We've since learned that "the underground shirt" (one student helpfully clarifies: "for all of your old people that means no one except students knew and the way you got them was an 'under the table' transaction") is a tradition at Houston's Memorial High, in which a group of seniors designs a T-shirt denigrating rival Stratford High in some sexual way, and then sells it in secret. Students apparently wear the "underground shirt" to the big Memorial-Stratford football game under their regular shirts, presumably warmed by the feeling of keeping bestiality close to their hearts. According to the Memorial High students and alums who commented on our post (not all were approved), everybody at Memorial pretty much thinks the shirts are awesome and hilarious. Of course, while no student would admit to buying a shirt on KPRC-TV (clip above), two female students criticized this year's shirt, saying "no girl should be like that on a shirt," and "I think it's offensive."

But no matter — the real point, as many commenters have hastened to tell us, is that we are humorless feminazis for denigrating their cherished apparel. The comments on yesterday's post offer a veritable Hall of Fame of anti-feminist clichés. Their vitriol reveals that misogyny starts young, and its similarity to more established outlets of feminist-hate shows that it never really grows up! We've selected four of our favorites (plus one bonus).

1. Feminists Can't Take A Joke.

How about we all stop and think about this for a second? Do we really, honestly believe that the shirt was created with the intent to degrade women? No. I am a senior at Memorial High School, and I find it disturbing that there are actually people in this world that cannot comprehend a simple, meaningless joke.

In fact, we at Jezebel and, I'm pretty sure, the girls who criticized the shirt to KPRC, are aware that it was intended as a joke. We are also aware that some jokes are degrading to women, and that we are not obligated to find these jokes funny. A joke is not a magic form of speech that is above all criticism. Ann Bartow, author of the original Feminist Law Professors post that broke this story open, helpfully elaborates:

As far as the shirts being "a joke" I just have to ask what is funny about images of sexual assault. There are a lot of powerful and creative ways to mock an opponent without leveraging gender and rape. And given it's a football rivalry at issue, in which all the players are male, why the focus on raping cheerleaders? Maybe if the Memorial students learned about the ways that rape has been used as a tool of terror and genocide (see e.g. WWII, Bosnia, the Congo) they wouldn't find rape imagery so funny.

2. Some Girls Like [X], So It Must Be Okay (Also Known As The Tucker Max Theorem).

Just as many girls, if not more girls than guys, buy and wear the shirt. I was just interviewed by major Houston news station up at the school, and immediately afterwards a sophomore girl approached me and asked if I knew where she could get one.

Much as men sometimes differ in their opinions on important issues, women are also capable of disapproving of something that some women like. I, for instance, find Ann Coulter offensive. The fact that she, a woman, likes herself and believes her views are accurate does not make my viewpoint invalid. Nor does the fact that some women enjoy wearing a certain shirt bar other women from being upset by it. I should also note that what women tell men, especially in high school, about what does or does not offend them may be quite different from what they actually feel.

3. Criticizing Misogyny Is A Waste Of Time.

Chill people, find better things to do with your time and real issues to fight. The fact that you are all freaking out about this is simply pathetic. Get a fucking life!

This particular commenter didn't offer any examples of "better things to do with our time," nor did s/he indicate whether leaving anonymous comments would be one of them. Putting aside the irony of criticizing, on a blog, people who criticize things on blogs, we should note that anti-feminists usually consider criticism "pathetic" only if it is aimed at things they themselves support. Insulting women is called "free speech."

4. Feminists Have No Lives, But Many Cats.

I feel that the people getting over worked about something like this truly need to find something better to get there panties bunched up about. As for the feminist law professors have fun cooking dinner tonight telling each one of your 9 cats how your day was and then watching re-runs of Growing Pains, and inspiring romantic comedies as well as dreaming of the life that could have been had you chosen a different profession.

You know, this guy's right! The minute I became a Professional Feminist, the cats just started arriving. And every time I point out an instance of misogyny, another one appears! (No wonder no one likes me except for my television.) Seriously, this particular cliché seems to be rooted in the idea that society in general is so awesome to women that we need some kind of huge personal disappointment to make us angry. I kind of wish that "having a life" were enough to to eliminate all feminist anger — then I would be a sunnier person.

As a bonus, I'd now like to print the most bizarre defense of the shirt we received. This is too weird to qualify as an anti-feminist cliché, but it does illustrate the very short distance between misogyny and homophobia.

We have nothing against women at all, so if that was your first thought after seeing this then you are focusing way too much on the fact that the spartan is female. Fact of the matter is is that no one would have bought a shirt with two horses fucking a male football player. [...] Anyway, to end this: The shirt was not intended to be sexist, the fact that the spartan is female is only relevant in that no one would want to buy a shirt depicting gay sex.

See, two horses Eiffel-towering a female cheerleader is totally normal and funny. But the same horses having sex with a guy would be gay. And of course, nobody wants that.

Five Things We Learned From The Memorial High T-Shirt Fiasco [Houston Press]
Memorial High: Staying Classy As Ever With The Stratford Rivalry [Houston Press]
The Pornification Of A High School Sports Rivalry [Feminist Law Professors]
Houston-Area High Schools Take Their Rivalries Very Seriously [Back Porch]
Some Find Football Rivalry Shirt Offensive [Click2Houston]

Tad Friend hasn't always been kind to female subjects, but he's on relatively good behavior in his New Yorker profile of Finke, whose blog Deadline Hollywood Daily he calls "Hollywood's most dreaded news source." Friend calls Finke "a combination town crier and volcano god" who "portrays many of the town's leaders as jackasses who golf at exclusive preserves, elbow underlings aside to hog the spotlight, downsize those underlings while lining their own pockets, and generally besmirch the fabric of civilization." While he does quote various expressions of her rage (i.e. an e-mail titled "WHY ARE YOU AND JOEL SILVER LYING?"), pretty much the worst thing he calls Finke is "intemperate." She's been called far worse.

Finke herself says Universal president Ron Meyer (now a "defender" of Finke) used to call her "that fucking cunt," which he not only doesn't deny but seems quite pleased to hear about from Friend. Continuing in the female-anatomy vein, producer Ray Stark told her, "Girlie, if you ever fuck me, I'm going to personally come over to your house and give you a hysterectomy." Even fictional characters have gotten into the act: an agent on Entourage recently said, "I'll fuck Nikki Finke before I let her affect my business decisions."

It's tempting to think that Finke comes in for all this harsh and disgusting vitriol because she's a woman in a man's world — and an outspoken woman at that. And certainly some have told Finke to be more ladylike. According to Friend, Variety's Peter Bart once wrote that Finke had attended "Miss Hewitt's Classes in New York, which taught upscale girls how to be warm and cuddly. I'd like her to take a warm-and-cuddly refresher course." But all the colorful disses aimed at Finke's reproductive organs may be as much a sign of membership in the boys' club as they are an attempt to boot her out of it. Friend writes,

In a curious way, Finke makes the entertainment industry feel better about itself. When she writes that "New Line was left holding its dick" or that if Jay Leno "starts whining like the pussy he is, tell him to man up and shut up," she reassures everyone that Hollywood really is as ballsy as its denizens would like to believe. Finke explains, "I talk to alpha males all day, and the women I talk to are alpha females, so I end up writing like a man, in the language they're comfortable with. I don't pretty it up."

Finke clearly sees herself not as the victim of misogyny but as a participant in masculine, tell-it-like-it-is discourse. For her, "writing like a man" can mean impugning the character of women who made her friends look bad. When the LA Times published domestic violence allegations Meyer's ex-girlfriend Cynthia Garvey had made against him, Finke wrote, "the newspaper chose not to publish that Garvey has accused four ex-boyfriends of domestic violence against her." Writing like a man also means never using an inoffensive word when an offensive one will do — in a post basically mocking The New Yorker for not being more critical of her or Hollywood, Finke makes sure to point out that Harvey Weinstein also called her a cunt (and not a "jerk," as the magazine eventually printed). Elsewhere in her thoroughly distasteful post, she wrote,

I found Tad Friend, who covers Hollywood from Brooklyn, easy to manipulate, as was David Remnick, whom I enjoyed bitchslapping throughout but especially during the very slipshod factchecking process.

And,

Warner Bros and Universal and DreamWorks and William Morris/Endeavor and Summit Entertainment execs and flacks and consultants also had their way with the mag. (They were even laughing about it. When I asked one PR person what it took to convince Tad to take out whole portions of the article, the response was, "I swallowed.")

And,

Now remember, readers: you, too, can make The New Yorker your buttboy. Just act like a cunt and treat Remnick like a putz and don't give a fuck.

Finke's obviously a full and willing participant in a Hollywood rhetoric of bitch-slapping, blowjobs, and butt-rape. It's a fundamentally homophobic rhetoric (Friend too documents Finke's fondness for the word "buttboy"), and one whose misogyny Finke employs as gleefully as anybody else. Friend writes that in Hollywood, "relationships are matters of dominance and submission." And apparently chronicling those relationships is a matter of representing those who have submitted in some way (by, for instance, using the word "cunt" just once) as women, gays, or rape victims. You know, losers.

Her detractors aside, Finke does appear to be a powerful Hollywood presence. She's become one in part through savvy and guile and relationship-building, and in part through what David Carr of the Times calls "a weaponized rhetoric designed to maim and ridicule." She seems to view this rhetoric as a symbol of her power — her "alpha" status — and her comfort with a big-dicks-versus-pussies writing style pioneered by misogynists, homophobes, and bullies shows that ultimately these qualities know no gender. Finke doesn't write "like a man," she just writes like an asshole.

Call Me [The New Yorker]
Hollywood Manipulated The New Yorker [Deadline Hollywood Daily]
Darling Nikki: New Yorker Profile Sparks Profane Response [NYT]

Turner writes that complaints of misogyny can always be "shrug[ged] off with the age-old refrain: the trouble with you birds, is, you can't take a joke." She writes about a recent Spectator column on the fuckability of Labour MP Harriet Harman (pictured), and a run-in where she passed up the chance to express her indignation:

I spotted the Spectator editor at the time, Matthew D'Ancona - who I know a little socially - at a film screening. I sat throughout the movie planning what I would say: how disappointed I was that such a celebratedly clever and cultured man could print such garbage. But in the end I just left. It was easier to say nothing than to risk weary accusations of being a strident old ranty-pants, him laughing behind his hands later. Yet it is such silence that granted him permission to publish.

I know the feeling. It's a lot more fun to be the person uttering snide jabs (i.e. "So - Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober.") than the one getting mad about them, and the allegation of humorlessness is a pretty hard one to defend against. Saying, "I do too have a sense of humor, just not about this" is pretty unfunny, and in my experience tends to prove my opponent's point. Making feminism even harder to sell is the fact that it often attacks things that men are supposed to find hot — the pursuit of ever-younger partners, for instance, or surgically enhanced breasts, or mainstream pornography. I've had more than one depressing conversation with a man in which it's clear that he thinks I'm "against" anything sexy. I turn into the fun police, and whatever I'm supposedly forbidding becomes taboo — and thus even more exciting.

In elementary school, I learned that the best way to deal with someone who's bothering you is to ignore them. And indeed, some feminist-baiters, especially on the vast fringes of the Internet, are best left alone. But as Turner points out, silence is also implicit permission. And since many of the engines of misogyny aren't individual people who depend on reactions for their continued existence, but big corporations with a stake in female insecurity, this is a big problem.

In an earlier column, Turner decries the pressure on young girls to be "skinny, [with] full breasts, long hair, full lips and an utterly hair-free body," a pressure that she says "comes direct from the porn industry." But, she says, "if old-school feminists protest against this pornification, we are accused of being anti-sex, not groovy enough to enter that 24/7 pleasuredome of modern youth culture." The interesting thing about this "pleasuredome," though, is how unsexy it actually is. You don't have to be anti-sex, or even anti-porn, to chafe at a dominant aesthetic that just happens to play right into the pocketbooks of the beauty and anti-aging industries. Our cultural preference for skinny, nubile women is at least as much about money as it is about male desire — and it's about the least taboo thing I can imagine.

Rebelling against a system that actually tells men what to like — as well as, of course, telling women how to be — actually seems kind of sexy. And refusing to do what you're told — in this case, to quietly accept sexism so as not to seem "strident" — can be exciting. So rather than reading Turner's new column — which this week includes some pretty grotesque sexual harassment involving a pen — as the blotter of the fun police, I'm going to think of it as a dispatch from the fun radicals, a textual Molotov tossed into the edifice of institutionalized misogyny. And I'm going to enjoy it.

It's Time To Challenge Casual Sexism [TimesOnline]
When Feminism Went Nuts [TimesOnline]
‘Babe' Watch: Sexism In Daily Life [TimesOnline]
Harriet Harman Is Either Thick Or Criminally Disingenuous [Spectator]

New York blogger Dan Kois writes that Max independently financed his upcoming movie I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell, turning down $2 million from Searchlight because, "It's, like, what's $2 million if they own your life? I'd rather die standing than live with their boot on my neck." Principles intact, this booze-swilling, girl-dissing, "professional at humiliating and 'debasing' people" has staked his future on the film. He told Chris Lee of the LA Times:

If it fails, the investors lose everything and we got nothing but a . . . movie. But if it works, man! We have not just done an independent movie with a $7-million budget. We distributed it and marketed it ourselves. It's super risky, I know. But if it works, we own the movie outright.

Kois writes that if Max's film succeeds, "he's set himself up to become the next Tyler Perry. Like Perry, Max has built a grassroots following through constant touring, mostly under the radar of the mainstream media." Kois describes this audience as "the kids just out of college (or barely into it) who read his blog, swarm his book signings, laugh when he insults them, and have sex with him in the end zone of a Florida football stadium." Lee was fortunate enough to interview one of these "kids," a 25-year-old graphic designer from Palo Alto who says,

The guy is a hero to me. The coolest person on the planet. He gives you hope: that you don't have to play by the rules and you can have fun by doing whatever the hell you want.

Presumably those "rules" are made by all those powerful female leaders of the world who make sure that no one ever objectifies, humiliates, or takes advantage of women. It really is refreshing that someone has the courage to call a girl a "slut" for once in this repressive climate where women's sexual behavior goes un-judged and un-commented upon. And that someone's finally speaking up for all the silenced frat boys of the world.

Kois does seem to be buying this, a little bit. He writes,

[L]ike Perry, Max serves a niche audience that major studios can have trouble reaching. In Perry's case, it was middle-class blacks, a group Hollywood had mostly given up on. For the young people who make up Max's fan base, that's never been an issue; in fact, you might complain that nearly every movie made today is designed to appeal to under-25s. But they're an audience that's never been big on brand loyalty, and Max is one of the first entertainers to capture and hold their attention on the Internet - and then translate that attention into real kids spending real dollars.

So while Max's audience — the douchebags and douchebag-allies for whom mainstream film basically exists — might not be as underserved as Perry's, he's still noteworthy for his attempt to take Internet fame to the box office? Frankly, if Max is able to make money by putting misogyny on film as well on his blog, it'll be about as surprising as dudes drinking beer out of both bottles and cans.

However, Max is now claiming he's offering something deeper than sexism (which "isn't the same as misogyny, you stupid bitch"). He says he now wants to do a four-movie series cataloguing his character's — and his own — transformation "from a functional narcissist to a caring narcissist." While this maturation from dick to less-of-a-dick does sound heartwarming, the cad-turned-standup-guy-with-no-long-term-repercussions is hardly a new Hollywood archetype. The Sexist's Amanda Hess points out that all of Tucker Max's jokes can be broken down into a few simple formulas. And Perry comparisons notwithstanding, all of the Tucker Max "phenomenon" is pretty much like this: same shit, different package.

Is Tucker Max The Next Tyler Perry? [New York Magazine: Vulture Blog]
The Anatomy Of A Tucker Max Joke [The Sexist]
Tucker Max In A 'Hell' Of His Own Making [LA Times]

In a mostly thoughtful piece, the Times's Amy Turner points out that love-shyness is not in the DSM-IV, nor is it universally recognized as a mental disorder. However, she writes,

the men who claim to suffer from love shyness (LS) all have in common the complete inability to initiate or to engage in romantic interplay. This renders them terminally, heartbrokenly, virginally lonely. They hold down jobs, they have some friends - these men are not antisocial, unattractive losers. They are normal, unassuming men in whom the confidence to approach women is missing.

While Turner is largely sympathetic to these men's plight, her language here reveals a certain amount of institutionalized prejudice. Should we really expect men to be "antisocial, unattractive losers" just because they can't get a date? Isn't that just as bad as assuming that single women are ugly cat ladies? The assumption that men without women are losers is just one of the difficulties love-shy guys have to contend with.

Many of the other difficulties come from within. One man, 24-year-old John, says "I've got absolutely nothing to offer" a woman. A teenage encounter with a girl ended in ridicule, and John has never kissed or even made friends with a woman since. Some psychologists say love-shyness is really just social anxiety disorder, which already has a definition and a recommended treatment, and even Professor Brian Gilmartin, who coined the term "love-shy," believes up to 40% of sufferers have Asperger's. So is there really any reason to look at love-shyness as its own phenomenon?

Maybe, if it can help us explain why some men turn misogynistic and even violent. Turner mentions the website Love-Shy.com, which she says attracts Incel ("involuntarily celibate") visitors, and those who subscribe to "true forced loneliness" or pickup artistry. A look at the website does reveal some disturbing tips. On the one hand, Love-Shy's FAQ offers good advice for anyone:

Concentrate on becoming more positive to the world and life in general. Look people in the eyes. Say hello to people in shops and people you pass on the street. Smile! Be your own positive self.

But it also tells shy guys to read "Without Embarrassment by Mike Pilinski. This will give you a crucial look into the woman's brain. How she reacts and why she reacts like that." The idea that there's a single thing called "the woman's brain" and that the solution to your shyness is to learn "how she reacts" shifts the problem off onto women, and makes overcoming shyness about manipulating them, rather than changing yourself. The FAQ also recommends that a shy dude "Become a High Status Male, as described in the book by Mike Pilinski." So what's Pilinksi all about?

His website, HighStatusMale.com (mildly NSFW), is really more silly than scary, with its graphics of a lady in a thong, a man yelling into a phone, and a "Male Dominance Scale" (at one end: "physically deformed;" at the other: "pro athlete"). Pilinski's book Without Embarrassment seems designed to help men overcome shame and fear of rejection, both worthy goals. Even the upsettingly titled She's Yours For the Taking is nowhere near as bad as the teachings of Roissy or Mystery — the excerpts available online don't advocate negging women or looking down on them, they just teach men how to create an "edge," like the trifecta of certified lady-killers — "bikers and snowboarders and stage performers."

This is all pretty easy to make fun of (would a snowboarding mime be the most successful man of all?), but the truth is that even harmless "seduction manuals" spread the notion that the solution to shyness is some sort of concentrated campaign to get women to fall for you. The appeal of this approach is obvious — shy people, especially men who lack romantic or sexual experience, may feel powerless. Pilinski's goal is to convince them that they can gain power over the opposite sex (Love-Shy.com and HighStatusMale.com seem to focus totally on straight guys, leading me to wonder if the gay community has any equivalents of TFL or PUA) using a few simple rules.

It's no surprise that repeated rejection combined with social anxiety would lead some people to think that the only way to have a successful relationship is to exert some kind of mind control over one's would-be partner. But it's not actually possible to control women's minds using a book, and even if it were, relationships where you have all the control are no fun anyway. More disturbingly, the idea that the proper way to relate to women is to manipulate them is extremely damaging — especially to men who have never even had a female friend. Pilinski's recommended techniques are rather benign, but they do set up an adversarial relationship between men and women, and if they fail, this relationship can easily become poisonous. It's not hard to imagine a man who finds that particular women aren't "his for the taking" becoming enraged, and turning his anger on all women. Sodini may not have visited Love-Shy.com, but he was a fan of seduction guides, and his blog reflected their generalization and objectification of women in an extreme form. Anyone who says that "the woman's brain" is a unitary entity that can be controlled is starting men off on the path to misogyny — and the men who visit Love-Shy.com are especially vulnerable.

George Sodini was questioned on July 30, a week before the gym killings, because he matched the description of a man who had been seen playing with a hand grenade on a bus. He was eventually let go because a witness couldn't identify him. It's surprising that police didn't find his blog at that time. Hopefully now law enforcement will take misogynistic online writings more seriously — and hopefully clinicians will teach "love-shy" men that manipulation isn't the answer.

Gym Gunman Had Been Questioned By Police [CBS]
Love Shyness: The 'Condition' Crippling Men [TimesOnline]
HighStatusMale.com [Official Site]
Love-Shy.com [Official Site]

In an editorial titled "Women At Risk," Herbert touches upon the the recent gym shooting in Pennsylvania, as well as various shootings that have taken place across the country over the past few years, and notes that the media tends to brush past the obvious misogyny behind many of these crimes, noting that "we have become so accustomed to living in a society saturated with misogyny that the barbaric treatment of women and girls has come to be more or less expected." Acknowledging the culture of misogyny that spawns such horrific acts, Herbert argues, is the first step towards stopping them.

While many commenters on Herbert's piece thanked him for pointing this out and noted their own brushes with misogyny on a daily basis, some commenters denied that our culture is filled with misogynistic messages, choosing instead to blame "crazies" and dismissing Herbert's argument as over-the-top and ridiculous:

28.
Cdr. John Newlin, USN (Ret.)
Vista, Calif.
August 8th, 2009
9:27 am
Sigh. We so blissfully ignore the warnings that scientists have been issuing for years now. There have been a number of studies of rats living in confined spaces. The results of these studies have been congruent. As the rat population increases and the size of the confining space remains constant, the rat-on-rat violence emerges and increases.

In a society of increasing population and social pressures, when anyone who really wants one can get a gun or even an assault weapon, such incidents are bound to happen.

We cannot decrease our population. We seem to be unable to slow the growth of the poor and impoverished. We are doomed by Darwin's truth. The more humans that inhabit our cities like rats in mazes, the more demand for food and energy. And that demand is slowly but surely is killing planet earth. And it won't be long - much sooner than even those that know that it is coming - before earth starts killing its inhabitants. And that, as Edith Ann was wont to say, is the truth.

So you see, it's not misogyny, but population control that's the problem. If only people would stop breeding! Then we wouldn't have misogynistic killing sprees at all.

44.
MT
Washington, DC
August 8th, 2009
9:48 am
Hmm, let's see:

According to Mr. Herbert, killing females because they are females is a sign of misogyny.

But lots more men are killed than women in the United States, and undoubtedly many if not most of these men were killed because they were males. Such violence against males must be a sign of misandry, according to Mr. Herbert's formulation.

Furthermore, following Mr. Herbert's own logic, because so many more men are killed than women, the scale of our society's misandry must be much, much greater than the scale of our society's misogyny.

Which means that Mr. Herbert should be writing many, many more columns about violence against men then he should about violence against women.

Frankly, Mr. Herbert's real mistake is to insist on viewing this matter through the prism of gender, which leads him to not only insult the entire male half of the species but also ignore the fact that females commit violence as well — the majority of violent abuse of children is committed by females, for example. (Google it.)

Perhaps Mr. Herbert should remove his ideological blinders and focus on the real issue: reducing violence, in all its permutations.

Misogyny! Blah blah blah, ladies! Let's get back to what really matters: MEN.

49.
Nick Bourbaki
LA
August 8th, 2009
10:03 am
This is ludicrous; if anything the culture in the US today is rife with misandry and reverse racism, but you won't see Mr. Herbert writing about that anytime soon, because the idea that someone not a woman or a minority can have it just as bad, whether it be in divorce courts or college admissions, is considered a threat to the inexorable march of Mr. Herbert and his ilk towards an America free from the oppressive white man. What is truly expected is that the descendants of those who ill-treated women or blacks genuflect at the trinity of feminism, multiculturism and affirmative action, as is evidenced by the proceedings in our courts and colleges and Obama's shortlist for the Supreme Court. All this aside, perhaps Mr. Herbert should consider that a reason why this didn't provoke wide outrage at misogyny in our culture is because most people realized that the actions of an insane lone gunman do not reflect upon all men (or misogynists, since the two seem to be interchangable), much less on our national culture. This crime didn't occur because of a culture of misogyny, it occurred because the gunman was out of his mind. Even then, what is your solution Mr. Herbert? Mr. Sodini's obsession with women was genetically hard-wired into him by millions of years of evolution, which he had no choice over, and exacerbated by his warped mind, a personal suffering, not a societal one. Would you have all men chemically castrated and subdued, that the poor women shan't suffer more?

Also, I find it highly hippocritical that those who vehemently support the freedom and legitimacy of sexual pleasure in premarital and homosexual relationships, like Mr. Herbert, despite the ire of the religious fundamentalists, now turn around and join hands with the religious against pornography, which is a different form of sexual pleasure, apparently favored by many more than Mr. Herbert might imagine, considering that there are more such sites than the rest put together. If you contest that the practice somehow abuses the actresses (again ignoring altogether the well-being of the actors, who are just as involved and vulnerable), then would you say that the suffering of the enormous number of children born out of wedlock who's fathers have no societal obligations towards them and are entirely absent from their lives, save a check every month, which cannot replace a father present in the home, are less than those of the adult actress? Surely then you ought advocate abstinence, for these children were conceived in a time rife with birth control. What about those children caught in a divorce, who suffer similarly? Then you ought advocate a ban on divorces for reasons not grave, which constitute the large majority; for it is difficult to believe that so many so abuse their spouses that there is no other choice. The children did not choose this and have no way out, but the actresses did and do. Of course you won't speak out for the children with the same vindication that you denounce pornography as misogyny, since you would have to oppose the party line of unrestricted promiscuity or the prevalence of parental conflict over their obligation to their family.

This is so "hippocritical!" WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE OPPRESSED WHITE MEN!?!?

50.
GHF
Orlando, FL
August 8th, 2009
10:03 am
"They are attacked because they are female."

There is a simple solution. Sam Colt, John Moses Browning, Gaston Glock, Smith and Wesson, the Beretta family, etc., provide the way to make women - in a physical confrontation - the same size as their potenital male attackers.

Make the price of an attack high enough, and the certainy of the negative response sure enough, and the possibility of attack diaminishes.

Gun fights are inheriently head games. For the female, the old, the outnumbered it is not how strong you are, it is how focused and under control you are that count. This might sound mad (Mutually Assured Distruction, the olde Cold War phrase), but it beats hang-wringing over events.

Look, if the ladies knew how to shoot a gun, they'd never face misogyny again. Don't have a penis? Buy a weapon instead!

179.
Marcia424
Eagan, MN
August 8th, 2009
1:04 pm
Women and girls all too often don't repect themselves. As a grade school teacher, I regularly saw boys teasing girls, often in an insulting, overly sexual way. Typically the girls responded with giggles—they were flattered. The next step is the adult "boy" saying after an assault,"She wanted it!"

Girls needn't turn into little Puritans, but they do need to respect themselves enough to help boys see them as human beings, not just as dolls for their amusement. Dare I use the word "empathy"?

And, as always, it's all our fault.

Women At Risk [NYTimes]
Women At Risk: Reader's Comments [NYTimes]

Jennifer Pozner of WIMN"s Voices connects Sodini's crimes with previous mass killings. She writes,

Perhaps it takes this level of hit-us-over-the-head bluntness for media to notice that a mass murder is also a hate crime, when the victims of that crime are solely women. In contrast to many other shootings in which similar motivations have gone unreported over the past two decades, the AP [...] have chosen to discuss the extremely relevant role of misogyny as the root cause of the bloody tragedy in Collier County.

The "bluntness" Pozner mentions — Sodini left behind a website detailing his hatred for and desire to kill women — may be the reason that the misogyny angle is getting some play in mainstream reports of the crime. But it wasn't even the bluntest misogynist killing in recent memory. That would be the Montreal Massacre of 1989, in which 25-year-old Marc Lépine shot 28 people and himself at Montreal's École Polytechnique, claiming he was "fighting feminism." He told a group of women "You're women, you're going to be engineers. You're all a bunch of feminists. I hate feminists," before shooting them, and wrote in his suicide note, "I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker."

As Pozner (and Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon) point out, though, the Montréal Massacre is not the only recent example of misogynist mass murder. In 2006, Charles Roberts IV killed five girls in an Amish schoolhouse after allowing male students to leave. He may have been motivated by guilt over molesting girls many years earlier, and by a desire to molest again. Also in 2006, Duane Roger Morrison took six girls hostage at Platte Canyon High School, sexually assaulted them, and shot one. And Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech killer, had been accused of stalking female students before his deadly rampage.

In a 2007 post, Pozner wrote,

Journalists could be doing a real service to the culture by focusing on the often-gendered nature of mass violence in America, and by seeking out anti-violence experts who could contextualize these crimes and could offer solutions and strategies for eradicating (or, at least, reducing) this kind of grave violence.

Perhaps now that clearly gender-based murders have occurred, they will. However, it's tragic that no one alerted police to Sodini's website (assuming that it was, indeed, online before the killings), or made the connection between a culture of misogyny and the actual mass murder of women. Marcotte writes that "these crimes don't happen in a vacuum," and nothing shows this more disturbingly than the True Forced Loneliness movement. BuzzFeed's Eliot Glazer calls TFL "a YouTube phenomenon in which men [...] blame women for forcing them into lives of solitude." Bill, an unofficial spokeman for the movement, has this rambling and scary video response to the gym murders:

The AP's Jocelyn Noveck writes that "Sodini certainly had an online trail. But it was on a personal Web page, not on a social network, and that makes a big difference." Actually, Sodini did post on a social network — like Bill, he was on YouTube. But instead of rants about "the game" and "treating other people like shit," he posted a tour of his house (including a close-up of a book called How to Date Young Women: For Men Over 35) and an odd speech about learning to express his emotions better. He also appears to have posted on Is It Normal?, asking "how you would react (if at all) seeing a clean cut older man with a very young girl in public." 26% of visitors voted this situation "normal," and one commenter said, "If I saw an man near 50 with a young girl I`d think he`s a lucky b*s***d...it`s amoral but so what, nowadays this is the world we live in. [...] Enjoy ruining the innocence of a young girl."

Only Sodini's personal website reveals his murderous intent. However, he was far from a lone crazy with no connections to others. In fact, he was part of a group of men — a loosely knit and virtual group, but a group all the same — that believes in blaming women for sexual frustrations and encourages manipulation. From R. Don Steele, author of How To Date Young Women (Tony Ortega of the Village Voice points out that Sodini not only bought Steele's book, but can be seen on video at one of his lectures), to Roissy, to the men of TFL, a number of people encouraged perhaps not Sodini himself, but a mindset in which women were objects to be targeted and manipulated or, failing that, reviled. Sodini was asking, "am I normal?" and at least some people were saying yes.

Bill of TFL hasn't killed anyone, and "Game" is not a crime. At the same time, when Pittsburgh police say "no one was going to stop" Sodini, they let themselves off the hook a little too easily. They, and the media, could have been "focusing on the often-gendered nature of mass violence in America" after the Amish school shooting, after Platte Canyon, after Virginia Tech. We could all have been more aware of the rise of grievance misogyny on the Internet and its potential effects on depressed or psychotic men. Maybe no one could have predicted Sodini's crime, but now that it's happened, it's time to start acknowledging its many roots throughout American culture, and take steps to combat them.

Once More With Feeling: Media Must Report Gender Motivation For Mass Shootings [WIMN's Voices]
More On The Misogynist Shooting In Pennsylvania [Feministe]
These Crimes Don't Happen In A Vacuum [Pandagon]
Pennsylvania Gym Shooter Struggled With Anger Toward Women [LA Times]
Shooter's Online Rants Were Like Trees In Forest [AP]
From Jonesboro To Virginia Tech - Sexism Is Fatal, But Media Miss The Story [WIMN's Voices]
Bill1224602's Channel [YouTube]
True Forced Loneliness [BuzzFeed]
Pittsburgh Shooter And His "Dating Young Women" Guru: R. Don Steele [Village Voice]
MOSB46PGH's Channel [YouTube]

There's a lot to see here — some of it familiar ("Why Modern, Western Marriage Has Become A Bad Business Decision For Men" is pretty much a retread of what trolls on Broadsheet have been saying for years), and some of it new and exciting! The site's main "demonstrations of misandry" are the views of Valerie Solanas, who shot Andy Warhol in 1968 and advocated that women "destroy the male sex." But the actions of a probable schizophrenic who spent years in mental hospitals aren't the only evidence of a worldwide anti-man conspiracy. Take the list of supposedly misandrist feminist quotes. The list employs some interesting terminology — Marilyn French is an "Authoress; (later, advisoress to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.)" — and lists the following among other supposedly misandrist quotations:

"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated." — Catherine MacKinnon

Sure, this is an inclusive definition of rape. But if a woman "feels violated" (not, to be clear, regretful, ashamed, uncertain, etc.) isn't something wrong? What does an anti-misandrist call it when "a woman has sex and feels violated" — awesome?

"In my own life, I don't have intercourse. That is my choice." — Andrea Dworkin

Apparently the decision not to have sex constitutes misandry. That's because women owe men "access" to their vaginas. Take a look back at "Why Modern, Western Marriage Has Become A Bad Business Decision For Men" (I swore I wouldn't read it and then I did), originally from the charming blog Don't Marry. According to this brilliant essay, "access to regular sex is the oldest and the most frequently cited reason to marry." Romantic! Unfortunately, a wife "can, if she wishes, deny him sex forever and there is nothing that he can do about it. In fact, if he insists that she honor her end of the marriage contract by being available for sexual relations, he can and will be accused of, charged with, and arrested for Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault or Rape" (bold totally theirs). So, if a man tries to have sex with his wife against her will, he will be charged with rape? Modern marriage really is a bummer.

So what happened to those good old days where nobody gave a shit if a woman felt violated? Actually, TV killed them. Anti-misandry.com's "What Is Misandry?" page reads,

Did you just say misandry is 'taught'?
Yes, that's right! The next time you switch on the television, count how many programmes have the token 'stupid boyfriend' or 'abusive husband' or 'paedophilic father' figure. Switch over to a children's channel / time window and watch how many cartoons or programmes reflect 'silly daddy' characters or 'bullying big brother'. Don't forget, of course, nearly all the women in these same programmes will be smart, sexy, sassy and full of beans, capable of juggling a career lifestyle with children, a husband and a social circle - let's not forget that she's undoubtedly a wonderful cook and always remembers everybody's birthdays. If these images are being constantly spread out over our airwaves, what does that tell our children who are growing up watching & learning daily, hourly, that men are just so stupid, abusive and ... well, useless?

I'm not sure it's such a great deal for a TV woman to be "smart, sexy, sassy and full of beans" when all her mate choices are 'stupid boyfriends,' 'abusive husbands,' or 'paedophilic fathers' — especially when she's forced to live up to ridiculous standards of skinniness and youth while her TV husband gets to be overweight, balding, and bumbling. There is a grain of truth, though, in Anti-misandry.com's admittedly ham-handed cultural analysis. Portrayals of men in TV shows, and especially in commercials, are often misandrist. It does no one any favors to paint guys as beer-guzzling, birthday-forgetting, chores-fucking-up idiots. Then again, it's also unhelpful to portray women as Andy-Warhol-shooting harpies. Misandry is actually a problem in our culture, but it's never going to get better if its only critics are misogynists.

Can't Feminists And Anti-Misandrists Just Get Along? [The Sexist]
Anti Misandry [Official Site]

In her speech, Chima also told host Julie Chen that Braden — who was up for elimination with Chima — called Julie a "whore." The vote came down to a tie, and Jessie chose to evict Braden. It made for a really awkward exit interview with the Chenbot. Usually she says something like, "Well, this isn't the end for you. We'll see you again at the finale in September." Instead she just said, "Braden, you're going home," then shook his hand and looked away.

Usually, the day after the eviction, Julie Chen interviews the evicted person on the Early Show. Interestingly, that did not happen today. The show briefly mentioned last night's eviction, but none of the dramz.

The incident Chima was referring to involved Braden calling two non-white house guests "beaners" earlier in the week. He also called Lydia a "slut" a "skank" and a "bitch." His misogynistic remarks were left in the actual broadcast, but the racial slur was eliminated all together. This is how the show edited it:

And this is how it really went down, via the live feed:

On Wednesday, I mentioned that Jessie was given a camera during his Diary Room session. He took pictures of himself bench-pressing Russell. The photos were posted to the CBS site.

He also took a picture of his calf.

And some bromance.

He's really into his muscles. You can check out the rest of the pics here.

LIVE FEED:
Spoilers, yo.

[All time stamps are EST]

Thursday Day
The live feed was shut off for the entire day as the house was getting ready for the live broadcast that evening.

Thursday Night
Shit went nuts after the live eviction and HoH competition. People were fighting in every room, and each time someone would try to escape one fight and move to another spot, another fight would erupt.

10:30-ish - Ronnie went into the recycling room and talked to Jessie, Russel, Natalie, and Lydia and said, "I was being fake to those guys [meaning everyone else] and sincere with you." Then he said he thought he would "shit his pants" after Chima's speech.

11:50 Casey confronted Ronnie about being aligned with the Athletes. Ronnie denied it up and down. Casey doesn't believe him and they start yelling.

Nobody knows why the vote came out in a tie. Someone is lying about how they voted (Ronnie) but no one can figure out who it is. This basically caused the house to erupt.

Laura yelled at Jessie for disrespecting her the night before. She said to him, "How would your mother like it when she sees you speak to a woman like that?" For some reason, everyone took this as Laura disrespecting Jessie's mother.

Lydia jumped in and stuck up for Jessie, and began screaming at Laura. The underlining issue is that they're mad that she voted Chima out. Eventually, Natalie, Kevin, Russell and Lydia all attacked Laura until she cried. (Jessie, the pussy willow that he is, didn't say anything.)

Ugh, Lydia seems like a total nightmare. I don't know if this is her game-play strategy, but she seems like the kind of girl who always puts dudes first. (Hence, fellating someone without any reciprocation or even a kiss on the mouth.)

Lydia and Jessie retreated to the recycling room, where she gave him a massage. He asked her which "high-profile" couple she nannies for. She wouldn't say, but began giving hints, explaining that they're "a really big deal" and work in music. But then BB cut off the live feed when she seemed like she was about to bend and tell him. (I think they always cut off the live feed when people begin using full names of those they know outside the house. This happened one night when Jordan was telling an anal sex story about a girl in her high school.)

I'm trying to think who would be a "really big deal" in music to Lydia. My guesses are:
1.) Nicole Richie and That Twin Guy
2.) Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale
3.) Pete Wentz and Ashlee Simpson

When the live feed returned, Lydia and Jessie were not an option to watch on one of the cameras.

Out on the patio, Laura said that the producers of BB probably "fish tanked" Chima's speech. She's not as stupid as Kevin thinks she is!

Jeff mentioned that he thinks the episode is going to be on The Soup. (Except he referred to it as Talk Soup.)

All of a sudden, the Big Brother voice broke in and says, "Lydia, stop that!" What the hell was she doing!?

Back at the kitchen table, Natalie and Chima got in a fight with first, Jordan, then Michele. Natalie is like a yippy, annoying-ass dog. She doesn't ever shut up, and logic doesn't apply to her. Her yammering is compulsive. She won't back off Michele.

Michele said that her vote to evict Chima was based on the fight they had the other night, when Chima accused her of leaving poop on the toilet seat. Natalie either doesn't believe that, or doesn't understand. (Probs the latter.) Michele eventually told Natalie that she doesn't like her. Natalie didn't understand this either (even though she's an ass to everyone except Jessie). She was incredulous over the news.

1:00 AM Ronnie got the key to his HoH room. No one really wanted to go up there and see it, since they were all fighting, but they reluctantly made their way up there.

Ronnie referred to himself as the HGIC—the "head geek in charge."

The CD that he got in his care package is Legally Blonde: The Musical.

Friday Morning
11:25 Everyone is sleeping. Lydia and Jessie are sharing a bed.

Today's Mad Lib is brought to you by Olivia St. John, who thinks Sarah Palin needs to join "her conservative sisters nursing babies at home," and Neil Lydon, who thinks that now that we have synthetic sperm, feminists want to get rid of all men.

Something overwrought adjective happened today — something that will shake geographical location (the bigger the better) to its core. Person (such as a woman, a scientist, or, for bonus points, a woman scientist) announced something seemingly innocuous. Women are trying to take over the world!

For evidence, we need only look to totally non-credible source:

"Men su7#@k!" says a commenter on large, poorly moderated website, such as YouTube.

"All women should band together to enslave their male inferiors," says writer of obscure 1950s book.

If these influential voices are not enough, consider today's bankrupt culture, in which women any verb that is not "gestate" and men any verb that is not "hunt," "conquer," or "bludgeon." In which woman (bonus if not remotely a feminist) can independent act, yet Ronald Reagan is allowed to die!

As the Bible says, verse (bonus points if it mentions submission, Eve, or the Virgin Mary; minus points for Mary Magdalene). And as ill-defined group such as "some people" have warned, vague alarmist statement.

What will happen to the men of the world if these weird, outdated term for "women" are allowed to take control? What will happen to our values? The only solution is for women like female public figure who is not Ann Coulter to get back in the small, restrictive space so that they can return to euphemism for breastfeeding and men can return to euphemism for bludgeoning.

Triple bonus for including the words "hoar-gnarled," "flibbertygibbet" and "womb."

Synthetic Sperm Brings Mad Feminist Dream A Step Closer [The First Post]

Earlier: Conservative Scribe Is Thankful Sarah Palin Is Headed Home Where She Belongs

Perez says he called Will.I.Am a faggot during an altercation because it "was the worst possible thing that thug would ever want to hear." GLAAD's Rashad Robinson responds,

For someone in our own community to use it to attack another person by saying that it is 'The worst possible thing that thug would ever want to hear,' is incredibly dangerous. It legitimizes use of a slur that is often linked to violence against our community. And it sends a message that it is OK to attempt to dehumanize people by exploiting antigay attitudes.

Robinson's absolutely right, and we applaud everyone who's criticizing Perez for using a slur in a decidedly non-reclaiming way. However, Perez has also spent his entire career dehumanizing women by exploiting sexist attitudes — with little repercussions. We used to tackle his bullshit in Missdemeanors, but that's on hiatus, so Intern Katy looked through Perez's posts from the last seven days and came up with these examples of his crimes against womanity:

• Calling Katie Price old, and an alcoholic: "The former glamor model pAArtied the night away at Boho nightclub in a gold lamé onesie, looking like the hot mess of the century. Remember: you're 31, not 21!"
• Calling Nicole Kidman old, and a ho: "The ice queen turns 60 today, and in celebration of her natal feat day, check out THIS pHOto gallery of the Botox beauty." Capitalizing letters to say rude things is so witty — if you're in eighth grade.
• Mocking Brooke Hogan (and, implicitly, Britney): "What's the first thing a famewhore does when she goes to Los Angeles? Hunt for paparazzi on Robertson! Shop at Kiston! Show some vadge!"
• Describing LeAnn Rimes as a "homewrecking ho" (what, no HOmewrecking?) and a "country hoochie." He also draws a big X over her face, thus stooping to second-grade wit levels.
• Blaming Aubrey O'Day for getting robbed, and she is a "dumb blonde" who had the nerve to enter an alleyway.

And Katy says this has been a pretty tame week for Perez, perhaps because he's on good behavior after the Will.I.Am incident. His behavior was far from good, however, throughout his feud with Carrie Prejean. After she was stripped of her Miss California crown, for instance, he called her a "dumb bitch" and drew a dick shooting cum on her face. Presumably, Perez is aware that his site looks like a middle school health book marked up by sharpie-wielding twelve-year-olds, but why hasn't anybody thought to call him on his slut-shaming, "vadge"-dropping, generally intelligent-insulting misogyny?

Andrew Sullivan seems to maybe sort of try, but he gets it very wrong:

The gay language police are after Hilton. It does strike me as rich that someone who called a woman a "dumb bitch" because she respectfully offered an evangelical view of marriage equality should use the word "faggot" in lambasting an assailant.

Really, Perez's behavior isn't inconsistent. His views on gay marriage (which, for the record, support actual equality as opposed to "an evangelical view of marriage equality") don't preclude him from being a thoughtless jerk who uses crude language to demean people. And what Sullivan calls "the gay language police" (aka people who fight against hate speech directed at historically persecuted groups) are very right to criticize Perez. We just wish the feminist language police had gotten on his case a lot earlier.

Why didn't they? Why did NOW speak out against Letterman when he made fun of Sarah Palin, but never against Perez? Maybe because serious feminists don't want to be seen as stooping to his level (it is tough to argue with a guy whose idea of political critique is drawing a dick on someone's face). Or maybe because we're so used to misogyny in the gossip world that we barely notice it anymore. Even non-dick-drawing gossip-mongers like the tabloids present women as little more than bodies to be endlessly critiqued for their imperfections, or as characters in a sexual morality play whose actions are fair game for our judgment. Maybe we've just accepted that to people like Perez, women are dumb sluts who exist so we can look at their vadges. But the longer we accept this from Perez and his ilk, the longer we'll live in a world where it's okay to call a woman a bitch when you don't agree with her, and to call her a ho whenever you feel like it. And that world sucks not just for celebrities, not even just for women, but for everybody.

Update: Newsweek's Kate Dailey rightly says Perez didn't deserve a beating, and wrongly brushes off both his "faggot" remark and his general misogyny.

He Who Must Not Be Paid Attention [FourFour]
Perez And The Petard [Daily Dish]
Prejean & Miss California May Battle It Out In Court! [Perez Hiton]
John Mayer, Perez Hilton, And The Politics Of Victim Blaming [The Human Condition (Newsweek Blog)]

Related:

Perhaps it's because no one has argued the case against the talk show host - and his writers - in a way that truly resonates with me. Or maybe it's simply because I really like Dave and really dislike Governor Palin; proving, sadly, that my East Coast, liberal prejudices are hard to shake, even in the face of misogynist, questionable verbal assaults against women. Perhaps it's because the protestations of Governor Palin herself seem more a way of scoring political points and press attention than sincere repudiations of misogyny in the media or eruptions of her protective, inner "Mama Grizzly Bear". (I couldn't put my finger on why I wasn't more viscerally offended on behalf of Palin's daughter - Willow or Bristol - but a commenter on the blog Reclusive Leftist summed it up nicely: "What's really annoying about the last two videos is that he's just using Palin's daughter as a prop to make jokes about notable MEN (Spitzer and A-Rod). The effects are that she ends up being portrayed as a prostitute or a rape victim, but those effects are secondary to the punchlines about the men in the jokes." At first glance, this seems to absolve Letterman and his band of merry, mostly male, comedy writers of some responsibility: The jokes were about widely-mocked men! But of course, this also means the Palin daughter(s) become pawns, faceless, nameless vehicles with which to score comedic points. Yes, not cool.)

Speaking of jokes: I suspect my tepid defense of Palin and her brood it has a lot to do with the difference between "comedy" and, well, rhetoric. David Letterman, however unfunny or inappropriate, was making jokes when he went after Palin and her daughter(s) earlier this week. With assertions that cracks like his directly contribute to assaults on young women and an epidemic of low self-esteem, however, Palin, whose relentless verbal assaults and insinuations during the presidential campaign are hard for me to forgive or forget, bypassed reasoned disagreement and went straight into rhetoric-land. Take her appearance this morning on Today (clip above). Host Matt Lauer questioned the Governor on the Letterman flap, pressing her on some of her more provocative statements about situation, asking, "Are you suggesting that David Letterman can't be trusted around a 14 year old girl?" Her response: "Take it how you want to take it." Later, she sarcastically made mention of "the candidate who must be obeyed," i.e. Barack Obama.

There was more where that came from. Last night on Sean Hannity's Fox News hate fest, conservative columnist S.E. Cupp placed the blame for Letterman's remarks squarely on Obama.

"This is the enduring legacy of the Obama campaign. I'm not saying this to be inflammatory, I blame Barack Obama because he allowed his surrogates in the media and Hollywood and everyone else on the left to do this dirty talking for him," she said, adding, "I want Barack Obama or Michelle Obama to come up and say, this kind of rhetoric will not be tolerated."

Leaving Ms. Cupp's strange definition of "rhetoric" aside, it seems to me that coming to a passionate, spirited, coherent defense of a United States Governor and one or more of her daughters regarding a late night comedy show bit is well below President Obama's pay grade at the moment. Sadly, considering my obviously muddled feelings on the subject, it's also below my current cognitive, critical abilities...or sympathies.

Conservative Columnist Blames Obama For Letterman's Palin Joke [HuffPo]
David Letterman, The Voice Of Dude Nation [Reclusive Leftist]
Palin Forces America To Become Aware of Her Once Again [NY Mag]
Did Letterman Get A Free Pass? [Salon]
Palin, Letterman, Still At Odds Over Comedian's Joke [AP]

Interestingly, the original Playboy article (cached, in part, here) has been removed; in its place, is an error page offering readers a free week in the company's "Cyber Club".

Earlier: Playboy On Conservative Women: "Castration Has Begun To Look Appealing"

Because it's not as if Cimbalo does anything in his piece but slag on these women for having the audacity to be attractive, conservative, opinionated and loud about those opinions. In other words, if he didn't agree with us mouthy liberal broads, he wouldn't want to fuck us either, and apparently prefers his women quiet and agreeable. And that - no matter what your politics are - is just gross.

For instance, on Michelle Malkin, he opines:

Worse than fucking Eva Braun.

Which would, actually, be difficult as Braun was cremated and her ashes scattered. But who needs a man with any historical knowledge.

On Megyn Kelly, whose "y" he abhors:

You need to flagellate your genitals for wanting to fuck this woman.

Actually, I've met and interviewed Megyn Kelly, and I found her smart, gracious and extremely pretty.

On Mary Katherine Ham:

You get this one pregnant, she stays pregnant.

Apparently, Cimbalo prefers having unprotected sex with women who plan to abort.

On Amanda Carpenter:

This foul temptress is a walking, talking Faustian fuck bargain.

For one thing, Amanda was also a colleague of mine at Glamocracy where she and I once penned a column together. Politically, we'd be hard pressed to find anything on which we agree politically, I wouldn't call her foul or Faustian (but her husband might call her a temptress).

On Elizabeth Hasselbeck:

You're better served sucking off Regis Philbin.

I'd encourage Cimbalo to try, actually.

On Dana Perino:

The second she says "no comment," your testicles are going to retract back into your body.

Right, because who wants to fuck a strong woman?

On Laura Ingraham:

Vagina dentata would be an improvement.

He really does love the "ball-busting" stereotypes, no? Nothing sexist about that.

On Pamela Gellar:

This shrieking harpy...

Need I continue?

On Michelle Bachman:

Chemical castration has begun to look appealing.

Strong woman=ball buster. Caught that yet?

On Peggy Noonan:

Imagine fucking your grandmother.

Because older women are automatically unsexy.

So, liberal ladies, just make sure you keep your opinions to yourself, never get old, never get a high-powered career and goodness knows don't disagree with Guy Cimbalo or, like George H.W. Bush, he might not want to fuck you. And you wouldn't want that.

So Right It's Wrong [Playboy]

Related: Four Questions for Megyn Kelly [Glamocracy]
Political Time Machine: HBO's "Recount" [Glamocracy]

Earlier: Help Me Choose An Outfit To Keep George Bush Away From My Womb

#liesgirlstell surfaced earlier today, perhaps as an offshoot of the also-popular and also-icky topics #3wordsaftersex and #3breakupwords. The "lies" seem to fall into three basic categories.

— Scary

It's not the lies themselves that are scary here, it's the mentality of someone who assumes — or behaves as though — these are lies. Like this one:

I_SEYMORE_CAKE #liesgirlstell i dont give head

Even if this is a lie, and she has, in fact, "given head" to other guys, aren't you obligated to take her at her word here? Call us bonerkillers, but we think a woman's statement of what she will and won't do in bed should be taken as gospel. After all, just because she's done something once doesn't mean she'll consent to do it again, or with every partner.

sabret00the RT @ThreeWaysIn: #liesgirlstell I don't want to try anal sex

Um, how did you find out this was a lie? By assuming no meant yes? Creepy.

— Insulting

The insulting category paints women as lying bitches who are out to trap men. To whit:

itsjay_yadigg #liesgirlstell im pregnant

Or, in longer form:

ShivFrost RT itsjay_yadigg #liesgirlstell I'm pregnant .... preach it jay...only suckers get fooled...i wanna see the test turn positive infront me

"I'm pregnant" isn't a liegirlstell — it's a liebadpeopletell. And trust us, ShivFrost, most women are as afraid of getting unintentionally pregnant as you apparently are of being lied to about it.

causticbob #liesgirlstell I'm on the pill

Don't believe her, causticbob? Use a condom!

— White

Many of the liesgirlstell on the list are white lies, meant to make guys feel better about their — usually sexual — deficiencies.

MicaDsGirl #liesgirlstell its not too small

First of all, women say this truthfully all the time. And second, is MicaDsGirl really advocating that women laugh uproariously every time we see a member that's not up to our standards? Or that men second-guess every compliment about their penises? What good does it do to add more insecurity to the world?

causticbob #liesgirlstell I love the way you taste

Again, quite possibly true. And even if not, why look a gift horse in the, um, mouth?

Nicki_Diamond #liesgirlstell "No! I don't think your mom is overbearing"

This is a classic white lie, one intended to keep the peace and avoid insulting a partner's loved one. Obviously honesty in relationships is important, but so is diplomacy. If women uttered every single uncharitable thought they were thinking, they wouldn't have any friends, let alone boyfriends. And the same, of course, is true of men. Probably the smartest tweet on #liesgirlstell is this one:

sarahinrainbows #liesgirlstell - the same bloody lies that boys tell; this is the 21st century,! What's with all the misogyny, and girls joining in too!

While women may not tell exactly the same lies men tell (men can't say they're on the pill — yet!), the sad truth is that people of both genders lie to each other from time to time. We lie to make people feel better and we lie to cover up our bad behavior. Anyone who thinks lies are solely the province of women is not only a misogynist but a poor student of human nature. Current.com cites a twitterer who says, "the topics #liesguystell and #liesboystell exist but funnily enough neither are as popular as #liesgirlstell." We're not sure it's all that funny, and maybe the relative unpopularity of #liesguystell is just an example of men getting a pass while women get criticized, but one thing's for sure — both sexes tell lies, and no one Twitter tag could ever list them all.

#liesgirlstell [Twitter]
#liesguystell [Twitter]
#liesboystell [Twitter]
Twitter Outs All Lies Girls Tell [Current.com]