When the David Beckham underwear ad for clothing retailer H&M came on during the Super Bowl, CNN’s Roland Martin took to Twitter to comment on it. Now, Martin is under fire from gay rights group GLAAD.

Here are Martin’s tweets:

Ain’t no real bruhs going to H&M to buy some damn David Beckham underwear! #superbowl

— rolandsmartin (@rolandsmartin) February 6, 2012

If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him! #superbowl

— rolandsmartin (@rolandsmartin) February 6, 2012

A lot of people on Twitter responded negatively to the remark, including GLAAD. The gay rights group and Martin had this exchange:

@glaad @CNN well you’re clearly out of touch and clueless with what I tweeted. Way to assume, but you’re way off base.

— rolandsmartin (@rolandsmartin) February 6, 2012

Critics also point to a history of remarks including this piece he wrote on his website in 2006. In the post, he equates homosexuality to sinful behavior like stealing and infidelity and says his wife, a Baptist minister, “has counseled many men and women to walk away from the gay lifestyle.”

On Monday, Martin posted this on his Twitter feed:

Fam, let me address the issue that some in the LGBT community have raised regarding some of my Super Bowl tweets yesterday. I made several cracks about soccer as I do all the time. I was not referring to sexuality directly or indirectly regarding the David Beckham ad, and I’m sorry folks took it otherwise. It was meant to be a deliberately over the top and sarcastic crack about soccer; I do not advocate violence of any kind against anyone gay, or not. As anyone who follows me on Twitter knows, anytime soccer comes up during football season it’s another chance for me to take a playful shot at soccer, nothing more.

Martin’s Twitter timeline is filled with protestations that he was just talking about soccer. Even if that’s the case, he implies football is a better sport because it’s manlier. And because it’s better and manly, it should beat up inferior and less manly sports – presumably, like soccer – and the people who like them. By saying a “real bruh” wouldn’t buy David Beckham’s underwear and by suggesting followers should “smack the ish [shit]” out of someone who likes the ad, he basically said my sport is better, manlier, and can kick the shit out of you and your sport.

That’s if you believe he was just talking about soccer, but I don’t think he was.

Yes, David Beckham is one of the most popular soccer players in the world, and the undoubtedly the most popular in the U.S. But he’s also one of the biggest celebrities in the world. And that ad had nothing to do with soccer. It was Becks showing his pecks and abs in tighty-whities. On a sexual level – really, the only level in the ad – the commercial wasn’t meant to appeal to straight guys, like the GoDaddy ads. The H&M Beckham ad was meant to appeal to women and gay men. And a commercial that would unabashedly sexualize a man, turning him into and object of desire and vulnerability in order to appeal to those two groups during the heterosexually testosterone-filled Super Bowl might make some men uncomfortable.

But maybe Martin didn’t see any of that. Maybe Martin saw past all quick shots of Beckham nearly naked body and only saw a soccer player.

Monday night, Martin apologized again saying that he is against bullying towards anyone including those in the LGBT community, he “sincerely regret[s] any offense my words have caused,” maintains that his remarks were just about soccer, but concedes, “I can certainly understand how someone could come to a different conclusion than the one I meant.”

He also said in his statement:

I’m disheartened that my words would embolden prejudice. While public debate over social issues is healthy, no matter which side someone takes, there is no room for debate as to whether we need to be respectful of others.

As someone who has spoken out forcefully against bigotry against African Americans and other minorities, as well as sexism against women, I fully understand how a group who has been unfairly treated would be offended by such comments, and, again, I am sorry for any offense my remarks caused.

So, what do you think? Are people making too much out of this, or did Martin reveal a bit of homophobia in his tweets? And if he did, should CNN fire him?

Connect with me on Twitter, follow my Tumblr and Like me on Facebook.

I agree with Santorum that college isn’t for everyone and someone certainly doesn’t need to finish college to be personally successful or influential in high-tech fields. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are the best examples of that. Not everyone is going to be a Zuckerberg or a Gates, though.

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess Obama wasn’t suggesting a federal mandate stating every person is required to go to college. I’m sure he meant that everyone should have the opportunity - the freedom! – to go college, if they choose.

So, while college isn’t for everyone, Obama is correct in suggesting that it’s a good thing and makes life better. Here are three reasons why:

• In the Great Recession, those without a college degree are more likely to be unemployed. From 2009 through the summer of 2011, the unemployment rate for those with only a high school diploma was 14.3%. The unemployment rate for those with a college degree was 4.4%.
• People with a bachelor’s degree earn more over the course of a lifetime than those who don’t. On average, someone who finishes college will earn nearly $700,000 during their life than those who don’t finish college, and nearly a $1 million more compared to those with only a high school education.
• If marriage is on your mind, you should go to college. Nearly two-thirds of college graduates get married compared to less than half of high school graduates.

So America, don’t be outraged that someone wants to give you the opportunity to be more prosperous. Don’t rise up because someone wants you to have the freedom to be educated, think critically and live up to your potential.

Be outraged that Santorum has the sexual snobbery to think he knows “how to run our lives” in the bedroom, while not standing up to give Americans the opportunity to make the most out of our lives.

In just a few hours, we’ll find out if New Hampshire Republican voters are just as outraged as Santorum and rise up to give him another strong showing, or if his petty outrage and own sexual snobbery help to end his campaign.

This story is multi-faceted with so many different angles, causes and repercussions, I wanted to put some them together to try to find some context.

First, let’s call these alleged crimes at Penn State what they are writes Tommy Christopher at Mediaite:

The nomenclature surrounding “sex crimes” is already hopelessly sterile, and the media routinely refers to cases of rape and sexual assault as “sex scandals,” but that makes it no less important to call them out every time they do it.

Sandusky is not accused of “having sex” with little boys, he is accused of raping them. In our civilization, “sex” with a child is not possible, since a child cannot consent to sex. As I half-listened to the news all day today, then, and I heard repeated references to “the Penn State sex scandal,” it pissed me off. It made my blood steam a little bit, like a hot cup of coffee.

(I would apply this criticism to the Dominique Strauss-Kahn alleged sexual assault which was often referred to as a “sex scandal.”)

Many have made the connection between the cover-up at Penn State and the Catholic Church’s cover-up of child molestation. Maureen Dowd made it in her Tuesday column in the New York Times:

Like the Roman Catholic Church, Penn State is an arrogant institution hiding behind its mystique. And sports, as my former fellow sports columnist at The Washington Star, David Israel, says, is “an insular world that protects its own, and operates outside of societal norms as long as victories and cash continue to flow bountifully.” Penn State rakes in $70 million a year from its football program.

Lawrence O’Donnell also discussed the failure of institutions and the people within them with with filmmaker Michael Moore on The Last Word.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There was a lot of reaction on Twitter last night as protesters and rioters took to the streets at Penn State in support of Paterno.

@shayera tweeted:

Why don’t more abuse victims come forward? Just look at the scene at Penn State and I think you have an answer.

@ultraverified wrote:

I remember when college students protested against violations of civil rights, not to defend child molesters and their enablers.

LeVar Burton (yes, that LeVar Burton) tweeted:

Now might be an appropriate time for us to re-evaluate the importance we place on both collegiate and pro sports in this culture!

On this topic of college sports, Buzz Bissinger concluded in The Daily Beast that not only should the entire Penn State coaching staff go..

And so, frankly, should major college football and basketball as it exists now, rotten beyond repair, as has been pointed out a thousand times. Totally disconnected from the academic experience, they are insulated kingdoms with their own rules and reigns of terror because of the money they make, trading in illegal recruiting and illegal gifts and illegal favors, and now, thanks to Penn State, alleged sexual abuse of children by a former coach who must have assumed he would always be protected. Just like a Mafia soldier.

Except that the even the Mafia has higher moral standards.

In the DailyKos, Kevin Powell links the Penn State story to another big story of the week – the Herman Cain sexual harassment (sexual assault?) allegations. He laments, “what a disaster manhood is when it is unapologetically invested in power, privilege, patriarchy, sexism, and a reckless disregard for the safety and sanity of others, especially women and children.”

Every single year, it seems, some well-known man somewhere gets into trouble because of sex, money, drugs, or violence, or some combination thereof (and God only knows how many unknown males do likewise). It is always the same themes, just with a new cast of characters. Yesterday it was priests of the Catholic Church. Today it is the male leadership of Penn State. Yesterday it was Anthony Weiner and Charlie Sheen. Today it is Herman Cain.

He concludes:

If any good can come of the Cain and Penn State disasters it is my sincere hope that spaces and movements are created, finally, where we men can really begin to rethink what manhood can be, what manhood might be. Manhood that is not about power, privilege, and the almighty penis, but instead rooted in a sense of humanity, in peace, in love, in nonviolence, in honesty and transparency, in constant self-criticism and self-reflection, and in respect and honor of women and girls, again, as our equals; in spaces and movements where men and boys who might not be hyper-macho and sports fanatics like some us are not treated as outcasts, as freaks, as less than men or boys. A manhood where if we see something bad happening, we say something, and not simply stick our heads in the sand and pretend that something did not happen. Or worse, yet, do something wrong ourselves, and when confronted with that wrongness, rather than confess, acknowledge, grow, heal, evolve, we instead dig in our heels and imagine ourselves in an all-out war, proclaiming our innocence to any who will listen, even as truth grows, like tall and daunting trees in a distant and darkened woods, about us.

Layers and perspectives will surely develop as the more details emerge from the story. What I think these views show is not just a breakdown in the system at Penn State, but a breakdown of institutions having any consideration for individuals as human beings. When the culture at a university or a church (a church!) prioritizes the perpetuation of itself instead of children, then something is deeply wrong with the people who run the institution.

There’s something to the O’Donnell/Moore interview about how this breakdown happens over and over again. Institutions, corporations, and business are made up of many people. The cultures at those entities are made by the people within them. So, why is it that so many men (it’s often men) can turn a blind eye to repeated and flagrant misdeeds? Part of it is greed, but where did breakdown with these men occur that allowed greed and the need to be right to make them turn away from helping their fellow human being?

Powell suggested “creating spaces and movements” to address this. We must crawl before we can walk, but spaces won’t suffice. If this culture of masculinity is embedded in so many men from childhood, change on this front will require movements. To create a culture where it doesn’t contribute to tragedies like these, masculinity will have to redefined and recreated from the ground up.

In an effort to enlighten ourselves, we searched the term “sexist” on several stock photography sites, and we came up with some fairly resolute results. First of all, almost all sexism occurs in the office. Second, coffee and ties are often unwitting accomplices to sexism. Third, there’s a guy out there somewhere who has a shirt with little pigs all over it and the word “Sexy” in big letters. Watch out for him: he’s clearly very sexist and dangerous.

It’s hard to put humor aside when looking at some of the photos. They’re more ridiculous than sexist.

As they pointed out, many of the photos chosen by the companies (or maybe just by HuffPost) take place in an office. It’s at work where there’s an obvious imbalance of power. It wasn’t always men, though, who were the perpetrators of sexism (or ridiculousness).

But what makes this fascinating isn’t that these photos are ironclad definitions of sexist behavior. Some of them clearly aren’t. But they are what someone, somewhere – specifically, researchers at these stock photo companies - perceive as sexist. Because two people won’t perceive a situation in exactly the same way, discussing perceptions usually lead to interesting conversations.

So, take a look at the slideshow at the Huffington Post and tell me what you think.

Follow me on Twitter. Connect with me of Facebook.

Congressman (for now) Anthony Weiner never heard or perhaps forgot this important lesson of politics. But he didn’t just try cover-up the scandal by lying in one written statement. He lied to everyone, the press, the public, everyone. And, he did it continuously for a week.

And, of course, he lied to his wife.

The sex aspect of Congressman Anthony Weiner’s downfall does bother me a bit. It makes him a dick of husband (had to say it), and while it seems like the other women were adults, it’s unclear how many of them were asking to see the Full Weiner.

He lied about all of it in full-on John Edwards-style: looking at the press and the people dead in the eye and proclaiming his innocence. This is what bothers me.

The reason why so many liberals liked Weiner was because of impassioned and forthright speeches like this one.

He talked about “courage” and “cowardly” things like “providing cover” “instead of doing the right thing.”

He was talking about being truthful.

Weiner should have listened to his own advice. His passionate voice on so many issues now rings hollow.

It probably would be.

If the genders were reversed, would it still be offensive?

Check out TubeCrush.net to find out. It’s a UK site in which pictures are taken of men – without their knowledge - on the London Underground. The photos are submitted to the site and then the folks at TubeCrush write captions like this:

Let’s play a game shall we? It’s similar to Simon Says, but this one is called Jack Will. Basically you stay stuff that you think he should do, and he’ll do it. I’ll go first…

Jack will…make my jaw hit the floor because he’s so hot.

Next up…

Jack will…take his top off….(well, we can dream can’t we?)

Kind of cute? Kind of cheesy? Yes. Offensive? Not to me. None of the pictures I’ve seen go down shirts or up shorts. They don’t show anything explicit.

The viewing and consuming a male body by a woman is different than a man looking at a woman’s body. The nature of what makes a man physically attractive is easier to talk about in polite conversation. “Take off his top” from the caption above, is a lot different than “Take off her top.” Men are generally more sexually aggressive and perceived as more sexually threatening than women. And a man gawking at a woman – especially without her knowledge or consent – can be threatening.

We’ve reached the point where if you’re in public, anything you do is up for grabs by a camera. (So, be aware what you’re doing.) When non-consensual photographs are taken for sexual titillation, though, and regardless of the shooter, viewer or subject, the whole endeavor still gives off a whiff of creepiness.

But it matters who the shooters, viewers and subjects are, I wouldn’t say there’s a double-standard when it comes to TubeCrush. A website with pictures of women for a male audience wouldn’t be the same situation.

What do you think?

H/t: Salon. See also: Good Men Project

Follow me on Twitter and let’s connect on Facebook.

This is a clip from the KTLA morning news program in Los Angeles about a Shake Weight class (I’m not kidding). The segment is so inappropriate, on so many levels, in so many instances, I couldn’t look away.

Jokes are fine, but not this television train wreck. Just give me the news.

Brace yourself.

H/t: TVSpy

Follow me on Twitter and connect with me on Facebook.

But what got my attention was the part about employment and income. Kerner cites a study that indicates a high-salary job correlates to increased likelihood of cheating:

While there aren’t any hard statistics on female infidelity, most experts agree that it’s on the rise, especially among women who have their own careers and a degree of financial independence. A University of Washington study found that people who earned $75,000 or more per year were 1.5 times more likely to have had extramarital sex than those earning less than $30,000. And with so many women in the workplace, it’s no surprise that among the spouses who cheated, 46 percent of women and 62 percent of men did so with someone they met through work.

I’m not suggesting that women – or men, for that matter – with high paying jobs aren’t marriage material because they’re going to cheat. The University of Washington study makes sense, though. If someone has a job and is able to support themselves financially, but is in a bad marriage and has the opportunity to meet someone who makes them happy, it makes sense that person will be more likely to cheat, or at least get out of that unhappy marriage.

It doesn’t make cheating right, but it makes sense.

Do you think female infidelity is on the rise because, as the post suggests, more women are in higher positions in the workforce?

As the number of women in the workforce catches up with the number of men – along with their salaries – will infidelity rates between the men and women begin to equal out as well?

Photo credit: Rushell070/Flickr

See also:
If Wives Make More, Could They Cheat More?
Wives Make More.. More Often

Follow me on Twitter and let’s connect on Facebook.

That’s according to a survey of 1000 people conducted by Avalon Funeral Plans in the U.K.

The NY Daily News reports women in the survey say they feel old at age 29. (That’s right, 29! Jeez!) The age men say they’re old is 58.

What made the men and women in the poll think their youthful days are in the past? For women, more than half said it’s their “assets heading south.” For two-thirds of men, it’s “decreased libido/not as ‘able’ in the bedroom.”

Interestingly, both men and women said 29 is the age when women “don’t have ‘it’ anymore.”

Alice Newsham, an Avalon spokesperson said, “We wanted to look at the perceptions of age, especially looking at men and women and the differences between them.”

What do you think? Why do you think there’s such a huge difference – twice the age – between when men and women perceive themselves as being old?

What about you? Are your assets, mojo or something else making you feel old?

Photo: Rebeca Cygnus/Flickr

Follow me on Twitter and connect with me on Facebook.

That’s what they’re trying to figure out in Cleveland, Texas where this horrible event allegedly occurred.

So, how do we raise boys to fight sexism and sexual violence and prevent tragedies like this from happening?

In discussing black masculinity and rape culture – all 18 suspects are black – Akiba Solomon of ColorLines contacted sociology professor Dr. R. L’Heureux Lewis and asked for some thoughts. Lewis, who writes about black masculinity, responded with his reaction to the assault and what parents can do to raise black boys to reject and fight sexism and rape.

The focus of Solomon’s post is on black men and boys, though sexism and rape is certainly not just a black male problem. In fact, a lot of the advice is applicable to all men.

Here are some of Lewis’s points:

Whenever a tragedy like this happens, we have to start by acknowledging the value of human life.

Some of these boys and men taped the [assault] and showed it to other people. This tells me that they lack boundaries around the safety of sex…We also need to ask why other people saw a video depicting sexual violence against a girl and said OK, why only one person came forward and said ‘This is wrong.’

We need to examine how we define masculinity as well. We’ve latched on to the most superpowered image of white masculinity, what sociologist Michael Kimmel calls the Marketplace Man. The Marketplace Man is a successful businessman, he has power over his home and power over women. But since black men [don’t have] power equal to white men’s, we’ve created a perverted way to [compensate] for it. Women become our currency. If you have no money but you have five women, you’ll be all right.

One easy exercise you can try with boys or even among your friends: Ask them to describe a ‘real man.’ You’ll likely get a laundry list like, ‘A real man is strong! A real man has all the money! A real man has the power!’ Next, ask, ‘Of all of those things, which do you have?’ In answering this question, boys realize how unreal it is to be a baller-slash-star-athlete-slash-rocket scientist. They begin to see how anybody can question their manhood because they don’t have all of these qualities. Finally, ask, ‘Of the men you know in your community, name the ones you respect and what you respect about them.’ This exercise helps boys create an alternate view of masculinity. That’s the first step in forming a model for healthy black male sexuality.

Read the entire post at ColorLines. Also read Solomon’s summary and analysis of the alleged assault, the victim-blaming and the racial dynamics of the case.

See also:
The Man Box

Follow me on Twitter and connect with me on Facebook.