December 3, 2009

It's the "Special Wood-Themed" Edition of Bloggingheads!

With me and Hanna Rosin!



Topics:
The racial angle to the Tiger Woods saga
Will high-status men invariably cheat on their wives?
Is lack of sexual desire in women an illness?
The impossibility of writing a non-awful sex scene
Hanna: Sorry, Tolstoy—happy marriages are fascinating!
Ann: Don’t give books as holiday gifts

89 comments:

Fred4Pres said...

I am not sure what the racial angle is in all of this. Men of all races cheat. Tiger is a little bit of every race anyway, so it is a wash.

I agree books make poor gifts. Book gift certificates are often welcomed.

Fred4Pres said...

Fred4Pres said...
Things are now completely out of control.

Ice cream, raisins, Palin.

12/3/09 8:43 PM


I am still recovering from the ice cream link in the Palin thread below. You better keep Tiger away from it, he might go crazy.

vbspurs said...

Tiger is a little bit of every race anyway, so it is a wash.

Absolutely. This is the guy who told Oprah he's "Caublasian".

I think the whole squeaky clean persona was done in collusion with sportswriters, who have been guilty in the past of trying to elevate sports stars into something more than men. I remember hearing from friends who knew him, that Mark MacGuire was a putz, arrogant and a liar. But if you get a chance to reread Sports Illustrated and other articles during his famous homerun season, you can see everyone trying to turn a blind eye to his failings, including his evident steroid use.

And also, remember, Tiger is supposed to be better than Jack Nikolaus -- and Jack IS squeaky squeaky clean. He's said to be very much in love with his wife, even after 40+ years of marriage.

The thinking must be, if he's going to break his record, then Tiger had better be as good as Jack in all respects.

Cheers,
Victoria

edutcher said...

Disagree on the book as gift thing. If someone knows your tastes, then they can really do you a favor - since some books can cost the proverbial limbs.

Even better if you say, "Any of these (x) books and I'll be happy". I love books at Christmas - giving or receiving - not afraid to say the word.

We shouldn't shy away from the idea of Hanukkah or Christmas gifts, trees (bushes), customs and being specific about which is which. After all, the Lefties want us to forget why we celebrate in the first place.

WV "afterr" What a Scotsman says when he lets the lassie go before him.

vbspurs said...

Disagree on the book as gift thing. If someone knows your tastes, then they can really do you a favor - since some books can cost the proverbial limbs.

In many countries that I've lived in, like in France and Brazil, people who consider themselves well-educated give books to co-workers, friends and family at Christmas a matter-of-course. In fact, NOT giving books at Christmas is considered pedestrian, like you haven't much culture.

In America? I guess DVDs are more common, but I give my friends books for their birthdays.

XWL said...

Cream on the inside, clean on the outside, ice cream, ice cream, ice cream paint job...

(when I work out at the Magic Johnson 24hr Fitness on Slauson, this song comes up often)

(I bet Dourrough doesn't have this sort of existential angsts with his significant other)

(Also, even though Tiger drove an Escalade, I can't picture him bouncin' down the road with that blaring from his speakers)

vbspurs said...

Hanna Raisin.

vbspurs said...

"Great Obama clan"? Oy.

vbspurs said...

I don't agree with Ann (perhaps she didn't want to say it quite that way, but it sounded as if she did) that Princess Diana's attitude was feminist, wrt her husband's infidelities. In my opinion, she had a truly old-fashioned sensibility that was the CLEAR opposite of feminism -- she wanted her husband to be faithful in the most traditional sense. In return for his faithfulness, she offered beauty, charm and utter dedication to her duties as Princess of Wales (including child-bearing).

If anything, she was bourgeois, not feminist.

Paddy O. said...

"people who consider themselves well-educated give books to co-workers, friends and family at Christmas"

I must be well-educated then. That's the list so far. I was blaming it on the fact I'm a poor PhD student with a good eye for books, and people seem to appreciate my finds. Turns out I'm a worldly sophisticate.

Well, one book is on poop, so maybe I'm not entirely sophisticated yet.

Paddy O. said...

"Tiger is a little bit of every race anyway, so it is a wash."

Not really related, but this brought to mind one of my favorite last lines in a movie, from Errol Flynn's Don Juan:

"My dear friend, there's a little bit of Don Juan in every man, and since I am Don Juan, there must be more of it in me."

There's a little Tiger Wood in every man...

vbspurs said...

[14:00] I just went to Smoking Gun, as referenced by Ann in the diavlog, to check out the police reports. I was shocked to see Tigers' Escalade VIN number. I don't know why it's shocking. It just seems like private info to me.

vbspurs said...

Well, one book is on poop, so maybe I'm not entirely sophisticated yet.

Heh. I think the French would so not appreciate that, Paddy, but the British and Irish intellectuals would! Poop is good.

I remember going to Brentano's in Paris during Christmas (sadly, it closed this year), and seeing the locals picking out two books to give to their friends.

One, whatever Éditions Gallimard book was being highly touted by Bernard Pivot on his TV show on books; the second book, as obscure or controversial a subject as possible, because the kind of book you choose to give to your friend reflects your cultural refinity than whether they'd actually enjoy reading it or not.

Every culture has their irritating little practises and hidden agendas.

vbspurs said...

[21:05] Is there such an industry as female pornography, outside of Playgirl? Rosin called it a dying industry. Whenever I have watched porn on TV, there is no shadow of a doubt that it's intended for male tastes.

Ralph L said...

Wiki: Rosin, formerly called colophony or Greek pitch (Pix græca), is a solid form of resin obtained from pines.

Ann Althouse said...

re Princess Diana, I get my point of view from Tina Brown's "The Diana Chronicles."

vbspurs said...

It would be great to explore a little the topic of female laughing during porn, Ann. I thought I was the only one who did that. I don't know if I can't get into the moment, but so much of it just seems silly.

You can even notice that in the face of porn "artists" throughout the ages. Even in really vintage porn photos, the female is looking at the camera, with a goofy grin on her face, whilst the male on top (etc) is going about his business, oblivious to the camera.

vbspurs said...

"The Diana Chronicles."

Oh God, yes, now I recall you mentioned that book before. Frankly, I don't put much stock in what Brown says most times. She has a very Boomer-working-woman-feminist sensibility, which I think Diana didn't have at all.

Kirk Parker said...

"Don’t give books as holiday gifts"

I'm with the other commenters here--what is up with that???

vbspurs said...

Remember when Rosin wrote in 2008 about Hillary:

This suggests that for the next 24 hours, or perhaps two weeks, we will get the very best of Hillary: alive, comfortable, warm and toasty and angry all at the same time. She will be our Dolly Parton, our Oprah, our Artemis, our Thelma and Louise: the "avenging angel," as Kantor put it, for millions of American women who have been wronged in some way. We, the women of the press, will be held to feel guilty, responsible, nostalgic, elitist. We will somehow have to explain ourselves. Anyone want to go first?

I was prepared not to like Hanna Rosin because of paragraphs like this, but on video, I find her soft, warm, the opposite of that annoying twitchy squirrel Michelle Goldberg. I like Rosin.

vbspurs said...

[26:00] "Companionate Marriage"? Yikes, I'm sure it's as sterile, though strangely cosy as it sounds.

FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt had a companionate marriage. Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre (minus the actual marriage vows). Hillary and Bill.

I am not a romantic woman, but this so-called "layered" marriage seems the opposite of what my parents have (for example), which is more conventionally lovey-dovey. They are my yardstick of a successful marriage.

edutcher said...

vbspurs said...

[21:05] Is there such an industry as female pornography, outside of Playgirl? Rosin called it a dying industry. Whenever I have watched porn on TV, there is no shadow of a doubt that it's intended for male tastes.

I recall about 20 years ago a female porn star was setting up a production company to do porn aimed at women. We can see what came of it. Given how brain-dead porn usually is, female-oriented porn might actually have something to tweak the mind as well as the senses.

Something along the lines of Bocaccio or Moliere would be another story.

That said, however, (this is where I get roundly denounced) it wouldn't be any better than the MCP stuff if it was constructed on the lines of estrogen fests such as Charmed or Bones. (Yes, I would much rather watch reruns of Cheyenne or Maverick)

As for Playgirl as female porn, that's for guys like Titus (but don't tell Levi).

vbspurs said...

[31:00] I must buy "Wolf Hall" now! (it's linked to Ann via Amazon).

See, this is precisely what the French do -- endlessly give each other book tips.

Well, it's sad that Rosin had to sign off earlier, as it was too brief and not very in-depth except for the Tiger Woods segment. Nevertless, I enjoyed it.

Irene said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
vbspurs said...

As for Playgirl as female porn, that's for guys like Titus (but don't tell Levi).

I've been thinking of this subject since I posted, Edutcher.

If women laugh during porn, is it because men have more readily involved imaginations than women? That's the usual explanation given. But how can that be, since women adore romantic novels like Barbara Cartland's. And though I dislike them myself, you can't tell me it doesn't involve a very particular kind of concentration, which is precisely tied to imagination.

B said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dust Bunny Queen said...

Having actually watched the portion of the diva log presented:

I agree with Althouse that there is something racist about the way that people want to view Tiger Woods.

Coming from a California background myself and from the cultural stewpot that is the SF Bay Area it is weird to see people try to peg and pigeon hole Woods as being BLACK. He is barely "black". His background is mostly Asian and from a mid to upper class silcion valley type of lifestyle.

YET.....because his skin tone is a bit tanner than Coppertone can achieve, the liberals want to "peg" him into a black ghettoistic sterotype.

This IS racist as Althouse has said.

m00se said...

Ann,

Stop talking over other people. Makes you look rude and compulsive. You're better than that...

Palladian said...

"As for Playgirl as female porn, that's for guys like Titus (but don't tell Levi)."

Are you kidding? Us queers have much better porn than "Playgirl". Playgirl is for guys in small towns who want to jerk off while looking at cocks but can't charge the better porn to their credit cards for fear their wives would see the bill.

Ron said...

In other Wood related news, the Stones Ronnie Wood got arrested on assault charges yesterday...

vbspurs said...

OT: Since we're talking of race, just to let you know how some liberals still frame almost every negative in the Obama Administration, a comment and response on MyDD about the health care bill:

- Why the hell are these people opposing it?

- because there's a black guy in the White House


Written with complete confidence in its truth and a totally straight face.

Cheers,
Victoria

CharlesVegas said...

Just because he was married to a Swedish super-model does not mean he was sleeping with one. There are reasons men stray.

vbspurs said...

There are reasons men stray.

Wince.

Freeman Hunt said...

There are reasons men stray.

More reasons than the one you just cited.

Some men have the male equivalent of daddy issues and seek validation through sex.

Some are narcissists and don't care about the effects of their actions.

The list goes on.

HelenParr said...

vbspurs: Your commentary is like a picture-in-picture to the diavlog. Much appreciated.

lucid said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
lucid said...

Maybe the problem is with what we expect of men rather than with what men do.

Suppose men are simply different from women in regard to a desire and willingness to pursue casual or "extrapair" partners?

Male gay couples often have open relationships and multiple sexual partners without impairing their funamental tie to each other. On the other hand, this is very uncommon among Lesbian couples.

Why should not men be recognized for what they are and be permitted to embrace it in an acknowledged way and without recimination or remorse?

Double-standards? Well, yes, but don't men and women in fact have different standards and desires in relationships? Why should women's preferences control behavior in the relationship rather than men's preferences or rather than an accomodating compromise?

vbspurs said...

OT: Green Fakers!

Regarding the gift that keeps on giving, Al Gore cancels Copenhagen lecture next week, which cost the ticketholders $1200 a pop just to shake his hand.

It's been the happiest November/early December I've had politically since forever.

Penny said...

Another enjoyable Bloggingheads. Nicely done, Ann and Hanna.

Loved the part where Ann suggested that someone do a study on the psychs studying women who lack passion, but want some.

I laughed at that line, even though the topic of the ever expanding DSM is not so funny when, as you suggested, it is more likely these additions are occurring for insurance reasons.

vbspurs said...

Thanks, Helen! Glad my running commentary didn't irritate you. :)

Ron, thanks for the news! Ronnie Wood grew up as a member of a water gypsy group and he is no stranger to a tough life where fists play a big role. Domestic violence is no laughing matter though (so I'll not explore his background further, as it might seem I'm justifying it).

vbspurs said...

Why should women's preferences control behavior in the relationship rather than men's preferences or rather than an accomodating compromise?

Trust. Respect. Integrity.

Let me know if it hits any nerves.

Penny said...

"Every culture has their irritating little practises.."

You are surely right about that, victoria, and at least for me, one of America's is giving store cards or checks in lieu of a thoughtful, personal gift.

I hear others say that is what people really want, and that it's more practical because the person can then select what they prefer, but...I don't know? It just feels so impersonal and lazy.

I couldn't tell you one thing I bought with a check or a gift card, but I can tell you who gave me every gift I still have in my home going back many decades.

lucid said...

@vbspurs:

Don't be so snide and defensive before you've absorbed what the other person is saying. You've missed the point of my post.

In non-monagamous male couples, there is trust, respect, qnd integrity because what each partner does is acknowledged. Why should not men in heterosexual couples be allowed and expcted to purusue a male style of sexuality openly, without reosrt to sneaking around. At Mitterand's funeral some years ago, his wife and his mistress both were accorded places of honor. Most women might not prefer this, but why are their preferences in this regard more compelling or honorable than men's? Why is what is clearly a male style of sexuality treated as inappropriate.

Unless you want to make the absurd argument that women are somehow more moral than men.

vbspurs said...

Unless you want to make the absurd argument that women are somehow more moral than men.

Lucid, you're talking to the woman who takes every opportunity to uplift and defend men whenever possible, even at one point in my life, to the detriment of my grades when in front of feminist professors (I'll tell you about that one day).

But if you want me, as a woman, to find reasons why men should be allowed to be dogs, I'm afraid I will not do that.

I will say this, so as not end too abruptly.

There are some religions that allow multiple sexual partners so it's not a question of religion. I'm just happy I have absolutely nothing to do with those cultures who tolerate such a thing. It seems to be a truism that such cultures treat women abominably, and it doesn't take a genius to realise it has something to do with being able to have multiple sexual partners (conveniently punishing women to have the same).

Almost Ali said...

Moliere! Tina Brown! Porn! Racism!.. all in one thread!

I'll pick up on the "racism," that is, the reality of African-Americanism, specifically Tiger's African-Americanism - or better, the perfect white package.

But, may I dub Tiger Woods the perfect white package without appearing racist? In present company, I think not.

Besides, pulp-porn is the easier subject; may I recommend Jungle Fever? No, I'm not being clever. After all, would Tina Brown write about Princess Diana without understanding Diana's reality? Of course she did, and people bought it. Better had they read the butler.

That's why I recommend catching a good case of jungle fever. Not just the porn part, but living and breathing the jungle until you reach enlightenment, that is, reality.

As for the godmother of gay thespians, Moliere was in his element.

Almost Ali said...

Uh, Elin wasn't a "super-model." She dabbled as a young[er] person.

She was a nanny, however, and may wind up being an escort/nanny for her current employer, Mr Woods.

Almost Ali said...

(I didn't mean to interrupt the conversation. Please continue, it's interesting)

Almost Ali said...

Okay, if you won't, I will. Besides, you're sleeping while I'm pulling an all-nighter.

I like the idea of marriage counselors, especially when they journey to the Woods' household; hard to ignore when they're sitting in your living room.

But I wonder; are these particular marriage counselors versed in the culture of African-Americanism? I hope so, otherwise they counsel to the wall. Which in turn gives Mr Woods a distinct advantage, the secrets of a blissful white-world.

Aside from the racist aspects, one must ask; is it possible to squeeze Mr Woods through the eye of a needle? Or Elin into decompression?

I'd offer my services, but Elin would do much better with Raoul Felder.

Donna B. said...

@Almost Ali -- why do you think African Americans are so different?

Almost Ali said...

Donna B.:

"Different" in certain respects, such as in relationships, and sex.

I can't presume to know the why, only the collective evidence. Plus my own intimate experience(s) with African Americans, mainly female.

So, it's a fair but difficult question unless you can be more specific.

Almost Ali said...

Alright, I'll make an attempt.

For one, African Americans are not, in general, monogamist. Male or female, they consider themselves free agents, married or not.

In this regard especially, African American females consider white women as naive. Seldom if ever do white women gain this insight. Also with regard to sex, which African Americans equate with eating, and breathing, something you just do. While white women more often view sex as a bargaining tool, a means to an end.

Almost Ali said...

"Men are dogs" is not simply a feminist expression, but a core belief of African-American females. And here lies their justification for free agency, and the devastating diminishment of African American males.

kentuckyliz said...

Does Elin know she married a black guy?

Does Elin think she married a black guy?

Professional counselors are required to be culturally competent, or to refer in situations in which they aren't competent.

WV myteni
My martini, abbreviated after I've had a couple of them

hdhouse said...

well i guess when we get into race and sex it draws comments from all quarters.

DaveW said...

I found myself dreading the moment when people would drag race into this but your take on the race angle is very interesting professor.

Pogo said...

I don't know about the 'blacks as free agents' thing.

'Cheating' plays a big role in black music and movies and celebrity news. Free agents don't complain about betrayal or cheating.

As for 'all men are dogs', well, that's a feminist and islamic teaching, not a racially exclusive one.

Remember, don't leave your meat uncovered. Well okay, in islam, men are cats.

Pogo said...

Most people who believe in free agency play that angle only one way, expecting fidelity from their paramours.

Free speech for me but not for thee being the idea, substituting naughty bits for the talking.

Fred4Pres said...

I am not sure I would use the term "racist" to describe idolizing and raising on pedistals sport superstars like Tiger Woods. This would have been a story if Jack Nicholas was the one driving the car.

Tiger Woods has been displayed as a person of perfection, so a very human flaw and embarassing situation becomes all that much more interesting to many. Of course, the media is milking this for all its got.

Fred4Pres said...

Nicklaus, my bad.

MarkW said...

Double-standards? Well, yes, but don't men and women in fact have different standards and desires in relationships? Why should women's preferences control behavior in the relationship rather than men's preferences or rather than an accomodating compromise?

Legally and socially enforced monogamy is for the benefit of men, not women. Countless women would be more than happy to be Tiger Woods 3rd or 4th or nth mistress (or wife, if it were legal) and bear his children under those conditions (with the status boost and support payments that went with it). But if rich guys were allowed to hoard as many women as they could afford, that would leave a lot fewer to go around for the vast majority of men, and they'd be much worse off. But women on the whole would be better off -- the artificial woman shortage that resulted from polygamy would allow them to drive a harder bargain in their relationships.

Which brings to mind Claude Rains in Casablanca--"How extravagant you are, throwing away women like that. Someday they may be scarce." In an world that officially permitted polygamy, women would be scarcer and men would have to be less careless with their women.

Fred4Pres said...

As for Chris Rock, he also said that when it comes to women pursuing famous men, he had a warning: Men cannot run that fast.

I am not exusing it or saying this is the way it should be, but if you are a guy and beautiful women are throwing themselves at you, it takes a certain amount of discipline to avoid getting into trouble.

traditionalguy said...

Tiger's ancestry is only 1/8 Scottish, and is only 1/4 African American. The discussion should be about the Sexual Attitudes of Asians since he is 1/2 Asian from Chinese and Thai grandparents. Tiger wants what he can compete for and win. To Tiger the prize he wins is his right. He is learning the lesson here that sex with beautiful Hostesses/Geishas has a huge downside even if it comes in a beautiful wrapping in the same gift basket given for his hard won victories in golf. Like the ancient Trojans, He needs to learn to beware of strangers bearing gifts. He can grow up now like everyone else had to do it, the hard way. Then he will let his children be the children in the family.

Peter S. said...

@Pogo: "As for 'all men are dogs', well, that's a feminist and islamic teaching, not a racially exclusive one."

"'Tis not a year or two shows us a man:
They are all but stomachs, and we all but food;
To eat us hungerly, and when they are full,
They belch us.
"

Emilia to Desdemona,
Othello, Act 3, Scene 4

A gender/race/culture hat trick!

Roger J. said...

Tiger Woods is a great golfer; thats a sport I have never tried, but I can only imagine the work it takes to be a great golfer.

I am a bit disappointed about this news of his (and his wife's) personal life, but it doesnt take away from his prowess as a golfer.

Let the Woods family sort it out and get the hell out of their lives--marital cheating goes on around us every day, and its only news when public figures do it? Get a grip and get a life.

AllenS said...

I'll get the hell out of their lives, when Woods quits appearing in my life telling me what to buy.

lucid said...

VBSPURS wrote: “Lucid, you're talking to the woman who takes every opportunity to uplift and defend men whenever possible, even at one point in my life, to the detriment of my grades when in front of feminist professors (I'll tell you about that one day).”

Well, yes, and we of the blackened souls and dangly appendages do appreciate that. There is an enormous devaluation of men and of male experience that is current and still emergent in the culture, especially in so-called “progressive” or late 20th Century “liberal” political and social ideology. But there is a counter-reformation coming; men are getting tired of being the patsies, and the changing circumstances that “liberated” women are also changing how men behave, though not in the ways that the 1960s feminists preferred.

There likely are real biological, brain-drive differences in the extent to which men and women are disposed to be monogamous and differences in how attracted each sex is by “short-term” mating opportunities. Different cultures have solved this problem in different ways. In many cases, men have pledged monogamy in order to secure a degree of monogamy from their female mates and a corresponding certainty that their offspring were in fact their own.

Women have been “liberated” by birth control technology and the separation of procreation and sex and by their vastly expanded economic opportunities. But so have men. Having sex doesn’t mean having children. Under these circumstances, there is very little reason for men to restrain their sexuality, nor is there reason for men to recognize social constraints (i.e., female preferences) on their sexuality. And if you live in an urban area like Madison or Chicago or San Francisco or New York City, you know how easily men find multiple, casual sexual partners and how in despair women in their 30s are about this.

Male gay couples are a pure form of male sexuality, and they are very rarely as monogamous as heterosexual or lesbian couples. This post is too long and complicated already, but given all of the above circumstances, including the economic self-sufficiency of women, there is every reason to expect that men will become more able and more willing to assert their own style of sexuality in heterosexual relationships, perhaps to the distress of women. This process is already very far along among educated, affluent young men in urban areas.

And BTW, peace to you: I have been very much enjoying your posts since you re-emerged here.

t-man said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

"Jack [Nicklaus] IS squeaky squeaky clean."

Well, now he is. Back then, not so sure. Jack was Tiger in the era of JFK, when the press was complicit in keeping these "private" matters private. Jack had a reputation for a taste for the ladies. Perhaps it was unfounded gossip, but the gossip was there.

Without doubt there are a number of graybeard golfers who would rather the historical roots of philandering on tour did not become a topic of investigation.

Scott said...

The racial angle to the Tiger Woods saga!
Will high-status men invariably cheat on their wives?
Is lack of sexual desire in women an illness?
The impossibility of writing a non-awful sex scene!

Read about it in Cosmopolitan!

Scott said...

"high-status men" is an oxymoron.

MayBee said...

Why should not men in heterosexual couples be allowed and expcted to purusue a male style of sexuality openly, without reosrt to sneaking around.

Not be allowed by whom?
If a man in a heterosexual couple enters into a marriage by openly telling his partner he will be pursuing sex outside the relationship, and his partner agrees, there is nothing to stop him.

All he has to do is find someone who agrees with his version of a relationship. That isn't the woman controlling things, that's an equal partnership.

Ann Althouse said...

I won't call anyone out individually, but a few of you are saying things as if I or Hanna hadn't already said them, even in the form of informing me of something that should have been said. Be careful if you haven't actually watched the diavlog.

buster said...

What t-man said.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Tiger Woods was born on the 30th of December, 1975 as "Eldrick Woods". Tiger Woods was born to parents "Earl Woods" and mother "Kultida Woods" in Cypress, California. His parents are of mixed racial backgrounds with his father being African American/Caucasian and mother being Thai/Chinese (born in Thailand).


And in Tiger's own words:

"
The media has portrayed me as African-America; sometimes, Asian. In fact, I am both.

Yes, I am the product of two great cultures, one African-American and the other Asian. "

Trying to squeeze Tiger Woods into a sterotype of African American and a ghettoized version at that has to be extremely insulting and it is RACIST.

When people just look at a person's skin tone and then extrapoloate about their supposed cultural biases as an African American, as if all people of a certain skin tone are a monolithic group, that is RACIST.

vw: sortfu.

The Oriental method of sorting people by skin tone.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

WOW!! Spelling errors all over the place. Sorry.... goes to get a strong cup of coffee------>

G Joubert said...

Tiger managed to be many things to many people. Multiracial yes, but to blacks he was black and to Thais he was Thai. Whites didn't see him as white, but they did see him as classy and squeaky-clean. Tiger carefully positioned himself, constructed his image, and it (along with his considerable golf talents) took him all the way to billionaire. Maybe with that he started getting a little careless and sloppy.

Chris said...

Tiger and Obama are the same (along with most modern high achiever} in that they both carefully constructed their images. They differ in that Obama went towards race and Woods went away from it.

lucid said...

@MarkW

There is no evidence at all to support what you are saying. Your argument does not take account of the sexual freedom of women that makes them very widely available outside of monogamous relationships, especially when they are young and most nubile.

If you actually look at what is happening in urban areas--among the sexually and economically liberated--men can't even begin to keep up with the sexual opportunities available to them, and women in their 30s who now want to have children with a committed partner can't find men who want to marry them.

It is the opposite of what you describe. (And personally I think what you say is a bit male-hating.)

Big Mike said...

Yup, uh huh. Everybody knows about Black dudes and white women. Press got to whip up the lynch mob, just like they did back 50 years ago in the South.

For a long time now I've been reading what the liberal riff-raff, particularly the riff-raff who work for the press, write about racial attitudes and I can only shake my head and conclude that think the 21st century US is still 1950's Mississippi. Now here they are whipping up a lynch mob and I can only conclude that they really do think that about the US.

They really need to get out of their bubble.

Chris said...

@lucid

Although I agree with you to some extent I think you overstate the case. There are strong social pressures on men not to go overboard with their sexual freedom and the number of men who have the resources and personalities to be multiple partner alphas tend to have a lot of other obligations that limit their ability to monopolize desirable women.

MarkW said...

If you actually look at what is happening in urban areas--among the sexually and economically liberated--men can't even begin to keep up with the sexual opportunities available to them, and women in their 30s who now want to have children with a committed partner can't find men who want to marry them.

When women have sufficiently independent, secure incomes, they tend to become less interested in monogamy themselves. Which brings to mind the young Swedish woman describing what Swedish women want:


Inevitably, the subject turns to sex and marriage. I’ll never forget asking one group what they thought of marriage in a country where most educated young people (and half go to university) don’t get married or bear children until they are well over 30. A young woman gave me a thoughtful answer and so I asked her, “What are you looking for in a husband?” Without batting an eye or pausing for thought, she answered: “Three things. One, he must be good in bed. Two, he must be a good father. Three, when we divorce, he mustn’t be bitter.”

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2009/07/insearchoftheswedishsoul/

vbspurs said...

And BTW, peace to you: I have been very much enjoying your posts since you re-emerged here.

No worries, at all, Lucid. I remember you saying that when I delurked, and I so appreciate it. I'm sorry my words sounded abrupt or snotty. I have that tendency but my heart is good. :P

Cheers,
Victoria

vbspurs said...

DBQ wrote:

Trying to squeeze Tiger Woods into a sterotype of African American and a ghettoized version at that has to be extremely insulting and it is RACIST.

It IS absolutely racist, and weird, considering that Tiger Woods has repeatedly said public things that distances himself from his black heritage. It's evident he doesn't consider himself all tha that much black, and why should he -- he's more Asian given Earl Woods' background.

But you know, if you look black, you're black. That's not just in America, but in Europe and Asia too.

I think the angle Rosin and Althouse were exploring, Tiger's own views about blacks/ghetto behaviour, is very interesting. I didn't touch on it in my previous comments, but I see others are interested.

Do you think Tiger Woods is a snob?

Cheers,
Victoria

Ralph L said...

when we divorce, he mustn’t be bitter
So make him happy to leave you.

Almost Ali said...

Like I said, not in present company.

I hope Ann's next blogging-head is an African American woman. And that they discuss the cultural differences, specifically regarding sex and relationships.

Meanwhile, I'm not buying the racist assertions, the auto-response, which are wholly based on group think spawned from the school of political correctness.

MamaM said...

After running into conflict in an extended family situation, I was online last night looking up information on "contempt". One of the connections included a John Gottman's assertion that "the four major emotional reactions that are destructive to a marriage: defensiveness, stonewalling, criticism, and contempt."

The antidote he proposes includes the practice of open-ended interest, shared fondness and admiration, and a commitment to turn toward each other rather than away. He sees the practice of these three behaviors as essential to postive problem solving and conflict repair. In other words, they serve as the foundation for the work of collaborative relationship.

While I encountered all four of the destructive elements in Weil's description of her marriage, I did not see her words revealing the presence of those positive behaviors at work in her relationship

careen said...

Playgirl was for gay guys.

Female porn is rock stars, rap stars, and athletes of various stripes. And a heavy dollop of gossip. It's no good if you don't know all the emotional intrigue surrounding the rock stars, rap stars and athletes so you can construct a narrative.

This is why I laugh when guys want women to stop gossiping about the relationships of celebrities they don't know. How are they supposed to construct a creative *narrative* w/o some raw material?

Good Luck on that. It'll end when porn proper does.

rhhardin said...

Men don't take porn serously either. It's just a tool to get rid of a nagging obsession that's wired in, to women's advantage.

Porn disappears when a mate is available.

paul a'barge said...

If I had to have a vblog conversation with Hanna Rosin I would have to shower after.