This morning, like much of the New York media world it seems, I woke up to Spencer Morgan’s New York Observer piece ‘Rrrowl! Beware Cougar’s Young Niece, the Cheetah.’ Not so much because the first thing I do on Wednesdays is click on NYO.com to see what’s new (there was a day, however, when that was the case), but because it was blazing up my G-chat and Twitter. And for good reason. It is at the same time utterly offensive and utterly idiotic. The column, for those of you with other things to spend your morning on, is about ‘cheetahs‘: “woman, presumably single, who wants to get laid and preys on some poor sap who is too drunk to fight back.” (Sadly, there was no mention of a corresponding label for the guy who hangs around till the bar is closed, hoping to prey on drunk girls: oh right, he’s mostly just known as a (sometimes) single man in New York City.)

So while on the one hand I was angrily spewing away in numerous g-chat windows, frequently in ALL CAPS, and a number of times with persons quoted in the article, I was at the same time irritated with myself for getting so upset over a piece that was clearly intended to result in my spending my morning doing just that. As Hamilton Nolan observes, “A mad reader is an engaged reader!”

This we know. Everyone who has ever worked in media time-out-of-mind knows this. The blogosphere is built on this model. Cable News increasingly so. Still, knowing that didn’t stop me from being angry; angrier still that it had worked. And it does work. But why does it always seems to work best when women are shown at their marginalized worst? The answer: Sexism sells.

Don’t think so? Two weeks ago angry reactions to Newsweek‘s Sarah Palin cover stormed the air and Internet waves. Newsweek, once the co-king of the newsmag weeklies, has struggled more than most this year to maintain readership. But wow, did they generate a lot of eyes with their ‘what to do about a problem like Sarah Palin in short running shorts’ piece! Sex and political incorrectness! Voila. The idea the it never crossed long-time editor Jon Meacham’s mind that that cover would elicit cries of sexism strikes as too naive.

And then there’s the Huffington Post. HuffPo is not a media empire desperate to retain its glory days. It is a website arguably in the midst of its glory days, built on a model of mostly free contributors (of which I am sometimes one) doing everything it can to stay there by generating traffic. Traffic equals advertising equals profit. As someone recently involved in launching a website I am well aware that certain content decisions sometimes have to be made with traffic in mind. HuffPo however, has lately taken this to an often disturbing extreme with their slide shows; something they’ve been increasingly coming under fire for. Amanda Hess noted the phenomonem earlier this year in an article titled ‘Huffington Post: Liberal Politics, Sexist Entertainment.’ And while I am not one to begrudge someone their Hollywood starlet slide show, this recent, utterly offensive NSFW slide show seriously crossed the line. It also received more than 400 comments and was on their most viewed list for weeks. HuffPo’s fearless that way.

Yes, of course I am aware sex-infused images of (or columns about!) women are not new. Nor is it new that they are offensive. Nor is it new that they sell. What does seem to be relatively new though is the intentional use of particularly degrading images of (or columns about!) women as a tactic to generate chatter, or more appropriately and importantly, links! Clicks! TRAFFIC. We are now living in a world where not just sex but sexism is being intentionally exploited as a way to sell (prop up) struggling media entities. And just because I know that, and I know they know that, and I know that in their real lives the people generating this sort of thing probably know better, doesn’t make what they are doing any less infuriating, or insulting, or marginalizing. Maybe more so, actually.

Related:
Rrrowl! Beware Cougar’s Young Niece, the Cheetah [NYO]
Sexism and The City! Another Cringer From The New York Observer [Mediaite]
Hisss! Grrrrowl! Article Goads Lady Cheetahs From Their Lairs, On Purpose [Gawker]

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.

Related:
Man Vs. Wild (Woman): Intrepid Explorer Exposes Dangerous “Cheetahs” [Jezebel]
Hisss! Grrrrowl! Article Goads Lady Cheetahs From Their Lairs, On Purpose [Gawker]
Rrrowl! Beware Cougar’s Young Niece, The Cheetah [NY 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.)

Reichl was featured in a Q&A in this Sunday’s NYT Magazine and talked briefly about the loss of her magazine — a decision the NYDN reports that many foodies feel is a “personal attack on the food industry.” Reichl revealed that Si Newhouse informed her “not on email” about Gourmet‘s “stunning” demise and why she feels The New Yorker will remain untouched forever.

How did you learn that your job no longer exists? Who told you?
Si.

Meaning S. I. Newhouse, who owns Condé Nast Publications. In an e-mail message or in person?
It was not an e-mail.

Sounds like phone.
It was a conversation. I wouldn’t in a million years have imagined this.

Did you ask him why Condé Nast was shuttering Gourmet while keeping afloat some 18 other magazines, including Bon Appétit and such giants of intellectual life as Golf World and Golf Digest?
I was so stunned, I basically just listened.

Do you think he has considered closing The New Yorker?
No. I would bet my life on that. I think that Si loves that magazine, and I think — this is just my opinion — it will remain untouched, and it will be there forever.

Gourmet’s circulation is about the same as that of The New Yorker — you have about a million subscribers, right?
I think it was more than that. It has a legendary renewal rate. They would never tell me exactly what it was. I kept asking: “What does that mean? What are you talking about?” And they just kept saying: “It’s great. People buy Gourmet forever.”

Did you see Jon Stewart the other night, when he made a Gourmet joke?
I did not. What did he say?

He mentioned that Condé Nast was shutting down four magazines — Gourmet, along with Modern Bride, Elegant Bride and Cookie — and suggested that instead they could be combined into a new cost-cutting magazine called Pregnant Gourmet Bride.
That’s great! I’m amazed no one has told me that. I’m amazed my son didn’t at least e-mail me that.

From Eater:

The macro tragedy today is the loss of Gourmet, of course; the micro one, however, is that there are issues-worth of that sweet Gourmet-brand editorial that aren’t going to see the light of day. So, here is our offer to any writer who was on contract for any Gourmet feature: for a $100 consolation fee (admittedly, nothing more than a consolation fee), we’ll run the story here, in full.

This comes in the wake of Eater’s offer to pay 25 food bloggers $25 apiece to shut down their blogs and make this ad for Eater their last post.

$100 might be a prettyish penny for just one piece of content in the online realm (well, unless you’re The Daily Beast), but it’s a bargain for the type of writing they’ll have at their disposal — and besides, it’s good buzz. Whether or not it works in material terms, Eater National’s willingness to spend money on content and be upfront about it — in short, its swagger — is a refreshing change of pace in a gun-shy market.

From Eater:

Given that the internet is about 1,000,000 cutesy food blogs too vast, for a limited time only, Eater is offering $25 to any food blogger who will agree to shut his or her food blog down (and post this yellow notice on the site). What better a way is there to mark this glorious day than with a special offer! Answer: There is no better way. Ladies and gentlemen, You’re welcome.

A little smug, right? And we sure hope that Eater isn’t ready to spend ‘about’ $25 mil. to somehow buy the internet and winnow down the competition. Alas, there’s fine print at the bottom:

This offer good while supplies last, limited to the first 25 respondents! Prominent posting of yellow Notice required for payment. No blog newer than 1 month old is eligible for shutdown. If you can show evidence of multiple posts about toast, fruit cake or grilled cheese, we might even pay you $30. Affiliates and family members of Eater staff do not qualify, as you should have known better in the first place.

So the buyout ploy is a little bit more reasonable upon closer inspection. If the site can actually get 25 or so well-read food blogs to close and post the ad, then that should create a nice bit of buzz for their nationwide project. But why launch on a Friday?

After day 1, Eater is reporting one successful buyout.