Archive | Media analysis RSS feed for this section

“Sex/ women” ruining “everything/ men”

25 Feb

Oh my god THIS GUY AGAIN. I want this guy’s publicist, because he turns up fucking everywhere.

UT Austin sociology professor and conservative opinionator Mark Regnerus has a book about premarital sex he wants to shill, so he’s been around and about on the internet making strenuous arguments about how women — not men — engaging in casual sex is ruining society.

Here is an I-read-it-so-you-don’t-have-to breakdown of the latest turd he has dropped on the world, in Slate:

1. Mark, like other conservative opinion-havers, works on the cosmic premise that marriage is the best relationship endgame for everyone, and the best time for people to get married is in their early 20s. He never states that in this article, but it is implied and he has said it elsewhere.

2. Mark works on the absolute binary that women want committment, men want sex. Just look at the proof from this study he mentions:

In one frequently cited study, attractive young researchers separately approached opposite-sex strangers on Florida State University’s campus and proposed casual sex. Three-quarters of the men were game, but not one woman said yes.

Since women won’t sleep with some random guy who walks up to them, that means women don’t like sex as much as guys do. Good test! Which is why it makes even more sense that he uses this study about how women don’t like casual sex with strangers to set up his argument that:

3. Women are having too much casual (read: premarital) sex. They are giving it up so much that men no longer have to promise to commit in order to get sex.

Yes, sex is clearly cheap for men. Women’s “erotic capital,” as Catherine Hakim of the London School of Economics has dubbed it, can still be traded for attention, a job, perhaps a boyfriend, and certainly all the sex she wants, but it can’t assure her love and lifelong commitment. Not in this market. It’s no surprise that the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds who are married has shrunk by an average of 1 percent each year this past decade.

Hear that, ladies? You are cheap.

What does Mark blame for all this cheapening?

1. Porn. Always blame porn.

2. Birth control, since no one had sex outside marriage before that.

3. Men earn less than they did in the 1970s, and women are becoming more successful.

There is a dedicated cabal of conservatives (e.g. Kay S. Hymowitz) who seriously view men vs. women’s success as a zero-sum game. Men have definitely been doing worse in life because of women, not because the median wage in the United States has been essentially flat since 1973.

Mark ends his piece on this insightful note:

As the authors of last year’s book Sex at Dawn: the Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality put it, “Societies in which women have lots of autonomy and authority tend to be decidedly male-friendly, relaxed, tolerant, and plenty sexy.” They’re right. But then try getting men to do anything.

So to sum up: women’s autonomy and authority causes men to do nothing. I look around me in the world today and think, yes, that is most certainly true.

Good job, Mark.



ABC News discovers tragically stupid new term for “lipstick lesbians”

23 Feb

TREND ALERT!!!!!!!(!)

Desperate struggling network ABC News is on top of it. What is the new trend? I’m going to run this term past you. Keep a straight face.


You laughed? Haha, you lose, just like everyone else who involuntarily choked on the after-dinner spoonful of Nutella in their mouths.

This is your friendly new internet-death-spawn term that is guaranteed to reverberate in the empty cosmos of dim-brained cyberspace consumers across America for the next few days: it means you are a girl who makes out with girls, but you are totally like, not gay or even bisexual! Like Katy Perry.

Meh, if you straight dudes really need yet another kind of assurance that your cocks are still “doing the trick” in the form of a ladies-only sexuality-spectrum term that “forgives” that little bit of lesbo fun, then you don’t deserve to have a cock. I thought you all actually liked to watch straight girls making out, or whatever.

Ever since Madonna planted that wet kiss on Britney Spears in front of millions of television viewers at the 2003 MTV Video Music Awards, women have been loosening up sexually with other women.


The lone voice of reason in the article:

“It’s not really experimenting, but maybe trying to get some attention,” said [19-year-old Alisha] Garrison, an urban planning student from Simi Valley, Calif.

Correct, and the same judgment applies to this ABC News article.

Next time, making out does not count as “experimenting” until Madonna buries her face in the Spears snatch. Or, at a minimum, you have to go make out with a girl without an audience watching, topless, for at least 10 minutes, with the lights on. That will be the new test.

ABC News links as proof to this bizarre dating site that purports to be “the world’s leading, safest, most effective dating website for the growing number of straight women who flirt with bisexuality… flexisexuals.” So apparently ABC News didn’t wholesale invent this lamentably idiotic term, just some random website that is Google indexed did.

My favorite part about the website is the fact that the stock image for the women on the front looks less like a hot singles site and more like an ad for sanitary pads:

Kay S. Hymowitz hoping to popularize sexism against unmarried men

20 Feb

Our friend Kay S. Hymowitz has a new book to shill in the WSJ. In an excerpted essay, she theorizes that men have been screwed by women’s advances, not that women’s advances are bad, but kind of! She has helpfully framed it with a word and life phase she made up: “pre-adulthood.”

So you know, the term “pre-adulthood” as she defines includes anyone who is now legally an adult but has failed to get married and make babies. She, like other conservative thinkers, believes this means we’re all screwed and men will just play video games forever and women will just make babies at sperm banks.

What gives, according to Kay?

Ready? Drum roll….

Men do not have to undergo any “feats of strength” rituals anymore these days to prove they are men, so they just refuse to become men.

They needed to demonstrate courage, physical prowess or mastery of the necessary skills. The goal was to prove their competence as protectors and providers. Today, however, with women moving ahead in our advanced economy, husbands and fathers are now optional, and the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles—fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity—are obsolete, even a little embarrassing.

This bit of Levi-Straussian literalism sure does bring back the good old days of armchair anthropology, does it not? Maybe if we had guys all agree to compete in at least one episode of “American Gladiators” and hold a public circumcision, we could move on with our lives?

So what’s her conclusion if we can’t make this happen? Total chaos and social breakdown:

Relatively affluent, free of family responsibilities, and entertained by an array of media devoted to his every pleasure, the single young man can live in pig heaven—and often does. Women put up with him for a while, but then in fear and disgust either give up on any idea of a husband and kids or just go to a sperm bank and get the DNA without the troublesome man. But these rational choices on the part of women only serve to legitimize men’s attachment to the sand box. Why should they grow up? No one needs them anyway. There’s nothing they have to do.

Nothing at all! That’s a pretty big diss, men. You are all just wild pigs. IF ONLY YOU WERE MARRIED, no matter what, to whoever it is that has a vagina nearby, you would improve. You are nothing without that vagina, you are just Seth Rogen.

Hymowitz provides zero statistics on how many of these young men are out there asphyxiating under empty potato chip bags. She cites statistics showing only that people are waiting longer to get married, which actually says nothing about what people are doing before getting married, or why they are choosing not to get married. Her only example is Seth Rogen’s character from Knocked Up, and as we all know movies are valid anecdotal examples for hard evidence-challenged arguments about society at large.

The Guardian’s weird take on a U.N. study about fatherhood

18 Feb

Another day, another new U.N. study.

This time it’s a study on the role of fatherhood globally and its implications for policy. What did they find?

The Guardian somehow took away from this report the following:

United Nations report launched in New York concludes that we need a new way to describe the “fluid and changing” ways in which men care for and support children.

Crucially, men should stop being measured against a “maternal template”, according to the report, Men in Families and Family Policy in a Changing World.

Instead of being straightforward fathers, men are taking on a parenting role more accurately described as “social fatherhood”, says the report, published by the department of economic and social affairs of the UN secretariat.

My initial reaction was, oh lovely, another study pointing out that the roles of women and men in families are innately different and we should define them as such. The Guardian article gives the impression that the central conclusion of the report was that fathers are now more than ever less engaged in the lives of their biological children and that we should redefine our understanding of fathers this way.

BUT, check your sources! Continue reading

Ladies, why won’t you return Wikipedia’s lonely booty calls?

31 Jan

Wikipedia has difficulty attracting women contributors, according to a recent piece in the NYTimes: “surveys suggest that less than 15 percent of its hundreds of thousands of contributors are women.”

What the hell, womyns?

Jane Margolis, co-author of a book on sexism in computer science, “Unlocking the Clubhouse,” argues that Wikipedia is experiencing the same problems of the offline world, where women are less willing to assert their opinions in public. “In almost every space, who are the authorities, the politicians, writers for op-ed pages?” said Ms. Margolis, a senior researcher at the Institute for Democracy, Education and Access at the University of California, Los Angeles.

What the hell? I always thought supposedly women can’t shut UP about their opinions. With women, it’s just opinions all day, every day.

Even the most famous fashion designers — Manolo Blahnik or Jimmy Choo — get but a handful of paragraphs.

Why aren’t women spending exhaustive lengths of time chronicling, researching and documenting their favorite shoe designers?

Here’s why, NYTimes writer: because that misses the point of fucking buying shoes. Besides, Blahnik and Choo’s labels I’m sure could get interns to beef up those pages if they really thought women consulted them when they were making decisions about shoe-buying. But they don’t. They’re just the kinds of pages reporters look up when they’re trying to write a piece about women and Wikipedia.

Continue reading

Kay S. Hymowitz: Republicans crush liberals at being feminist

25 Jan

Media analysis time, children! 

Kay S. Hymowitz, writing for the magazine of the conservative Manhattan Institute, wants us whiny liberal feminists to know that Palin is going to balls-up the women’s movement whether we like it or not. YOU HAVE BEEN TARGETED, WHINY LIBERALS.

No, actually Palin isn’t. Hymowitz tries to argue in her article that Palin is changing the women’s movement by making the women’s movement not about women but rather issues like tax reduction, government interference and budget deficits, things that sound suspiciously like the regular old Republican agenda.

Ergo, Sarah Palin is a Republican panderer who is just pro-herself. But she is a woman, so you can see how people get confused.

Let’s see how Hymowitz tries to argue it anyway, so we can laugh at her. HERE WE GO.

Continue reading

Hollywood’s latest trend: promiscuous women are empty people

22 Jan

Before I get to the Roe v. Wade anniversary, here’s a fun little note from the WSJ blog observing the latest trend in Hollywood: young women in movies who are miserable when they have lots of no-strings-attached sex:

Such characters aren’t likely to become feminist icons. Their interest in commitment-free sex typically is fueled  by deep-seated emotional problems (see the 1977 film “Looking for Mr. Goodbar’)–or even potentially fatal medical issues. In “Love and Other Drugs,” [Anne] Hathaway’s character keeps men at arm’s length in part because she has Parkinson’s disease.

Holy shit, that’s some pretty rough stuff. I guess Hollywood is finally getting around to portraying real, complex human problems.

Well, I will do my part too as a woman and learn from this. I resolve to be nicer to guys using bad lines to try to get laid if the reason they’re using those horrible fucking lines is because they’re dying. Or have crippling emotional problems. That’s what the problem was the whole time? I feel kind of bad for hating on those guys so much.


Continue reading