Interesting article about Tiger Woods and feminism

[Atreus21]

http://msn.foxsports.com/golf/story...ses-sending-sad-message-to-young-women-032912

For a couple of seconds there, it looked as if Tiger Woods might just be beyond the breathy sex talk that accompanies all his golfing exploits. Sunday, he returned to what originally made him a person of interest, winning a golf tournament. And we fell back to standard sports debating positions of whether this signaled him being back or if this was a blip and he had zero chance of winning The Masters.

Typical sports, and then we had to have sex.

Helped along by three of the women who were allegedly having sex with Tiger while he was supposed to be forsaking all others, the "Perkins waitress, golf-club-to-head, philandering" narrative is back in play and just in time for Augusta.

This threesome of apparent adulterers apparently so cherished their time with the then-married golfer they decided to do a film tribute. I have not yet been able to screen "3 Mistresses: Notorious Tales of the World’s Greatest Golfer," but I am sure the Q&A about Tiger’s sexual tastes and demonstration portion of the video is not at all about cashing in on their role in ruining a marriage but, rather, just their fond memories of doing so.

The release date — the day after the Masters opens — is merely a coincidence, of course.

And so Tiger finds himself again being confronted with his biggest mistake — one that cost him his wife, his kids, his reputation, possibly his golf game and lots of cash — while his "caddies" profit. I am not defending him. He screwed up. This is just not that column.

You coach your team. I’ll coach mine.

Today, it's chicks only. For those unfamiliar with my newspaper work, I will do this from time to time when my team needs some real talk. And, boy, do we, because a year later we are still embarrassing ourselves — and I am not simply talking about the three women in the video.

"The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills," the socialites, the girls whose rise to fame started with a sex tape and, yes, Tiger’s caddies — we are letting them send the wrong message to young girls about what it is to be truly successful, truly powerful, truly famous.

From Lawrence Taylor to Tiger Woods, take a look at the biggest sex scandals in sports.

My disclaimer is I intend this not to be read by young girls unless you are there with them to explain what obviously are not PG-rated words and themes. But I hope you will sit down with your daughter and talk about who exactly is the joke in this Tiger tale.

Agreed? OK.

They are calling us all of the worst words and not just Rush Limbaugh, although that drew all of the ire for some reason. Listen to how Bill Maher talked about Sarah Palin, or the lyrics to that Soulja Boy "Superman" song that plays at many arenas, or just read the comments under one of my columns.

Sexism is the last OK "-ism" left, a fact I was reminded of during the Jeremy Lin scandal. The media was inflamed about slurs used against Lin — inadvertent and otherwise — leading to really good discussion about why certain words are not OK when talking about certain groups. There was no such dialogue and far less outrage when Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke — a Georgetown law student who favored insurance coverage for contraceptives — a "slut."

It was not about what was said but rather who said it, less an explanation of why slut is such a powerful weapon against women and more of an attack on Rush. The whole thing felt disingenuous.

What everybody ripping Rush must ask themselves is: Why do we object to the word, yet reward the behavior?

This latest Tiger development reveals the hypocrisy. He is getting excoriated for cheating on Elin Woods, and his helpers are profiting from it.

Do not bother arguing that the women were not married. It is still adultery if you are sleeping with, or infringing on, the marriage of another. Not that I believe their extracurricular sex is my business; it is the sense of entitlement to one’s 15 minutes of fame as a result and the suspicion that most of these women are trolling for this kind of attention that offend me. That this is their postgraduate plan.

It is hard to argue when sleeping with an athlete brings Vanity Fair coverage and reality-show opportunities and representation from Gloria Allred and big, big paydays. A year ago, Vanity Fair had a long article on Tiger’s "caddies," and his self-proclaimed ninth mistress' first words upon being interviewed were, "Is Vanity Fair going to put me on the cover?"

It was hardly a brazen request. She just wanted her piece of the infamy. One of his mistresses turned sleeping with Tiger into a stint on Celebrity Rehab. Another won the Howard Stern mistress pageant and $75,000 — more than double what a first-year teacher makes in most states. A few got paid to zip and shut, and now a few are being paid to be, um, a little more forthcoming in their Tiger-themed porn.

Long live feminism, baby.

I read with interest this week Erica Jong’s defense of the feminist revolution on The Daily Beast. In it, she wrote, "Men are not the problem. Sexism is. And some of the most effective sexists are women." It is an interesting point, one with which I tend to agree. I just think we disagree on which women. In my mind, the line starts with "Tiger’s" pay-for-play brigade.

I am not suggesting we return to scarlet A-ing folks, rather that we not champion champagne hostess and mistress as careers on par with lawyer or nurse or writer or stay-at-home mom.

Because this is now a business plan: Be hot, sleep with a famous rich guy, save the texts, call Allred and turn it into a 401(k).

What I am afraid this Tiger tale has done is reinforce for young girls that their chance of being famous is better sleeping with Tiger than being the Tiger of their chosen profession. There certainly is less vitriol hurled at the women sleeping with Tiger than say Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton or even a young female private citizen testifying before Congress about birth control.

Of course, young girls are confused.

We are selling study hard, promise rings and you can be whatever you want and then talking about and watching and paying big bucks to girls who do otherwise.

A year ago, I thought the joke was on them. Being known for whom, not what, you do has a shelf life, or so I wrote. I was so obviously wrong because here we are yet again talking about Tiger’s "caddies" and their business acumen rather than, say, their moral ineptitude.

And the joke is on us — those who object to the word and reward the behavior.

Saw it on MSN.com. This article in my opinion makes a good point. Not saying that anyone is a slut, but as the first bolded portion asks, why are we so offended at the word but not the behavior? Is the outrage over the fact that the word is mean-spirited as opposed to indicative of poor character and self-worth?

It seems to me that we can't have it both ways. We can either tell our daughters that they should be good upstanding citizens, or impart to them the cynical truth that, even after decades of feminist progress, the quickest way to success and fame is still sleeping with a powerful man (and cashing in when the S hits the Fan).

 

[chris9641]

I think rather than focusing on the behavior of the women, we should question why the media and the American people focus so intently on these issues as to make a possible career for individuals to capitalize on.
You bring up morality, but how can we as a society teach morality when our culture rewards this kind of behavior? I think one of the general tenets that we are taught of capitalism(and genetic animal behavior), at least from my perspective, is to bank on opportunity. So how can we fault these people if it is one of the values as a country we espouse?

As for your question on the word vs the behavior.. i think it's a very easy position for people to take to get up in arms over words. To me intent is a much bigger deal than the word itself, but it seems it gives someone something easy to bitch about, vent frustration, and ultimately feel superior in taking the more "pc" position, feeling a moral superiority.

I'm 23 so i don't want to give you parenting advice, but why not explain to your daughter the truth that yes, it is easier to make money stripping or chasing celebs and blackmailing them, but something even more fulfilling than making a quick buck is love, compassion, relationships, and passion in a career that drives her to make herself and others happier. You bring up an either/or proposition, but I think exposing them to the brutal truth of human behavior, while still teaching "the right way" to make sense of this journey called life, is more important then sheltering them from these situations.

Also no one is forcing these "powerful men" to put themselves in these situations.

 

[dmcowen674]

http://msn.foxsports.com/golf/story...ses-sending-sad-message-to-young-women-032912
It seems to me that we can't have it both ways. We can either tell our daughters that they should be good upstanding citizens, or impart to them the cynical truth that, even after decades of feminist progress, the quickest way to success and fame is still sleeping with a powerful man (and cashing in when the S hits the Fan).

Ummm it's not just daughters, sons too.

Men sleep their way to to the top just as much as women, even more so actually.

 

[yllus]

"The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills," the socialites, the girls whose rise to fame started with a sex tape and, yes, Tiger’s caddies — we are letting them send the wrong message to young girls about what it is to be truly successful, truly powerful, truly famous.

I dispute the starting point of this pieces - I don't think any of that is remotely true. None of those people are what anyone would describe as successful or powerful, and they're more infamous than famous.

We laugh at the Real Housewives, the socialites, and the sex tape makers. We don't want to be them, but we are entertained by them. There's an enormous difference.

 

[Atreus21]

We laugh at the Real Housewives, the socialites, and the sex tape makers. We don't want to be them, but we are entertained by them. There's an enormous difference.

I disagree. If you view an act as immoral, to be entertained by it nonetheless is to be disingenuous. One would think an act which offends your morals would disgust you. But it doesn't.

 

[nonlnear]

I think rather than focusing on the behavior of the women, we should question why the media and the American people focus so intently on these issues as to make a possible career for individuals to capitalize on.
You bring up morality, but how can we as a society teach morality when our culture rewards this kind of behavior?

The answer is right in front of you. As a society we teach the morality we value. It just happens to be the case that the morality a lot of people really value is not the morality they have convinced themselves that they value.

 

[chris9641]

I dispute the starting point of this pieces - I don't think any of that is remotely true. None of those people are what anyone would describe as successful or powerful, and they're more infamous than famous.

We laugh at the Real Housewives, the socialites, and the sex tape makers. We don't want to be them, but we are entertained by them. There's an enormous difference.

I think you vastly disparage wealth as an indicator of success, especially in the western world. If I were to ask you to decide whether a person was successful the first thing most people would bring up is whether the person is wealthy or not.

I laugh at these people too, it's funny to see how unaware they come across to the average person, and how ridiculous they act. At the same time though it's hard for me to fault them for trying to make money and get attention, and have to honestly ask myself if judging them is coming from my own insecurities and jealously toward them.

Kim Kardashian is famous(or infamous from your perspective) for putting out a sex tape... it's funny, frustrating, and completely ridiculous, yet if she's given even a fraction of her money to charity(I'm assuming she has) hasn't she done more to help society than me or you? So looking unbiasedly at my own behavior, I'm laughing and being entertained(by imposing judgement) towards a human being who has done more toward helping others than I have.

 

[chris9641]

The answer is right in front of you. As a society we teach the morality we value. It just happens to be the case that the morality a lot of people really value is not the morality they have convinced themselves that they value.

yea, nicely said. It's easier to watch the circus of other people's lives than to look at our own. It's definitely entertaining...

 

[Moonbeam]

The answer is right in front of you. As a society we teach the morality we value. It just happens to be the case that the morality a lot of people really value is not the morality they have convinced themselves that they value.

This means that folk are not conscious of what they really feel but are in fact motivated by just those feelings. Of course, those unconscious feelings aren't moral concepts but needs, feelings we have been consciously taught are immoral. To go deeper then, I would have to say that the schizoid state that folk live in is a product of duality, the notion there is a good and an an evil connected to language, the ability to think in abstractions, words as symbols, and the power of symbols to acquire and transmit emotional feelings. Once you have been put down by folk from whom you have needs, say the love of a parent, the need for their love and the pain of rejection causes you to hate what you felt that they disapproved of.

What I find so interesting about so many of your posts is that you think the unthinkable, leap way out in the middle of shit and make connections I've never considered. Probably my sunny disposition.

 

[chris9641]

This means that folk are not conscious of what they really feel but are in fact motivated by just those feelings. Of course, those unconscious feelings aren't moral concepts but needs, feelings we have been consciously taught are immoral. To go deeper then, I would have to say that the schizoid state that folk live in is a product of duality, the notion there is a good and an an evil connected to language, the ability to think in abstractions, words as symbols, and the power of symbols to acquire and transmit emotional feelings. Once you have been put down by folk from whom you have needs, say the love of a parent, the need for their love and the pain of rejection causes you to hate what you felt that they disapproved of.

What I find so interesting about so many of your posts is that you think the unthinkable, leap way out in the middle of shit and make connections I've never considered. Probably my sunny disposition.

Not to go off topic but if you're not aware of this podcast you should check it out, I think you would enjoy a Terrance Mckenna lecture

 

[Moonbeam]

Not to go off topic but if you're not aware of this podcast you should check it out, I think you would enjoy a Terrance Mckenna lecture

Two brothers as I remember. I know I read one or more of their books.

 

[yllus]

I disagree. If you view an act as immoral, to be entertained by it nonetheless is to be disingenuous. One would think an act which offends your morals would disgust you. But it doesn't.

Personally, I don't really mind if someone becomes wealthy due to a sex tape or similar indiscretion. As my interaction with this person, if it ever came to pass, would probably be as long as a five minute conversation in public, I don't see the reasoning behind turning up my nose at them because they've done something I don't agree with. For the sake of that limited interaction, they live or die in my eyes based on what's said in those five minutes. My goal is talk to the human being right in front of me and to keep my personal moral crusades simply that: Personal.

Also... the vast majority of entertainment via television, movies and the written word is escapism. We enjoy notions of the oddball and fantastical - stuff we'd never do ourselves.

I think you vastly disparage wealth as an indicator of success, especially in the western world. If I were to ask you to decide whether a person was successful the first thing most people would bring up is whether the person is wealthy or not.

I laugh at these people too, it's funny to see how unaware they come across to the average person, and how ridiculous they act. At the same time though it's hard for me to fault them for trying to make money and get attention, and have to honestly ask myself if judging them is coming from my own insecurities and jealously toward them.

Kim Kardashian is famous(or infamous from your perspective) for putting out a sex tape... it's funny, frustrating, and completely ridiculous, yet if she's given even a fraction of her money to charity(I'm assuming she has) hasn't she done more to help society than me or you? So looking unbiasedly at my own behavior, I'm laughing and being entertained(by imposing judgement) towards a human being who has done more toward helping others than I have.

If the question is properly stated, nobody would answer that a Real Housewife is successful. Rich, sure - by the work of their family/husband. But personal success means that they're put in a productive effort to begin with. Riding on someone's coattails isn't success.

The question being asked here is not, "Is this person better than me?" The question is, "Are young women given a reason to emulate the lives of these people?" I will continue to contend that young women are not as stupid as we sometimes make them out to be. They want to be a Marissa Mayer, not a Snooki Polizzi.