»» Columnists

Sexism and The City! Another Cringer From The New York Observer

by Rachel Sklar | 10:54 am, December 2nd, 2009

» 22 comments

Maybe it’s me. Maybe I’m just sensitive because last year, NYO writer Spencer Morgan featured me in a piece about how awesome it was for a 36-year-old guy to nail 23-year-old girls, until he realized that when it was time to be responsible and settle down he needed a boring old 36 year old….who was so boring that she drove him back to 23 year olds.

Or maybe it’s that Morgan wrote that piece for a series called “Men of Manhattan,” which celebrated one-half of the population of city full of vibrant, successful, interesting people. There was no corresponding column.

Or maybe it’s that I’m turning 37 next week and am already getting tired of the “cougar” comments. I already know that I should be fearful and scared I’ll never find a husband — I read that in the Observer, too.

Or maybe it’s that I can’t read a New York Observer piece about dating and mating and sex in New York City that does not make me want to PUNCH A FREAKING WALL.

You know what? That’s it. Because the Observer’s latest Spencer Morgan piece is called “Rrrowl! Beware Cougar’s Young Niece, the Cheetah.” BE CAREFUL GUYS! SHE’S COMING FOR YOU!

What is a cheetah? As Jezebel’s Irin Carmon notes, it’s “unclear what a “cheetah” actually is, except amalgam of lazy gchat reporting, cliches [and] double standards.” Apparently it’s a woman, presumably single, who wants to get laid and preys on some poor sap who is too drunk to fight back. (You know, to fight back against getting laid at the end of the night when they’re drunk. Because guys HATE that.)

It’s the usual double-standard that the Observer loves so well — a guy sleeping with lots of younger girls is a stud! Girls need to be careful! Especially the ones who might enjoy sex! — and as Hamilton Nolan notes at Gawker, it is preposterous, dated and utterly transparent link-bait. But, you know, the Observer is a pretty well-regarded publication, read by many of the city’s media and business elite, and also here it is on the internet. There are some people who might think this story actually has merit. Certainly the guys earnestly quoted in it — all with huge followings and media footprints — indicate as much.

There are some confusing things in the article. Like, the cheetah is not necessarily old, like a cougar. (“A cougar would fuck and then leave and not feel bad.”) And she’s not even necessarily ugly! (“The cheetah was not necessarily unattractive but that for some reason or another, she was not aware of her attractiveness.” Gee! I wonder what media world would contribute to that!) I am, however, completely confused about what this means: “It is about women past the first flush of youth wanting to date or at least fuck ‘above their station.’” What, exactly, is this woman’s “station?” And if she is hanging out with a group of friends at a bar, how, exactly, is she beneath them? Or is it that she’s not good looking enough for any of the drop-dead supermodels quoted in the article? Shockingly, Morgan fails to elaborate.

What we do know, though, is that the Cheetah is pathetic, because unlike “her Auntie Cougar and Cousin Puma” she lacks “a certain dignity.” (A Puma is a woman in her late 20s early 30s who dates younger. Basically according to this article, unless you are in your early 20s and let the boys come to you, WATCH OUT). The Cheetah, sadly, actually wants….something? A relationship? Acknowledgment? To not have to schlep her ass out of bed at 5 am and hail a cab on dark, empty streets to go home? (“The cheetah stays the night.”). That is, presumably, in sharp contrast to the virile men of the story, who need nothing (except, perhaps, the affirmation of their own heavily-notched belts. You know who you are, kids).

This article could have been about a scene — a scene where friends go out and mingle and drunkenly hook up, or about how singles interact in New York, and what those expectations are and what people are looking for, and need. Ha! That would have taken too much work, or been too relevant. This is about celebrating guys and their conquests — and how they were too good for those forgettable, regrettable, pathetic chicks. It’s about warning women that sexually aggressive behavior is unacceptable, makes them the object of mockery and scorn and pity. It’s about being worried about what you look like without makeup, worried about whether you’re too old for your new boyfriend, worried about whether you’re going to feel like shit after a drunken hookup, worried that someone, somewhere is going to judge you.

Well, you’re right to be worried. That someone is judging you. You’ll find them at the New York Observer.

Rachel Sklar is Mediaite’s Editor-at-Large and writes often about sexism in media. She also co-writes a blog dedicated to celebrating awesome women in their thirties, where today she wrote this. Sarah Henderson would appreciate it.

(Illustration from Gawker comments here.)

A.J. Daulerio, Gasp A Woman Might Want To Have Sex With Someone She's Not Married To, John Carney, Lockhart Steele, New York Blogger Scene, New York Observer, New York Observer Sexism, New York Observer Sexist, Spencer Morgan, Women Please Join Me In Not Putting Up With This Crap Any Longer

Fidoohki

Okay.. as far as the article goes I say.. so what? If they are getting lucky all I say got for it. Now what I am angry about is the picture. The least you can do is accredit the character her proper name. It’s Cheetarah not ‘cheetah’…..Philistines! ;)
Banjo

Crikey, you’re 37 and never married? You better start worrying about lonely, old bag-lady status. As you sit on the park bench wearing all your clothes some winter morning before dawn with your possessions at your feet you can think about where feminist theory led you astray.
Carl Pham

That article was a hoot. Clearly “Spencer Morgan” is a darling fellow. OMFG! Predatory girls! I woke and cried, feeling so used, my little willie all wrinkled in shame….just as she was strapping on this ENORMOUS plastic phallus…what could I do but bend over the ottoman and take it? Luckily she’d brought lube. Good grief.

As for you, Sklar, you’re in no danger per se, unless you want to have a family, in which case there’s still some hope — a solid 20-30% of women 38 and older can still conceive.
FrequentFlyer

Rachel–the only person you’re fooling with your faux-outrage is yourself. Ask any man living in Manhattan or Brooklyn aged 45 years or younger and they will tell you that what Spencer Morgan describes is the literal truth, only less so. And the 36 year old men are generally not looking for a 36 year old woman to settle down with. They are looking for someone about 24-28 who wants to get married. There are exceptions.

Truth is we women peak in our sexual marketability in our mid-20s; but for men, their peak marketability (and suitability for marriage) is mid to late 30s.

Live with it.
Rachel Sklar

Nah, sorry. My outrage is not faux, number one; and number two, I’m gonna err on the side of the many emails I’ve gotten today by equally outraged women. This wasn’t an article about average ages of pairing off; this was about sexual double-standards and seriously negative stereotyping, on both sides. It’s actually not how things are. Also, it’s lame. So.
bigcity

Rachel, you should realize that chicks are hot and dudes like chicks; therefore dudes and chicks should play into moronic stereotypes written about by lame writers at pathetic media outlets. Also, sex is awesome.
The problem with media today is that there aren’t any stories about how awesome sex is with hot chicks (or older chicks, or younger chicks, or chicks with jobs, or chicks without jobs, or chicks with two jobs, or chicks with kids, or chicks with a penchant for Indian food and Devo). If someone started to write about that, that would be awesome.
Rachel, being thirty-seven and single is just fine as long as you are having sex with awesome dudes who are awesome. You are a hot chick; its awesome.
jimmymaher

Missing from Crittenden’s consideration, and that of other rightbloggers who took up his claims of victory (‘Bush stood tall,’ ‘I’m proud I voted for Bush twice,’ etc).Sure Bush stood tall, except when the Natives (otherwise known as the Extras) started to throw their shoes at him. (At which point he ducked.) But then (it’s never too late to be impressed) just look at the reflexes on that guy! Who would have thought he’d prove to be such a World Champeen cringer? One simply can’t be ashamed to have voted for a man once, let alone twice, when he turns out to have the Fastest Crouch In The West. (Or maybe that’s the Fastest Crouch In The Middle East. Whatever.)
chardin

You see an article about 20-something women having sex with drunken, incapacitated men and your first thought is how this is somehow a slam on YOU? Ms. Sklar, you may be the most self-centered idiot on Earth. Reverse the sexes, and you’d call it rape.

You are a sexist piece of human garbage.
FrequentFlyer

To Rachel:

Oh pleeeeeaaaaassseee don’t deal with this by hiding behind political correctness. How lazy. You are misusing the term “double-standards” as though we are all living in Mad Men now. There are double-standards (not in the 1960s sense, but in an immutable way) because men and women actually do have different standards and goals and needs in relationships. It has nothing to do with stereotypes or sexism.

There are a lot of us who are not going to have our own children and who don’t realize it yet. Look at the birth stats for educated, affluent, urban women with jobs. Your take on this stuff just conceals the problem.

None of this will be easily changed, not in time for us or for our younger sisters, probably not for our nieces (the daughters of our brothers, of course, who will eventually marry and procreate).
pabarge

“I’m gonna err on the side of the many emails I’ve gotten today by equally outraged women.”

What a shock. You’re on email terms with a bunch of women who all have their panties in a wad.
Jelperman

Rachel, Rachel, Rachel…

I think you’re smart, funny, kind, sweet and gorgeous (beautiful hair, great cheekbones, a lovely smile and perfect breasts), so if none of the guys in your neck of the woods has tried to make an honest woman of you yet, you need to get out and meet a different group of men.
chardin

Jelperman: That’s not her in the illustration up there. That’s a cartoon. Sorry to ruin your fantasy, dude.
Jelperman

Oh yeah? Take a look at her here, here and here:

What a babe!
chardin

Yup, still not the chick in the cartoon. And with her abrasive bullshit and her sexist delusions, she couldn’t possibly be attractive to any man who was not content to be her doormat. Good luck with that.
Jelperman

Dude, you got issues.

Or a very small penis.
chardin

Right, Sklar sees some sort of insult in a column that has nothing to do with her, you’re making creepy comments about her tits, and I’m the guy with the issues.

Tell you what, stalker, you go find her. You just about deserve each other. Match made in heaving.
Jelperman

In heaving?

I guess I was mistaken when I assumed the comments in this thread were meant in good fun. However, it looks like someone lost his sense of humor when I mentioned the possibility that he might have a small wiener. Re-reading your posts, I see that you’re not jesting at all -you really are a bitter misogynist.
chardin

So disliking misandry makes one a misogynist? I guess it might seem so, if one is an abject, servile creature. You fit the profile.

She will never want you, Jelperman. It doesn’t matter how you abase yourself or compliment her. Watching you play the white knight is all the humor this thread needs.
Jelperman

You accuse her of “misandry”, yet there’s no male-bashing whatsoever in her article. Then you accuse her of crying wolf over the blatant sexism in the Observer article -a classic case of projection on your part.
chardin

It’s misandry to wave away an instance of male victimization airily in the hope of converting it to feminist outrage.

The invisible man is generally the easiest to abuse.

It’s not much of a trick, but it fools desperate white knights who want to be fooled, and the groupthink women who don’t care about men in the first place.

I hope you enjoyed your big laugh.
Jelperman

What male victimization? I got hit on constantly by “older” (late twenty-to-thirtysomething) women when I was a teenager and in my early twenties. You know what I did about it? I took it as a compliment and in some cases, accepted what was offered and had the time of my life. If only I got that kind of attention these days!

I don’t think anyone should feel guilty about wanting a good hard shag from another consenting adult, nor should anyone appoint themselves judge for whether it’s “predatory” (complete with idiot terms like “cougar” and “cheetah” for women and “wolf” for men) for one adult to bone another.

You, on the other hand, are a real piece of work. Not only are you projecting your own misogyny and other hangups with every post, but your hysterical language gives you away. In your book Sklar is a “piece of human garbage” (a term generally reserved for violent criminals and other miscreants) because she doesn’t like the idea of women her age being likened to predatory animals. Face it, your Freudian Slip is showing.

And believe me, I am enjoying a good laugh at your expense.
jennielynsan

This is 1 of the better blogs in the field of teaching. If I don’t come in for a couple of days, there are so many stakes that it’ll lead me a couple of hrs just to go over whatever I omitted!! Praises.

Thanks. wonderful great infomation here keep up Culinary Skills Egg Salad Recipe French Onion Soup Recipe the versatile work. I cannot truly leave a more constructive comment as i’m abit out of my deph but i will be checking back here for further updates.