Tiger Wood’s ‘Inconvenient Women’

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

What does the term ‘inconvenient woman’ truly mean? Does the term put the blame solely on the women? Take the Tiger Woods situation and the conflicting views that represent feminist thought. False dichotomies exist, in fact, they’re everywhere and feminism is no stranger to false dichotomies; there are women who think having the choice to be a mistress is a feminist thing and then there are those who oppose this view, saying that these types of thought processes are faulty and hardly feminist.

I don’t know where I sit on this scale, except to say that magazine sales tend to be driven by controversy not truth, morals and especially not feminism. To women who really work hard to attain a good career -who are still being paid less than men (even though they make incredible sacrifices as mothers and wives – while working -go figure the idiotic logic of being an underpaid female today) – the time magazines spend highlighting the common ‘mistress’, who essentially labels herself as an idler, is insulting. One commenter on Vanity Fair said it quite bluntly, in response to their Tiger mistress photoshoot:

I will never purchase your magazine again.I can’t believe you stooped this low and gave these good for nothing bitches their shine.I am not saying I agree what he did but,I wouldn’t thought the star or some of those other gossip magazine.Their are a lot of people who have been hurt.Vanity Fair I will never read your magazine again. and my friends and co-workers feel the same.

There are many moments that I feel like I’m living in bizarro land. Seriously. The very way that women are marketed today makes me wonder if feminism ever existed. But it did and boy, has it overshot its mark. The commercial backlash against feminism can be seen in the number of checks magazines write for mistresses and people who are morally bankrupt, and by saying that, I don’t mean that these women are inherently evil. It’s just that they essentially indicate, through their actions, that they’re not really feminist. You can’t be feminist if you’re screwing another woman’s wife and singing the graces of your sex with her husband, with the full knowledge that your actions have hurt, will hurt and will hurt that woman, and her children. In short, it goes against the philosophy. If women are to have rights – according to feminist views – then they should also have the right to be relatively free from unnecessary mental anguish, and this is what all this bullshit publicity over mistresses is – unnecessary.

Does it really change the world? Not really.

Is a mistress a novel concept? Not really.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not sexually judgmental but man, these women make my brain cry. They’re no intellectual giants. They struggle to string basic sentences together. And Vanity Fair: Are there no other women in America you could feature? I mean…C’mon. It’s great you have a web site; that way I won’t pay for the magazine. Well…I don’t regularly buy Vanity Fair anyway. It’s for social toffs and tossers.

There are so many other women who actually do constructive things, other than emotionally tripping themselves over with married men, why must magazines promote Tiger’s dysfunctional gold diggers?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed.

Related posts:

  1. What a Tiger! Doing a Tiger
  2. Porn for Women & Abstinence
  3. Doing 14 Women in 1 Night
  4. The Tiger Way to Sex Rehab
  5. Porn Futures | Women

Leave a Reply