"Feminism has been suffering an identity crisis for years, and it's only gotten worse during the 2008 election cycle," Lantham says. "Frustratingly, no clear leader from the third wave has emerged to lead women out of the void…the third-wavers are lacking the vision to grab the keys to the throne…The leaders of the third wave seem to keep saying the same thing. We get it: women enjoy sex just as much as men. Isn't there something more profound you'd like to promote?"

Frustratingly, Lantham is completely off the mark. First of all, the reason "no clear leader" from the third wave has emerged, Steinem-like, from the so-called ashes of the second wave, is because the feminist battle in the aughts is a much more subtle fight. In the 60s, feminists raged against some very real, very crippling sexism. They weren't allowed to participate in many businesses and weren't taken seriously in many arenas, and discrimination against women was not only legal, it was acceptable. While it's undeniable that sexism continues to exist (and be accepted), because women superficially have all the rights of men, fighting sexism is a far more amorphous battle. One could argue the same thing for racism. Obviously racism still exists, but where's Generation Y's Martin Luther King or even Jesse Jackson? There isn't one, because it's difficult to rally people around a cause when the problem — discriminating against people because of the color of their skin — is technically illegal.

Secondly, it's insulting, and completely incorrect, to say that third wave feminists are only concerned with sex. Really Robert? Do you actually read, say, Feministing, Jezebel or any other pro-female site on a regular basis? Because if you did, you'd realize that we talk about sex maybe 5% of the time, if that. We pay more than fleeting attention to some very "second wave" problems like sexual harassment in the workplace, equal pay for equal work, and sexism in the media. And even though there is no single feminist who is as publicly prominent as Steinem once was, I can name several young feminists who are making waves in discourse: Ariel Levy, Jennifer Baumgardner, and Jessica Valenti among them.

Finally, reducing third wave feminism to sex positivity betrays a lack of understanding of third wave feminism. What are his criteria for third vs. second wavers? Chronological age? Because it's obviously not ideology alone. "In the presence of this void that Sarah Palin has risen from the flames of the second- and third-wavers. The torch has been dropped, setting the whole damn succession ablaze," Lantham argues. But he's ignoring the fact that it's potentially positive that feminism is no longer a monolith. Sarah Palin has risen because John McCain promoted her in a jarringly pandering move to appeal to evangelical Christians. It has nothing to do with the lack of a single, unifying feminist doctrine.

The one place I could argue that there is a real chronological break between feminists is in their fear of Palin's fumbles. In one corner, we have Rebecca Traister representing the third wave. She doesn't feel sorry for Palin because Palin is a grown woman who got herself into this mess. In the opposite corner, representing the the second wave, is Slate's Emily Bazelon, who worries that Palin's gaffes will prove to the country that women are not competent enough for the highest office. "Palin won't bust through the ceiling that has Hillary's 18 million cracks in it. She'll give men an excuse to replace it with a new one," Bazelon posits. Maybe it's naively third wave of me, but I think the country is beyond thinking that one unqualified woman ruins everything for all women in general.

Macho Ma'am [Radar Online]
The Un-Hillary [Slate]
Poll: Palin Less Popular With Women Voters Than With Men [Time]

The use of the word "feminist" in reference to Palin has gotten so out of hand that even uber-conservative Kathleen Parker of the National Review, a woman who calls the mainstream feminist movement the "hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood," admits that "to express reservations about [Palin's] qualifications to be vice president — and possibly president — is to risk being labeled anti-woman." As I've noted before, questioning Sarah Palin's "feminism" is a losing battle, because she probably thinks she is one.

The dictionary definition of feminism is "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men," and in her own fractured way, I'm sure Palin believes she upholds this doctrine. And many many people believe that the fight for equality has already been reached, and we're in a "post-feminist" era — to which Gloria Steinem says, "I’ll know that we’re getting someplace when I go into Central Park and see white men wheeling babies of color and getting well paid for it. There is no postfeminism—it’s like saying 'post-democracy'!" Feminism has been declared over by some, its meaning co-opted by pretty much anyone with the proper genetic equipment, regardless of their actions or actual beliefs. The word itself is so maligned and misinterpreted that it's almost ceased to mean anything at all, and many women, particularly women of color, feel abandoned and ignored by the mainstream feminist movement. So perhaps instead of declaring the feminist movement dead, or pretending its goals have been accomplished, maybe it's time for a new word entirely and a more precise definition.

The word would include the notion that being pro-female does not just mean benefiting from the feminist movement, as Sarah Palin undeniably has. As Katha Pollitt notes in the Guardian today, "The glass ceiling is the invisible barrier of gender prejudice that prevents women, as a class, from rising to the level that their qualifications and abilities merit – the level they would reach if they were men…As has been known to happen in less exalted workplaces, Palin got the promotion because the boss just liked her. She will do no more to shatter the glass ceiling for other women as a group than such women usually do." The new word could be for women who actively promote the advancement of the interests of other women, not just the narcissistic advancement of themselves. I don't have any great branding ideas for the new movement's name — "womanist" is already taken and it sounds painfully retro; "community organizer" is also unfortunately taken. What about wombanist? Hmm, that sounds too close to wombat. Cuntrarians? Catchy, but the MSM probably won't print it. If you have any clever names for the new movement, we're all ears.

In Conversation: Gloria Steinem and Suheir Hammad [NYM]
The End Of Meritocracy [Guardian]
Palin Problem [National Review]

Earlier: Sarah Palin's Feminism Is Irrelevant To Her Irresponsible Record
Sarah Palin: Feminist? Victim Of Sexist Smears? Or All Or None Of The Above?

The thing is, this isn't the first time the mag has had its hand out for "donations." For a publication that is so concerned about the way women act and are portrayed in the media, I'm afraid its publishers are reinforcing the negative stereotype that women are shit when it comes to business.

Granted, I doubt that Bitch's "noncommercial publishing policy" deters larger companies from advertising, anyway. With a circ of only 47,000, Banana Republic and Absolut probably aren't banging down its ad sales team's door for placement. But its ad policy (its website is an "ad-free blog") is perhaps an indication of why such stringent idealism isn't exactly realistic.

But here's the question, if Bitch is only asking for enough money to print one issue, what happens after that? What's the long-term goal here? In the FAQ on the magazine's website, editors state that "we’re in the process of evolving into a multimedia organization. Right now our sights are set on building a strong online presence, but in the not-so-distant future, we’re hoping to get into book publishing, audio and video production, and more." I don't see how this is possible.

Like I said, I worked at the same kind of publication — granted with a much higher circulation — with an incredibly small staff (4-6 women at a time), in a city (New York) with tons more overhead, and managed subscriptions for a time, so I'm fairly familiar with these kinds of budgets. And I know this sounds kind of assy, but maybe it isn't about doing business poorly at all. Maybe the reason why Bitch isn't succeeding is because, although it's trudged along for 12 years, it just isn't successful. Has anyone stopped to think that it's the content, and not the mean, evil corporate world that's costing them money? A lot of women don't really subscribe to the stilted rhetoric of first-year women's studies. And it would seem that a lot of women don't really subscribe to Bitch either.

Bitch Magazine Needs Your Help! [Feministing]

ANA MARIE: I AM AWAKE!

MEGAN: Hooray! I am too. Are you appropriately grumpy about it?

ANA MARIE: Could be worse. We could be talking about BLOGGING AND POLITICS.

MEGAN: Like, oh my God, Ana, when are bloggers going to get ethics like real journalists?

ANA MARIE: As soon as we gain enough power to mislead a country into a stupid war.
The best thing about this election so far, I have to say, is not so much that the press has goaded itself into becoming more watchdog-y, but that they're doing the watchdogging with such petulant snarkiness. Almost like bloggers. From the NYT's editorial board blog yesterday:

What’s Spanish for ‘Lies’?
By The Editorial Board

It's "mentiras," I think, but I'm sure that's not the point!

MEGAN: It is way more than I thought, since I was too busy laughing at the thought of the New York Times editorial board getting so upset that John McCain was misleading voters. I guess it's a fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice and we'll publish a number of glowing pieces about how Saddam has nukes kind of thing.

ANA MARIE: Almost like he was exaggerating the threats posed by Iraq or something!
Fool me three times and we'll write a snarky blog post! THAT WILL SHOW HIM.

MEGAN: What if all the newspapers became actually snarky? Like, what if they decided that the only way to compete with new media was to out-blog us? Would The Onion have to become an outlet of serious journalism? Would democracy as we know it die? (You did see that article about how cynicism is killing democracy...)

ANA MARIE: WHAT IF NICK DENTON RAN THE NYT? I think we would develop a shortage of first-hand journalism. But EVERYONE would know who Julia Allison is.

MEGAN: You don't need to leave your desk to know stuff, obviously! Wait, are there people who don't know about Julia Allison yet? I thought she was part of the citizenship exam by now.

ANA MARIE: She's actually being launched into space soon. So that she's, like, one of the first things aliens learn about us. You know: Beethoven, math... Julia Allison.

MEGAN: They'll like her better than math, that's for sure. Gawker certainly does.

ANA MARIE: There's some kind of segue between Julia and this about Tucker Bounds, but I'm still coffee-less, so I'll let you make it. They really need to stop sending the twelve-year-old intern out to the morning shows. Or cable shows, I mean. I think I was thinking "morning show" because he's getting his ass kicked, in all cases, by heavily rougued faux-next-girls! GIRLS!

MEGAN: Actually, the man just needs to, like, fucking prepare before he goes. Your candidate is out lying like he's Dick Cheney or something, you gotta put your big boy panties on just like Ari Fleischer did and take it. I think the real problem is that Tucker Bounds likes getting spanked by hot women.

ANA MARIE: YOU CAN TOTALLY TELL. He totally knows the shit the campaign is trying to pull and just enjoys being called on it. "TELL ME AGAIN HOW WE LIE, CAMPBELL. MAKE IT HURT."

MEGAN: "I know I've been naughty, Megyn. Tell me I've been naughty."

ANA MARIE: Oh, breaking!

Senator McCain, on a round of seven morning shows, says on CNBC’s Squawk Box that he favors a 9/11-commission-style body to look into the Wall Street meltdown: “Everybody’s at fault here – the regulatory agencies, who were clearly asleep at the stick … That’s why I think maybe we ought to have a 9/11 commission type thing, because this crisis is very serious and … certainly a threat to our economy. … I understand the economy. I was chairman of the Commerce Committee that oversights every part of our economy. I have a far, far longer record of addressing these issue than my opponent does. And I certainly don’t think we should raise taxes in these difficult times.”

MEGAN: Is oversight a verb?

ANA MARIE: Look, he was a POW, ok? He is allowed to verb anything.

MEGAN: Wait, John McCain was tortured? I didn't know that.

ANA MARIE: Do you think somewhere lying around the WH is a memo entitled, "Wall Street Determined to Strike Inside the US"?

MEGAN: So, by the way, the 9/11 Commission report only took a year to commission and two to write, which means McCain's financial crisis commission will issue its report on the current financial crisis in 2011, which is 2 years before McCain wants to start pulling troops out of Iraq but possibly a little late to have any effect on the deepening financial crisis. But, read his lips: No New Taxes.

ANA MARIE: Speaking of which, I actually wrote someone on the McCain campaign yesterday to ask if the candidate had finished Alan Greenspan's book by now.

MEGAN: And did you get a response that wasn't vetted 15 ways from Sunday?

ANA MARIE: Er, yes.

MEGAN: I wonder if Steve Schmidt has taken away everyone's BlackBerries.

ANA MARIE: Maybe he's just installed some kind of filter. The answer I got was, basically, "Fuck off." It was a little nicer than that.

MEGAN: I think, then, that Steve Schmidt is controlling everyone's BlackBerries.

ANA MARIE: No, Steve would have actually written "Fuck off." He's from Jersey, you know, where that is a term of endearment.

MEGAN: Maybe that's the filter! He types "fuck off" and a computer somewhere translates it into something polite. I could totally use one of those, if they made it into one of those little boxes you use to talk after throat cancer surgery.

ANA MARIE: Speaking of cancer (I'm getting better at segues!): Bristol Palin's tanning bed.

MEGAN: I was just thinking, actually, that Todd looks equally suspiciously tan for the start of winter. But he works outside, if he wanted to submit to a tan line inspection to prove it's not from the bed, I'm happy to judge.

ANA MARIE: Wait, isn't he part Eskimo? Does that make your question racist?

MEGAN: He's like an eighth or something? I have been too busy noticing that he's cute and kind of silent which is how I too prefer the cute men.

ANA MARIE: And I think he's also controlling and a little insane. He's perfect for you!

MEGAN: Insane, definitely! I try to only date the mentally ill, it makes it so much easier to blame the break-ups on them. Controlling, well, that shit just annoys me in about 2 seconds. I dumped a guy once for questioning who I was talking to on the telephone.

ANA MARIE: So you probably wouldn't let him, say, write your state budget, huh?

MEGAN: I probably wouldn't let him know the balance in our joint checking account.

ANA MARIE: So here's a question: What are the gender politics of Todd being so up in his wife's business, as it were?

MEGAN: Well, metaphorically speaking, I am all for Todd being all up in his wife's business.

ANA MARIE: I am actually quite sure that they have hot Christian sex all the time.

MEGAN: But, other than that, it's a little weird on a state level. Especially because state budgets are really complex and stuff, and I don't recall Todd having a degree in public management or accounting. Or anything, really.

ANA MARIE: So when HRC got all up in Bill's (completely literal) business, that was ok... Because she was sharing expertise.

MEGAN: Well, only it wasn't, right? Because then she was a nagging, first-wifely harpy. At least that was the Republican talking point...

ANA MARIE: It was. And now the Dem talking point looks like it might be, "Todd is pulling all the strings, a bullying, first-dudely Machiavelli." From my friend Mike's admittedly amusing Salon piece, out last night:

"No one has accused Todd Palin of interfering in state business for his own personal benefit — instead, the situation has remained somewhat inscrutable, if not odd. According to local politicos and observers, he lurks around the capitol if he doesn't have anything better to do, which, since he works seasonal jobs in oil and fishing, is fairly often."

MEGAN: I love how he's "lurking." And that with 4 and now 5 kids at home, he doesn't have anything better to do.

ANA MARIE: But here's the thing: switch the genders — our standard mode of cultural critique this year, practically so mandatory that I'm thinking Chris and I will just go as each other for Halloween — and what do you think? "Sarah Palin, with 5 kids at home, has no right lurking around her husband's place of work like she has any idea what's going on."

MEGAN: I'm of two minds, as I am with everything else. On the one hand, free advice is good. Free decision-making, not so good.

ANA MARIE: I agree. It's just really awesome to see Rs having to grapple with this. I wrote a piece a couple of months ago about how, along with Woodstock and the moon landing, another major event McCain missed while in prison (yes, he was in a Vietnamese prison! true story!) was the women's movement, which is obviously where a lot of these questions were first framed on a national level. He's totally having to make up for lost time, in a way, but without any of the intellectual or historical work that went into the first round of discussions.

MEGAN: I think a lot of her politicians missed the women's movement in some pretty significant ways.

ANA MARIE: They weren't even really the "first" of course.
Well, yes. But do you get what I mean about how the R's new-found feminism is missing a lot of the context and thoughtfulness that, well, makes it a real argument rather than a talking point?

MEGAN: Well, I think the Republican party's newfound "feminism" is born of, oh, God, too early, what's the word that means you're taking advantage of the situation? Anyway, I think the Republican party hasn't found feminism.

ANA MARIE: You're right. Or, rather, they've just found the word "sexism."

MEGAN: They've found the power of the word sexism to attract a certain class of voters.

ANA MARIE: Well, weirdly, it's not! I mean, HRC supporters ARE NOT flocking to Palin

MEGAN: And they've discovered the sheer joy of Schadenfreude, watching all of this. No, they're not flocking if they are committed Dems, but I think plenty of Hillary supporters weren't committed Dems.

ANA MARIE: The sexism charge is mainly working as a proxy for the standard "media bias" charge. Which is as old as the hills, though not as old as John McCain.

MEGAN: I think the sexism charge is connecting hard with Republican women, bringing up old grievances with feminists and the feminist movement connected to their life choices. The idea that feminists disrespect women who stay home with the kids or are pro-life, those feelings.

ANA MARIE: So, really, they're just co-opting the words. We're not actually having a productive discussion.

MEGAN: It's politics! Productive discussions aren't allowed.

ANA MARIE: Which makes it a perfect time to segue back into Julia Allison!

MEGAN: Um, she called herself a journalist.

ANA MARIE: But, and this is important:

"I don't want people to think that I think I'm Woodward and Bernstein."

Which sort of makes me think she's actually Sarah Palin.

MEGAN: I believe journalism just died. Actually, I think she slunk into its hospital room, climbed on it's bed, slapped it around, smothered it with a pillow and then stabbed it 39 times for emphasis.

ANA MARIE: I was just thinking: I think Julia Allison had sex with journalism, THEN killed it. It's the best end journalism can hope for. It would be much worse to have sex with Woodward and Bernstein before dying.

Yes, She's A Feminist:

"So have evangelicals accepted the sexual revolution? Yes and no. While they generally agree that women should have careers, evangelical women and men still have some traditional social views — that sex should be reserved for marriage, that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that the possibility of abortion on demand, far from being a key to women's happiness, is simply wrong. In other words, like most Americans, they have rejected the more radical elements of feminism."

— Naomi Schaefer Riley, in the Wall Street Journal.

"Palin grew up in an age when many of her female counterparts chose to reject marriage and husbands. She grew up in an era when many women decided to send their children to day-care or not to have children at all. She grew up in an era when women could pursue the most masculine of careers and make a good living doing so. […] If feminism is about giving women choices, she should be cheered as an example of the success of feminism."

— Karin Agness, on Townhall.com.

"Sarah Palin represents a new feminism. . . . And there is no bigger threat to the elites in this country than a woman who lives her conservative convictions."

— talk show host Laura Ingraham. From a story by Robin Abcarian, in the Los Angeles Times.

"On the one hand, her political views (she's anti-abortion and pro-gun and an evangelical creationist) seem directly counter to the until-now traditionally liberal tenets of feminism. Yet at the same time, she's a powerful governor and mother of five, a combination that seems the very definition of what the women's movement was fighting for. […] Palin is a classic third-wave feminist, benefiting from all that came before her in terms of the women's movement, while remaining the embodiment of patriotic, religious, small-town values. […] Certainly, she's the change agent they might need: a right-wing politico in the body of an attractive modern "executive", wife and mother."

— Barbara Lippert, in Adweek.

"On that stage last night, Sarah Palin represented everything the feminist movement claims to strive for: a successful working woman with a happy family life and a husband who helps raise the children. Yet, rather than hailing her accomplishment, the feminist establishment has sat by silently as she's savaged for being a working mother. Turns out old feminism is really just a bunch of good 'ole girls telling you what to think. […] Where is the condemnation for the sickening misogyny, such as the DailyKOS's mock Playboy cover with Palin? The Huffington Post's photo montage of Palin, headlined "Former Beauty Queen, Future VP?" The Washington Post's Sally Quinn criticizing Palin for being a working mother? Well, I suppose she could've stayed home and baked cookies."

— A column by Kirsten Powers for the New York Post, via FrontPageMag.com.

"Palin's candidacy brings both figurative and literal feminist change. The simple act of thinking outside the liberal box, which has insisted for generations that only liberals and Democrats can be trusted on issues of import to women, is the political equivalent of a nuclear explosion. The idea of feminists willing to look to the right changes not only electoral politics, but will put more women in power at lightning speed as we move from being taken for granted to being pursued, nominated and appointed and ultimately, sworn in."

— Tammy Bruce, in a column for the San Francisco Chronicle.

No, She's Not

"Really, most of the 'feminism' talk is coming from conservatives appropriating the language of the movement to push a ridiculously anti-feminist candidate. But what I find even more upsetting is the Palin/feminist talk coming from mainstream outlets who are demonstrating absolutely no knowledge of feminism. Take the Adweek article, for example, which says 'Palin is a classic third-wave feminist, benefiting from all that came before her in terms of the women's movement...' So by this definition, any woman who has benefited from feminism is a feminist. So, all women are feminists? Uh, yeah."

— From a post by Jessica Valenti, of Feministing.com.

"The Palin pick is disheartening on so many levels. For starters, even what little we know about the Alaska governor's policy views is enough to make a traditional feminist weep. The staunchly conservative Palin not only opposes abortion rights (even in cases of rape or incest), she also supports abstinence-only sex education and takes a strict free-market approach toward health care. Of course, these days, the feminist mantle is claimed by pro-life conservatives and pro-choice progressives alike. Palin herself is a proud member of Feminists for Life. Feminism seems no longer to denote a particular set of values or ideological agenda; it is merely a label appropriated to proclaim that one is committed to the best interests of women—whatever one believes those to be."

— Michelle Cottle, in an article for The New Republic, September . (Here's a reaction piece by Emily Bazelon on Slate.)

"Conservatives have probably used the word 'sexist' more in the past week than they have in the past 50 years. This would all have been entertaining if it were not such rank hypocrisy. These are people who have inveighed against affirmative action, a version of which undoubtedly played a part in this selection. […] The governor has talked about the choice she and her pregnant teenage daughter have made, but would deny other women the right to make their own choices. She talks about fighting the old boys' network and corrupt politicians, but would turn over the private reproductive decisions of American women to both. […] But she could certainly help move the inevitable tide of women's rights, the tide that has floated her own boat, by demanding that she be honored with the same tough scrutiny the guys in this race get. Which was, in case these improbable born-again friends of feminism missed it, the entire point of the exercise in the first place."

— Anna Quindlen in Newsweek.

Note To Mainstream Media: Sarah Palin Is NOT A Feminist [Feministing]

In her speech last night, Palin said, "I signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids' public education even better." Her focus on public education in Wasilla really paid off when she was mayor: during her tenure researchers at Johns Hopkins deemed Wasilla High School "a dropout factory." Apparently 60% or fewer freshman who start off at Wasilla High go on to graduate.

But that's not the only contradiction Palin made last night. The AP has a rundown of the outright lies Palin told last night. Here's my favorite: Palin said, "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate." The AP notes that Obama "has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year…In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation."

Gloria Steinem says that even though Palin is the wrong woman with the wrong message, she herself is drunk on "hope-o-hol" and believes people will see through the smokescreen of feminism and the already-tired "hockey mom" rhetoric. And so far, Steinem is right. According to random polling of 800 women on Sunday and Monday, "50 percent of women voters felt McCain picked Palin out of political expediency and not because he believes she has the experience to do the job," the Daily Kos reports. Hope-o-hol for all!!!

Palin: Wrong Woman, Wrong Message [LAT]
Sarah Palin GOP Convention Speech. Transcript. [Chicago Sun-Times]
Study Gives Wasilla High School Failing Grade [KTUU]
Experience Argument Hurting Palin And The Other Dude [Daily Kos]
Hockey Mom [Matt Yglesias]

Earlier: Why Bristol Palin's Pregnancy Should Be Fair Game To Pundits (If Not Democrats)

Because, as Gloria Steinem interviewer Chrystia Freeland points out, if Palin wasn't a social conservative, many feminists might be cheering her choice even if they weren't planning on voting for McCain. A self-made female politician, she chose motherhood and a career and managed to do both with some success and makes no apologies for her working motherhood. Isn't that part of what feminism has been striving for? The ability to make the same choices as men, with the same rights, responsibilities and consequences that go with them?

Some say that her daughter's pregnancy is a failure of her parenting; others attack her insistence on going back to work so soon after her pregnancy and thrusting her kids into the spotlight for the sake of her career at such a trying time (an assertion that implies that Bristol or her parents are ashamed of her or her pregnancy). And, like Leslie Morgan Steiner was saying on Today this morning, where were these people when Joe Biden was being venerated last week for carrying on his political career after the death of his wife, and commuting back and forth to Delaware for the sake of his career? No one was lambasting his work-life balance. It's disturbing, and although the McCain campaign (except its national co-chair) is certainly attempting to overplay its hand in this case — a blatant campaign tactic if I ever saw one — it doesn't mean its criticism of the sexism leveled at Palin isn't apt.

While I'm all on board with criticizing Palin's record on choice, health care access and marriage equity (and anything else that I disagree with her on), I'm not remotely happy to be listening to women who disagree with her politically make value judgments about her work-life choices or her parenting. Her religious beliefs lead to political beliefs about abortion, and she has, by all accounts, led her life and pushed policies in concert with those beliefs. And, as much as I disagree with her beliefs and the way she attempts to express them in policy, I don't argue with her right to hold them. And I don't think it's such a terrible thing for women or the feminist movement to have the second women ever atop a Presidential ticket even though she holds those views. Although I would undoubtedly not vote for her ticket in November in part because of them, I am still excited to see her taking her swings at that glass ceiling that so many women before her have bashed their head against.

The New Face of Feminism [Rush Limbaugh]
Palin Is A True Feminist Role Model [Financial Times]
Questions for a Superhuman Mom [Slate]
Leslie Morgan Steiner [Official Site]
Palin Media-Sexism Train Arrives on Schedule [Time]
GOP Women Call Palin Critics Sexist [Time]

Related: Analysis: McCain Camp Plays Sexism Card For Palin [AP]
McCain's National Co-Chair: Media Coverage Of Palin Is "Completely Fair," Not Sexist [Talking Points Memo]

Because — as EMILY's List's Ellen Malcolm notes — Sarah Palin is hardly the latter. She opposes reproductive choice and marriage equity. She's a member of the group "Feminists for Life," which is dedicated to eliminating reproductive choice in this country. She is a big promoter, like McCain, of so-called "consumer-driven" health care, in which the government would eliminate the tax breaks companies get for offering health insurance (and thus your company's financial incentive to pay for yours) — despite the fact that, as Gloria Steinem pointed out, women are far and way the larger users of our health care system. No one yet knows if she supports the Lilly Ledbetter pay equity bill, but she certainly hasn't spoken about it in the last year and, given that the head of her ticket opposes it, it's a fair bet to say she wouldn't fight for it.

But the newspapers are all full of speculation that McCain chose her to try to win over the Clintonistas still upset about Hillary Clinton's loss — and her speech today in which she recognized the contributions of Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton despite not mentioning how politically different they are, makes it clear that it is certainly on the campaign's mind. But while getting one woman to a top position is a great symbolic victory for women, is it worth giving up other things for which we've fought really hard just to get a symbolic victory?

Palin Tough Target For Obama To Hit [Politico]
The Ticket: McCain Palin [Politico]
McCain To Announce Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin As His Vice Presidential Pick (Updated) [Think Progress]
McCain And Palin: Promoting Failed Consumer-Driven Health Care [Think Progress]
Deep Thought [Cogitamus]
McCain Chooses Palin as Running Mate [NY Times]

To these young women, the embrace of old-school femininity is ironic and, more to the point, fun. But, asks the author, "can domesticity ever really be subversive?" Plenty of more traditional feminists say no. Hold onto your aprons: It's the old argument, kids.

To those who wish to defend the 'movement' on philosophical grounds (as opposed to, you know, just liking cupcakes), something like baking "has unwittingly become a provocative act." Says blogger Jane Brocket: "Anything which is very personal and behind closed doors and pleasurable for women is subversive these days." And, of course, as is often the case with women of this generation, it comes down to choice. Says one, "It's a choice and an aesthetic: it links into environmental concerns and is a sort of a rebellion against consumerism. I see it as a very empowering thing to do as a woman." These sorts of traditionally feminine arts can act as a means of feminine bonding — for women/by women, as opposed to centering around men — and act as an antidote to the fast food/clothes ethos of the culture. And in the case of this particular sphere, it's also a question of rebellion: Says Holly, '"My parents were punks" — her father was Joe Strummer of the Clash — "so I had a chaotic childhood. You try to be subversive by not doing what your parents did. It was not rebellious for me to go out drinking and taking drugs because that was what my parents did. I've always been fascinated by knowing how to knit but I had to learn it from my great-grandmother because my mother did not do anything like that and my grandmother was part of the whole 1960s women's lib thing."'

The counter-arguments are just as predictable: fetishizing stereotypes makes it easy to forget "the reality of this period: that many women felt forced to stay at home, and performed these chores, not with delight, but in a fit of frustration that would later be skewered by Betty Friedan in her classic book, The Feminine Mystique." And as such, there's a childish perversity to rejecting the gains other generations fought for, especially when so many pervasive inequalities still exist. Says feminist author Natasha Walter, "I never want to judge another woman for the choices she makes and what gives her pleasure. But there is something more serious going on here. There are problems associated with domesticity because, in the past, there was the assumption that it was just 'what women did'...Young women don't understand how hard it can be doing this real work if you don't have equality at home. A lot of the freedoms and equalities women have won are quite fragile and at the moment we are in danger of moving backwards. We have to continue to encourage men to join us, and not exclude them."

Look, we've heard it all before. If people want to dress up and make cupcakes, this is their prerogative, and one could certainly argue that I have a batch of cinnamon rolls in the oven right now. I seriously doubt that anyone reasonable of any generation seriously wants to prevent young women from baking, or wants to deny that the real existence of a 50's housewife was all cupcakes and glamor. As ever, what's more striking and depressing than any particulars of the individual skirmish is the stark perceptive divide of "frivolous ungrateful 20-something"/"Debbie Downer old-school feminist." And perhaps what begs this conflict is the aggressive insistence on "irony" — which, paradoxically, serves to heighten the insult for a more earnest generation of strivers and, also paradoxically, undermine these activities as yet another unloaded choice for the rest of us. It's this literal coopting — an almost willful reinvention of historical realities to suit ourselves — that can lead to the perception of young women as bratty. But the truth is, brattiness is also a choice — and one we're very lucky to have. And however loaded their reemergence, I think we can all agree that the frosting/cake ratio that is a cupcake is objectively delicious. Why can't we all just accept that, sit down together, and eat them (unironically.)

Do Good Feminists Bake Cupcakes? [The Guardian]

Earlier: Time-Warp Wives Opt To Re-Enact Depression, War

Unicorns, Easy-Bake Ovens, And Vibrators, Or: I Believe In The Radical Possibilities Of Pleasure

True to form, I decided to beat the dead horse about the 20 percent of Clinton supporters who still say — unlike Ms. Steinem — that they're not ready to support Barack Obama. I asked what Ms. Steinem thought Obama should be doing to win them over.

She said, "I see the polls, too, but I don't personally know anyone who supported Hillary Clinton that isn't supporting Barack Obama." But that's not all! She pointed out that she never said she wouldn't support Obama, were he the nominee. She knows that in some states, like Minnesota, Hillary supporters are planning on writing her name in "but they wouldn't be doing it if they weren't sure the whole state were going to go for Baracj Obama, so they're aware of the Nader problem." (Minnesotan Hillary supporters, please take note that the latest Quinnipiac/Wall Street Journal/Washington Post poll has Obama only up by 2 points with a 2.8 point margin of error, thanks!). She said the most important thing was that we had to realize our "enlightened self-interest" was not in helping McCain get elected.

On a more substantive note, Steinem suggested that Obama had been very good about speaking out on reproductive rights issues and on work/life issues, but would like to see him speak out more on domestic violence and international women's issues. In addition, she thinks it would be helpful to add women into his regular policy rhetoric — the example she used was that when he talks about health care policy, he should talk about women's experience in the health care system and why his changes would be good for women specifically.

Then the host, Steve Scher, asked me to answer my own question. I tried very hard to not think that I was supposed to say something not stupid to Gloria Steinem, a cause not helped by the fact that I used her name in the first ten seconds after opening my mouth. I said that as much as I was grateful for his work on reproductive rights, I'd like to see him stand up a little more forcefully in favor of them rather than saying that he wouldn't want his daughters punished with a child and that I'd like to see him talk a lot more about comprehensive sex ed and a lot less about abstinence education.

And that was it. Other things she said included the fact that she doesn't blog because she's "a more hung up writer than that" and that she feels that she didn't write clearly enough in her aforementioned OpEd to deny people the opportunity that they were clearly looking for to tag her as one of those supposed feminists who doesn't understand racial issues. The MP3 of the full interview is here and if you want to hear exactly how young I sound, they pick up my call at minute 26 (just short of halfway through).

A Conversation with Gloria Steinem [KUOW]
Women Are Never Front-Runners [NY Times]
VP Pick Might Chafe Hillary Supporters [Politico]
Lunch with the FT: Gloria Steinem [Financial Times]
Minnesota: McCain vs. Obama [RealClearPolitics]
"Stop These Abortions."[Politico]

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]

Buck's taken shit from lesbians, from gay men, from Howard Stern and his crew, from pretty much everybody because he just won't conform. He won't get the add-on that would make him look "normal" as a man but that would leave him potentially without the ability to ever orgasm. And he deals with the question of the status of his genitals all the time, even as he announces to the world every day what they are, calling himself The Man With A Pussy. (If you're really, really curious, if you just have to know, 20 years of testosterone therapy has its side effects and an extremely Not Safe For Work Or Your Mother picture can be found here). He's living, breathing, fucking evidence of the fact that, even in the gay community and the sex-positive community, even when people are marching and fighting for the right to keep from being discriminated against for what they do with their genitals, everyone wants to know exactly what his look like. Being dumped by all his lesbian friends when he decided to be a man hurt, he says:

Fuck communities then, Buck thought, if all they do is uphold the tenets of a rigid, unchanging identity, and then spit you out when you deviate. The dykes won’t stick with a trans-man, and the trans-men get offended by a guy who has the balls to trumpet the virtues of his vagina. Why go through the effort of establishing nomenclature for every variation of queer identity if they’re going to be used as tools of division? If only your average straight-laced queer-baiter knew how closed-minded some sects of these hated deviants can be.

Everyone has prejudices, even people against whom too many people hold prejudices. But Buck forces us to confront not only issues of prejudice but of identity. Am I a woman because I have a vagina and breasts and a uterus and ovaries? Is Buck not a man because he is only minus one of those things? Biologically, he and I have the same chromosomes, but the state agrees to recognize him as a man and some people insist that he must still be a woman. My sex is female, but my gender is a more complex question, and a more complex answer because gender is an identity that doesn't reside in my nether regions. I'm a woman because everything in the mass of cells above my eyes knows that I'm a woman, and Buck's a man because the same mass of cells tells him he is. If he can get us all to think of gender as opposed to sex, to think about our chosen and established identities and those of others rather than which bits we all have and how we use them, and if he can do it by sticking a dildo in his big man pussy, then Buck Angel can be my feminist hero.

A Man Without a Cock or Country [BME]
Buck Angel, A Man With a Pussy: LGB Without the T [Village Voice]

Image via of Buck Angel Entertainment

So women, for the first time in the past seven economic contractions, are exiting the workforce. Will they do anything? Will someone need them? What about their needs? Because, as I told a guy on Sunday, in a town where everyone you know is an "independent contractor" and "codependence" is a slur and "energy independence" is a goal is, like, a society totally in denial about this basic fact of human nature which is that we need to be needed.

I had, that same day, already cried upon seeing The Wackness, a movie about the codependent relationship of a psychiatrist and his pot dealer, two highly indispensable men, men whose remuneration is commensurate with the urgency of the need for the the things they provide and are, for that very reason, sad. Because those things, duh, are drugs. And dependence on drugs — or alcohol or money or the simulacrum of buddyship — is not enough. "It's not enough, not nearly enough," Luke's dad says, matter-of-factly, when he returns home to find his family in the process of being evicted and tries frantically to offer up the $26,000 he's earned hustling all summer to save the cause. And you're like, huh? But it's nineteen ninety four!

But see, that's the point; Luke's dad's face is resigned, relieved even. People get evicted. All the time, especially now, and especially then, in New York in the nineties, when all the talk was growth and prosperity and liquidity. That's the thing about "progress", it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game if there's some thought given to the interdependence of things, like eking out a sixteen cent a share earnings increase from a lucky harvest or training the staff on a more efficient piece of software or switching accounting standards or closing a factory, and when it's that latter one some folks get evicted.

So anyway, Luke's family sleeps in motel, Luke in a cot beside his parents' bed, where he lies awake at night and watches, in a grossly manipulative gratuitous tearjerkoff of a scene that is like almost too corny to tell you about but:

His dad puts an arm around his mom in his sleep. They "spoon" or whatever.

**

I was one of two people in the theater, so I really don't know if anyone else completely lost it in this scene. I am thinking no, because I have issues with crying, in that I can't generally do it unless I am watching a movie in which case Jersey Girl has been known to do the job. The last time I cried not in a movie context I was coming down (up? away?) from Vicodin. It was that night I was at that wedding, the night of the great Tampon miscalculation, at 30th Street Station, and when I say "night" I mean around 5:30 a.m., when I gave up trying to sleep because it was just too damn cold, which was my fault for pairing a strapless bridesmaid's gown with nothing a cardigan I'd burned a dinner plate-sized hole while dulling my senses on the Vicodin. Anyhow, so I got a hot water at McDonald's and sat in a booth and let the tears start in confidence the usual 5:30 a.m. crew would be too preoccupied brokering peace accords between their various personalities to notice.

"Hey, you were in here earlier!" It was not to be.

"I asked if you'd been drinking, and you said, it's 2:30 a.m. and I'm wearing a bridesmaid gown, what do you think?"
I didn't remember this, but it seems like the sort of excuse an alcohol dependent person would make up, which is to say, I had used a version of it with a cop once after a bachelorette party. God I fucking hate weddings.

So when he asked what I was crying about and I thought, it is just weddings, and the fact that I had nowhere to go at the end of the night, because this dude I'd been making out with had a girlfriend who needed to stay at his place because she lived with her fiance and couldn't very well go back there right now; yeah, it's muddled but pretty symbolic, right, though fearing he would not respect the symbolism I just said:

"I guess I'm worried I'll never have kids."

"I have six daughters. You want one of them?"

"I live in a fifth-floor walkup," I said. (No.)

"I live in a halfway house!" Laugh. "Do you know what a halfway house is?"

Uh, yeah. Ten years before, in fact, I'd known half the halfway houses in Philadelphia, not because I'd been addicted to anything but because I was an anxious young reporter assigned to a sort of nebulous urban blight beat and desperately sure I might as well be. I wanted the police commissioner, an old Giuliani pal named John Timoney hellbent on clearing the streets of junkies and crackwhores and syringes and the singularly uncivilized stench of shits shat by people unhealthy enough to excrete in places other than toilets, to fund drug treatment programs too. I wanted him to invest in recovery and rehabilitation and detox beds — with all due respect commissioner, that is actually cheaper than sending them to jail, just let me show you this RAND study! — but anyway, John Timoney had a daughter who was a junkie and a son who would five years later get busted with half a million dollars worth of weed and he was not up for this line of reasoning. "Treatment, young lady, doesn't work," John Timoney had told me in so many words.

But see, he was wrong, not because I'm pretty sure his daughter is finally clean now, because you never know when that might end. But because Jimmy, a mere eighteen months off cocaine — cocaine, which is such a seriously obnoxious drug to get into abusing — had noticed a girl crying on his way to catch the bus home from his graveyard shift and stopped to ask her why. She asked him why. "I'm a Christian man," was his meek response, and she did not think an American man had ever spoken those words so truly.

Tempered by the hangover's throbbing realism and the imperative to conclude this thing with some grand proclamation on — Jesus Christ, what was this post about? oh wait, the wage gap, seriously? — I should first state that, of course, there are a lot of truly "Christian" men and women out there, I met a lot of them visiting halfway houses and rehab centers and also, working phone sex, and while I don't really personally care to speculate as to whether the source of their kindness and compassion and humility was the same Higher Power that left the track marks or a few rogue but well-meaning neurotransmitters, I could maybe use that giant endless tangent to venture that people like to be interdependent with other people, in fact they need it, and they need to be needed, and when people suddenly cannot figure out how they are needed or who they can trust long enough to learn to need or what about their lives even really seems necessary, they sometimes do fucked-up shit like go on benders or quit their jobs and leave the workforce altogether. And when whole big swaths of the population are suddenly awarded the privilege to want things as well, as has been the general trend over the last century or so, there are going to be hiccups as everyone shuffles around and figures out for themselves that they have needs.

***
And yeah, that is obvious, but in the moment it can feel totally, like, wack, but then you step away for awhile and maybe have a beer and read what you've written and think "No my friend, your brain is what is wack, maybe look into Wellbutrin next time you contemplate leaving the workforce."

Women Are Now Equal As Victims Of Poor Economy [NY Times]

"They keep their boyfriends warm at night??" I remember whining at my dad (who did something like roll his eyes and say, "Maureen, no one took the Beach Boys seriously until 'Pet Sounds'," as if that was something I should have known.)

But anyway, in the spirit of nostalgia and slow news days, I started trying to remember other things that used to get me, like, RAGING mad on behalf of womanity. The Good Earth. (Meanwhile, the Good Earth movie, which was full of white actors, was offensive on numerous other levels pertaining to civil rights, but that's another story.) The year our monsignor fired all the female altar servers. My mom ranting about how she never should have taken my dad's fucked up surname. Oh my god, and all old movies. Below, a clip from a 1961 movie musical that STILL TOTALLY STILL MAKES ME WANT TO KILL MYSELF, even as it is also almost hard to look away and years later I ended up using this movie to appease girls I babysat. In Rodgers' & Hammerstein's defense, Nancy Kwan is, at least, legitimately Asian:

Phibbs thinks she is. But first off, what exactly constitutes a feminist icon? Surely, it's a title that is bestowed upon a person, rather than sought out. And it probably has less to do with what the icon has actually done, and more to do with what it meant for and how it affected the fan.

For me, Dolly Parton is totally a feminist icon. But not for "9 to 5." Instead, it was "Just Because I'm a Woman," a song about fighting sexual double standards that — released in 1968 — was far ahead of it's time.

I can see you’re disappointed
By the way you look at me
And I’m sorry that I’m not
The woman you thought I’d be
Yes, I’ve made my mistakes
But listen and understand
My mistakes are no worse than yours
Just because I’m a woman

So when you look at me
Don’t feel sorry for yourself
Just think of all the shame
You might have brought somebody else

Just let me tell you this
Then we’ll both know where we stand
My mistakes are no worse than yours
Just because I’m a woman

Now a man will take a good girl
And he’ll ruin her reputation
But when he wants to marry
Well, that’s a different situation

He’ll just walk off and leave her
To do the best she can
While he looks for an angel
To wear his wedding band

Now I know that I’m no angel
If that’s what you thought you’d found
I was just the victum of
A man that let me down

Yes, I’ve made my mistakes
But listen and understand
My mistakes are no worse than yours
Just because I’m a woman

No, my mistakes are no worse than yours
Just because I’m a woman

Dolly Parton: Feminist Icon? [The Guardian]

My sexual assaults (yes, it's now happened twice) are not a political peg for other women to hang their hats on, and I should not and will not apologize to anyone for making decisions that were best for me. My body is mine — it doesn't belong to Feminism anymore than it belongs to the men who sexually assaulted me — and what I choose to do with it, or about it, is supposed to be my choice. To be told, subtly or otherwise, that my choices are invalid or anti-feminist is demeaning and condescending and in violation of the whole concept that feminism is about giving women choices and letting them make them.

I was sexually assaulted when I was 17. Without getting into the gory details, I was out on a date with an older guy, I was in a foreign country, I was comfortable with what I was doing (making out) until I wasn't anymore, and then he decided that it was a little late for all of that. My mind and, to a degree, my body, clicked off in the minutes that followed, and I guess most of my memories of it now involve the humidity that night, the dark, hearing his roommate snoring in the next bed and both hoping and fearing that he would wake up, and the rapidity and ease with which I began to immediately deny and justify what had happened to me. He drove me home and kissed me goodbye, and I never saw him again.

It took a couple of years before I stopped saying that I'd just had sex when I didn't want to.

Could I have reported it? I guess. On the other hand, I was 17, in a conservative country where I didn't speak their language or the (completely different) language of the man involved. I had 2 more days in the country. And the thing that I needed to do was not to tell the friends with which I was staying, and try to go to the police and explain and/or be castigated for going to his place, or making out, or having some sangria (or telling him I was 18), I needed, desperately, to deny it. I needed for that night to not occupy the place in my mind that it would've occupied if I could have called it by its name. I needed time, and healing and knowledge and I wasn't going to get that from a foreign police station or the legal need to revisit it constantly.

The first time I really told someone, he said I was making it up, obviously, since I didn't report it. Of course, he didn't say it to me, not then, he said it to the girlfriend who came after me, who threw it in my face when she next saw me and told some other mutual friends that I was making it up for the sympathy. (Lisa, by the way? Fuck you. I'm glad he got so stoned he puked on you at that party.) In a Women's Studies class later that year, I didn't admit to it even as we went around a circle and talked about our experiences with sexual violence because the mood in the room was definitely of the tell-for-the-good-of-the-Sisterhood variety. Several years later, during a fight with a boyfriend in which I told him he had to stop speaking to me in a certain way or else, he said, "Or else what? You didn't report your rape, what are you going to have the backbone to do to me?" I hung up the phone.

Legally, I can't talk about the second assault yet. Suffice it to say, it was far from a date-rape scenario and it was reported and the legal processes were as emotionally traumatic as the assault itself. Had I known how the system really worked, despite the fact that it was a stranger, I don't know that I would've reported it, had the situation not obliged me to involve the police in the first place in a state where you don't get to "choose" to press charges. What I eventually chose to do after weeks of increasingly disappointing meetings with prosecutors that left me feeling judged, crying, frustrated and angry, was to get myself a lawyer to represent me to the prosecutors, whose salaries I pay with taxes...and who should be representing my interests. It was far from a pleasant experience, and it makes me even more certain that I made the correct decision for me the first time and solidifies my position that it is not for me to decide or judge the reporting decision for anyone else.

See, the thing is, it's great to say that we should do this or we should do that for the sake of women everywhere. But no one — and especially not other women and supposed feminists — has the right to tell me or any other victim of sexual assault that being victimized and being traumatized leaves us responsible for making the world a better place (as though that's what's accomplished by reporting a rape, actually). We all have a responsibility to try to prevent them, to create a world where they are much more of an exception than the rule, where drunk girls or slutty girls or drunken slutty girls don't have to explain their behavior to anyone — regardless of whether they have been assaulted, or after having been assaulted — and where victims don't have to explain to non-victims the choices they made. My pursuing the prosecution of the one made no more difference in the world than not prosecuting the other. But maybe my talking about them both, maybe helping to ease the stigma of it for other people and create a space where I don't have to be ashamed of being a victim (or of how I chose to deal with that) will.
Assembly Survey Reveals Unreported Rapes [Independent]
Sleeping Around: Are Women Still Afraid To Report Rape? [IndyBlogs]

Susie says it best, perhaps, when she points out the origins of feminism in the sixties and inside of the hippie free-love movement:

What I didn't expect is that feminism would ever get wrenched apart over sex. I never saw that coming. I never thought that people would think that because I was a feminist, I was a prude or a square or that I wasn't on the cutting edge of sex radicalism.

It is a little odd, isn't it, that feminists went from being bra-burning sluts to being buttoned-up humorless lesbians in the public perception — though, I'm sure that has not just a little to do with the fact that the bra-burning sluts grew up to be, you know, older women and older women are obviously not sexual beings anymore.

Susie attributes an anti-porn sentiment among women to two things: one which she identifies as a more political sentiment, grounded in a sense that there's exploitation going on, that it's for male pleasure and rooted in a continuing sense of male-domination; and another one more grounded in women's sense of self:

When I hear a woman express a vernacular anti-porn sentiment... I started to take it as code for a couple of things. One, particularly if they are afraid that they are going to be left for porn... I realize that they don't understand their incredible value as a real woman who can really have sex with their partner. And I often identify it as someone who is not enjoying orgasms, who doesn't recognize her own sexual self-interest, because if she did, she would say, "Well, whatever I think about his porn interests or his masturbatory fantasy interests, I have some myself." And she would compare them to her own. Where as a woman who's not aware of her own fantasizing, who isn't masturbating and so on, it's just "What is this?", it really is another woman [to her].

Katha, on the other hand, cautions against that strict a delineation, noting that women can enjoy porn on a visceral level and still be concerned with the labor issues — safety, exploitation, the potential for coercion, what is happening when the cameras go off, etc. On the other hand, Katha's experiences with porn have been mostly limited to the literary, as she started her career as a copy-editor for pornography, and evinces a certain discomfort with modern porn:

When I looked at visual pornography — which I haven't seen a lot of — I'm often really turned off. In all kinds of ways. The people look so sterile, and implanted and shaved. I'm always worries about the labor issues... I think it's a very complicated thing to watch other people have sex.

Like Katha, my experiences with porn started off with the literary — my high school boyfriend found a dog-eared copy of a book Katha might have copy-edited in his parents' room (and I kept it for years). If you think it's hard to masturbate while typing, well, it ain't easy while you're trying to read, either. A few guy friends in high school had some porn mags (gay and straight) that they showed me that were interesting, but it's hard to ask a dude friend to borrow one. My first experience actually watching porn was — again — with dude friends in college. Most of it was old shit on VHS, none of it was online (it was 1998, everything was pay-porn then, so sue me) and none of it was as plastic and unfeeling as the titty mag my college boyfriend and his roommates subscribed to "for the articles". The only time I ever had a problem with porn in a relationship was when my boyfriend of two years developed a secret habit that reflected sexual differences I'd thought we'd resolved in our relationship (and when it coincided with personal ads he was posting on the Internet). I do watch it myself now (thanks, Fleshbot!) when it's free, and utilize it for its intended purpose, mostly when I'm too mentally distracted by stress or depression to conjure up my own fantasies but need the release. In those moments, do I worry about the labor issues? No. Do I miss my little book of 70s erotica? Kind of. Would I be happy to see more unionization and regulation in the porn industry so that I could be more sure that the stuff that's getting me off is safe for the women (and men) who are virtually assisting me? Yes, but that's the subject for another post.

Women Watch Porn To Please Men? [Salon]
Susie & Katha Pollitt, on "Virginity or Death!" [Susie Bright's Journal]

We're living in a time in which, it often seems, stars rule. They grace magazine covers, shill products, draw attention to charities, make headlines by getting divorced, giving birth or entering rehab. And yet, as Cochrane writes:

We've seen scrutiny of women reach unprecedented levels. In gossip magazines, women's bodies are pored over - a pound gained provoking headlines that they're fat, a pound lost leading to headlines that they're too thin. Circles are drawn around a spot on their ankle where they've failed to apply fake tan, around a bitten nail or a tiny, incipient wrinkle beside their eye - which could just be a stray lash. What is implicit but unsaid is that there is no objective standard of beauty, no level of perfection that a woman could reach at which her body would be perceived as acceptable and in control… The constant message is that women's bodies are not our own. They belong to everyone but us, and are there to be picked apart.

Here's a fun exercise: Think of 5 celebrities you love, and 5 celebs you hate. Now: Are all of the stars you despise women? Meanwhile, abortion rights are in trouble, recorded rapes are at an all-time high (though the number rape crisis centers has declined) and the sex industry — hookers, strippers and internet porn — is booming. As long as you're a woman marketing yourself to or serving a man, you're A-OK. So. Are we experiencing a feminism backlash? Does our culture hate, degrade and vilify women? Do we, as women, hate ourselves? And if the answers are all yes, what can we do about it?