The premise of the article is that "Hillary seems to have found, in the heart of her chief rival's administration, an unexpected comfort level" — and there's probably a certain amount of truth to that; Clinton seems much more comfortable doing a job than campaigning for one. But as someone who supported her in the primaries in large part because I never bought the line that she was cold, uncharismatic or blinkered by ambition (nor the line that Obama was one whit more progressive), every time I see one of these "Now Hillary's really hitting her stride!" articles, I can't help thinking it's not Clinton who's changed, just the media narrative. And Brown's contribution to that is, as usual, so bizarrely backhanded, I hardly know where to start.

The first line seems as good a place as any: "Hillary Clinton has spent her entire career looking bug-eyed with incredulity when an interviewer asks her whatever question she most expects at that moment. Her theatrical bemusement was more convincing than usual on Monday's Today show..." Hey, check out how genuine Clinton seems — what a departure from her long history of being completely disingenuous! This is followed by a recounting of Clinton telling Ann Curry that she doesn't care much about the spotlight, and maybe that's "a woman's thing." Says Brown:

A woman's thing! In that phrase alone the secretary of State revealed what distance she has put between herself and the 2008 campaign trail. Mark Penn, then her strategist (or saboteur, depending on how you look at it), would have aborted that "woman's thing" thought before it was even conceived.

Now, you don't want to get me started on Mark Penn, but let's pause for a little reality check. The prevailing wisdom that Clinton was an unfeminine hardass who tried to divorce herself from her femaleness never came from her own actions, regardless of what bad advice she was getting. She was always a staunch supporter of women's rights, she often spoke of her experience as a woman and a mother, and not for nothing, even if she wanted to come across as androgynous, she was constantly fighting off criticism of her hair, her clothes, her "cleavage" and her "tears," not to mention being grilled about her husband's behavior and cast as an overambitious former first lady rather than a savvy politician in her own right. That the narrative of her Thatcheresque machoness survived as long as it did — pierced only by occasional "breakdowns" and minor neckline failures — is more of a testament to the media's stubborn insistence on that image than her own behavior or Penn's shittastic strategy. Now that there's no threat of her becoming president or anything crazy like that, we can all generously acknowledge her humanity and femininity. Hooray.

But of course, it's not as if anyone's saying that femininity was there all along. "It's as if," says Brown, "she has checked out of that tiresome phallic competition and acknowledged what's different-and valuable-about her own female nature." And what is "valuable about her own female nature," exactly? Oh, the fact that she's willing to step aside, offer the limelight to others, do her job quietly like the good little wonk she is, and forgo the credit. This is totally not a sexist interpretation of events meant to reinforce an underlying idea that Hillary is now somewhat admirable only because that famous ambition has been tempered! Brown thinks it's clever! "Everyone expected Hillary to fight for the limelight with Af-Pak envoy Richard Holbrooke. But she was smart enough to let that booby prize be all his... If we don't know where she stands on Afghanistan, it's not because her views aren't strongly held. It's because she's smart and mature enough to give them to the president, not the press." And hey, knowing just how much criticism the president takes, she even had the foresight to lose the Democratic primary! Way to go, Hill!

Also, her new position "plays to all her strength as a superwonk policy cruncher" (read: nerdiness). "You can imagine how much Hillary digs" writing position papers about Afghanistan for Obama, because deep questions about foreign policy were "the kind of stuff she'd dig into at Wellesley over spring break." See how complimentary that is? Clinton's really, really smart and always has been! And also, being Secretary of State is much like being an overachieving undergrad. Or something.

Finally, what's the most important thing Clinton's accomplished as Secretary of State? Perhaps "sweet-talk[ing] the on-again, off-again Armenians and Turks into ending hostilities over massacres that took place during World War I" or something like that? Nope! "It took Obama's presidency to do what she could never achieve in the White House or on last year's campaign trail: She's got Bill under control at last. From the moment she entered Foggy Bottom, he's been as good as gold. The big dog's in his kennel and she's holding the leash." Oh, thank heavens! It was all worth it!

The weird thing is, I get the feeling Tina Brown secretly likes Hillary. She just seems constitutionally incapable of building her up without subtly (and not so subtly) knocking her down; of admiring Clinton's talent and success without pointing out that she's under Obama's thumb, less visible than she set out to be, and married to a guy everyone's still more interested in; of praising her smarts without coming off as a cool girl rolling her eyes at the straight-A keener. If Brown were trying to get a date with the Secretary of State, Mystery would be proud.

Hillary And The 'Woman Thing' [Daily Beast]

Earlier: Tina Brown-Style "Tide Of Trivialization" Threatens To Swamp Clinton Trip
What's More Important: Rape In Congo Or Hillary's Bad Hair Day?

The title of States's project initially gave me pause — modern meditations on masculinity often go the mountain-lion-wrestling route, and who needs yet another reinforcement of gender essentialism anyway? I'd be similarly skeptical of a photo series titled "Women At Their Most Feminine." But States's photographs are interesting and often sweet, and his interview in The Morning News is thoughtful and smart (watch out: the opening page of the interview is fine, but if you click through the slideshow you will see some dick). First of all, he's not necessarily a gender essentialist. Of the Craigslist ad he used to solicit subjects, he says,

I intentionally leave it gender-neutral so males, females and transpeople feel free to respond. Most of the respondents are men, but a few are female and a few are trans. I posted to a bunch of different categories to cast as wide a net as possible.

One woman, Liz, appears in the interview's accompanying slideshow. The caption of her photo reads, "When I wear men's clothes I feel comfortable and confident in how I look on the outside which now matches the inside." States decouples masculinity not only from birth-sex, but also from sexual orientation. Mike stands confidently, wearing a Speedo, and his caption reads, "I want to show that, despite stereotypes, gay men can be masculine too."

Not all the subjects have encouraging definitions of masculinity. Luke (NSFW!) says, "I am masculine because I abandon women after taking their love. Because when you study Freud, you don't let him study you. Because I study philosophy, not literature." And a few are kind of silly (what is Michael doing in his attic, wearing a wrestling mask and carrying a wrench?). But taken together, States's photos (there are more on his website) constitute a complicated exploration of how men — and women — feel about their manliness. Take Dennis, who appears blind in his photo. He says, "I feel masculine when I am home, I can take care of myself. I often feel emasculated when I leave my apartment though, with everyone asking me if I need help. I don't need any help." Should "needing help" be emasculating? Maybe not, but what emerges from the photographs is a picture of masculinity as a sense of pride and inner strength — and except in Luke's case, this sense doesn't seem to be achieved at the expense of women. Describing self-reliance as a masculine quality might seem to exclude women, but there's really no reason masculinity and femininity can't overlap, and no reason why a man's pride in his gender has to imply a rejection of other gender identities.

States says,

One thing I did notice through the project was that masculinity was mostly seen as an innate characteristic, something the subject possessed regardless of outward appearance. Like Dwight says, "it is an attitude." I imagine that femininity is seen as more of an outward construct (long hair, clothes).

The idea that masculinity comes from within but femininity comes from a salon is sort of a dark spot in an otherwise insightful interview. Does this reveal simply a poor understanding of all the different ways women and men understand their femininity? Or is it proof that, despite the complexities revealed in States's photographs, femininity and masculinity are outdated concepts? Does calling a good quality "masculine" automatically denigrate women? And how, if at all, do you see your femininity — and masculinity?

Image via chadstates.com.

Men at Their Most Masculine [The Morning News]
Chad States [Official Site]

Givhan's analysis stems from the fact that the fashion industry has deemed sheath dresses (which are oh-so-flattering on every shape) equally authoritative as business suits and suggested that all women eschew stockings in the summer. And instead of complying with the fashion industry's advice — or, at a minimum, wearing a wrap dress — Sotomayor did what any sensible judicial nominee ought: she dressed both for her audience and the event, i.e. the Senate and a confirmation hearing. And thus she earns Givhan's opprobrium for not being feminine enough.

Her wardrobe, as she sat for her daily grilling by the Senate Judiciary Committee, did not reflect the fashion industry's constant refrain. In fact, it did not even appear to have been influenced by the 21st century. Instead, Sotomayor's clothes evoked authority in the manner of a 1980s lady power broker.

And while a wing of the fashion industry has been enraptured by the styles of the 1980s, its focus has been more on embellished military jackets, harem pants and jersey dresses that look as though they might spontaneously combust on a particularly hot day. That is not the part of 1980s fashion history Sotomayor was channeling. She embraced that period in fashion when femininity had no place in the executive suite.

Um, what? Either Robin Givhan and I experienced two different decades, or two different hearings. Sotomayor's suits, above, had hardly the big shoulderpads nor the boxy jackets of that (thankfully) bygone era, and I'm certain her skirts were either A-lines or flared, unlike the 80s ubiquitous pencil skirts. They weren't paired with high-necked silk shells, floppy bows of any kind or even button-down shirts. In short, they looked nothing like this.

In fact, by my count, Sotomayor wore a pink suit as well as a pink shell under her black suit; cuts that were flattering for her figure; exposed her collar bones and — for the first day — even wore a suit with a styled color and an asymmetrical line. But despite the skirts, the deliberately feminine color choices (pink, red, bright blue and a wide black pinstripe paired with a pink shell), the three-quarter sleeves and the stockings Givhan derides as being unfashionable (though a smart choice in what I guarantee was a frigid hearing room), Givhan says Sotomayor wasn't feminine.

Her single notable accessory was a slim bangle on her right wrist. Her neck, so exposed by her jewel collars, was bare.

Aside from her decision to emphasize skirts instead of trousers and the shoulder-length dark curls framing her face, there was nothing in Sotomayor's style that acknowledged her femininity in a significant way.

She, in Givhan's words, left her gender at the door.

Opening a Conventional Closet In Quest for a Supreme Robe [Washington Post]

On Feministe, blogger Lauren has a post in which she links to Martin Schoeller's amazing photographs of female bodybuilders. She writes:

Women are so deeply conditioned to seeing feminine beauty as something fragile that doesn’t take up space, which is why I love seeing representations of femininity that isn’t that of a delicate orchid. It’s interesting to me that many female body builders who work on attaining what are considered masculine traits play up their feminine characteristics, perhaps to counteract the kind of physique that is usually culturally marked male, sometimes to an extreme that appears to be a conscious genderfuck.

It is interesting to see how these women — the bodybuilders — have bikini tops, earrings, lipstick, eyeshadow — all the trappings of "femininity," yet none of them are what the average person would think of feminine.


The truth is, although the Photoshopped images and the bodybuilder photos are extreme examples of muscle development, the human body is capable of such things, whether it be male or female. (And yes, perhaps steroids were involved.) But still: We don't believe that "female" is equivalent to "weak." So why do we think that muscles are "masculine"? These ladies certainly don't think so.

Celebrity Steroids [Worth 1000, via Yeeeah]
Beauty And Power [Feministe]
Женский бодибилдинг в книге Мартина Шоллера \ Photography (Martin Schoeller's Femal Bodybuilders) [eToday]

For one, Devine spends her entire column comparing the 50-year-old Madonna to other icons in the early- and mid-sixties, and finds that Madonna is trying to hard not to look like people 10 or more years her senior.

But the fact is, Madonna does look like a granny on stage, albeit a 21st century, super-fit, androgynous, very driven kind of granny - and what's wrong with that? Mick Jagger, 65, embraces his inner old codger; why shouldn't Madge?

Mind you, Madonna has 3 kids, none of whom are old enough to give her grandchildren, and Mick Jagger far from "embraces his inner codger," if his too-tight pants are anything to go by.

Devine also slams Madonna's workout routine — which, put frankly, is sort of part and parcel of her career — and her refusal to have dairy products or refined sugar in the house are some of the other things that poor, poor Guy Ritchie apparently had to "suffer" when married to Madonna. Lactose intolerance, anyone? In addition, Devine calls Madonna's apparent knee injury her "gammy knee" and knocks it as "perils of excessive gym work" despite the evidence that women in America (and, one assumes, Australia) should be encouraged to exercise more and not less. Oh, and then there's this:

So do the ghastly close-ups of her overly muscled arms that periodically appear in the gossip magazines - showing a chiselled anatomical structure that is best kept under wraps on a woman's body. Still, she is living proof that even the plainest girls can wind up looking "hot", with effort.

Yes, muscles are, like, sooooo ugly on women, who should be careful not to look anything less than weak and soft, lest they drive away their husbands. And plain? Plain? Madonna is not "plain," she is the opposite of plain.

Finally, we get around to the crux of the problem for Devine:

And if 50-year-old women are occupying the space of 30-year-old women, not to mention monopolising 30-year-old men, where does that leave the real 30-year-old women? It's hardly fair.

Where does that leave 30-year-old women? Well, some of us date older men, some of us date younger men and some of us date men our age. You know, it's not actually a competition to get a man. And some of us don't feel threatened by an older woman looking attractive, or working out, as Devine implies Madonna did. I couldn't compete with Madonna when I was 17 (although I was willing to put on a PVC bodysuit, dye my hair black and put it into cornrows if someone else had had the money for me to try), I didn't expect to compete with her at 30. Besides, if my age, or lack thereof, or my looks, or lack thereof, are the only things about me that will make me attractive to a dude, I'm not really thinking that such a dude is looking for a serious relationship. Undoubtedly, Madonna's 8 year marriage and its end came down to more than her exercise routine, her potential Botox or her age — and if it didn't, well, then good riddance to Guy Ritchie, because she can totally do better. She's Madonna.

Material Girl With A Gammy Knee [Sydney Morning Herald]

Earlier: Madonna Is A Feminist Target

Is it good or bad to have a girly-girl politician?

Our version of "Talk Me Down" on Sarah Palin and gay rights

(By the way, if you watch the entire video, Anna makes a special appearance in the background.)

Anna's husband left her three years ago with her higher salary and their 5-year-old daughter because, she thinks, she made more money than him. Two subsequent dates with whiners that complained about her not being "feminine" enough and too "in-control," she found herself crying at the dinner table and decided she needed to be a different kind of woman. Did she get actual post-divorce therapy? It doesn't sound like it, because if her accounting of the end of her marriage is true, she keeps dating the same exact asshole. Her ex-husband was intimidated by not being a high earner, so she's going out with a series of men who are intimidated that she's not a 25-year-old opinionless bimbo with no self-control. Does she stop to consider that the problem might not be that she's not feminine enough (or that it won't be solved by putting on a little make-up), but that the problem is with the men she's with and their outdated ideas of what is attractive in a woman?

My dad and I had a little conversation this weekend — he is, after all, married to my mom with whom I have a lot in common. He'd read a little drunkenly miserable blog post of mine in which I'd worried that being single at 30 was reflective of some fundamental problem with me and not the various issues of the idiots I spent my twenties dating. My dad told me (as dads are wont to do) that my single status doesn't mean that there's a goddamn thing wrong with me — and that my exes obviously all had problems in their own ways. He added that if there's anything wrong with me, it's that I keep choosing to get into relationships with idiots who can't deal with me being strong and independent, and that it's far better to end up strong and independent and still myself than to try to hide me under a bunch of frou-frou pink girly bullshit to get a man to stick around for a while and find out in 10 years that I lost myself and couldn't hold onto him either.

Anna, my dad is available for sympathetic, platonic drinks whenever you want. But, for free, he suggests you take a second look at that male friend who liked you when you were make-up-less, Botox-free and stressed out.

Fast Track To Femininity: Why Competing With Men Has Left Women Out Of Touch With Their Feminine Side [Daily Mail]