"You know her. She's got wild eyes and rumpled hair. At some point she stopped caring about the stains on her blouse. She's hurt, angry, rejected, and she's willing to take the whole damn place down with her. She is Lady Macbeth," Lithwick writes. "She is the oldest literary type around—the bitter madwoman, hellbent on revenge and willing to act against her own interest to win some respect. "

Look, we all agree that Clinton was treated with outrageous misogyny by some detractors. But even Hillary herself asked supporters to get behind Barack Obama, so to me, the P.U.M.A's aren't just perpetuating the stereotype of the "bitter madwoman," they're perpetuating another, more modern meme: one of self-absorption. There's been a lot of decrying of Generation Y narcissism, but the women of Hillary's generation were trailblazers in that sort of age-of-Aquarius "me" culture just as they were glass ceiling breakers.

P.U.M.A. found support in a very 2.0 way — through a Facebook group — so younger, social-networking happy narcissists are likely buying into their mission statement as well. Each one of its members is more concerned with "being heard" than with their own welfare or the welfare of this country. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had very similar platforms, and they are pro-female. As Lithwick notes, "These disgruntled women—whether they plan to vote for John McCain, sit out the election, or simply gobble up airtime—are tacitly working toward electing McCain; a candidate who claimed last week at a presidential forum at Saddleback Church that life begins 'at the moment of conception' and who voted against legislation ensuring equal pay for women."

Reading what P.U.M.A. spokesperson Will Bower said in an interview on HuffPo really reinforced the utter selfishness of the group's pursuit. "It's amazing," Bower said. "It's been wild. My phone is just attached to me. I'm up always. It's been the most invigorating time of my life." How nice for you. It's the increasing inability to think about anyone but ourselves that is a far scarier trope than the perpetuation of the "bitter madwoman."

The Madwoman In The Blogosphere [Slate]

And we found out that the answer is... well, not a ton. Ann Friedman covered The Fist Bump that shook the world on June 5th, Jessica Valenti wrote ten words about Fox News' "Obama Baby Mama" on June 12th and a few more on June 18th. Courtney Martin linked to Michelle Obama Watch on July 8th, and Ann (again) linked to a video on July 11th. That's, um, sort of exactly the few-and-far-between coverage that Valenti herself is decrying.

Which is not to say that anyone else has done a perfect job about it. My coverage of it started on Glamocracy on June 11th and then the 12th and then moved over here where, in addition to mentioning the "Baby Mama" event in Crappy Hour, Dodai and I have hit it up several times since then. But it's been a while since we had a hook to revisit the issue (so, thanks Jessica!) and we can all probably do a better job beating the drum that sexism — whether it's about Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama or directed at Kathleen Sebelius — is always abhorrent. And with Michelle's speech coming up on Monday and the campaign getting uglier, there will sadly be plenty of opportunities to remind people of that.

The Baiting of Ms Obama [The Guardian]
Michelle Obama Sexism/Racism Watch [Feministing]
Michelle Obama Sexism/Racism Watch (Fox News edition) [Feministing]
Michelle Obama Sexism/Racism Watch ("Angry Black Woman" edition) [Feministing]
Quick Hit: Michelle Obama Watch Continues [Feministing]
Fox trashes Michelle Obama: The lowlight reel [Feministing]

Goodson looked at 11,500 professional women and 16,700 men in 34 countries and found that, in general, women are less likely to brag and/or outright lie about their professional experiences to get ahead. More so then men, women appear to have bought into the myth of the meritocracy, according to Goodson, "They believe hard work alone is sufficient to put them on salary and status par with their male counterparts," to which she adds, "Good work is important, but good work alone does not, as the myth says, speak for itself, you have to give it a voice." Which is good, until you look at studies that say that aggressive women are sometime looked down upon for being aggressive. That right there is the glass ceiling: the idea that you have to be like a man but not too much like a man to get ahead, not that you'll get that far competing with aggressive men if you are not aggressive. The glass ceiling is less about open discrimination (though that remains) and more about stereotypes of behavior and expectations that women have to confront and overcome to get ahead.

Of course, the Daily Male takes the whole study in stride, absolving men and society of all blame for the role of women in the workplace. They go through the study and find where Goodson "exposes" the fact that some women (particularly in the U.S.) have an attitude that if they got there without help, their younger counterparts can, too. So it's not just women keeping ourselves down, it's women keeping other women down, too! Of course, one can rather easily find examples of that being untrue, but examples and nuance aren't exactly the provenance of the Daily Male.

So what is a woman to do? For one, laugh heartily at the idea that your work is going to get noticed for being fabulous, or that hard work alone will propel you to a leadership position. Recent studies show that people that work hard get to keep working hard while people that network better (i.e., that promote themselves) get promoted. Your boss isn't a robot any more than you are, and hiring and promotion decisions are never going to be made in an emotional vacuum. Then start keeping a list of your accomplishments, take credit for the work you've done and stop waiting to be noticed as though work is a junior high school dance. Ask for what you want and what you think you deserve and show your company exactly as much loyalty as they're prepared to show you — which, if they're not promoting you or giving you a raise because they prefer the type of employee that lies loudly about his accomplishments over one who accomplishes something and points it out, is exactly none. Bloody your fists on the damn glass ceiling.

Career Women Are The Own Worst Enemies: Study [Reuters]
Women Only Have Themselves To Blame For Failing To Crack The Glass Ceiling, Says Female Scientist [Daily Mail]
Some Women Work Too Hard to Be Promoted [US News & World Report]

“The long-range goal of my law suits is that I am, in my own small way, trying to give all those feminists equality - not the equality of all the best in life, but the equality of the worst in life.

“Make them register for the draft, make them go to war and die, make them work in the worst occupations,” he said.

“They do not want equality. They want preferential treatment. It’s just the same old pedastal. they say, ’I am a female. I want to be the CEO of a company.’ I want to be on a pedestal.”

Actually, asshole, women are going to war and dying, not that you ever have.

“Now all I am looking for is superficial temporary escapades with pretty young ladies,” he said. “It’s harder than it was when I was younger. I only go after girls who are in their athletic prime. But it’s okay.”

I actually feel like it's a bit of a credit to our gender that Roy Den Hollander has trouble getting laid in New York, but even someone as lame as this can probably save up his money.

Anyway, just for your reading pleasure, Rick-not-Roy e-mailed us a prescient criticism of my earlier piece that I thought was also worth sharing.

Hi, I read the article written about Roy Den Hollander and came to the conclusion that you are a bitter woman. Grow the fuck up! It never surprises me that women claim to be champions of equality, get pissed when someone exposes their hypocrisy . You call this guy creepy, but ignore his story. You mock him and his tragedy because someone is finally telling feminist jerks to practice what they preach. The woman who married him was able to use Violence Against Women Act (Unconstitutional) to clean him out. There is no evidence of domestic abuse or any plausible reason for her to divorce him other than her gold digging ways. Why don’t you write about that? I guess the truth hurts.

Additionally, you love to paint guys like Roy as toxic, misogynistic or over [sic] to fuck women half his age (are you in the fucking stone age). What has his dating habits to do with exposing female assholes who want unfair elitist rights? Your vile remarks show how fucking stupid you are. The comments about your father show another example of your bitter attitude. Speak for your self, you are the jerk! He never mentioned women to be inferior or second class (that’s your assumption). Women who feel threatened by Roy’s lawsuits show how weak they are. Once again, grow the fuck up and pull your head out of your rectum!

Rick

Me and my elitist ways, trying to keep Roy Den Hollander from getting the younger pussy he tells everyone he wants and so obviously deserves so that womankind can make up for the "tragedy" of his younger, Russian wife reporting his abuse of her to authorities and thereby being allowed to stay in this country. What a fucked-up, unconstitutional law, making sure that victims of domestic violence don't have to risk deportation by reporting to authorities that they're being abused. And how dare I think myself any man's better. Gosh, I'll probably try harder next time.

Lawyer Roy Den Hollander Plans 'Jihad' Against University Feminism [The Times of London]

The Olympic Committee solicited applications and received more than 5,000 from women in Beijing and Shanghai. The women were required to be between the ages of 18 and 24 and enrolled in or graduates of colleges. They also had to be between 5'5" and 5'8" and "plump but not fat" with good skin. In addition, their eyes had to be 3/10ths as long as their faces, the widths of their noses had to correspond to the lengths of their faces, and the widths of their mouths had to be coordinated with the distance between their pupils while looking straight ahead.

Once they met the physical standards, the women were trained to stand unflinchingly for several hours in heels, while balancing things on the tops of their heads and squeezing paper between their thighs, as pictured here. They had to learn how to smile while only showing eight teeth, which is accomplishing by smiling holding a chopstick positioned between their canines in front of a mirror. When they were done with that, they were asked to run 1,000 meters every day to keep their "plump but not fat" bodies in shape.

Not that the hostesses are the only eye candy for men at the Olympics — from the cheerleaders ringing the track in their white outfits and cowboy boots at the opening ceremonies to the dancers in bikinis at the beach volleyball tournaments, the Chinese want to make sure that they showcase some ideal of feminine physical perfection — and the fact that more than half of China's medals are coming from its female athletes is not, apparently, enough.

Perfect Hostesses Outclass Sexy Cheerleaders At Games [Reuters]
Sex, Sand And Shoots Raise Beijing Olympic Temperature [Breitbart]
Day 13: Chinese Women Hold Up More Than Half The Sky [People's Daily]

The documentary was made by Rory Kennedy, one of Robert Kennedy's daughters, and filmed over a weekend at her mother's estate. It intercuts footage and photographs of Thomas's most famous moments — from the start of her catchphrase "Thank you, Mr. President" in the Kennedy Administration to her grilling Bush about his motivations for getting into Iraq — with footage of Thomas speaking about her work. However, most of the reviews agree that Rory Kennedy doesn't subject Thomas to the same kind of grilling for which Thomas is famous, seemingly content to be as much a fan as a rigorous documentary filmmaker.

The biggest flaw, by many reviewers' standards, is how little Kennedy touches on the difficulties of being too friendly with the people you cover. Thomas says it was difficult to ask Nixon a tough question about lying moments after he congratulated her for being the first woman to head UPI's Washington bureau but that she did it anyway. When looking at footage of herself palling around with the people she covered, she worries aloud, "Obviously I’m a fraud." Thomas is far from it, but as anyone in D.C. will tell you, everyone here is a "friend," even if you've only met twice and hate each other's guts. That D.C. subculture where everyone argues at work and goes and drinks afterwards would have been worth a more thorough exploration with someone who took advantage of it but tried hard never to get caught up in it.

In a more light-hearted moment, Kennedy asks her subject if she ever played up her sexuality to get more access, a thought at which Thomas laughs uproariously and says "I never had the potential … nobody made a pass at me, darn it!" I don't know how that's possible in a male-dominated environment, but it's not an unwelcome revelation, either, for someone trying to make a go of a quasi-journalistic career in Washington herself.

That said, I think an overly laudatory documentary about Helen Thomas doesn't do Thomas or Kennedy a great service. Helen Thomas was a great, dogged reporter whose more recent forays into opinion journalism have brought her no small measure of opprobrium from many Washington insiders who have called her earlier work into question. Seeing her come out forcefully in defense of her journalistic objectivity and to defend her opinions against the kind of stern questioning that she brought to the White House would've been more interesting to watch than a film that might appropriately air at a future memorial service. I don't need my heroes on pedestals, especially when they've spent their laudatory careers doing a much-needed raking of the mud.

Review: 'Thank You, Mr. President: Helen Thomas at the White House' on HBO [LA Times]
'Thank You, Mr. President' [Newsweek]
Rory Kennedy Discusses Helen Thomas Film — Coming to HBO Tonight [Editor & Publisher]
Just a Few More Questions, Ms. Thomas [NY Times]

• Meanwhile, efforts are under way to increase the amount of female neurosurgeons (women only make up 6%) which can be linked to gender inequality in pay and promotion in the field. • Maybe the neurosurgeons could recruit this young lady: A 17-year-old female Canadian teen discovered that MSG causes stunted brain cell development. • A man in Los Angeles was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment for killing his girlfriend's cat to threaten her. Have fun in prison, asshole! • The Beyonce "Whitening" ad debate continues: One black female TV personality in the UK talks about the message a lighter-skinned Beyonce sends to young black women. • Preventing domestic and sexual abuse of married women in India may decrease the abused women's risk of contracting HIV. • A woman in Poulsbo, Washington tackled and beat her fiance at their prenuptial party after her 12-year-old son told her he saw her fiance kissing her friend. •

• Two women have been charged in the murder of a British couple honeymooning in Antigua and Barbuda. • The Maricopa County Sheriff in Arizona has violated a ruling that he is not allowed to require female inmates to receive a court order before they are granted an abortion. • In (somewhat) related news, there is a new program at the Ohio Reformatory for Women that allows inmates to raise their children in their cells and in in-house prisons to keep the bond between mother and child tight. • More than 80% of women in the Air Force in Iraq reported persistent fatigue, difficulty concentrating and nearly 20% reported one symptom of PTSD. • Meanwhile in the region, a man has been arrested in Jerusalem for helping beat, threaten, and rob a divorced Israeli woman under the self-proclaimed title of "chastity guards." •

Because the Greek word gymnasium translates as something more or less like "nuditorium," it seems clear that few events offer a richer opportunity to see how physical beauty is currently constructed than the Beijing Games…

What the Games also frankly accommodate is a taste for the spectacle of straining young bodies, an appeal that was not lost on the ancients. The crowds at the early Games, according to the historian Nigel Spivey, were as excited by the “boys with slim waists, broad shoulders, neatly proud buttocks and springy thighs” as they were by the lofty ideal of the Games.

Yes, the Ancient Greeks would have wanted us to drool over the hot, dark, oiled-up guys on the Japanese beach volleyball team. And honestly? The men and women competing in the games are spectacles. They're not regular, average humans. They're not even what Olympians used to look like, Trebay claims. He checkout some archival photos of athletes from the 1920s. "What is striking about these images is how lightly muscled the athletes’ bodies appear, how fine in proportion and aesthetically balanced, and how unlike so many of those on view in these Games, bodies that even in real time seem digitally enhanced."

So what do we do about the sexist coverage, when we so gleefully delight in these awe-inspiring specimens of humanity? Do we support women like former Canadian water polo player Waneek Horn-Miller, who appeared naked on the cover of Time magazine eight years ago? (She explains: "It's one chance every four years to get out an image of a healthy athletic woman instead of an underweight, underage model. Athletes' bodies are much healthier — and they're functional!" She says after she did the cover, "People told me it was something they'd show to their daughters. I mean, I was obsessed like everyone else with fashion magazines when I was a teenager. It's natural to look for the body ideal… [But her image was] a woman, a great athlete, 160 pounds, who can bench-press her own body weight and squat 180 pounds.") Is there a difference between women having a healthy appreciation for male swimmers' bodies and a male writer questioning female swimmers' lack of breasts?

When Action Figures Come Out to Play [NY Times]
Where are all the breasts? [Times of London]
Athletes went from Nixon to naked [Globe And Mail]
Related: Going for Gold in my Birthday Suit [Shameless]

Read more coverage of the 2008 Olympic Games.

Bunch's group sessions involve a male and a female leader who don't take crap from their attendees and call them out when they say sexist things. They discuss everything from why a man would refer to grown women as "girls", to why catcalling is not a compliment to the women abusers additionally tend to harass, and any other sexist acts women are stuck dealing with on a daily basis. The men are asked to think about sexism as another way of exerting dominance over others, in the same way many of them have experienced being harassed by the police based on the color of their skin. Bunch doesn't fool himself that he's changing many minds — his advise to victims of abuse is to expect the same abuser back no matter how much he promises that he's changed — but he figures that maybe getting them to think about sexism and to be held strictly accountable for attending the classes (at the risk of being jailed) is a start.

Bunch probably wouldn't self-identify as a feminist, but he says such wonderfully feminist things like:

Calling [violence against women] a woman’s issue serves men because then men don't have to get involved in it. We need to start re-framing it, holding men accountable, changing the language so we have to start looking at our statistics in a different way like what you’ll see if you Google "domestic violence" is "domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women." That talks about the victim, but it doesn’t say anything about the perpetrator.

He also thinks we should all start saying "the leading cause of injury to women is men's violence." It's Bunch's combination of cynical resignation about the men he serves and his hopeful idealism about the society he'd like to change that makes him — and the work he's trying to accomplish — so fascinating.

Class Teaches Respect for Women to Batterers [WNYC.org]

Related: A Call To Men
Safe Horizon's Domestic Violence Accountability Program

MEGAN: Ok, given the absence of news other than the fact that I was right about Edwards' timing issues with his story and the halt to military action in Georgia, perhaps we can dissect The Atlantic's piece on Hillary's campaign based on all the email and memo traffic.

SPENCER: You know, nothing incoming but the reggae drumming. Yeah I did what you should always do after getting the shit kicked out of you at a Rancid show you're too old to be at: read a Tolstoyesque campaign post-mortem at 2 am.

MEGAN: (I hereby highly recommend that everyone take a moment and click through and read that link, by the way, as it's a piece of very excellent writing by Spencer. We'll wait.)
You were much more productive than I. I just came home and went to bed.

SPENCER: When I was I guess 8 I remember skinning my knee really badly and seeing a bunch of goo pus up past my shredded skin. For whatever reason — like a science experiment, I guess — I figured that more goo would emerge if I split the skin further, and sure enough I was right. Now that was fascinating — weird viscosity, unfamiliar color, surprising heat. I've never seen anything like it until I read this Josh Green piece about Hillary.

So point one: Mark Penn. Complex figure after all!

MEGAN: Oh, man, I'm about to just give up and let you right. You obviously beat me to coffee-drinking, not that my stomach can handle it after that mental image.

SPENCER: Red Bull not coffee. Carbona not glue.

MEGAN: Yes, Mark Penn: not the biggest problem! I was amazed.

SPENCER: Anyway Mark Penn. Actually worse than you thought. Get a load of how he assesses Obama's promise to America:

Save it for 2050.

MEGAN: Well, except that he elbowed everyone out of the way and ignored chain of command and basically acted like he was fighting his colleagues.

SPENCER: Holy shit dude! It actually gets worse.

MEGAN: You know what amazed me?

SPENCER: This?

Listening to Brit Hume say that Obama is surging while Hillary failed to do X is almost comical and certainly transparent. The right knows Obama is unelectable except perhaps against Attila the Hun, and a third party would come in then anyway.

MEGAN: No, but that's pretty stunning, too. My point is far geekier than that:

Though Penn was “chief strategist,” he was a paid contractor, and thus barred from most targeting and budget planning.

Which means, in effect, that Penn spent 90% of his time trying elbow people out of the way that he couldn't even replace unless he gave up or took a leave of absence from his other very lucrative job, which he didn't want to do.

SPENCER: HAHAHAHA I am trying to write about this very issue in an Iraq context. Ray Odierno, who next month will be the U.S. commander in Baghdad, implies that he's going to carry out Petraeus' same population-protection strategy except with... 30,000 fewer troops. YOU CANNOT STRATEGIZE IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND/CONTROL YOUR RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS. You know what you get if you do?

MEGAN: So rather than acknowledge the lesser role that was BY LAW required to play, he let her fill those spots with actual people and then fought and undermined them every step of the way.

SPENCER:

Ickes seemed attuned to the asymmetric risk that accompanies overwhelming front-runner status: the collapse of momentum that would accompany an unexpected loss. He posited that Edwards and Obama could sustain losing Iowa and New Hampshire but worried that Clinton could not; he urged that she spend “substantial” time in Iowa; and he recommended a contingency plan that would haunt the campaign when his own budget team didn’t fulfill it. Noting the difficulty of raising more than $75 million before Iowa, Ickes stressed the need to maintain a $25 million reserve, presumably as insurance against a setback. The campaign wound up raising more than $100 million—but, according to The New York Times, by the time Iowa was lost, $106 million had been spent. The $25 million reserve had vanished, and the campaign was effectively insolvent.

MEGAN: But, it never really hits on who spent that money. That was always my question.Or did I miss it with my sleep-filled eyes?

SPENCER: But this is the thing I wanted to note about Penn: Josh is really good at pointing out that more than anyone else, Penn actually understood Clinton's path to the nomination: women, lower/middle class voters, self-ID'd Democrats.

If we double perform with WOMEN, LOWER AND MIDDLE CLASS VOTERS, then we have about 55% of the voters.
The reason the Invisible Americans is so powerful is that it speaks to exactly how you can be a champion for those in needs [sic]. He may be the JFK in the race [He means Obama — Spencer], but you are the Bobby.

That right there was 100 percent correct. I got the feeling in the piece that Josh was actually sort of convinced that Penn actually did think more strategically than the rest of the team.

MEGAN: Oh, totally, I think the problem was getting them all at the same time. I would give Penn more props if it had been the plan to target women and then swing back around to get the lower- and middle-class men. But it doesn't seem like it was. The strategy that got women to vote for her was one he opposed. Can we say that Mark Penn doesn't "get" women?

SPENCER: Well actually let me amend that: he had the best 30,000-foot-altitude vision, but he — and the rest of the campaign — evinced an absolute blind spot toward the basic facts of how to win a protracted nomination battle (ie, win the most delegates)... I really want to make another Iraq analogy but I will resist temptation!

MEGAN: Oh, yeah, also, I loved the Ickes memo on delegates, from December 22, 2007.

SPENCER: YES PLEASE talk about that. What struck you about Mark Penn thinking about women as an odd and unfamiliar abstraction?

MEGAN: I mean, it seemed to me his entire strategy on women was to gin us all up with the idea that her campaign was breaking barriers!(TM) and then go on to getting men's votes as though women didn't care about issues and whatever. Which, sure, some of us don't and were indeed all ginned up for a barrier-breaking woman President, but not a 2-to-1 margin of us like Penn was expecting. Plus, Penn's actual strategy was not to emphasize her female-ness, but just rely on women to recognize that a woman candidate breaks barriers while he campaigned for the other vote.

1) Start with a base of women.
a. For these women you represent a breaking of barriers
b. The winnowing out of the most competent and qualified in an unfair, male dominated world
c. The infusion of a woman and a mother’s sensibilities into a world of war and neglect

Start with a base of women how exactly?

SPENCER: Like a binding ingredient! Crush pine nuts and Nilla wafers in a food processor, then pour 1/2 a stick of clarified butter to bind; spread over a pie tin and bake at 350...

MEGAN: It isn't until he gets to talking about men that he talks about issues. He strategy of women is that OF COURSE there's some of us that will vote for a woman no matter what and then quietly sexism-bait us and put a pink ribbon on war policy and then turn to the boys and talk about serious issues.

SPENCER: Really, though, her lifetime of work gives her a base of women, doesn't it? I don't really see why that was wrong — but it definitely — and this is a huge irony — indicates that HRC could have... taken women's issues for granted!

You don't think she talked about equal pay and reproductive issues and health care and things that are typically thought of as women's issues, although of course all issues are women's issues and stop glowering at me like that...

MEGAN: But he's talking about getting 3-to-1 margins with women voters. She doesn't have a 3-to-1 margin because of her lifetime of work.

SPENCER: Good point.

MEGAN: Of course, Penn lists health care as an issue to talk to the men about, which fundamentally misunderstands the role that women play as purchasers in the health case system.

SPENCER: And all the more to your point. Let's talk about the Equality/Sexism non-speech!

SPENCER:

In the aftermath of Obama’s historic race speech on March 18, Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas congresswoman, urged Clinton to deliver a speech of her own on gender. Clinton appeared very much to want to do this, and solicited the advice of her staff, which characteristically split. The campaign went back and forth for weeks. Opponents argued that her oratory couldn’t possibly match Obama’s, and proponents countered that she would get credit simply for trying, inspire legions of women to her cause, and highlight an issue that everyone in the campaign fiercely believed was hurting them—sexism. But Clinton never made a decision...

MEGAN: Yes, the non-speech. The one all the women Penn wanted on board wanted her to give but she never gave because she already had their support and didn't have to.

SPENCER: Megan, should she have made the speech? To put this as delicately as I can, playing off the deep deep desires of women for a woman president was a very good strategy for Clinton, except that it had to be combined with an actual ability to overtake the delegate lead Obama amassed, and that never happened.

MEGAN: I don't think she should've made it in response to Obama's speech. Barring a hook, a specific instance of major sexism to with to tie the speech, I think it would've looked like a tit-for-tat. But I think after New Hampshire, before Obama's race speech, then would've been a good time to speak out AND it might have produced tangible consequences.

SPENCER: Yeah I'm with you on that — imagine if she went right from the crying/NH victory and said fuck this, you know what's not fair about the way women in this country are treated? let me count the ways...

MEGAN: Right, that would've been awesome. But I mean, after March 18th was Pennsylvania at the end of April, which (you'll recall, since we were there) she won anyway. I don't think it would've moved the needle in North Carolina or even in Indiana by much, possibly in Oregon but not in Kentucky.

SPENCER: Whoa look at you, Chuck Todd. I'll leave the whiteboard stuff to you.

MEGAN: Sorry, but that's the truth. For her overall political career, for her legacy, yes, I would've wanted her to give the speech. But after March 18th, and I hate to side with Mark fucking Penn, but he was right on this. It wouldn't've done her any good.

SPENCER: You know what's missing from this piece? Any discussion — aside from a cursory graf — that the reason why she lost was her Iraq vote.

MEGAN: Yeah, it's like that only mattered in Iowa. Um, no. Only, and New Yorkers keep saying this, she might not have won re-election in 2006. I don't necessarily buy that, especially given the way the Republican party self-destructed in that race, but that wasn't foreseeable.

SPENCER: if she voted against the war, Obama would have practically no traction and she would have kicked the shit out of Edwards. And, uh, speaking of kicking the shit out of Edwards, you HAVE to check out this looney-tunes column from Sally Quinn. Just read the first graf (that's all I read).

SPENCER:

I just want to smack him across the puss, as my Savannah-born mother used to say. I want to smack him across that pretty puss, those pretty eyelashes, that pretty hair. I want to shake him and knock his pretty head against the wall.

How many psychological tics can you count? The two "puss" references? The battered-husband fantasy? GODDAMN IT BEN BRADLEE LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO! YOU'RE SO FUCKING STUPID BABY AND I LOVE YOU SO MUCH AND WHEN ARE YOU JUST GOING TO FUCKING LISTEN TO ME.

MEGAN: The blaming the wife? I love how, obviously, Edwards told her the whole truth and nothing but. Because that's when men do, when caught out there, they don't mitigate AT ALL.

SPENCER: Okay, that's all I have to say.

MEGAN: Wait, before we go, we can totally tie that back into Hillary! Because where have we heard this kind of rhetoric before?

SPENCER: Where have we heard it?

MEGAN:

Not only did she allow him to run, exposing herself and her children to the pain and humiliation that would inevitably come, she could have allowed him to destroy the Democratic party in the process. This man was running for the President of the United States on a lie and she knew it. If he had not entered the race it could have changed the outcome of the primary. And what if he had won the primary? Think of the people they betrayed — yes, THEY. They betrayed their devoted staff, the supporters who sent in millions of dollars, the taxpayers who supplied Secret Service protection (I want my money back) , their party and their country. She stood by and let him lie and lie and lie.

Oh, wait, this was the same shit the Right spewed at Hillary.

SPENCER: Really a shame she never made that sexism speech. HRC: It's not too late.

MEGAN: Fucking top of the fucking morning to you, motherfucker!

SPENCER: How's my favorite bitchcuntwhore this morning?

MEGAN: This bitch is kind of feeling like a complete asshole for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that my shitty fucking mouth allowed some cocksucker at the Washington Times to write an article about how cuss-filled the liberal blogosphere is. Also, what the fuck? Does he not live in D.C.? Casual workplace profanity is a lifestyle here.

SPENCER: Here's what I love about this asshole:

The top 10 liberal sites (Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Democratic Underground, Talking Points Memo, Crooks and Liars, Think Progress, Atrios, Greenwald, MyDD and Firedoglake) have a profanity quotient of 14.6.

MEGAN: Hey, one of your homes makes the list! Bitchin'!
SPENCER: FDL hosts my blog, and ThinkProgress used to, and I worked for TPM before that. NOBODY BUT NOBODY cursed on ThinkProgress before I got there and no one curses now that I'm gone, so I'm responsible for TP's entire profanity quotient.

MEGAN: That's an impressive fucking accomplishment.

SPENCER: TPM is entirely sweetmouthed, with the occasional dirty word in comments, but not even that often. this no-Polk-award-having douche put TPM in this list to smear it, discrediting its achievements on, say, getting Alberto Gonzales to resign and exposing McCain's big oil connections.

MEGAN: Also, you know my significant fucking methodological problem with his study? There's no distinction made between Republican trolls swearing on liberal sites or vice versa. If all the cussing is done by Republicans on Kos — not that it is — then his entire thesis is off.

SPENCER: ...on FDL we curse and curse heartily, though. Yes, very good point.
And you know who encourages trolling like a fucking Dungeonmaster? John McCain!

On McCain's Web site, visitors are invited to "Spread the Word" about the presumptive Republican nominee by sending campaign-supplied comments to blogs and Web sites under the visitor's screen name. The site offers sample comments ("John McCain has a comprehensive economic plan . . .") and a list of dozens of suggested destinations, conveniently broken down into "conservative," "liberal," "moderate" and "other" categories. Just cut and paste.

MEGAN: I know! And then their webmaster will go check on it for you!

SPENCER: First McCain wanted to ruin the country, but now he wants to ruin the internet. this shit has gone TOO FAR. Notice, however, that McCain's blog, run by a Weekly Standard asshole who tried and failed to get me fired from ThinkProgress, is too pussyassed to allow comments.

MEGAN: Did you see his list of approved liberal sites? ColoradoPols, Crooks and Liars, DailyKos, MyDD and Think Progress.

SPENCER: It's a good strategy for him: troll, so our communities can fuck the trolls up. Someone needs to explain the internet to him. McCain's desire to throw soldiers into unwinnable wars makes a lot more sense now!

MEGAN: What is hilarious to me is that they pick 5 liberal sites, 5 "moderate" sites — including Politico and the Washington Post's "The Fix" blog — and 10 blogs they classify as "other"... and then 35 right-wing blogs.

SPENCER: This suggested talking point for trolls is AWESOME.

There are serious issues at stake in this election, and serious differences between the candidates. And we will argue about them, as we should. But it should remain an argument among friends; each of us struggling to hear our conscience, and heed its demands; each of us, despite our differences, united in our great cause, and respectful of the goodness in each other.

HAHAHAHAHA yes the McCainiac trolls will take to dKos to spread this one.

MEGAN: It's like... who even is going to buy that shit on the Internet? Also, I don't have to struggle to hear my conscience, it's saying "Don't vote for the weird old guy who wants to take away your right to an abortion but doesn't think it's important to pass pay equity legislation." Or something like that.
SPENCER: hahahaha someone put an Obama 08 sticker on the Straight Talk Express.

MEGAN: It might also be saying "You should call your mom." Oh, wait, that was andBegorrah once. Damn her!

SPENCER: I should really call my mom, but I hate using the phone with the passion of 1000 supernovas. Anyway, you know what question I'm dying to ask Condoleezza Rice? The one Mike Allen of the Politico asked:

When asked her Hollywood crush: “Oh, I’ve got lots of them. I mean, doesn't everybody love Denzel Washington?”

MEGAN: Man was that his way of fishing for the lesbian question? Oh, no, just being a sexist.

SPENCER: 1) She's the fucking Secretary of State. You think he would ever ask Colin Powell that?

MEGAN: Actually, would he ask Madeline Albright that?

SPENCER: 2) Yes, he was obviously trying to get her to say "Why, now that you mention it, I'm a — what's the term they use on Jezebel? — right, right, Lezebel. I am a lezebel. Are you happy now? Feel proud of yourself, professionally?"

MEGAN: I think it's important to chuck into the mix here the fact that he wouldn't ask Maddie that, either. But a black woman was fair game. There's been a lot of talk about how African-American women are either angry finger-snappers or over-sexualized in media portrayals, and then Mike Allen asks her about her fantasy life in an interview.

SPENCER: That didn't occur to me, honestly. I should have read your comment before I tapped out an angry email to a listserv that I'm on with Allen
internet feud! Good for exercising my profanity muscles. The ones below my delts.

MEGAN: I mean, also, can you imagine the uproar if she's said someone else? Someone too young or (gasp) not black? Although, I'd give her props if she referenced the upcoming Bush movie and said Josh Brolin (who is portraying Bush) and thus made fun of the question and the whole "she's in love with George" theme.

SPENCER: You know what I'd ask Condoleezza Rice, whose secretary has declined every interview request I've ever put in? Anything but trivial shit about her personal life. I mean, this is a fucking enabler to a war criminal we're talking about! I'd ask her how she feels about the 500th U.S. troop death in a war she cares about not at all.

MEGAN: That's what I was going to ask you about, actually?

SPENCER: I get these troop death emails from the Pentagon, and the last three months or so, the Afghanistan death notices — practically a trickle in 03-05 — have been as torrid as during the worst days of the Iraq war.

MEGAN: You know what? If McCain used email, I'd want him to get signed up for those emails.

SPENCER: Nor are they going to stop — if I can link my Windy piece this morning, Barry McCaffrey just came back from A-stan, and this is what he found:

As U.S. military casualties mount in Afghanistan, a retired four-star Army general, who just returned from reviewing the six-plus-year war effort, said the country "is in misery" and describes the war as "a 25-year campaign."

MEGAN: Well, at least the troops won't have far to go when McCain ends the Iraq War in 2013. Of course, by then, it'll be a 50-year campaign in Afghanistan, but no worries. We'll surge again and again and again. Or not, because they only have heroin and not oil. Can you make ethanol from poppies?

SPENCER: I did an interview yesterday with the Afghan ambassador to the US, I should've asked him that.

MEGAN: I mean, if you can, we should stop forced eradication programs and just set up a few ethanol plants or something, and then they'll have fuel for our cars and something else to do with the poppies.

SPENCER: As Al Gore says, though, you can't skin-pop your way out of the energy crisis.

MEGAN: Actually, I kid. You can make ethanol from anything, including grass and sugar cane (which is how they do it in Brazil). You can make it from agricultural waste products. Just, you know, not here because Chuck Grassley made sure that that it's all-corn, all the time. Plus we keep super-high import tariffs on ethanol, but if Afghanistan and Iraq are going to be Empire America's newest colonies, I'm sure we'd learn from the British example and not impose high tariffs on manufactured goods shipped in from the colonies. Of course, if we were going to learn from the British example, we probably wouldn't take on colonies that require huge military outlays.

SPENCER: It took the British quite a while to learn that lesson, I recall.

MEGAN: Well, if we're only in Iraq for 100 years, then I guess we'll be better than them. So, fuck it.

The poll also shows that 75 percent of women support increased government spending on child care and early childhood education compared to 59 percent of men — and fully 77 percent of women identified pay equity as a must-do issue after the Inauguration in January. These results could help explain the 49-39 percent lead Barack Obama has over John McCain at the moment (since only one of them supports increasing spending on child care and education or a pay equity bill), but it doesn't explain why that gap isn't larger.

In the meantime, some women are finding alternate ways of making ends meet — through egg donation. Of course, the article is filled with the appropriate amount of "concern" and approbation that women are (gasp) selling their eggs as opposed to subjecting themselves to weeks of difficult and painful procedures simply out of the kindness of their baby-loving hearts. I don't recall there being this kind of paternalism present when it was more common for men to jerk off in cups for money to "help" women get pregnant, but it wasn't that much money, either. Sperm are a dime a dozen, but eggs are are just half a cell away from being citizens if some people have their way.

Poll: Economic Anxiety Among Women [Politico]
Pay Gap Persists: Women Still Make Less, Study Says [USA Today]
Poll: Trouble Signs in Obama's Lead [Time]
Dim Economy Drives Women To Donate Eggs For Profit [CNN]

Nothing symbolizes spineless deference more than a man on bended knee proposing marriage to his girlfriend.

If this was the start of an argument about why there should be more equality in marriage rituals, I'd be all for it. But, sadly, no. It's just about how getting on one knee is "emasculating" rather than respectful. And, while he notes that women file about 70 percent of the divorce claims in this country (up from 62 percent in 1867!) and claims that it's to extract money and vengeance from their husbands, he neglects the research in the article he posts on his own site that shows that most women end up less well-off after their marriages than during and that women are significantly less likely than men to re-marry. But that's okay because it doesn't prove his thesis that women are money-hungry, deceiving harpies out to take men's balls.

Supposedly, the basis of marriage has changed over time — evolving from parentally arranged unions focused on property, wealth, station, and lineage to modern ones in which the fiancés freely choose each other out of love and compatibility.
In reality, the more things have changed, the more they’ve stayed the same. Marriages, in 2008, still are about money and children, as their dissolutions ultimately prove.

Well, if Marc's right, then this must explain why I'm single because I have my own money and no great urge to breed... except, then, by Marc's reasoning men should be falling at my feet and I'm still single. Also, back to the thesis that women marry to extract money and offspring through men and then leave them, despite all the evidence that women end up financially worse off after a divorce. Is anyone else starting to get the sense that Marc had an alimony or child support payment due this week? It is the first of the month.

Despite all the talk about feminism and equality, Americans, via outmoded chivalry and unconstitutional reproduction, child-custody, rape, and domestic-violence laws, keep women in perpetual childhood. Yes, American women have grown accustomed to being spared risk, pain, and disappointment.
Because most men have been raised to make women happy, to close that painful gap between expectation and reality, the penalty for failing is tremendous.

What is unconstitutional reproduction, anyway? Also, yes, Marc, laws which punish men for forcibly inserting their penii into any of my orifices against my will with or without the use of a deadly weapon are keeping me in perpetual childhood. Guess that makes my rapists child rapists. And, gosh, those laws have SO spared me disappointment, risk and pain since they've totally kept me from being raped or physically assaulted by a boyfriend, not that they actually, you know, did or anything. And I'm sorry your wife got custody of your kid(s), but the more I read this, frankly, the more I'm thinking the judge made a good call.

Women just don’t like to admit that feminarcissism is the rule, not the exception. Why is this? Most men tolerate and enable it out of false necessity: they naïvely believe that women have weak libidos. Such ignorance about female sexuality drives all irrational male behavior

Riiight. Well, we all know that some of us have damn strong libidos and, if I can personalize this just as much as Marc has, my willingness to have sex has definitely not stemmed any tide of irrational male behavior. Also, I think a lot of people [cough, Marc Rudov, cough] are pretty damn narcissistic.

Why is it that women who falsely accuse men of rape or domestic violence are never prosecuted?

Because this happens exactly how often? More or less than actual crimes, including rape? Less, right? Ok, so, let's call that a distribution of resources, especially since I'm going to just guess here that Marc's also one of those Republicans who doesn't like paying taxes so much. Also, "winning" a court case or having a prosecutor decline to prosecute doesn't mean the victim was lying — or that the defendant is innocent. He's just "Not Guilty." God knows no one ever gets away with crimes in this county.

In fact, Clinton is a hypocrite. Her presidential campaign and Website were all about women, women, women — which is overt sexism.

Yes, God forbid a candidate for President reach out to 51 percent of the citizens of this country.

Tell a woman she’s too weak to be an executive in your company or commander in chief of the US Armed Forces, and see how fast you get a call from the EEOC. Now, tell her she’s too strong to require special protection from VAWA, the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act that Joe Biden, the US Senate’s biggest woman-pleaser, created. Now, watch her victimhood side emerge to explain her vulnerabilities. Basically, women are strong when it suits them and weak when it suits them, and men, suffering from vaginaphobia, just go along with it.

Did he just call Joe Biden a playa? And, yes, domestic violence requires no special laws or anything which is why we've so successfully stamped it out in this country. And men who recognize that it does are scared of not getting laid. Also, since when is brute strength required to be a CEO or a military commander? I'm sure that Marc would also argue that the 100 American women killed in Iraq only got killed because they were weak.

A man’s welfare, in this gynocracy that men built, depends on a woman’s mood, her ethics, the state in which she lives, and the reluctance of an unknown future judge or jury to “disappoint” her. The playing field is unlevel because men — afraid of being called misogynists and afraid of not getting laid — allowed it to happen, continue to tolerate it, and won’t fight it.

Well, at least he isn't still claiming that women built the so-called gynocracy, even as he claims that a society which pays women 80 cents for every dollar men earn is female-dominated. Of course, "getting laid" is also a part of a man's welfare, so I'm guessing Marc has rather limited interests. Has he ever heard of masturbation?

This is, annoyingly, part of a larger trend in which people "bemoan" the loss of some past in which men were Men, women were home and society and every about it was perfect and hunky-dory and no one had any problems. Of course, that perfect society spawned the feminist movement because it was just a false facade of a perfect society. There was still adultery, divorce, domestic violence, drug abuse, rape and women getting custody of their kids by rote (one of Marc's apparent pet peeves). Of course, the problem was no one talked about it or did anything about it, so it seemed better than today when people are talking about it and trying to do things about it and some of those things require that men and women adjust to changing gender roles and social expectations. What it doesn't require, as Marc suggests, is that men "grow a pair."

I'm all for having an honest discussion about the way that judges and courts seem to privilege mothers in custody cases regardless of the situation which, it can be argued, is rooted in sexism about a woman's "proper" role in the family and manifests itself as sexism about the role of fathers. But when it comes with this kind of sexist, misogynist "men need to grow a pair and give women the sexing they won't admit they really want but just look at what she's wearing" baggage, well, this is why the father's movement keeps losing the battle. Epic fail, Marc.

Thou Shalt Not Disappoint Her [The No Nonsense Man]
"These Boots Are Made For Walking": Why Most Divorce Filers are Women [American Law And Economics Association]

Photo(shop) courtesy of Shakesville

Generally speaking, if I commit (or try to commit) suicide in this country (generally done for personal reasons), that's considered a criminal act so that they can lock me up and get my the psychiatric help I need. When a person of either gender straps explosives to their body and kills him or herself and as many other people as possible — is that a rational act? Can it be a rational act? Is it any less of a sign — regardless of gender — that the person in question is in need of a mental health intervention?

By now, male suicide bombers are de rigueur in the Middle East (if not in other countries where suicide bombings are common). The stories are played out, the irrationality of the situation accepted, the coercion and indoctrination involved go without saying. And so the question for the Western media, tired of "yet another" suicide bomber story is — why women now and why not all along?

Obviously, the recruiting and coercion is different, given that much recruiting of men is reportedly done in sex-segregated religious settings. The personal reasonings are probably also different — given that men and women have significantly different and entrenched roles in those societies, and what they lose by making an early exit from them is going to be different. The rationale of the clothing provides a stepping-off point to understand why a male-dominated terrorist organization would think of recruiting women (or more women than ever before) when they come from a supposed religious ideology and secular background in which women are not normally allowed in combat situations.

On Sunday, Lindsey O'Rourke argued in her New York Times OpEd that the media is sexist in the way it reports female suicide bombings because the political context in which men and women choose to become suicide bombers is the same, while admitting that recruiting tactics for men and women remain significantly different. If men and women are recruited differently, then doesn't it stand to reason that the differing recruitment works because men and women have different person motivations that they are more likely to share with others in their gender? The external motivating factors — or, if one accepts the premise that suicidal impulses are inherently irrational, the rationale given for an inherently irrational act — might be similar but, at the end of the day, the personal reasons for getting involved in a situation are going to be different and in a society in which gender plays a huge role on your place in that society, it's probably going to be gendered, at least in part.

While there is no shortage of other string of female suicide bombers — particularly in a secular context — through which we can contextualize the recent spate of Iraqi suicide bombings committed by women, the fact remains that such bombings are an anomaly in that country at this time. There is obviously something driving the increase, and understanding why Chechnyan women or Tamil women agreed to participate in suicide bombings in their respective countries doesn't really get us that much closer to understanding why Iraqi women are doing it now — or how to stop it. And that, really, is what the media and our governments are trying to understand — why women, why now, why there, and how do we stop it.

If, as Faith suggests, the sexism comes from the world is wondering what is making women irrational enough to start becoming suicide bombers, what they're actually proposing is that women have been more rational all along. And that might be sexist, but it might also be aimed at men.

Three Women Held In Iraq Suicide Bomb Plots [CNN]
The Vulnerable Robed Women: Coverage Of Women Suicide Bombers [Muslimah Media Watch]
When The Suicide Bomber Is A Woman [Marie cCaire]
Behind The Woman Behind The Bomb [NY Times]

Miss Buffalo Chip isn't a beauty contest in the traditional sense — it's a relatively debauched topless (and sometimes bottomless) multiday contest where women dance, jiggle and reportedly even perform blow jobs on bananas for the titillation of the spectators. And John McCain offered up his 54-year-old wife as a contestant.

And, let be frank, he didn't do it just because she's pretty or has an enviable body for a 54-year-old woman or because he's proud of his wife's brand of socialite beauty. He did it to pander to the crowd's idea of appropriate masculinity, and that apparently includes over-sexualizing your wife and the mother of your children for the amusement of a few people in a crowd. McCain offered up the thought of his wife objectifying herself for the sexual gratification of others (at his suggestion) in order to get a couple of chuckles, inspire some male fantasy and make a few "friends." Fun!

And you might say that John McCain didn't think of it as an objectification ritual, or that he didn't know that it involved nudity and displays of stimulated sex acts or whatever. Well, then, why wasn't he offering to get his very pretty daughter Meghan up on stage? Suggesting a 24-year-old woman participate in a just-a-beauty pageant wouldn't be so outside the the norm, if he thought it would be just a beauty pageant. But he knew that it wasn't, and he doesn't think of his daughter in that way and wouldn't in a million years as a father suggest or even intimate that his daughter should get on stage and flash her breasts, ass and (potentially) her external genitalia at a group of strange men for admiration, money or votes.

But what does it say that he would suggest it of his wife? I think it's another piece of gravel in a growing mountain of evidence that John McCain doesn't think a lot about women, their place as equals in society or their rights in that society. But he does seem to think a lot about us as sexual beings — or, at least, sexual objects.

McCain Makes The Rounds At A Biker Rally [CNN]
Obama, in New Stand, Proposes Use of Oil Reserve [NY Times]
Tax Plans And The Single Girl [Glamocracy]
McCain, 2013 and the End of the War on Terror [AC360]
Topless in Sturgis [Politico]
Getting An Eyeful In Biker Heaven [ESPN]
Sexist McCain Moment of the Day [Feministing]
What John McCain's Jokes Say About His View Of Women [Glamocracy]

MEGAN: So, Spencer, I have a favorite new Internet game this morning. "McCain's Lobbyists" allows you to check out where he's getting his cash from BUT even better... every time you click a face or an issue area, the page goes "cha-ching" and moneybags pile up at his feet and that's the sort of thing that amuses me before 9 am.
SPENCER: i clicked on Juleanna Glover Weiss!
MEGAN: Me too! But mostly because she's Liz Glover's sister, and she was actually super nice to me when Liz and I worked together.
SPENCER: who, in all due credit, I recently saw ask a genuinely-intellectually-curious question of a couple Iraqi parliamentarians
oh no shit? i didn't know that
MEGAN: Also, I clicked Kirsten Chadwick because I worked with her and she hated me and vice versa.
SPENCER: anyway, the game says Juleanna profitted $9 million off a measely $1.3 million McCain donation by her clients
what a titan
MEGAN: And I'm just going to put this out there, she only ever got hired based on the strength of her connection (whatever it was) with Roy Blunt and couldn't actually run an issue up the flagpole herself or lift anything heavy legislatively without him (or his staff) doing all the work.
(Kirsten, not Juleanna)
SPENCER: except look at Rick Davis, who's McCain's campagin chairman: $2 million off a $625,000 client donation
I'm going to be playing this when I should be working on Afghanistan stuff
MEGAN: Kirsten's clients gave $1.5 mil and she (or her company) made almost $38
SPENCER: OK, Kristen clearly wins
holy shit that's so much money
MEGAN: I know!
SPENCER: And McCain got a huge financial boost after he started calling for offshore drilling
hang on while i google the stuff that my leftwing interlocutors email me...
MEGAN: Which he would totally come back to vote for, even though he missed votes for FISA, the GI bill, the Ledbetter/equal pay bill, the Medicare reimbursement bill, the stimulus package (despite actually being in DC) and 15 energy/environment bills.
SPENCER: Here's one of my favorite right-wing bloggers, James Joyner, on this shit:

The latest campaign kerfuffle is the shocking fact that John McCain is receiving significant donations from the oil industry. A new Obama ad says the amount is $2.1 million; FactCheck.org says it’s a mere $1.33 million. Either way, it’s about triple what the industry is giving to Obama.
More damning, critics say, is that there has been an uptick in oil money flowing to McCain’s coffers since he started pushing for offshore drilling, a position he previously opposed. Aha! Many on the Left seem to think this is a big winner.

well, yeah we do!
McCain mortgaged America's coastline to boost his quarterly fundraising — that's kind of a big deal!
MEGAN: Don't we all sort of love how the Maverick Campaign Finance Reformer is fundraising so prodigiously from the same money sources he was so keen to stamp out 6 years ago?
SPENCER: This is the stuff that kills me, Megan — if McCain was a Democrat who'd gone through as many reinventions in order to run for president for the last 10 years, he'd be mercilessly mocked as the basest kind of opportunist
but oh well, gotta get (get) that (that) dirt off your shoulder
and speaking of, check out the ever-charming toby keith:

During Keith's appearance on the July 30 broadcast of Beck's show, he remarked, "I think the black people would say he [Obama] don't talk, act or carry himself as a black person."

MEGAN: That shit is fucked the fuck up.
SPENCER: That's courtesy of my friend Max Blumenthal, he of the LOLtastic campaign videos
even Glenn Motherfucking Beck was astounded:

"What does that even mean?" the audibly shocked Beck replied.

"Well, I don't know what that means," Keith drawled, "but I think that that's what they would say. Even though the black society would pull for him I still think that they think in the back of their mind that the only reason he is in [the general election] is because he talks, acts and carries himself as a Caucasian."

MEGAN: I love how the fucker immediately backtracks on that shit. "Well, I don't know what that means..." Bullshit!
SPENCER: i know, what a PUSSY
when I want to take the temperature of black America, Toby Keith is my trusty thermometer
who's blacker than Toby Keith?
MEGAN: Toby Keith has probably met a black person or two in his time, and he totes has black friends so he knows what he's talking about.
SPENCER: one of his bodyguards is totally black
MEGAN: Can we make up some stereotypes about Toby Keith?
SPENCER: Toby Keith still uses VHS like a real man
Toby Keith attacks Keith Gessen on his Tumblr
MEGAN: Toby Keith doesn't talk, act or carry himself like a homosexual
Toby Keith knows how to plug in a computer but lets someone else press the keys because he doesn't want to get his hands dirty.
SPENCER: Toby Keith's favorite Dallas Cowboy is Charles Haley
MEGAN: Toby Keith doesn't like the Cowboys, anyway, he's a Pats fan.
SPENCER: Toby Keith plays his guitar with finger guards because he can't develop calluses no matter how hard he tries
MEGAN: Toby Keith used to root for the Yankees, but now he's part of the Red Sox Nation.
SPENCER: Toby Keith wouldn't have actually put a boot in the Taliban's ass because his boots are Jimmy Choo
MEGAN: But Toby Keith is intimately familiar with how to have things inserted in your butt with a minimum of pain.
Speaking of having things up your ass...
SPENCER: Toby Keith is upset that Jason Giambi shaved his mustache because he wanted to shave it
oh yeah this shit
i'd like your perspective, as a woman, on what the fuck Samantha Sault is upset with Pelosi for
what's really at work here, Megan?
MEGAN: The first thing I thought when reading it was that it was written by a petulant child.
SPENCER: the Weekly Standard is an outpost of maturity, so that can't be right
MEGAN: So, let's recap: 1. Bipartisanship means allowing John Boehner to get his way on everything and especially drilling off the coast of California where John Boehner doesn't live and Nancy Pelosi does, but that's her being mean.
2. Nancy Pelosi is on a book tour when she should be working even though it's August recess and, um, NO ONE is working because that's what happens during August recess.
SPENCER: isn't the implication that, uh, Pelosi should lie back and take it from Boehner?
MEGAN: Probably bend over, but maybe that's just a personal preference.
SPENCER: she does always wear that pearl necklace
MEGAN: 3. Also, Nancy Pelosi's book is short and uses big print because Nancy Pelosi is a 19 year old college student that thinks her professors don't notice font sizes.
(not that Little Miss Sault knows anything about that)
SPENCER: ok so Samantha Sault from the Standard doesn't like this about Pelosi:

Pelosi complains that when San Francisco mayor Joe Alioto phoned to ask her to join the city Library Commission, he asked if she was "making a great big pot of pasta e fagioli." He "assumed that the only thing I could be doing at five in the afternoon was cooking," she says—never mind that she happily stayed home "cooking meals for five children for 20 years."

i know! Who could possibly find that objectionable????
MEGAN: Also, Samantha doesn't like calling women "women," she calls them "girls." Oh, Spencer, there's nothing sexist about expecting a woman to cook all the time. I mean, not women, "girls." "Modern girls."
SPENCER: she took her money/ and bought a do-nut/ the hole's the size of this whole world
MEGAN: But Samantha does give her props for knowing her place and staying home with her kids until they were out of school, which is one of the big reasons that there aren't more women in politics. For every Adam Putnam who gets to play off the power of incumbency before his 30th birthday, there are, oh, wait, pretty much all the women in Congress who waited until they were more established.
But what Samantha giveth, Samantha taketh away: Nancy Pelosi is a harpy for not picking up her husband's dry-cleaning or ever ironing his shirts.
MEGAN: I offered, once, to pick up my ex-boyfriends dry-cleaning because we used the same dry-cleaner and he was horrified at the thought of me doing that.
SPENCER: um, i would take someone up on an offer to pick up my dry cleaning
the fucking place is always closing before i get home from work
MEGAN: But he felt like accepting it was practically sexist.
SPENCER: see, knowing a bit about the opinion-journalism game, i look at a piece like this and think a couple things:
1. Sault is apparently rather young
MEGAN: Oooh, I nailed the petulant child thing!
SPENCER: 2. Sault works at a right-wing magazine, and surely wants to succeed at it
MEGAN: Right, and we all know that you can't possibly call women anything but "girls" there. Man, she even does it in her profile piece. How incredibly annoying.
SPENCER: 3. The Weekly Standard is not exactly known for its surfeit of women writers — there's batshit-insane Noemie Emery, whom a Standardite once told me files her would-be-Peggy-Noonan pieces on yellow legal paper
SPENCER: handwritten
4. so you scrape for a story wherever you can, and a rightwing magazine is going to feel innoculated if say, you have a woman attacking woman politicians for being too feministy
and what better way to do that than to sift through Pelosi's book, find examples of her committing flagrant acts of feminism, and then clucking your teeth at her? That's going into pages for sure
MEGAN: Does she even ever get around to attacking Pelosi's politics for anything other than being not bipartisan enough, which makes me breathless with laughter when Republicans accuse Democrats of that?
SPENCER: her politics are too feministy, and that's Sault's problem with them

he says more women could run for office if they had access to "quality child care." She doesn't explain what this means or who will pay, although we can guess.

that's just fucking lazy, come on
MEGAN: Sault should have a look at the masthead 30 years ago and reconsider what the problem with feminism is.
SPENCER: or her masthead today
MEGAN: Well, but that's obviously a meritocracy. Sexism doesn't exist anymore.
SPENCER: whatever, the fact that she's getting criticized on Jezebel for her Pelosi piece will earn her lots of accolades from the other Standard staffers, who'll then expect a quick break-room handjob

Probably the former. Yes, families where both parents are present in the children's lives are more stable and ultimately create a better environment for children, but Grove is implying that parents need to not only be married for children to thrive, but the man needs to be working and providing ("responsibility") for his young while the woman stays home and cares for them. Why not promote a society where single mothers can provide for their children on their own? Grove says that the Conservative government will provide a maternity nurse service for families who need help during the first days after childbirth, but there is no mention of this service being available to single mothers (or fathers) who have a newborn. An emphasis is placed on the relationship between the father and mother, implying that they are together.

And what does Grove think of women's magazines? While he condemns lad mags' presentation of a "narrow conception of beauty and a shallow approach towards women," he praises women's magazines (and their publishers) for addressing their readers "in a mature and responsible fashion." So, being obsessed with materialism, being fearful of any beauty "imperfection," and constantly being reminded that the attention of men is necessary to live a happy lifestyle is "mature"? Has this dude ever looked at a women's magazine?

Lad Mags Linked To 'Social Ills' [BBC]
'Lads Mags' Condemned Over Images Of Women [Telegraph]
Poll" Do Lad Mags Make Men Feckless? [Guardian]