Last week, Pete Themel, reporting for the New York Times, wrote about several possible issues with the University of Tennessee's recruiting techniques. Like many other colleges, the University of Tennessee has a hostess group that was recently renamed "Orange Pride." Usually, members of Orange Pride remain on the campus, but Themel reported that two students, Lacey Earps and Dahra Johnson, had been spotted at a high school football game, holding up signs of encouragement for two of the players. The N.C.A.A. has launched an investigation to determine whether this was an illegal off-campus recruiting trip by non-sanctioned Tennessee personnel or simply a friendly visit from orange-clad future classmates.

While the vast majority of the stories about the University of Tennessee's questionable recruiting techniques skirt around the real issue, George Vecsey hits the nail right on the head. In a piece published today by the New York Times, Vecsey says: "College football never fails me with its grubbiness." It's not entirely clear yet whether these women traveled the 178-miles to the high school game with the express purpose of recruiting the players, yet it seems likely (especially given the fact that they held up a sign reading "Miller and Willis have our hearts"). They also had direct contact with the players, as a photo published on the Sports Illustrated website proves. Unless they already knew the players, it's clear that Earps and Johnson were there for one reason: to convince high school students to attend their college not only for the sports, but also for the girls. Or, as Vecsey puts it:

It sounds like a major state university encouraging two undergraduates to send an unmistakable message: "These are the kind of honeys we have in Knoxville." Athletes want to know this before they matriculate. (What, you thought Tiger Woods was the only athlete who likes variety?)

Over at our sister site, Dashiell Bennett took the argument one step further. Bennett mentions several comments from a message board that provide "veiled thoughts about what these girls are willing to do for their school." The first message on the thread reads:

These are the unsung heros of recruiting. Just ask Bryce Brown.

And the message was probably not lost on the South Carolina students. Vecsey writes:

The N.C.A.A. could start its investigation with the comments in The New York Times from Keith Easterwood, a basketball coach who accompanied his son on a football recruiting trip to Knoxville. He said recruits were reduced to "blubbering idiots" by Orange Pride hostesses brushing into them.

"My observation is that this is a very organized operation," Easterwood said. "These girls have obviously been groomed. There's a lot of eye contact and touching."

Although the Orange Pride group includes both male and female members, it's the women who are being used (illegally) for recruiting. They're being paraded around in order to send a message to high schoolers: Join us, and you can have all this. But coach Kiffin doesn't seem too concerned about the investigation. On Saturday, he told press that he considers the investigation "a compliment." Somehow, we don't think that's how the N.C.A.A. intended it.

Hostesses As Recruiters? How Far Is Too Far [New York Times]
Tennessee's "Hostess" Program Catches Recruits' (And NCAA's) Eyes [Deadspin]
Photo Proves Tennessee Vols Recruits Had Contact With Hostesses [Sports Illustrated]
Kiffin Says Recruitment Investigation A Compliment [AP]
University Of Tennessee Pledges Cooperation With NCAA In Inquiry [New York Times]

More like horrendous. And apparently, as Copyranter reports on Animal New York, no one is laughing:

The Kraft women are furious and the men embarrassed. That's understandable, especially considering that the Kraft CEO is a woman.

Okay: Chicken talk is full of ridiculous stuff — was it Frank Perdue who said "My breasts are as tender as my thighs"? But doesn't this qualifiy as sexual harassment in the workplace? Someone thought it was cheeky, or clever, or funny, but it comes off as rude and crude. It's an awkward campaign. Surely the idea was to grab people's attention, but it's been done in the worst possible way. At least they didn't incorporate the retro catchphrase, "And I helped!"

Saggy Tit Joke Right in The Kraft Headquarters Lobby [Animal New York]

On Tuesday, I went to an Accompanied Literary Society screening for Selling the Sixties,, a BBC documentary that, unfortunately, isn't scheduled to be aired in the U.S. anytime soon. But the account of how research became a tool for advertising to efficiently exploit desire, sexualizing even the most basic transactions, was so strikingly related to the conversations we have here that I begged for a DVD in order to share a relevant clip.

Whereas in the first episode of Mad Men Don throws a dour Freudian psychoanalyst's report into the garbage, it's clear from this clip that his real-life contemporaries weren't quite so dismissive. Early 60s consumers were becoming jaded and unmoved by the simple pitch. Enter Ernest Dichter, the Viennese psychoanalyst who created "motivational research," tapping into what he saw as the deepest desires of consumers.

He was also a pioneer of the focus group, including the one seen here, where a woman straightfacedly says of a salad dressing, "I think that it has a place in our American way of life."

Selling The Sixties [BBC]

The interactive aspect of the campaign, which basically entails watching "our shower babe shake her bits to the hits at 9.30am every morning" is that you can vote on the song and the bikini. (So maybe it's not just for 18-25 year-old boys. Because it involves fashion! I vote fried egg bra.)

But okay, we know we're not the demographic for this campaign. As I recently learned, YouTube is the ultimate arbiter of the viral video sensibility (especially when it literally involves bathroom humor!), and the rest of us are a gaggle of idiots who have nothing better to do than to suck the last drop of humor out of life." So what's the word from the people on the audition outtakes the agency calculatedly loaded to YouTube?

Oh. Okay. So it's unanimous.

Singing In The Shower [Burger King UK]
Singing In The Shower Auditions [YouTube]

Related: The Last Word On Method's Horny Shiny Suds [AdRants]

Earlier: Ladyblog Commenters Ruin Everything

Last week, household cleaning company Method apologized for and withdrew a web video it had created as part of a campaign for more stringent labeling of household products. The video, made by Droga5, depicted catcalling chemical bubbles ganging up on a naked woman in a shower.

The Ad Age story all but comes out and blames the harridans for ruining the creative fun:

Household cleaner marketer Method has pulled down a viral video roundly applauded by marketers at the Association of National Advertisers annual conference last month and by most viewers who've seen it because of heated complaints from some women who view it as sexist and even condoning rape....

The video got more than 700,000 views in a week on YouTube and a five-star rating from viewers before Method pulled the plug. Method competitor Unilever seemed to like it, too....Little did attendees at the ANA or most commenters on YouTube and Twitter know, however, that the Shiny Suds were really about degrading women and promoting rape, at least in the opinion of commenters on one blog, Shakesville, which posted the video in its "Today in Rape Culture" section.

Feminist blog commenters (yes, on Shakesville, but also on Feministing, and on Feminist Law Professors and right here on Jezebel, and on uncounted emails to us and to Method) must be bigger bullies than... chemical soap bubbles? Fellow officers of the P.C. police, let us use our powers responsibly. Or maybe, just maybe, a commercial that visibly alienates your ostensible core consumer simply isn't good business.

Method Pulls 'Shiny Suds' Ad After Sexism Complaints [Advertising Age]

Earlier: Cleaning Company Pulls Shiny Suds Video, Apologizes For Any Offense We Caused

You'd think an all women's college like Wellesley would be relatively free of this kind of asshat behavior, but the case of Jeremy Pham, a Dartmouth student in an exchange program at Wellesley, goes to prove that boys really can't handle single-sex schools, even if the sex is female (however, he certainly shows that you can learn valuable life lessons from opposite-sex peers, in this case, mostly about how not to act). A couple of weeks ago, he noticed a post on Wellesley FML (Fuck My Life, a message board for whining, basically) that read: "I'm the only guy of a campus of 2,300 girls but I'm still not getting any." Despite the fact that he is not the only guy at Wellesley, Pham assumed that the poster was impersonating him. On November 21st, he responded by posting an angry message on Wellesley's general discussion forum. In it's crap entirety, here is Pham's tirade:

I don't speak much, since I'm pretty reserved by nature and I'm never really around either (I'm always doing projects at the other school in Cambridge). But since Wellesley girls apparently insist on writing false posts under my name, as well as treating my friends that visit here like crap just because they're not 5'9 and don't possess the male-dominated social space of the MIT fratboy that's fucking the shit out of you nightly, I present to you...what normal, rational people think of you girls:

1) You are all a bunch of whores. No, seriously. The stereotype that Wellesley girls obsess over men is so true that it's not even funny. Go to a normal school like Dartmouth (where one of your girls won't leave after 4 terms because she wants to milk the place for all it's worth) and you'll see that nobody there obsesses to the degree that the people in the 5th percentile here do. Consequently, you all make poor decisions. Which is why people on the Internet laugh at you. Which is why people on the Internet will laugh at you even more when I make a reddit post detailing my experiences here.

2) You are all undeserving of the education and opportunities you have received. The sense of entitlement here is actually kind of incredible. Just to make sure it just wasn't me, my friend visiting right now notices it too. And he's much more outgoing, friendly, and chill than I am. But he's not 5'9, so sorry girls. But there are some insecure dudes littering the streets of Commonwealth for your amusement.

3) You are all too easy. Some of us refuse to participate in the orgy of sexual tension here because we want to be respected for who we are, not what we are. Of course, for others, it's as easy as dropping the MIT/Harvard moniker. I mean, what idiot thinks a meaningful relationship can develop out of a superficial encounter at a party? Seriously, WTF. At my school, there aren't that many relationships. But at least we're honest about the fact that most of us are just merely infatuated with the other party, and not actually "in love."

Do not make up shit under false pretenses. Do not treat my friends like shit. Do it one more time, and I will sue you. It's so funny that there's this Wellesley Community discussion group thing going on, but if you girls can't do something as trivial as leave me alone to do my own thing, you guys have no shot at forming a cohesive community. No fucking chance.

And I'll just sit back and enjoy the schadenfreude.

Aside from the misogynistic rage Pham has been harboring, he also displays a fundamental confusion as to whether Wellesley girls are "whores" or too picky. I suppose he means they are whores because they aren't interested in him - or his average-height friends. It's actually rather uninspired. Lacking anything better to criticize, he goes the "slut" route, which is always odd when the general complaint is that he feels neglected. And this is just one example of just how shockingly un-self-aware this guy is. Probably the funniest - read: crappiest - bit is when he speaks to the "sense of entitlement" at Wellesley, while bemoaning the fact that his "friend" didn't get any during his visit. While it's obvious what he feels entitled to (sex for him and his buddies) I'm not sure what Wellesley girls are supposed to be demanding. Perhaps the right to choose who to fuck? Those whores!

But the Pham-saga doesn't end here. Naturally, many Wellesley women were annoyed by Pham's message, which was posted on a board that can be viewed by both students and faculty. In a surprising moment of clarity, Pham thought it best he apologize. But even that didn't go so well:

Let me first begin by apologizing for my tone and perhaps the language that I used to address some of my own feelings as being one of the few, if not only, males on campus. It isn't easy for me to be accepted in the Wellesley community. Wellesley has been be a wonderful learning experience and many people here have been welcoming to me. At the same time, hearing "What are you doing here?" when walking through the halls and being judged solely based on my looks can be hard for me. I hope you can understand that.

The "apology," in which he continues to blame Wellesley women for being shallow bitches, goes on for quite some time. He vacillates between praising the intelligence of the student body, and whining about the horrible treatment that has made him so bitter. And then there is this:

A college community is the perfect place to learn from one another. I have learned that many people do care about community and how I as "a man" can fit into it. This was my original hope when I wrote my first post. I do care about this community and do want to learn different points of views about a multitude of topics. But to do this, we need to respect each other. I hope that we can equally show each other some kindness and respect.

I can only be a productive and positive member of this community if we work together. But it can be hard when I feel ostracized here.

He ends with a request that everyone comes together to "continue building community" and forget the whole I just called y'all a bunch of whores thing. Not a perfect apology, but not nearly as bad as what came next. The blog What Estrogen captured a screenshot of Pham's status, which went up shortly after the "apology" was posted to the message board. He must have forgotten that Wellesley students can view his Facebook, because he posted this:

alright so because someone wrote some false post about me on the intarw3b at wellesley, i wrote this post calling them all entitled whores and whatnot; clearly as a troll (and to some extent, you have to admit that that is true) on the open forum @ wellesley and there was a SHITSTORM of responses. while the whole community is out protesting and acting all butthurt, i'm just sitting around lol'ing.

you fuck with me, and i'll plant a dagger in your ass. simple as that.

How contrite. But, like any good Crap Emailer, Pham is nothing if not voluble. Later the same evening, he dumped this steaming pile of shit on the message board:

[I'm really sorry…]
...for ever coming here. And calling all of you whores. Clearly, some of you are still very upset about my Community post, but I have learned a lot about the difficulties that a woman faces every single day in America. It brings a tear to my eye (metaphorically) to know that some of you are very passionate about women's rights, but I feel that your energies are misdirected. Sure you will deal with me and eradicate me from this campus in style, but your problems will still be there. Your inability to get to the root of the issues that plague our world will still be there. While other guys give me fist pumps and brag about their conquests at this school, I must endure the brunt of your criticisms so that you may all be united under the banner of activism.

And it worked perfectly.

There are real instances of women here actually being alienated from the rest of the Wellesley community. There are real cases of rape and belligerent boyfriends. My hope was that you would all unite to chastise such an extremely contemptible figure so that these issues cannot be ignored. Because honestly, what's the difference between saying thoughts behind your backs, and posting them live? There is no intrinsic difference. And yet, the perception differs, and so I wanted to explore that today. My hope was that some of these alienated women on campus can venture out of their rooms and be embraced by a community that's trying to flame me relentlessly. If I had written something benign, only a few people would have acknowledged it, and that would have been that. Nothing like controversy to stir up the day.

While I was writing the apparently insufficient apology last night, the police officer came into my room to make sure that everything was okay. I chuckled and told him that everything was okay. He wanted to offer me protection from the perhaps inevitable fallout from my polemic. Later, he read my letter and told me that it was cool, and it was the best I could have done...

Also, controversies like this happen all the time. Given the knowledge that the ACLU has my back and that I'm protected by the First Amendment, and the fact that friends who were journalists at other schools attempted similar stunts (with surprising degrees of success that resulted from open dialogue), I figured that this could turn out to be pretty sweet. And just so you know, nothing will happen to me. So for those of you seeking administrative intervention, you are only wasting your time. And for those of you seeking media attention, by all means. But understand that it'll also mean that I get my facetime, and you just can't spin a 2300 gang up on a lone campus figure in any positive way, especially given that I was trolling (even then, you wouldn't need that requirement). Also just so you know, assault or throwing water at someone's face is not protected by the First Amendment (or any). Of course, the event was trivial enough as it was, but if things escalate...

And do any of you honestly believe that I hold these misogynistic views? Please. Get real here. I hold a degree from the best trolling school of all time. I was pissed that you guys used my identity though. And to be honest, this whole debacle IS kind of hilarious. Let's be honest here. It's pretty damn hilarious.

Take a minute to let that sink in. Pham was only calling a group of 2,300 women whores because he was hoping they would band together to stop rape. The only thing I find hilarious about this whole fiasco is that Pham actually thinks someone will believe his "I was just trolling" bravado and congratulate him for his bravery. Sex and the Ivy astutely compares Pham's sudden change of tune to a horrible plot twist, borrowed from the school of M. Night Shyamalan. A few hours later, he realizes that people actually read his Facebook status, and so he issues another "apology" for threatening to penetrate his haters with daggers (you can read it here; I'm getting sick of quoting this guy). This apology is somewhat better, although after all that he has already said, it's impossible to take it seriously. This is only reinforced by his Facebook update the following day:

Jeremy Pham thanks his friends and appreciates the outpouring of support from all people all across the nation. I have never been prouder to be a Dartmouth student. Thanks ACLU. Jeremy Pham also wonders just how the orgy of cattiness will proceed. Jeremy Pham also thanks Kerry and her friends for the death threats.

In case it wasn't already clear, calling a group of women catty whores is not exactly the best way to get them to sleep with you, or even to build some sort of activist "community." It may also have gotten him expelled from the exchange program. According to a tipster, Pham "is no longer at Wellesley," and was recently escorted out of his room. This has not been verified, but the Wellesley student reports that Pham could be facing possible suspension from Dartmouth for violating the honor code and "using obscene language that suggests sexual harassment."

Dartmouth Student Jeremy Pham Will "Plant A Dagger In Your Ass," Thinks Wellesley Women Are "A Bunch Of Whores" [Sex And The Ivy]
JPhamgate 2009 [What Estrogen]
Wellesley FML [Original Post]

The video was part of a campaign the natural cleaning products company launched to support the Household Products Labeling Acts, which would require full disclosure of harmful chemicals in cleaning products. Method hired Droga5, an agency known for its successful use of digital and viral video campaigns. It went viral, all right, but probably not in the way the company hoped.

We've been getting emails all week from disgusted consumers, who were put off by the image of a woman cowering naked in the shower, victimized by her use of chemical-based products. As Hortense put it when she posted the video last weekend,

I'm really tired of the "advocacy" that relies upon humiliating women to push a point (see also: PETA). Why couldn't the dirty bubbles get drunk on their own chemicals and trash the bathroom? Why couldn't they leave graffiti all over the shower walls? Why couldn't they "move in" and start stinking up the place? Why does a woman have to get in the shower and get naked in front of a bunch of pervy bubbles, who essentially tell her she deserves it for putting them there in the first place (sound familiar?) so that Method soap can scare us all into switching over from Scrubbing Bubbles? The woman is seriously humiliated by the bubbles, who compliment her on her "core" and scream "Loofah! Loofah!" over and over again as they watch her wash up. It's supposed to be funny. So why does it make me feel so gross?

To its credit, Method appears to be responding to each of the complaints in detail, and on Wednesday, representatives informed emailers that the video had been taken down. (It's still available on some blogs, and we grabbed it just in case). We also contacted Droga5's CEO, Andrew Essex, for comment, but he said he would be unable to comment on the record. Here's a statement Method's spokeswoman just sent us:

"Thank you for your sincere feedback about our "Shiny Suds" video. It was not at all our intent to offend or promote any form of harassment. We understand the concerns associated with our video and are removing it from YouTube and all other controlled sources.

We heard and understood all of the feedback and concerns we received about the Shiny Suds video. We have removed the video from YouTube and other controlled sources, and we have reached out to every person who contacted us to let them know that we removed the video. We also apologized for any offense we caused.

Our intent in this campaign was to raise awareness for transparency in cleaning product labeling, and we will continue to push for that. I'm not sure if you recall, but at the end of the video, there was a link to a page where people could learn more about the Household Products Labeling Acts and submit letters to their representatives in support of the proposed legislation. Shortly after the video was released, more than 600 people had sent letters.

Method is a brand that is constantly growing and striving to improve. We've learned a great deal from this experience, and those learnings will certainly help us as we work on future projects."

So what do you think? Those of you who vowed to switch to Seventh Generation, is this good enough?

Earlier: Ladies, It's Your Fault That The Perverted Bubbles In Your Shower Exist

Feminism is all the rage on the Right these days! Well, sort of. Ham is reiterating critiques that were already expressed by feminist bloggers six months ago. But hey, welcome to the party.

And regardless of the source, the critique of HuffPo's cynical, pageview-grabbing tactics — trashy slideshows of starlet flesh alongside liberal politics — still holds water. As Andrew Golis (Yahoo blogging "czar" and a Mr. Feministing) put it on Twitter, "When someone at the Weekly Standard can do this clean a hit on you on feminist grounds, you've got a problem."

HuffPo's Misogyny: The NSFW Path To Liberal Journalism Success [The Weekly Standard]

Related: Huffington Post: Liberal Politics, Sexist Entertainment

Earlier: Does Huffington Post Use Sexism To Drive Liberal Page Views?

The sexy pictures are part of a newly-launched campaign designed to appeal to both potential FSU basketball players and fans. The new website for the FSU team features many pictures like the one above. In the "meet the team" section, each player has her own profile page, which is overwhelmingly dominated by a shot of the athlete dressed in a satin dress, exiting a limo. Although some clutch basketballs - the only nod to the fact that these are basketball players, not debutantes - others are straight up glamor shots (the most obvious example is the image of Kayli Keough, guard/forward). The main page shows the entire team in a limo, perfectly coiffed and smiling at the camera. Yes, they look great. They fully live up to their claim of "Confidence. Strength. Beauty. We've got it all." But it is hard not to wonder, what does beauty have to do with anything?

This is the question posed by Jayda Evans. In her column for the Seattle Times, Evans examines the re-designed site for the No. 15 team, ultimately coming to the conclusion that the emphasis on femininity and beauty indicates an underlying fear of being viewed as anything other than straight. She mentions the documentary Training Rules, about former Penn State coach Rene Portland, who allegedly had just three rules for her players: No drinking, no drugs, and absolutely no lesbians. Portland may have been more explicit about her homophobia, but the FSU website reveals a certain desire to move away from the actual game - where players are sweaty, strong and accomplished, perhaps frighteningly so - towards a much more polished image of female athletes as celebrities first, players second. Evans points out that attempt to make female athletes appear "powerful, beautiful, strong and accomplished" is just another way to gloss over the fact that they are being overtly feminized. For Evans, "beautiful" is translated as "attractive to men," and implicitly, heterosexual.

In a press release for the newly launched website, FSU coach Sue Semrau explains their decision to depict their players en route to some fancy shindig: "We feel it is important to set ourselves apart as much as we can... We wanted to have a product that would stand out to the people we are trying to reach." The "product" being not only the game, but the individual players. At Carnal San Francisco, editor Tim McElreavy suggests that Semrau's attempt to "sell" the game reveals a disheartening focus on the bottom line: "While it would be naïve to believe that college sports isn't or shouldn't be concerned with the bottom line, such words, especially from a coach, really seem to instrumentalize the players' achievements. Add to this business rhetoric the stereotype of the pretty woman, and women's sports marketing moves further and further away from the actual sport," he writes.

And to drive home this point, take a look at the website for the FSU men's team, where the players are portrayed in a rather different light. There is no doubt that this is about the "actual sport." Their website features pictures of the players in action. Their faces are contorted into grimaces of concentration while sweat pours off their bodies. Okay, it's not unattractive, but it's also not purposefully sexy. The emphasis is on the game, not the dolled-up players. While FSU women have to be "sold" and "appeal" to the public, the men's team can safely coast on the knowledge that people watch them play for reasons other than their sex appeal.

Women's Hoops Media Guides And Web Sites Getting Sexier [Seattle Times]
Glam Photos Show The Ugly Side Of Women's Basketball [Carnal San Francisco]
Glammed Up B'Ball Stars Spark Uproar [Newser]
Florida State University Women's Basketball [Official Site]

Lambert is a member of the University of New Mexico's women's soccer team. The game in question was against Brigham Young University, as part of the Mountain West semifinals. She has been placed on indefinite suspension for her actions, which include punching another player in the back, possibly throwing a punch at the back of an opponent's head, several instances of elbowing and tripping, and most notably, grabbing the ponytail of a BYU player and yanking her toward the ground. There is no doubt that Lambert's behavior was unsportswomanlike, and she admitted as much in a statement: "I let my emotions get the best of me in a heated situation. I take full responsibility for my actions and accept any punishment felt necessary."

Lambert tells the Times that, after watching the video of the game, she can't believe she acted so violently. "I look at it and I'm like, ‘That is not me,'" she says. "I have so much regret. I can't believe I did that." She goes on to note that some of her actions were taken out of context in the condensed video that was aired on ESPN (available here) and that the incident garnered more attention because it occurred at a women's game:

"I definitely feel because I am a female it did bring about a lot more attention than if a male were to do it," Lambert said. "It's more expected for men to go out there and be rough. The female, we're still looked at as, Oh, we kick the ball around and score a goal. But it's not. We train very hard to reach the highest level we can get to. The physical aspect has maybe increased over the years. I'm not saying it's for the bad or it's been too overly aggressive. It's a game. Sports are physical."

Lambert has a point. Even the ESPN anchor introduces his segment by remarking: "What is rare is when women athletes are involved in any of this type of behavior." Indeed, Lambert's case is remarkable partially because we don't expect women to be as violent or as aggressive as men.

Even more telling is the response Lambert has received from some of her new "fans." She says she has been taken aback by some of the attention, which focuses on how "hot" she comes across in the video, and reduces her very real acts of violence to "catfighting." "That appalled me," Lambert says. "A lot of people think I have a lot of sexual aggression. I was like, ‘Whoa, no, I don't feel that way at all.' That's bizarre and shocking to me."

Those Soccer Plays, In Context [New York Times]

On the Today show this morning, a Newsweek editor, Dan Klaidman, defended the magazine's choice of a Runner's World photo to illustrate its two stories critiquing Palin as a political figure. He basically stuck to the magazine's talking points, arguing that the picture did "illustrate the themes of the cover story," which is to say, that Sarah Palin lacks gravitas and exploits her all-American image.

And some female critics agree. As Lindsay Beyerstein writes:

The bottom line is that Palin's a clown. She doesn't get a pass because her chosen clown persona is stereotypically feminine.

She caricatures herself. Day in and day out. Good for Newsweek for pointing and laughing.

The story is about why Sarah Palin is a problem for the GOP. The picture answers the question. She's a problem because she's a freak with no judgment who regularly makes a spectacle of herself.

So does this "freak" matter as anything other than as a momentary soap opera for politics junkies? On Today, Tina Brown put forward a theory that's growing in steam (and that liberals fervently wish to be the case): "[Palin is] really not remotely interested in politics as far as I could see... She really was quite happy to play as a celebrity talk show guest, and she did a fabulous job at that." And yesterday, Ana Marie Cox told Rachel Maddow that McCain staffers believe Palin has no intention of running for office, adding, "This is as famous and politically credible that she's going to be."

But NBC Washington Bureau chief Mark Whitaker — who, as former editor in chief of Newsweek, used to be Klaidman's boss — calls bullshit both on the dismissal of Palin's political future and the hypocritical handwringing among his own about how much she's being covered:

The widespread suggestion in some of the media commentary that she simply isn't qualified enough to be considered a viable presidential candidate is ridiculous....Call it sexism or what you will, but why should the media only compare ambitious women to impressive men, when so many ambitious but underwhelming men get so far in this world?

Media debate about why Palin is getting all this attention is also pretty laughable. Cable and network news producers cover her on television to boost ratings, print editors put her on their front pages and magazine covers to sell newsstand copies, and then everyone turns around and tsk-tsk's: "What's all the fuss? Is she good for the GOP? Is she good for America?"

That would be, more or less, the headline Newsweek itself went for. Except they went ahead and said that the answer is no, she's bad for both.

Update: Politico's Ben Smith takes the pulse of the presidents of various feminist organizations on the Newsweek cover. Their response is basically to shrug. White House Project president Marie Wilson: "It's much more complicated than sexism... What the [Republican] Party was selling, and people were buying — and what the candidate colluded [in] — is what shows up in that Newsweek picture." And Terri O'Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women, says that while Palin has been at times a victim of sexism, this cover isn't an example of it. She adds, "Women's right's organizations are really clear that we're struggling for the rights of ordinary women...Sarah Palin is not with us on that."

Palin Calls Newsweek Cover Sexist [Today Show]
Where Coverage of "Going Rogue" Goes Wrong [MSNBC]
The Truth Hurts: Palin's Newsweek Cover [Majikthise]

Earlier: Sarah Palin Gets Her Criticism of Newsweek Cover Right

#1 Sexism
When asked about her much-publicized campaign wardrobe, Sarah said that the ensuing controversy was due to a double standard, because people don't give the same sort of grief to male candidates. She also said that women have to work just a little bit harder and face a few more challenges than their male counterparts. But later, when discussing how hard it might be to be Vice President (or President) and take care of five children, Sarah said that "things have changed…there's so much equality."


#2 Choice
Sarah, who is anti-choice, said that she believes that when women get abortions, they're taking the easy way out. But later, when discussing her career and ambition, she said it's all about "making the choices that are appropriate for you at the time."


#3 The Katie Couric Interview
When talking about the infamous Katie Couric interview, Sarah said that she was only scheduled to do one interview segment, and if it went well, she would be scheduled for more. Oprah then asked her why she did a second interview if she didn't believe the first went well, and Sarah said, "Well, it was scheduled."


#4 John McCain's Progressiveness
Sarah described her running mate as progressive and all about "equality and empowering women and the working class individual." But she later said the McCain campaign lost the election because their ticket "represented what was perceived as the status quo."


#5 Speaking Her Mind
Sarah told Oprah that she believes the campaign's efforts to force her to "stick to the script" and not "speak from the heart" were a detriment to their ticket. Later, she rejected the notion that not speaking her mind is what lost the election.


#6 Empowering Women
Supposedly, this is accomplished by not terminating pregnancies.


#7 Rumors
In an outtake of the interview, posted on Oprah's website, Sarah says that the "rumor" that she banned books from school libraries could've been so easily disproved, had the campaign allowed her, because Harry Potter hadn't even been written when she was mayor. Sarah, however, was mayor of Wasilla from 1996-2002. The first Harry Potter book was published in the U.S. in 1998, the second and third in 1999, and the fourth in 2000. Also: this. And this.


#8 Journalism
This one isn't so much a contradiction, as it is simply incorrect, or weird. Sarah has a journalism degree and has "journaled her whole life."

A World Exclusive: Oprah and Sarah Palin Meet for the First Time [Oprah.com]

This isn't going to be a big "I hate Betty Draper" screed. I agree with my co-blogger Tami, who, in September, wrote in a piece called "Sexism Makes Me Hate Betty Draper:"

The character of Betty Draper, who was fresh and hopeful in season one, is now nervous with periodically shaking hands. She is withdrawn, bitter and cold. She is alternately dismissive and cruel to her children (particularly her daughter), her friends and other family members. She is unhappy and the world knows it. Personal misery can make for an unpleasant personality.

I understand why Betty is the way she is. She was molded by her family and a society that viewed women like her as dolls not living, breathing women with needs and desires. In Sunday's episode, Betty's father Gene hints several times that he, too, didn't know what kind of person he was raising. He mentions that Betty is nothing like her independent mother, his wife, who was working when he first met her. He frets that he shielded Betty from too many things, raised her to be a princess—"Scarlett O'Hara" he calls her. After he tries to discuss his final wishes with his daughter, she huffs: (paraphrasing) I know it must be hard for you to face whatever it is your facing, but can't you keep it to yourself? It's selfish and morbid for you to talk to me about it. I'm your little girl! Later, Gene tells his grandaughter, Betty's child, that she can be whatever she wants to be..."no matter what your mother says." It is likely a message he never gave his "little girl" Betty. Nor does it seem he encouraged his wife's independent streak, as there is no mention of her working after they married. [...]

A commenter named Lgreer28 on Television Without Pity asked just this question to the Betty haters:

I find it amazing that people are always pointing out Betty's immaturity, while ignoring the immaturity of the other characters. Why do they expect her to be the perfect parent? Why is it that her flaws are not tolerated, yet the flaws of the other characters are? Why do they constantly complain about Betty's flaws and ignore Don's? Why do they ignore the fact that Don is no more a perfect parent than Betty? Why do they ignore his own immaturity or his tendencies to indulge in his own illusions?

Indeed. Betty is a bad mother, but "Mad Men" is riddled with bad fathers. Betty is selfish, but not nearly as selfish as her errant husband. As for my beef, Betty hardly created the hierarchy of race and femininity that strangles her and all of the other women on the show—black ones, included. There is scarcely a man on the show who hasn't committed Betty's "crimes" and much more and who isn't 10 times more responsible for perpetuating the inequities of the time. Yet, she is the person that gets all of our hate, which maybe proves that when it comes to sexism, we aren't so much more enlightened than folks were in Betty's day. We tut and gasp over the biased treatment of women on "Mad Men." "My God, I'm so glad things are different today!" But as we analyze the show and its characters with our 21st century eyes, a woman is still judged more harshly than a man for similar infractions. We've laid aside the mid-day gin at the office, the skinny ties and girdles. But it seems that, in some ways, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

In addition to Tami's take, Amanda Marcotte writes about the ire of some conservatives that so much focus is given to Betty's unhappiness:

Oh, I can't imagine what it must be like to be a social conservative invested in that show. You must flinch every time Betty walks onscreen, looking pained, bored, and miserable. That she herself is a petulant brat doesn't make up for that, because the show is making the point that oppression isn't suddenly right because the oppressed aren't perfect people. And the show implies that certain ugly character traits are the result of oppressive systems, that Betty Draper is a miserable person because she's been turned into one. How dare the show suggest that bitchy women might be more pleasant if they weren't treated like second class citizens? And so [Benjamin Schwartz, writing for the Atlantic] gave you an out: Betty's character makes you uncomfortable because it's not realistic, and January Jones is a bad actress, and women in the 50s were never bored because being someone's sex-and-domestic appliance is what every woman really wants! It's not you, it's January Jones and the evils of feminism. [...]

And really, Schwartz's contempt for the character and his scapegoating of the actress—-and especially the applause he got from social conservatives for it—-shows the underlying contempt for women in the paternalistic platitudes about how women were happier when being a housewife was mandatory. Dreher's being upfront about it. Asking us to spend time on the feelings and thoughts and fantasies of Betty Draper is boring, because the whole point of wives is that they're in the background, making it possible for the real actors—-mostly men—-to make things happen.

The conservative reaction to the Draper marriage shows exactly how effective that storyline is in making its point. A lot of liberals, I've found, are bored with Betty for another reason entirely. They can't understand why she doesn't just pick up and leave already, if she's so unhappy. We're on the other side of it—-so feminist that it's hard to wrap our minds around the psychology of someone who isn't. But conservatives flip the fuck out, get defensive and start scapegoating January Jones, going so far as to argue that her dull affect is evidence that she can't act, when in fact it's evidence that the actress is being fearless in her portrayal of someone whose entire personality has been flattened out by boredom.

I have to admit that part of the Betty hatred comes from the fact that I can empathize with Carla. Betty is, as Tami explains, "the embodiment of pre-Feminine Mystique, upper-middle class, white womanhood." It's part of the same reason I also hate Pete Campbell.

But more than that, there is another element at play. More than just Betty's character flaws, what makes her unwatchable is the painful lack of an inner life.

As I wrote about the fate of minorities on the series in season one, the third season has been categorized by stripping away at the inner lives of all the women on the show, Betty most markedly. Betty, from seasons one and two, had a strong inner life outside of Don. Even while she was confused as to the general reason for her shakes and malaise, she was curious and introspective. She maintained arm's length relationships with other women, but still revealed much of herself. On occasion, she acted out of character, expressing her protective streak by shooting the neighbor's birds, or when she decided to take out her aggression sexually, using a sexy stranger.

For most of season three, Betty's been pouty and insolent. The shades of insight into her motivations and personality have generally vanished, as Betty is mainly used to help advance the plot, at the expense of her own development. (Weiner, in an interview with the Daily Beast today, appears to view her childlike nature as key to her character.) Now, again, this isn't unique to Betty - Peggy and Joan also lost their inner lives this season, appearing mostly in the context of the men they were involved with (romantically or professionally).

But watching Betty go through the motions of finding out Don's secret and falling for another man while stripped of her inner life was something like watching her die a slow, painful death. Gone are the casual conversations with Francine, just hurried discussions about the reservoir. The look into the inner workings of Betty Draper achieved with the psychiatrist are a memory. Without her inner life providing insights to her behavior, we are left with a direct reading of Betty: spoiled, selfish, cruel. The only time a glimpse of the season one and two Betty surfaces is during her finale fight with Don, his careful facade smashed to pieces. They attack each other, brutally, Don focusing in on their class differences and Betty dredging up the scorn, confusion, and anger that's plagued her for the last three years:

In the end, Betty flies off to Reno, leaving behind the suburbs, the failed marriage, and the lingering doubts of her own sanity. She's moving forward with a man she doesn't know, in order to escape another man she doesn't know. Fitting, really.

So while I hate Betty, I kind of can't help to see her for who she is - a flawed, miserable person stuck in an increasingly desperate gilded cage. The marriage was already poisoning the two children - having it end will probably be for the best. Perhaps Betty's story line could have been salvaged. Perhaps Matthew Weiner could have humanized her more, given her more space to experience grief and rage before she got the upper hand by finding Dick Whitman's box of secrets. Perhaps then, instead of being a tangle of privilege and petulance, Betty Draper would have been seen as a woman in an impossible position, seeking a savior, instead of looking like an opportunist.

But either way, it's over. The Draper family is dead. Long live the Drapers.

Related: Sexism Makes Me Hate Betty Draper [What Tami Said]
Why Does Betty Draper Have To Make Wingnuts Feel Guilty? [Pandagon]
"Fuck Pete Campbell!": Mediations On Mad Men And Whiteness [Racialicious]
Why "Mad Men" Is Afraid Of Race [Double X]
On Mad Men And Race [Racialicious]
"Shoot" Wins ADG, Matt Weiner's Visions, Birds [Basket of Kisses]

At issue here (ostensibly) is the sports-heavy culture of the Obama White House. American Spectator Editor-in-Chief R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is no big fan of Obama, but he does want to defend the President against "ladies" who have the nerve to roll their eyes at an all-male White House basketball game and a general atmosphere of sports fandom. Criticizing the woman who told the Times "that her relative indifference to athletics could be mildly alienating," he writes,

Would it have helped if the President had invited this troubled woman to play basketball? He is 6'2" and presumably those who play with him are of above-average size. What are they to do with an average-size woman on the court? Or is she quite large? Nonetheless Obama's basketball players must be pretty strong — at least as compared to women. Yet maybe the eye-rolling women are pretty strong too, but as strong as these men? Is that likely? I know that men and women are equal (which to feminists means identical), but are women equal to men on the basketball court? Why are none of our female college basketball players playing in the NBA? Oh yes, and how did talking sports with colleagues become controversial and exclusionary? I thought there were a lot of women in the country interested in sports.

But the real beneficiary of Tyrrell's snide-fest is NY Times Op-Ed columnist Maureen Dowd, who wrote a column about the President's sporty predilections and challenged him to a game of Scrabble. I'm not a particular fan of Dowd's writing (she calls Obama's family an "estrogen nest," which, ew), but she doesn't deserve Tyrrell's both sexist and ill-informed takedown. He writes,

"Men have always craved private realms — the golf club, men's club, garage, workshop, shed; a place to get away from the chatter and clatter of women and kids," writes Dowd, who has never been married and has no children. In fact, in an embarrassing book she has lamented over how difficult she has found it to be in close contact with men.

Of course, being unmarried and childless doesn't actually mean you live in a convent with no contact with men or understanding of their behavior. And actually, Dowd's book Are Men Necessary? is, for all its problems, a light-hearted bit of pop sociology, not the "lament" of a lonesome lady. But of course, Tyrrell isn't really interested in critiquing Dowd's male-analysis credentials. He just wants to make her sound like a sad, sexless woman, because that's apparently the worst thing a female writer can be. Tyrrell continues,

So what is Dowd up to? Aside from revealing once again why she has so much difficulty getting a boyfriend, she reveals that she wants to play Scrabble with the President. In her stupendously undignified column she admits it.

How embarrassing! She must really be desperate if she wants to play Scrabble with Obama. I'll "admit it" too — I would like to toss some tiles with the President of the United States. I guess that makes me undignified.

At first glance, it kind of unclear why Tyrrell singles out Dowd for his bile. Her column is hardly a radical feminist rant — she even quotes a female friend who says, "Will every game now have to have a certain number of Asians, atheists, vegetarians and public-option hard-liners?" Her Scrabble invitation is really an extremely gentle and playful way of asking Obama to make sure he includes women in the social life of the White House — and aren't we women supposed to be gentle and playful?

But really, what Tyrrell shows is that when a woman dares to have a public voice and then mentions sexism even in the least confrontational manner, it's open season for childish commentary on her sex life or supposed lack thereof. If she happens to be single, there's no reason to bother actually evaluating her arguments — she must not know anything because she can't land a man. And of course, if she keeps talking in such an uppity fashion, she'll never get one. Tyrrell winds up his column with the line, "Sometimes one reads about the controversies such women have over the men around them, and one remembers how happy one was to get out of high school all those years ago." But he's the one whose rhetoric never graduated.

Where The Girls Are [The American Spectator]