<![CDATA[Jezebel: family values]]> http://tags.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/jezebel.com.png <![CDATA[Jezebel: family values]]> http://jezebel.com/tag/familyvalues http://jezebel.com/tag/familyvalues <![CDATA[Another Day, Another GOP Politician Forsaking His Vows]]> Michael Duvall, a married Republican lawmaker and defender of "family values," confuses a legislative hearing for a locker room and brags about sleeping with two younger women — completely forgetting there's a mic in his face. It's schadenfreudelicious! [TPM Muckraker]

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5355688&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[British Lad Mags: Root Of All Ills Or Symptom Of The Bigger, Sexist Picture?]]> Michael Grove, the shadow education secretary and a prominent Conservative in England, gave a speech today at a meeting organized by the think tank IPPR condemning lad mags (like Nuts, Zoo, and Maxim) for promoting "instant-hit hedonism" and presenting women as "permanently, lasciviously, uncomplicatedly available." The result, according to Grove, is that the magazines promote a deterioration of responsibility in young men towards women, leaving British communities with apparently the worst social situation that could ever occur: single-parent families. Yes, lad mags may present a sexist image of women, but is focusing on the importance of "male responsibility" towards women reinforcing sexist and misogynist attitudes towards women or destroying them? (A poll on the website of the Guardian reveals that, as of this morning, 54% of respondents think that lad mags do not "make men feckless".)

Probably the former. Yes, families where both parents are present in the children's lives are more stable and ultimately create a better environment for children, but Grove is implying that parents need to not only be married for children to thrive, but the man needs to be working and providing ("responsibility") for his young while the woman stays home and cares for them. Why not promote a society where single mothers can provide for their children on their own? Grove says that the Conservative government will provide a maternity nurse service for families who need help during the first days after childbirth, but there is no mention of this service being available to single mothers (or fathers) who have a newborn. An emphasis is placed on the relationship between the father and mother, implying that they are together.

And what does Grove think of women's magazines? While he condemns lad mags' presentation of a "narrow conception of beauty and a shallow approach towards women," he praises women's magazines (and their publishers) for addressing their readers "in a mature and responsible fashion." So, being obsessed with materialism, being fearful of any beauty "imperfection," and constantly being reminded that the attention of men is necessary to live a happy lifestyle is "mature"? Has this dude ever looked at a women's magazine?

Lad Mags Linked To 'Social Ills' [BBC]
'Lads Mags' Condemned Over Images Of Women [Telegraph]
Poll" Do Lad Mags Make Men Feckless? [Guardian]

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5032654&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Can You Marry Someone You Screw On The First Date?]]> So you're a swinging single and you've had a one-night stand. What's the etiquette for establishing boundaries, calling the day after and getting out without hurting feelings? So began an email dispatched to me and all eHarmony members touting a story called "Navigating the One-Night Stand," about the rules of fucking "Mr. Right For The Night." Well. The story has since disappeared from the website and the internet at large, because eHarmony doling out advice about casual sex is sort of like George W. Bush on acing an intellectual history exam, which is why I clicked on it when it was still online. "Don't stay the night," was one of the first rules. Good point! I always let the dude sleep over, and it never gets me any farther along the "Finding A Husband" route. Anyway, the eHarmony people have since renounced one-night stands entirely, labeling them "inconsistent" with "long term relationship success," and since long term relationship success is what we're all seeking here I asked myself whether I shouldn't do the same, and focus on finding a mate with an established interest in finding Ms. Right. That's right, I checked out my eHarmony "matches"!

[Redacted] (Franklin Township) 30 years old | Software engineer for a financial firm. | 5' 6" I think it is important to continually try to improve myself. It's important for me to be in settings where I will meet new people, and to create romance in a relationship. I enjoy mingling with people on social occasions. I strive to understand other people's points of view.
Hmmm, well, I like his philosophy, but where the fuck is Franklin Township?
[Redacted] (Whitestone) 28 years old | New york city firefighter | 6' 2" My friends come to me when they are in difficult times because they know I can handle emotional crises. I have an ability to make others laugh. It's important for me to create romance in a relationship. I strive to accommodate the other person's position.
Hmmmm, well I like his commitment to America, but where the fuck is Whitestone?
[Redacted] (Nyack) 32 years old | Director of Clinical Development | 5' 8" It's important for me to make new friends, and to create romance in a relationship. I care a lot about the physical shape I am in. My friends come to me when they are in difficult times because they know I can handle emotional crises. I strive to accommodate the other person's position.
Oh Jesus Christ, Nyack?

In conclusion, after examining the logistics and opportunity cost involved in actually meeting any of these avowed commitment-friendly singles, I elected to maintain a policy of amenability to one-night-stands. It's always possible to fuck someone on the first date without becoming immediately repulsed by them, right?

eHarmony Apologizes For One Night Stand Article [Online Dating Industry Journal]

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=383621&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[The Krazy Kardashians' Kooky Kooking]]> Someone at In Touch had the terrifyingly-brilliant idea to create a photograph called "Thanksgiving With The Kardashians." Norman Rockwell is surely weeping in a puffy-cloud-filled heaven. The photograph is such a mockery of self-mockery, it's practically meta. Replete with a crushed velvet tablecloth in bordello-purple, Cryptkeeper-esque Bruce Jenner, tiara-wearing Kim and a bejeweled turkey, it has to be seen to be believed, so please check out the full-size photo, after the jump.


(Click to enlarge.)
kardashianssmall111407.jpg

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=322712&view=rss&microfeed=true