desperately wants to be a Top 100 Assholes Who We Do Not Like list, but the "unsexy" factor is thrown in to make things seem a bit cheekier, and it kind of fails, mostly because a good portion of the men selected have never made a living off of their "sexiness", making the list just as obnoxious and irritating as those lists of "hot female politicians" and the like.

People used to ask us: "Hey, why not do an ‘Unsexiest Women' list?" Our answer has always been: "Unsexiest Men" is funny; "Unsexiest Women" is just mean," the Phoenix notes. I think it might be time to change your answer, guys.

100 Unsexiest Men [Boston Phoenix]

On the one hand, it's true — it is trickier for women to know what to wear for work. From the number of queries we've gotten here about appropriate work dress, I know that a workshop like the one at Ernst and Young, however problematic in principle, could actually be a godsend for women in a workplace who just want to be told what to wear for once, rather than trying to figure out what's appropriate. The fact that 400 women showed up could be proof of this — or did the workshop's very existence merely provoke a set of anxieties that hadn't existed before?

Anne Freden, chairman of Ernst & Young's women's network, says, "You don't want to be remembered as the woman with red lips, or leave people wondering, 'How does she walk on those heels?'" Well, sure, but most people probably don't have these reps: it doesn't take a course for most women not to wear a low-cut blouse to the office; it's called common sense. But apparently it is an issue for the company; says Freden: "There is a huge number of capable and talented women at Ernst & Young looking to maximise their achievement in the firm and in their career, and looking for the skills and tips and tools to do that...The firm doesn't view this as something that is nice to have, but as an integral part of the business strategy." Maybe that is what is worrisome about this: the implicit judgment — even threat — behind such policies.

Consider Fashiongate: while there was almost unilateral condemnation of the amount Sarah Palin managed to drop on clothes, many in the public eye themselves came to the governor's defense, talking about the unusual scrutiny placed on women's appearance. The attitude seemed to be, not merely does she need to look okay - she needs to look great. This is both a pressure — and in some dubious lights — advantage that male counterparts simply don't have. While no one wants to make a poor first impression in a professional context, some of what's troubling is the insinuation that a woman can use wiles — work her colors, sport designer — at the expense of those, be it men or other, less savvy females, who are simply professional.

Not to get Cold War on you, but all of this kind of makes me want a uniform — because it's not like we're dealing in self-expression here, anyway. Or at any rate, let's stop pretending "business casual" really allows us any freedom — clearly all these superficial relaxations have just created a hundred new pitfalls for women to look too sexy, not feminine enough, or insufficiently professional. When we're told, 'wear what you want, but what you want is wrong — take this optional class you all need'— well, can we just drop the charade already and bring on the dress codes? Some of that Socialist Chic wasn't half bad!

Female Accountants Sent On Course To Learn How To Dress Appropriately[Telegraph]
Clothes That Add Up: Female Accountants Are Taught To Dress For Success [Daily Mail]

I'm pissed because people so frequently try to take women down a peg by attacking their sexuality, automatically throwing out names like "whore" and "slut." And that shit happens to me, even though I own my promiscuity. It's even more hurtful when it comes from other women.

Sexual double standards are still annoyingly prevalent, and tearing them down has been my personal crusade as a feminist. Accepting insults cast upon my sex life would be undoing everything I've set out to accomplish. I hate when people say that I fuck so much because I have a low self-esteem, or that I'm lonely, or that I just want attention. In fact, in my first ever post on my personal blog, I stated that the only void I'm trying to fill is the one between my legs. And I know that I'm not the only one. There are tons of other women out there just like me (you're probably reading this right now!), who engage in casual sex purely for the physical merits of it. And I think that we all find comfort or solidarity in sharing our stories with each other, because as women, that's how we do: Bitches love talking.

I feel defeated sometimes knowing that people aren't able to fathom that women don't need a reason to have sex other than just wanting to fuck. It's like, if we aren't in a relationship or prostituting, then there must something wrong with us. By saying that sex is only useful to single women as a commodity devalues our existence.

What's more is that I've never tried to be sexy in my writing. If anything, I like to explore the more unpleasant aspects of sex, because they're more interesting to me (like herpes or queefing). And you know, I don't have any delusions about being completely altruistic. I get plenty of benefits from writing about sex, like this job, for example.

I know I can tend to be all TMI, but I think that's because I place a lot of emphasis on I, and if people think that's TM, then TS. That's much more of a reflection on them than me. I've noticed that the shit I tend to write is like a literary Rorschach test.

And I'm probably preaching to the choir here, since this isn't a common problem I encounter on Jezebel (which actually proves my point that I'm not the only unabashed slut out there). But from here on out, I'm putting my foot down. I'm not taking any shit anymore, because like it or not, it's not gonna keep me from spreading my legs, my anecdotes, or my opinions. Real talk.

Earlier: Queefs: What's The Etiquette For Dealing With Air Up There?
Contrary To Popular Belief, Herpes Is So Whatevs
Last Night I Boned An AVN Award Nominee

I think women cook different food, and I think women cook better food. It's more from the heart and more from the soul. I look at this whole molecular-gastronomy thing, and I'm like, "Boys with toys." They're just fascinated with technology and chemistry sets. I think we make better-tasting food. I'm sorry, I know that's politically incorrect.

• Patricia Yeo: "I think men aren't as nervous about asking [for funding]. They seem to be able to say, 'Listen, this is what I want, give it to me.' Women, I think, have a harder time with it. You get notoriety because you're a woman, but do you really want the notoriety because you're a woman? You want to be known just because you are a great chef."
• Rebecca Charles "RC: It's the boys' club. It's incredible, and I never used to buy into stuff like that."
• Alex Guarnaschelli: You have to put on a pair of fishnet stockings, and you have to get yourself on television. I find myself hoping I can get on a TV show and then people from Oklahoma will come to my restaurant. Then I'll be able to make enough money to open my own place.

So yeah, essentially women have problems getting famous for cooking because cooking is housework and anyone who is too good at housework should be seen and not heard, preferably in heels and fishnets, but occasionally a dude can come along and break the mold because he knows how to talk flashy and over-analytical to other dudes while his long suffering pastry chefs roll their eyes and stare stubbornly at the sink. Kinda makes you want to forget the food altogether and smoke a cigarette, eh? Hey, it works for models! Which is still about the only career in which women make better money than men.

Top Female Chefs [New York Magazine]
Peg Bracken, 'I Hate To Cook' Author, Dies At 89 [NY Times]