According to Dr. Rebecca Meisenbach, who interviewed over 15,000 "breadwinning" women for the study, "Working women who provide the majority of the household's income continue to articulate themselves as the ones who 'see' household messes and needs as a way to retain claim to an element of traditional female identity." [DailyMail]

In fact, the so-called "third sex" have a storied and respected history in India, occupy their own caste, and were traditionally the companions of queens. But nowadays, hijras - a term that today includes eunuchs, the intersex, transgender individuals, transvestites and self-identifying "third-gender" communities - are the object of discrimination. The estimated 200,000 hijras in India are frequently cast out by their families, forced to leave the educational system and are reduced to begging and sex work. Says the Times of India,

Hijras have few rights and are not recognized by Indian law. Except for the state of Tamil Nadu that has sanctioned special toilets - and a database to map the population of transgenders in the state and find out detailed demands such as ration cards and voter identity cards - they are denied the right to vote, own property, marry and the right to claim formal identity through any official documents such as a passport.

But, as Kalki Subramanian, the founder of the site and a gender-rights activist, explains to the Times of London, "It wasn't always like this...Only in the past 200 years, under the British, did we become too narrow minded." (The British government classified hijras as "a breach of public decency" and were deemed a "criminal tribe.") She adds, "Many of us would like to marry men; most of us would like to have children, to adopt...But for too long, because of our place in society, these have been distant dreams. People think of us as sexual perverts or clowns."

While "hijras" are represented in some same-sex dating sites, this is the first matrimonial site in the world for self-identifying hijras hoping to meet and marry men. The site states, "transsexual women by birth may not be physically women. But, by soul and heart, we are real women." And as is clear, starting it out of Madras is a major statement. Of course, the fact that the site is explicitly geared towards the population - one could argue, ghettoized - is a double-edged sword: hijras are still very much a group apart. And while the site is a designated safe space that seeks to promote larger discussion of gender identity and discrimination, it still only lists six perspective "brides." And yet, those women boast flattering head-shots and profiles (in Tamil) and their courage has reaped results: as the Times of London tells us, the site has attracted "more than 350 proposals of marriage from men in India, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the US and the Middle East." While one imagines not all the inquiries are serious - or savory - one can only hope that at least one relationship will result in the Valentine's Day wedding the site's founder envisions. And the site is explicit when it issues its challenge to prospective grooms:

Are you a man who believes in equality? Do you respect women and believe in eliminating oppression and exclusion based on gender? Are you someone who is against caste system and dowry? Will you treat your wife as a friend and an equal partner in your life? If so, the transsexual women you find on these pages are looking for life partners.

World's First Matrimonial Site For Transsexuals [Times Of India]

Eunuch Marriage Website Paves Way For Third Gender Comeback In India [TimesUK]
<a href="">Thirunangai.net
World's First Matrimonial Site For Transsexual Women [IndiaServer.com]
documentary [YouTube]
Eunuchs — India's Third Gender [ThingsAsian]

Hiroyuki Kobayashi, the game creator, opines:

From a social point of view, his experience is also interesting. He believes women are partly escaping into fantasy because they cannot find suitably heroic partners in real life. Capcom's samurai groupies may be the corollary of a widely discussed trend in Japan, that of "grass-eating men", who eschew the typical male trappings of cars and big salaries, and may prefer shopping and fashion to sex.

The Economist article refers to "grass eating men" which sounds a bit strange. The more commonly translated term is "herbivore men," (read: meat as a stand-in for manliness) and the Times of London explains why these men who are choosing a nontraditional lifestyle are capturing the attention of a nation:

Two phrases have been coined to describe them: soshokukei danshi or "herbivorous males", and Ojo-man – or "girly men".

Definitions vary, but the new herbivores could be described as metrosexuals without the testosterone. Although most of them are not homosexual they have in common a disdain for the traditional accoutrements of Japanese manhood, and a taste for things formerly regarded as exclusively female. Girly men have no interest in fast cars, career success, designer labels and trophy women. Instead, they hold down humble jobs, cultivate women as friends rather than conquests and spend their free time shopping at small boutiques and pursuing in Japan what is regarded as a profoundly feminine pastime: eating cakes.

(Aside: When Anna N. covered this earlier, some people expressed confusion about the reference to eating cakes as a feminine past time. Now, I'm just a pop culture junkie, not an expert on Japan, but the idea that men don't eat sweets is a prominent one. In addition to Men's Pocky, a less-sweet version of the popular snack, a popular trope is to show a man eating sweets to demonstrate how he is strange, different, or child-like. In the series Ouran High School Host Club, Honey-chan is a male host with a sweet tooth - along with a babyish demeanor.)

The Times continues, noting that this new take on masculinity is starting to impact heterosexual dating:

Japanese women, according to Professor Yamada's research, have not caught up. Two out of five say they wish to marry a man who earns at least 6 million yen (£40,000) a year - but such men make up only 3.5 per cent of the eligible population. The result of such unrealistic female expectations is a generation of men, and women, who may never marry and have children.

About half of men aged 20 to 34, he says, are unmarried and only 20 per cent of them have girlfriends. Thirty per cent, according to Professor Yamada, have never had a girlfriend in their lives. For a country like Japan, which already has a shrinking population, this is a disaster.

So, back to the Economist article. The article shifts focus from the video game's popularity to the larger, societal implications:

The phenomenon may also reflect a bigger issue: young women failing to find marriage partners. Since the 1970s the number of men and women marrying in their 20s and early 30s has fallen sharply, which is one of the main reasons the birth rate has fallen so low. It is largely the result of poor job prospects for men-and for women who marry. It will also have a severe impact on Japanese GDP in coming years.

However, this dynamic has been in play for a few years now. Much has been written about "freeters," a generation of people who are opting out of employment, or who cannot find gainful employment, and how that impacts the romantic and home lives of a generation of young Japanese professionals. In addition, due to traditional structures in Japanese society, women looking for men of means isn't a sign of shallowness - it is a reaction based in the grim job prospects for women, normally low paying temporary jobs or jockeying for a position in a glamor industry.

And with this much stress, can you really blame women for finding an escape in mythical lands with sword wielding hotties?

They Need Another Hero [Economist]
Girly Men Of Japan Just Want To Have Fun [Times Online]
Ouran High School Host Club [Wikipedia]
Youth Employment In Japan's Economic Recovery: ‘Freeters' And ‘NEETs' [Japan Focus]
Young Japanese Women Vie For A Once-Scorned Job [NY Times]

Earlier: Japan's "Girly Men" Choose Cakes Over Consumerism

Related:
Of "Wacky" Japan and the Myth Of The Other [Racialicious]

According to the Times of London, Japan is in the midst of a veritable explosion of such "girly men," men who don't live up to traditional Japanese standards of masculinity. Of this group, also called "herbivorous males," Richard Lloyd Parry writes,

Definitions vary, but the new herbivores could be described as metrosexuals without the testosterone. Although most of them are not homosexual they have in common a disdain for the traditional accoutrements of Japanese manhood, and a taste for things formerly regarded as exclusively female. Girly men have no interest in fast cars, career success, designer labels and trophy women. Instead, they hold down humble jobs, cultivate women as friends rather than conquests and spend their free time shopping at small boutiques and pursuing in Japan what is regarded as a profoundly feminine pastime: eating cakes.

And supposedly they're a Big Deal. A Japanese designer is marketing a line of skirts and "lacy tops" for men. Another company is selling a line of men's bras, although apparently some gender divisions persist — Parry describes the bras as "designed with manly simplicity, free of lace and frills." And Megumi Ushikubo, author of Herbivorous Girly Men Are Changing Japan thinks two thirds of Japanese men between 20 and 34 have "herbivorous tendencies."

Of course, half the point of a trend piece is to record and perhaps stir up terror at the trend's inevitable destruction of society, and Japan's girly men are no exception. Parry quotes sociologist Masahiro Yamada, who says, "I worry that herbivorous boys are the future of Japan. As young Japanese men become more timid and more averse to taking risks, it will affect the energy and vitality of the society." But the epidemic of girly men, if epidemic it is, may have more specific and more interesting consequences than a loss of "vitality." Slate's Alexandra Harney was actually on the case back in June, and she writes that "grass-eating men are alarming because they are the nexus between two of the biggest challenges facing Japanese society: the declining birth rate and anemic consumption."

Girly men are supposedly uninterested in sex, though some speculate that they simply have bad "communication skills" caused by too many video games and not enough family interaction. Whatever the cause, no sex means no babies, and Japan is suffering because of its shrinking population. Girly men also don't buy a lot of expensive things. It's interesting that a love for "designer labels" is seen in Japan as traditionally male — Harney says herbivores are "more likely to buy little luxuries than big-ticket items." Much like America's vaunted post-recession frugality craze, girly men are scary for Japan's economy — if they won't buy expensive shit, who will?

When you look at it this way, being a girly man seems like a kind of rebellion. Self-identified herbivore Yoto Hosho tells Harney, "We don't care at all what people think about how we live," and his lifestyle does seem like a reaction against certain social pressures. Make money, buy cars, have a kid — it's a pretty familiar prescription for a mainstream existence, whether here or in Japan, but its steps may be geared more toward a particular idea of a healthy society than toward actual personal fulfillment. After all, shoring up a declining birthrate doesn't sound like the most compelling reason to have a family. And now that making money has become more difficult for Japanese men, it's no wonder they're not as enthusiastic about spending it. Maki Fukasawa, an editor and writer who coined the term "herbivorous male," says,

When the economy was good, Japanese men had only one lifestyle choice: They joined a company after they graduated from college, got married, bought a car, and regularly replaced it with a new one. Men today simply can't live that stereotypical 'happy' life.

Sound a lot like what's happening in America. The recession and dwindling job security have made certain male roles — provider, consumer, progenitor — more difficult to step into. In Japan, men are responding by rejecting those roles. Maybe rather than trying to return to a bygone era of buying and babies, Japan and America should accept a more frugal, perhaps smaller population and new definitions of success. The girly men, it seems, already have.

Girly Men Of Japan Just Want To Have Fun [TimesOnline]

Related: The Herbivore's Dilemma [Slate]

The change started gradually. After all, the last decade has been all about prosperity-related excess. The remaining dreariness of the recession-tinged early 90s was drowned out by the sparkly pop saturated landscape where the women were doing it for themselves. At first, women were still adjusting to our increased financial power. We had little money, but it was still easier if we had someone else footing the bill - or at least paying back what they owed.

Then came the early 00s, with women expecting to be high earners. "The Opt-Out Revolution" was published in 2003, chronicling the lives of women who had so much money, they had started to turn away from the workforce. While most of us weren't in that position, times were still good enough to start declaring financial independence from that guy (or special lady, for the lezebels in the house) we asked to pay the bills in the first place.

Then came Recession 2.0, launching an all out assault on our jobs and lines of credit. Unemployment began to hit record highs, with many states hovering close to the 10% unemployment mark. In the midst of this chaos, some interesting statistics began to emerge, around wages and compensation:

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the wages of the median woman — at the statistical middle — rose 3.2 percent when adjusted for inflation, while the wages of the median man rose only 2 percent, The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday.

The Journal noted that the typical full-time female worker earned $657 a week in the third quarter, while the typical man earned $812 a week. However, men are still more likely to be unemployed — the BLS data showed that male jobless rate is 11 percent while for women it was 8.4 percent.

"This is a situation where everyone's losing but men are losing more, and that's not really a victory for women," Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute told the newspaper.

However, the "everyone's losing" idea is a bit misleading. One, since women's salaries are historically lower than men's salaries, our small net gains aren't much to celebrate. Two, income disparities follow both racial and gender lines, and having those breakdowns paint a more dramatic picture of what is being lost and gained:

Asian men fared worse than other men, but the median weekly wage for Asian men and women was $877 in the third quarter — higher than any other ethnic group. Whites were next at $753, then blacks at $607 and Hispanics at $527. The median pay of Asian men declined 4.1% between the third quarter of 2007, just before the recession began, and the third quarter of 2009. The typical black man saw his wages fall 2.8%.

The recession began in December 2007 and most economists believe it ended this past summer. Women's wages have long lagged behind men's, but minority women did much better than their male counterparts during the recession.

Over the past two years, the wages of the typical black male full-time worker fell, but wages rose 7.3% for black women. Among Hispanics, the median male wage rose 0.4% over the past two years, but the median female wage rose 5.5%.

Wages of white and Asian women didn't rise as much as those of other women; the median increased 2.4% and 1.8%, respectively, over the past two years. White males were slightly better off: Their wages rose 2.8%. It was the only ethnic group in which men's wages rose more during the recession than women's; white women's wages rose 2.4%.

And, once again, an increase is beneficial, but starts to feel futile when one looks at the starting points.

Still, the revelation that many women have assumed the role of breadwinner, or are out-earning their male counterparts, has resulted in a lot of speculation about the impacts of economic realities on gender roles. Much of the focus has resulted in looking at how women and men are coping to major lifestyle changes:

Beth Klingensmith, who lives in Colorado Springs, Colo., said it was hard enough to have to alter their financial plans after her husband lost her job. Now she worries about losing her own job because of the nation's economic woes. Already, she's been asked to take some furlough days as the state copes with budget constraints.

"We're doing OK, but there's absolutely no safety net,'" she said. "If something happens to my job, I cannot imagine."

Her husband, Jim, 49, is hopeful that his custom-made golf club business will take off soon, allowing him to contribute more toward the couple's bills. He said that in many ways he likes his new career more than the physically taxing work of running a printing press, but he admits he's struggled somewhat with the changed circumstances.

"We're Christians, so for me to not be the breadwinner … it's not the easiest thing," he said.

With all the upheaval with the recession and with housing, is it any wonder that people are spending their days applying for jobs, managing budgets, and nursing wounded egos?

The Opt-Out Revolution [NY Times]
State Unemployment Keeps Rising; Three Hit Record Highs [CNBC]
Women's wages rising faster than men's [UPI]
Women's Wages Outpaced Men's During Recession [WSJ]
The Wage Gap, by Gender and Race [Infoplease]
Rising number of women earn more than mates [MSNBC]

The study, done at North Carolina State University, showed that mothers are more liberal than childless women on social welfare issues and the Iraq war; fathers are more conservative than childless men on social welfare but similar on the war; and Palin's national prominence didn't push the average mom one bit farther to the right, even among Republicans. (This on top of the general tendency for women to be more liberal than men.) Which means, as Julia Whitty at Mother Jones puts it, "the Republican party which calls itself the family-values party might as well call itself the daddy-values party. Or maybe the white-daddy-values party. Or the red-state-white-daddy-values party."

Says Dr. Steven Greene, co-author of the study, "It appears that the Democratic position, that government has a role in addressing social problems, appeals to women with children. Whereas men with children are drawn to the Republican arguments that government should not play a major role on social welfare issues." Without having heard or read the paper, I don't know if the researchers offered an opinion as to why that might be, and I have no training or expertise to back up any speculation. But what I do have is a hobby horse, which I shall now gracelessly mount.

The social pressure on men to be "providers" for their families has got to give. Not only does it contribute to sexist hiring practices and unequal division of domestic labor — the men have to be making more money and working longer hours, don't you know, or their womenfolk will starve! — but my guess is, it contributes to the political gender gap. It makes sense that a dude who thinks it's his manly duty to bring home the bacon for his dependents (who may or may not include his wife) will A) be even more resentful of the government taking his hard-earned money away and sharing it with people who, in this worldview, are simply failing at their own duties, and B) be offended by the notion that he might ever need the government to provide for his family.

I was really shocked to realize how pervasive this attitude still is among at least my straight male contemporaries, once we all hit the age where people start thinking about settling down. Suddenly, even the liberal, feminist-leaning slackers I hung out with all went apeshit about being able to "provide," believing they would need enough financial security to support an entire household single-handedly before they'd be ready for marriage. (Granted, some of them might have been using this as a convenient excuse not to commit to women they were unsure about. But I think a lot of them were serious.) It didn't matter if they were dating women with good jobs, or even women who made more money than they did. They all seemed to believe that being the primary, if not sole provider was still part of the deal. What the hell is that about, in this day and age?

To be sure, it's about the still pervasive idea that child-rearing will and should fall primarily to women, for one thing. But it's also clearly about an ideal of masculinity that casts men as the depended-upon — and women, of course, as the dependents. (One wonders if women are more inclined to support government spending on social welfare because culturally, we're already expected to accept being taken care of, one way or another — setting aside the reality that loads of women are taking care of themselves, their kids, and their partners, often with shit jobs that are lower-paying in part because women are not assumed to be primary breadwinners.) You add that to the cherished American belief that individuals are completely responsible for every single thing, good or bad, that ever happens to them, and it's no big leap to "red-state-white-daddy-values."

One cure for those values, though, might be having daughters. Other research has shown that having girls makes men more feminist and more likely to vote for liberal candidates — while having boys apparently pushes people to the right. Researchers speculate the reason for that is, as Megan put it, "equality matters most to many people when the people they care for deeply are most likely to lack it." Maybe if we could get the red-state-white-daddies to empathize with their wives as much as their daughters, being part of a traditional family would make everyone more liberal.

Parenthood Makes Moms More Liberal, Dads More Conservative [Science Daily]
Why Sarah Palin Backfired: Parenting Makes Moms Liberal, Dads Conservative [Mother Jones]

Earlier:Sometimes It Takes A Daughter To Make A Man A Feminist

Kristin Tillotson of the Star-Tribune argues that the word "tomboy" may be outmoded now that "girls have more athletic options than ever and are outpacing boys in college-graduation rates." The idea that girls don't have to dress or act like boys in order to be considered smart, strong, or adventurous is awesome, but we're not entirely there yet. Scarlett Thomas, who plays Ramona in an upcoming stage production of "Ramona Quimby," says "she likes Ramona, a still-beloved classic kid's lit character, because she thinks for herself and stands her ground — traits associated with boys and tomboys, but not girly girls." And young Girl Scout Shamira MensanTeajaha Granger says, "girls have to stay on top of their game about how they look and being clean all the time. Boys come to school smelling like anything."

All this implies that we haven't yet reached a world where traits like "well-dressed," "adventurous," "pretty," "sporty," and "smelly" can exist independently of each other and of gender. Even Tillotson falls prey to some gender stereotypes, as when she generalizes, "little girls love to wear pink tutus." As far as we're concerned, as long as well-meaning people say things like this, there will always be a place for the term tomboy, and a soft spot in our hearts for girls who prefer a cape to a tutu and don't mind "smelling like anything." These girls aren't necessarily smarter, cooler, or stronger than girls who wear tiaras and lip gloss, but for now they might have to be braver, because, as another Girl Scout said, boys still expect girls to "to have a Coke-bottle shape and wear cute clothes and makeup."

"Ramona Quimby" director Clinton Turner Davis thinks "it would be interesting to poll some of the female leaders of our time — Michelle Obama, Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice — and find out how many of them identified as tomboys." We took a similar poll of the Jezebel staff, and here are our results: Anna (H.) and Hortense were both total tomboys. Sadie "loved dolls and stuff, but I was very rambunctious, always climbing trees, skinning my knees, very grubby and kinda feral, too!" Dodai "had a phase where i was all about bugs and karate, but I never really thought of it as boyish." Intern Katy "was really interested in karate and boxing, but like Dodai, I didn't think it was 'boyish.'" Margaret says, "I don't know if having a brother very close in age influenced how I played, but I didn't pick up that you weren't supposed to wear a frilly dress AND play with He-Man figures in the mud until I was older." And while I was really into clothes, I also enjoyed X-Men, Creepy Crawlers, and fighting. If we're any indication, it looks like it's possible to combine "boy stuff" and "girl stuff" into a relatively happy childhood. What about you? Were you more about frills, more about bugs and karate, or all about both?

Tomboys In Tutus [Minneapolis Star-Tribune]

The initiative will include educational campaigns and workshops that aim to re-feminize the women of Dubai. Naji Hay, an official at the ministry of social affairs, said: "The phenomenon of manly women has become apparent in society.... These women are against the normal nature of females. Their deviant behavior threatens other normal girls. This is why we had to launch this initiative to protect society from this menace." [LA Times via Global Voices Online]

"Why do we compartmentalize the performers, into Best Actor and Actress, or Supporting Actor and Actress? Why not Jolie vs. Jenkins?" Hesse writes, "If good acting is good acting, should chromosomes play a role at all?" Debra Zimmerman, executive director of Women Make Movies, explains the need for two separate categories as such: "It's already so impossible for women to win anything," If the academy "got rid of Actress, they would win nothing at all."

Hesse admits that the nominations are, in fact, stacked in men's favor: "Though the category is technically gender neutral, each of the five nominated films lists all-male teams. All five of the Best Director nominees are men; so are all of the nominees listed for film editing, music scoring, adapted screenplay, cinematography and — wait for it — makeup."

And yet while the other major categories don't have gender specific titles, the fact is, people tune in to see celebrities: on the red carpet, in the audience, and on the stage. Combining both acting categories in to one major acting award lessens the amount of nominees, and therefore, the amount of celebrities who get a sweeping round of publicity and buzz in the few weeks prior to the ceremony. Cutting the major star power in half would sink Oscar ratings even lower. Having two separate categories may be more of a strategic publicity decision than a statement on gender.

Though perhaps the best argument for two separate categories comes from our own Dodai Stewart, who has written on this very subject before: Dodai is quoted in the article, providing this answer to Hesse's question: "Very rarely are there roles where directors are just looking for an actor, regardless of the gender. If a man and a woman aren't being considered for the same role, then why would they be considered for the same award?"

"Stewart's argument is startlingly sensible," Hesse writes. Naturally!

Gender's Role: In A Complex Category By Itself [WashingtonPost]
Earlier: Do The Oscars Really Need A "Best Actress" Category?

In today's Sunday Times, Holcombe, who has just written a book titled How to Feed Your Family a Healthy, Balanced Diet with Very Little Money . . . and Hardly Any Time, Even if You Have a Tiny Kitchen, Only Three Saucepans and No Fancy Gadgets, laments the loss of "kitchen economics," the art of knowing how to save your money and use your time wisely in order to create quick, well-balanced meals on a budget.

"Domestic skills," Holcombe writes, "traditionally a woman’s territory, are no longer valued and, naturally enough, modern women don’t want to be associated with a female stereotype that, rightly or wrongly, is a bit of a joke. The downside is that lots of women now know nothing about home economics or how to produce a handful of nutritious meals out of store-cupboard essentials, even though having this knowledge is not only deeply satisfying, but empowering in a way that wasting large amounts of money in the supermarket can never be."

Holcombe criticizes young women and their need to stock up on the fanciest gadgets and gizmos, wasting their money on equipment, when they could just go back to basics and spend the money on quality ingredients instead. In an effort to save time, she argues, we are losing the art of making a real meal, and those who refuse to cook "are just kidding themselves" about their inability to make the time or spend the money on quality home dinners.

In some ways, I can see Holcombe's point: anyone who has ever had to buy a gift off of a wedding registry can tell you that her argument that the emphasis is on fancy, stupid equipment rather than the meals themselves is true. Yet Holcombe's major flaw here is this: there is not ONE mention of a man in this article at all. She scolds young women for their choices, and lashes out at how some mothers choose to feed their children: "There is a swath of young women who have time to get a manicure and go out partying, but still genuinely believe they’re too busy to cook. At the other end of the scale, there are women who should know better, but who dish up a nonstop diet of poor-quality ready meals to their children because it seems like the easy option."

There is no mention of a father knowing better, or a man spending money on frivolous things instead of a decent roast or some such, no mention of families or couples making these decisions: it is, in Holcombe's mind, the fault of women that "kitchen economics" are fading away, lost to a world of busy families and young hussies who dare to get their nails done instead of buying butternut squash at the Farmer's Market.

The notion that we all need to slow down, reconsider our food budgets, and choose healthier, less processed options is nothing new. And yes, many of us do make bad decisions here and there, but believe it or not, Ms. Holcombe, it isn't solely the fault of women that kitchens have changed, nor is it solely the responsiblilty of women, to save what you believe is a dying art. In scolding women for their choices, I'm afraid you're only reiterating that old and tired notion that our place, above all else, is in the kitchen. Do we need to relearn some basic cooking skills and ways to save money and eat well? Yes. But so do our boyfriends, husbands, and male friends.

"Savvy grown-up girls know that being clever with food and careful with the household budget means that not only do they get to enjoy the right meals, there could be enough money left over for spending on those manicures — which a 1950s domestic goddess would have definitely approved of," Holcombe writes. Perhaps someone should tell Holcombe that most of us aren't looking for Betty Draper's—or Betty Crocker's—approval.

Good Housekeeping: The Art Of Lost Thrift In The Kitchen" [TimesOnline]

Fifth-grader ZeAndre Orr, the double dutch champion, has had a rough time: he was mocked and beaten up in his Brooklyn neighborhood, and even his mother tried to dissuade him from a hobby that brought him so much negative attention. Of course, the rest is history: he persevered and triumphed. And when you consider the actual physical challenges of double dutch (and check out this video!) it's a particularly arbitrary gender division.

The story reads like a real-life Billy Elliott, the story of a young boy from a coal-mining community who defies his father and his friends to pursue his passion for ballet. Billy Elliott is now a musical on Broadway, scored by Elton John, and is winning acclaim not just for its story of unlikely triumph, but for the rotating cast of young boys who dance the lead, with a backing cast of little-girl dancers. Onstage, of course, everything is resolved neatly within a few hours: Billy wins the respect of his unemotional father and dances off into the sunset. And, oh yeah, he's not gay.

Says Cara at Feministe, "as feminists, it’s understandable that we generally focus on girls and women who break down gender barriers, rather than boys and men who do the same." But let's not be disingenuous: these boys are not beaten up just for jumping double-dutch or dancing with girls; it's naive to think that a fairy tale like Billy Elliott can make the everyday life of a young boy in a bad neighborhood much easier. In fact, one question this makes me ask is, are people pleased at the idea of barriers coming down and gender roles becoming less defined, or only to the extent that the plucky outsider triumphs over adversity? Is the specialness of the story what appeals— the cuteness factor of a fish-out-of-water — or the larger implication? Are people as tied to the idea of the "other" as the nominal idea of "equality?" Maybe it doesn't matter, and one can't exist without the other, but it's worth considering.

Where Ballet Is A Boy Thing [NY Times]
Boys Who Do Double Dutch [NY Times via Feministe]

• Meanwhile, a judge has ordered a woman from Iowa to stay away from her fiance on Monday after she bit his hand and drove over his foot. • The National Education Association says that male US teachers are at a 40-year low, with a measly number of them in early education. • A Canadian man is currently on trial for two counts of first-degree murder because two of his former girlfriends died from HIV-related cancers after he had unprotected sex with them and lied about his HIV-poisitive status. • Meanwhile, inSPOT, a website that provides free, anonymous STD-anouncement e-cards for people who have STDs to send to their former sexual partners has sent 49,500 cards since 2004. • Studies say that the often-recommended cup of coffee to cure headaches related to post-lumbar puncture procedures is not effective. • A 38-year-old New York man was charged with assault after he hit his 62-year-old girlfriend in the eye with a roll of toilet paper on Sunday. • A former HS cheerleader is fighting a RIAA lawsuit that says that she must pay $7,400 for pirated music she downloaded when she first entered high school. • Try to hide your shock: A new study reveals that the LAPD is more likely to stop and search black and Hispanic residents than whites. • Taffey Anderson, a mom from Oregon, says she plans on burning The Book Of Bunny Suicides, which her teenage son checked out from his high school library, because she thinks the book is "not OK."• An 85-year-old table tennis champion says that it is hard to find worthy competition in her age range. • Residents of the city of Plymouth in the UK are upset that a strip club that has opened near the historic Mayflower Steps will deter tourists from the area. • The lawyers of Lisa Nowak, the astronaut accused of attempting to kidnap another female astronaut, were back in court today fighting to keep away potentially incriminating evidence from being admitted into her trial because she was taken advantage of by the police when the evidence was obtained. • A study of university students has found that an emphasis on the way that skin cancer will ruin a person's appearance is the most effective way to get people to reduce their use of indoor tanning beds. •

Obviously I know what these fears are grounded on: societal pressures, subliminal messages, traditional gender expectations. And to this I say: Ms. Bierley, I see your concerns and raise you a Flora, a Fauna and a Meriweather. But in all seriousness, maybe I’m extra defensive because Sleeping Beauty is my favorite Disney movie, but also because nothing about this or films like it changed my ability to comprehend the choices offered to me in a modern world, to doubt my worth as a thinking person, or to confuse an animated movie with the realities of going to pre-K and getting into mud fights with little boys.

Are fairy tales antiquated? Yes, by definition. They’re ancient stories based on ancient archetypes which very often deal with good and evil in a stark way that appeals to children at least as much as do the princesses’ gowns and princes’ swords. If we’re talking about the actual Grimms’ stories, they are so bizarre and sinister and so often rooted in ancient folklore that seriously, marrying at 16 is the least of your problems. As to movies like this one? If a child lived in a room in which she watched nothing but these movies day and night, had no other influences, talked to no other children and saw no real women then, yes, she’d probably have a very warped view of the world. I’m guessing this is not the Fritzl-like case.

I would say though that if for no other reason that cultural literacy, a child should be familiar with these archetypes. Although I don’t expect to bring up my future children in a religious home, I have every intention of acquainting them with the Bible — as a symbolic text of incredible historical importance with some beautiful poetry and some fundamental lessons in it, around which we will not be completely basing our lives. I should think if they can appreciate the subtleties of that — as children can — they can understand that 16-year-old Aurora lives in a magical world populated with fairies and evil dragons which, for good and ill, is not real.

And, okay, pious generalities aside: Sleeping Beauty is a really good movie! Flora, Fauna, Meriwether and, hell, Maleficent! Are strong, independent female role models. Perhaps it should also be said that these were the characters who made the strongest impression on me as a small child, and on little girls whom I know now. Yes, Briar Rose/Aurora’s beautiful pink-blue gown was memorable, but the generic princess was far less interesting than the irascible fairies or the single most terrifying villain in all of Disney Fairytales.

So, here’s my advice to Ms. Bierley. Give yourself — and your niece — credit for intelligence and good sense. Thank the good lord we live in a time where, at least as little children, we can enjoy a fairy tale as a fairy tale at the same time as we can admire strong female role models and take our place in the world for granted. A feminist — even a little one — can still enjoy Sleeping Beauty while maintaining her cred, and while the trees might still be thorny, the forest is a much nicer place than it was. And this is a wonderful thing! There’s a lot of things to worry about out there – I don’t think you need lose sleep over this one.

How do you handle 'Sleeping Beauty' and other fairy tales with young girls? [Entertainment Weekly]

• Kory McFarren, the Kansas boyfriend of the woman who made headlines in February when she got stuck on a toilet seat for two years, won the Kansas state Lottery on Monday for the second time this year. • Police are investigating allegations that a female teacher at Trinity Lutheran School in Detroit ordered three seventh-grade girls to strip down to their underwear on October 1 as part of a search for the alleged theft of $42. • A recent survey found that stressed out men are eating more chocolate in tough economic times. • A survey conducted during the summer found that 80% of Americans say the economy is making them stressed and 83% of those stressed by the economy are women. • A new study has found that women who have had a miscarriage have an increased risk of future complications during their next pregnancy including an increased risk of getting pre-eclampsia and/or needing intervention during labor. • A new study has found that boys tend to be savers and girls tend to be spenders, mostly because women are told money (and the things you buy with money) will help them create a reliable lifestyle.• Compare and contrast the illustrations from an English-language version of Alice in Wonderland and the Swahili-language version. • An Australian man was found guilty today of possessing an illegal firearm and threatening a person with a firearm after he shot a woman in the inner thigh (he claims it was accidental) after she refused to perform oral sex on him. • A woman from Rhode Island was charged with two counts of animal cruelty on Tuesday when she taped two of her pit bulls' mouths shut and left them alone for two days without food and water while she gave birth to her son in a hospital. • A new study suggests that St. John's wort extracts are as effective as standard antidepressants for treating major depression, although the results were more favorable in trials conducted in German-speaking countries. • Are Sarah Palin's glasses fake? Does anyone care? • Lifetime Networks announced that it is making a movie based on the disappearance of teenager Natalee Holloway in Aruba in 2005. • On Monday, a Connecticut judge dismissed a lawsuit brought against L'Oreal Inc. by a woman who claimed she accidentally dyed her hair from blonde to brunette and was so traumatized that she had to go on anti-depressants. •

While traditional gestures like serving ladies first, giving the guy the check and letting women have the banquette seat (courtly or paternalistic?) are far less prevalent than they were — to the confusion of servers everywhere — certain distinctions apparently still apply. Well, obviously: I mean, in an industry where success can hinge on the width of a napkin ring, no one's gonna blow off the divides in a customer base's priorities, expectations and tastes.“Women are looking for somewhere comfortable,” says Mario Batali. “Men are looking for somewhere to show off.”

Now that the old rules don't apply so much anymore — no smart restauranteur is going to assume a woman can't handle a wine list — and some of the gender gap has been closed by fads like the gender-neutral low-carb trend or equal-op annoying foodie-ism, the more fundamental divides between the eatin' sexes are apparently becoming manifest. Since we all love being told about ourselves by groups of strangers, here's the breakdown!

We sit in banquettes: Even though it's no longer the protocol — like any guys still know that rule, anyway — apparently women gravitate towards the seats that give the best view of the room/potential assassins.
We Need Warm Rooms: We apparently "tend to dress with more skin showing" so the thermostat's got to be up.
We Like Healthy Food: "Women more often ask if a menu has leaner, healthier options. Men more often ask if they can get a decent steak."
We Don't Like Crappy Places: "A woman is more likely to take offense if the restrooms are cramped, ugly and messy. "
We Do Like Awesome Places: "She’s also more likely to appreciate color and playfulness in a restaurant’s design, while there’s more risk that a man will be cool to that." Apparently this one mint-green restaurant with a seafood-heavy menu was attracting such a disproportionately female crowd that the owner redid it to make it more gender neutral. “There’s more meat now — a Niman Ranch pork chop, veal breast, a lamb T-bone,” and it's been repainted cream.
We Like Meat But We Like To Be Tricked Into It: "Stephen Starr, who owns Buddakan and Morimoto, said that women more often hesitate if the name or look of a dish is too blunt a reminder that they’re biting into an animal. 'If it’s something that says chorizo with some sort of egg, they’ll eat it,” Mr. Starr said. “If it’s a suckling pig, they’re not going near it.'" (Not true. Suckling pig delicious.)
We Don't Actually Tip Less, But Parties Of Women Still Suck for Waiters: Although the pernicious fiction that women are bad tippers is apparently a myth, we do tend to order less and hold tables hostage four hours so a server can't turn it over.
We're Less Insecure: "A man is more likely to care about being greeted rapturously and treated like an insider," whereas we apparently just want to eat fish and "eggs" in stifling hot mint green rooms, for hours, while seated in a banquette.

Old Gender Roles With Your Dinner? [New York Times]

*This book has been sitting on my nightstand for a week. I am going to read over the long weekend and get back to you with more revelations from Guyland after Labor Day.

Men Defy Stereotypes In Defining Masculinity [EurekAlert]

Anita contends that gender differences — like freaking toy preferences — might be hard wired into our brains because by 18 months old, girls tend to choose "girl" toys over "boy" ones. Well, gosh, you'd think a shrink would give just a smidge more credit to the idea that, by 18 months, a child's seen enough television and the behaviors of the other children and adults around them to have picked up on the practically-universal subliminal messages about which toys they are supposed to like?

The only things that Anita cites are things like infant boys preference for groups of faces over individual ones, the fact that newborn girls seemingly imitate better than boys and respond more to voices (which, ahem, more than explains them learning to talk earlier than boys on the average — though I was personally late in this regard), and the fact that by 6 month of age, boys' stress levels were higher than girls' even if their external responses were the same. Actually, that last one seems to indicate that the whole stereotype that men are taught to keep their emotions inside is learned somewhat earlier, not that it's genetic, but whatever.

Anyway, Michelle McEwan thinks the whole thing is obnoxious, poorly sourced and pretty sexist. I tend to agree. I really have to go look into that "nurture over nature" tattoo for my forehead one of these days.

Actual Headline [Shakesville]
Boys Will Be Boys, Girls Will Be Girls From Birth [CNN]
Photo via Agilmente