The whole world has been talking about the Tiger Woods scandal. I haven’t because, frankly, who cares? A famous athlete cheated on his wife with many suitably skanky-looking women. That seems to be par for the course (pardon the pun) for athletes and celebrities anyways. I know, I know, Tiger was supposed to be the “family man” with good morals and all that, but he’s still a famous athlete. And they’re more likely to be cheaters than they are to be faithful. Take it from someone who has worked in sports before: the ones who are faithful are the exceptions, while the cheaters are the rule. So, the “Tiger-cheated” scandal is not all that interesting… until I came across a few editorials on the subject.

The first two both claimed that Tiger was racist because 1.) he doesn’t identify as black and 2.) he only cheats with white women. This is apparently causing misery, heartbreak, and self-esteem issues for blacks all across the country.

First, the Washington Post let >Eugene Robinson delve into all kinds of idiocy:

Here’s my real question, though: What’s with the whole Barbie thing?

No offense to anyone who actually looks like Barbie, but it really is striking how much the women who’ve been linked to Woods resemble one another. I’m talking about the long hair, the specific body type, even the facial features. Mattel could sue for trademark infringement.

… But the world is full of beautiful women of all colors, shapes and sizes — some with short hair or almond eyes, some with broad noses, some with yellow or brown skin. Woods appears to have bought into an “official” standard of beauty that is so conventional as to be almost oppressive.

If only Tiger had cheated with women who were minorities, then it would all be OK. Eugene Robinson could forgive him because Tiger would have been enlightened enough to commit adultery with women of varying races. But because he apparently only likes white women, he must be a racist… or at the very least, a control freak.

The AP, however, goes even further into the racism nuttery.

Amid all the headlines generated by Tiger Woods’ troubles — the puzzling car accident, the suggestions of marital turmoil and multiple mistresses — little attention has been given to the race of the women linked with the world’s greatest golfer.

Except in the black community.

When three white women were said to be romantically involved with Woods in addition to his blonde, Swedish wife, blogs, airwaves and barbershops started humming, and Woods’ already tenuous standing among many blacks took a beating.

… As one blogger, Robert Paul Reyes, wrote: “If Tiger Woods had cheated on his gorgeous white wife with black women, the golfing great’s accident would have been barely a blip in the blogosphere.”

The darts reflect blacks’ resistance to interracial romance. They also are a reflection of discomfort with a man who has smashed barriers in one of America’s whitest sports and assumed the mantle of the world’s most famous athlete, once worn by Muhammad Ali and Michael Jordan.

But Woods has declined to identify himself as black, and famously chose the term “Cablinasian” (Caucasian, black, Indian and Asian) to describe the racial mixture he inherited from his African-American father and Thai mother.

This vexed some blacks, but it hasn’t stopped them from claiming Woods as one of their own. Or from disapproving of his marriage to Elin Nordegren, despite blacks’ historical fight against white racist opponents of mixed marriage.

… “But at the same time we still see him as a black man with a white woman, and it makes a difference,” said Johnson Cooper, a 26-year-old African-American from New York City. “There’s just this preservation thing we have among one another. We like to see each other with each other.”

Black women have long felt slighted by the tendency of famous black men to pair with white women, and many have a list of current transgressors at the ready.

… This tendency may be more prominent due to a relative lack of interracial marriages among average blacks. Although a recent Pew poll showed that 94 percent of blacks say it’s all right for blacks and whites to date, a study published this year in Sociological Quarterly showed that blacks are less likely to actually date outside their race than are other groups.

“There is a call for loyalty that is stronger in some ways than in other racial communities,” said the author of the study, George Yancey, a sociology professor at the University of North Texas and author of the book “Just Don’t Marry One.”

The color of one’s companion has long been a major measure of “blackness” — which is a big reason why the biracial Barack Obama was able to fend off early questions about his black authenticity.

“Had Barack had a white wife, I would have thought twice about voting for him,” Johnson Cooper said.

So do Woods’ women say something about the intensely private golfer’s views on race?

“I would like to say no, but I think it garners a bit of a yes,” Johnson Cooper said.

… “The issue comes in when you choose something white because you think it’s better,” Underwood said. “And then you never date a black woman or a woman of color or you never sample the greatness of the international buffet of human beings. If you never do that, we got a problem.”

The international buffet of human beings? Jiminy Christmas, there is just so much wrong with that statement.

But basically, to sum up the article, Tiger is racist because he makes the fatal mistake of not identifying himself solely by his race. Apparently, this has had blacks in an uproar that no one knew about. Did it ever occur to liberal AP writers to maybe suggest that minorities can identify themselves by their character and not their skin color? I would think that would be a positive about Tiger Woods, that he doesn’t define himself by his race, but by who he is. And instead, he’s getting castigated for it. On top of that, not only is Tiger Woods racist because he cheats with white women, somehow, all of America is apparently racist, too. And while blacks have fought against people who oppose interracial marriage, they oppose it at the same time and will slam a black man as a racist for screwing, dating, or marrying a white woman.

Yeah. That makes perfect sense. It’s not hypocritical race-baiting at all.

Lastly, there’s this oh-so-interesting article from a Jessica Ashley, who tells Elin Nordegren it’s OK for her to do whatever she has to do to her husband to help her cope, even if it means getting a little violent.

I am not going to opine about whether Elin should or should not stick with her husband (although early reports are saying she’s planning to stand by him, after a revision of the prenup). Instead, I say that she should do whatever it is she has to do. If that is taking the tool of her husband’s trade to smash the window of his Cadillac Escalade, so be it. If that is combing through his phone and dialing up any suspicious numbers, go to it. If that is trying to work through it (hopefully, with help of a professional), then help yourself. If that is to handle it behind closed doors, then do that.

Although none of us is in the relationship with Tiger and Elin, many of us certainly have been in that situation. If this statistic is right, that 1 in 4.6 married or cohabitating men have been unfaithful, then big crowds of us can understand any of the choices Elin might make.

While there will certainly be an audience waiting with bated breath to criticize whether Elin stays with Tiger or walks away, I think we should stand by Elin instead. And if she needs a friend to go at the rest of the windows, pass the golf clubs, Elin. I’ve got your back.

Now, cheating is awful, wrong, and immoral. However, if your spouse cheats on you, it does not give you permission to work out your rage with a golf club, regardless of whether you’re attacking the cheater themselves or their property. But I guess for Ms. Ashley, it’s A-OK for women to attack their cheating assholes because… men suck, and women are just victims, or something.

Of course, she then whines that somehow, people misunderstood her and thought that she was advocating domestic violence. Gee, where’d they get that crazy idea? She didn’t allude to that at all!

I’ve received many comments and criticism that have accused me of being in favor of domestic violence. I am ardently against violence and have been an activist against domestic and partner violence personally and professionally and academically for many years. When I said Elin Nordegren could pass me the golf clubs, I meant to knock out a window, not Tiger nor any other living creature.

At the time this post was written, there was no evidence that Elin Nordegren inflicted any wounds or intended to physically harm Tiger Woods. My perspective was written on the notion that Elin Nordegren hit only the window of her husband’s SUV.

Her “clarification” isn’t much better. So in this little girl’s warped worldview, it’s OK for you to attack your significant other’s property and destroy it to your heart’s content if they cheat on you. Wow. Bitter much? Yet somehow, I don’t see Ms. Ashley saying it would be OK for a man to destroy his wife’s vehicle if she cheated on him. Just imagine the media blitz if the situation were reversed: Elin cheated on Tiger with six men, and he went after her vehicle with a golf club. No one would care that Elin was a whore who cheated with six men. They’d crucify Tiger for being violent. But it’s only men who are cheating assholes, and women are only the helpless victims. Isn’t that the basic point of the whinefest above?

But as Dr. Helen points out, women are catching up on cheating, too. They’re narrowing the gap. So, I really am curious. By Jessica Ashley’s official Book of Morals, if a man is cheated on, is he allowed to do whatever he needs to do to cope, including destroy any property of hers that he feels he needs to destroy?

I won’t hold my breath for the official answers to any of the questions above.