When the whole Chris Brown thing happened a lot of people, especially including writers on Broadsheet, began speculating and making claims and condemning him before any evidence even came out. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not defending him. However, just because the ("lady")bloggers turned out to be right it doesn't justify unfounded accusations, in this society we're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Why am I not surprised that the writers here aren't jumping all over Tiger's wife? The rumors surrounding those two are almost exactly the same as the rumors that surrounded Chris Brown and Rihanna before any real evidence came out, albeit with the genders reversed.

"your comment just made me remember how I often wondered if we would actually notice the difference if society actually became gender-equalitarian -- since, after all, disrespect, abuse, and other human foibles wouldn't disappear (they would just be 'equitably distributed' if that makes sense :-), so each gender, still hot from the cultural wars and their analytical training, would still continue to fight on, assuming that disrespect, abuse, crime etc. implies misogyny, misandry, instead of mis...anthropy? (Mutatis mutandis, the same is true for any movement for change in society, say anti-racism movements"

That's my biggest problem with Broadsheet most of the time. It's like they want to cling to really weak arguments and examples in order to make it seem like women are light years behind where they really are. I personally think the best approach, even in the face of offensive sexism, would be to take the high road and continue to focus on serious issues instead of these trivialities.

By the way, it's pretty self-evident from this site that women can be glamorous and athletic at the same time. So apparently these glamor 'girls' can jump.

I generally read Broadsheet as a little, light-hearted respite from the rigors of daily life because more often than not (let's say about 90% of the time) the posts are simultaneously so outrageous and trite that it makes me laugh. I come away feeling that the writers are fools, the commentary is senseless, there is often an unprovoked feeling of victimization, and that this brand of 'feminism', or whatever you want to call it, does more to hurt the egalitarian cause we all support than to bolster it.

So as a diehard fan and current student at FSU my interest was especially piqued when I saw this article about our basketball team. There is absolutely nothing sexist here. Nothing. At all. It's ridiculous. So there are pictures of the team members in dresses...that's sexist? The football team occasionally dresses in suits for photoshoots. Is that sexist too? In typical Broadsheet form, you choose to single out a few pictures with dubious sexist qualifications to make your argument while essentially dismissing all the rest on the site. The first pictures you see are of players in jerseys, showing arms full of tattoos, ready to play, with the words "this is not a game, it's a way of life". You constantly talk about the double standard. But who's more guilty of employing it; the general population, or people like you who call other women out to deride them?

This may be a football town (no arguments there) but I'm still proud of our women's basketball team, just as I'm proud of our volleyball team, and especially our nationally relevant women's soccer team. The people of Tallahassee and Florida State are behind ALL our teams here, regardless of some forgettable photo shoot.

On a side note, I direct your attention to this:

http://www.faniq.com/blog/Video-Tennessee-Volunteers-Football-Team-Photo-Shoot-Blog-27628

In that case, are you in favor of eliminating the sex segregation in these sports? If you think that essentially being male is just another genetic advantage of an elite athlete that should not disqualify her from female athletics, then what's the point of separating men's and women's competition?

What does this have to do with anything?

Other than the usual Broadsheet snide judgment and faux-outrage, I have to say, the protagonist of "Smack My Bitch Up" is a woman. I think they did that to entrap idiots who were going to cry "misogyny" at first glance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Prevention_and_Punishment_of_the_Crime_of_Genocide

Take a gander at the definition. Your questionable semantic reasoning does nothing to lessen my argument and only bolsters your own blindly ideological image.

Why can't you admit that the Nazis were terrible AND the Israelis (the Israeli system in general, the Zionist movement especially, but NOT every individual Jew ever) have committed genocide? Sure, there is terrorism against Israel that issues forth from Palestinian territories. That's inexcusable. But it also has to be seen from the perspective of an oppressed people. How many people have the rocket attacks killed in the last few years? A dozen or so? How many has Israel massacred in response? A few thousand or so? That's totally inexcusable. You can make the argument that Israel is "oppressed" by terrorists and surrounding territories, but in reality Israel is much stronger and suffers nowhere near the amount of damage that it inflicts. Then there's the matter of the settlers. They encroach on land that has been allotted to the Palestinians...by the Israeli government! But then they're tacitly or enthusiastically supported by the same government, depending on the administration. Then there's the matter of collective punishment. Starving Palestinian civilians (aka "putting them on a diet") and degrading them by refusing certain basic comforts is completely immoral, evil even. Incidentally, it's also detrimental to peace. No one's arguing that Hezbollah, Hamas, and the government of hostile states are or support terrorists. And it's not about hating the Jewish religion or random Jews because they're Jewish. It's about recognizing that the STATE of Israel is, and has been, committing genocide for decades.