Says the Telegraph,

The rule banning women from dressing like men – namely by wearing trousers - was first introduced in 1800 by Paris' police chief and has survived repeated attempts to repeal it.
The 1800 rule stipulated than any Parisienne wishing to dress like a man "must present herself to Paris' main police station to obtain authorisation". In 1892 it was slightly relaxed thanks to an amendment which said trousers were permitted "as long as the woman is holding the reins of a horse". Then in 1909, the decree was further watered down when an extra clause was added to allow women in trousers on condition they were "on a bicycle or holding it by the handlebars".

Further attempts to change the law failed in 1969 and again in 2003, when the "minister in charge of gender equality" responded obscurely and, presumably, with a Gallic shrug: "Disuse is sometimes more efficient than (state) intervention in adapting the law to changing mores." Well, perhaps, but given that the state feels comfortable banning the hijab, surely posthumously clearing Coco Chanel of multiple misdemeanors wouldn't ruffle too many feathers - despite the pleasing irony of Paris having one of the world's most draconian dress codes. It would also be an easy - and timely - gesture when that could be salutary: In the Indonesian district of West Aceh, the wearing of "tight trousers and jeans" by Muslim women was recently outlawed and women have been arrested and flogged for flouting the dictate. As such, the French law is not purely the amusing anachronism it should be.

But, really, commenters on the Telegraph's website get the last word, so pithy and relevant are their remarks: In the words of one "Euro-peon Serf," "Cowardly French faggots need something to differentiate themselves from actual women, since they can't do it by conduct, speech, or appearance." Indeed, sir. That's probably what the minister was trying to say.

Women Banned From Wearing Trousers In Paris [Telegraph]
West Aceh Bans 'Tight Trousers' [BBC]
When Women Are Banned From Wearing Trousers [Jakarta Post]

Amanda is educated by her mother, who has primary custody. When her father suggested that her mother's "rigid" Christian curriculum was harming his daughter, the courts intervened, agreed with the dad, and ordered that the child begin 5th grade at the local school. After reviewing the findings of the Guardian ad Litem, Family Court Justice Lucinda V. Sandler conceded that while "the evidence support a finding that Amanda is generally likeable and well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising, and intellectually at or superior to grade level," the court was troubled by her "rigidity on faith" and felt that her "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs ... suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view." (You can read the decision here.) As a result, Sandler concluded that Amanda "would be best served by exposure to different points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior and cooperation in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs."

Not shockingly, many Christian groups are up-in-arms at what they see as a straightforward, unconstitutional attack on their faith, and court-fearin' Conservatives haven't been far behind. If you do a search on the case, probably 90% of coverage is on Christian sites and blogs, which reference the specter of the schools' secular war on religion and the unfair witch-hunt on a decent Christian mother. Says Douglas Napier, senior ADF counsel, to the Washington Times, "Does anybody seriously believe a public school will broaden this girl's views on comparative religious thought? The schools are the number-one censors of religious thought." The mom's lawyers, of the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal outfit, have filed a motion asking the court to reconsider. Says her lawyer, "The court has intruded on the child's most fundamental liberties and should reconsider this unconstitutional encroachment." As in the case of Rifqa Bary, it's been spun as a case of old-fashioned Christian martyrdom.

And as in the case of Bary, it's hard to regard the case objectively anymore, because it's quickly been shanghai'd by ideology-speak and . But the excellent New Hampshire Family Law Blog laid it out in a highly convincing fashion. In essence, they ask: Is this about parental rights - or constitutional law? New Hampshire state law mandates the judge must find some evidence of harm to a child before taking her out of home-schooling. The court awarded her mom custody, she's presumably meeting the state education standards, and by the judge's admission, the child is socialized (she takes a number of supplementary classes, as well as sports and dance) and educated. It's dismaying to hear a child parrot back beliefs of any kind, but can we legally change that? Surely what Amanda is learning is no different from what she'd be taught at a Christian private school, after all. If she is, say, learning exclusively creationism to the exclusion of Evolution, yes, that's certainly a legal issue - but is that the case? And while I'm sure I'd find plenty of Amanda's views questionable - the certainty of the home-schooled Christian kids in Jesus Camp springs to mind - you can't punish parents for stupid views, surely? This would undermine a large percentage of home-schooling parents, many of whom teach a similar Christian curriculum.

But from the father's perspective, I can imagine the dismay at seeing a child indoctrinated with rigid views that aren't your own - and if it's a legal question of both parents needing to approve a religious curriculum, then, yes, obviously he needs a say. Conceding that both parents should have a say is not a question of Secular Schools Who Hate Christianity Witch-Hunting. And while it's a bit surreal to see the Christian advocates righteously invoking the rights of single mothers ("A lot of single moms are concerned about this case because their ex-husbands could use the home-schooling issue to get back at them as has happened in this case," says one) it doesn't seem like, at the end of the day, anyone can escape from the basic issue that both parents have a say.

New Hampshire Court's Decision Regarding Home Schooling Grabs National Attention [New Hampshire Family law Blog]
Christian Girls, Interrupted [Wall Street Journal]

Home-Schooler Ordered To Attend Public School [Washington Times]

As Home Schooling Surges, The Evangelical Share Drops [US News]
Homeschooled Girl Ordered To Attend Public School Over Her 'Rigid' Faith [Christian Post]
State of New Hampshire, Motion [Telladf]

Here's how Salon's Kate Harding summarizes the situation:

In 2006, a woman known only as V.M. in court documents gave birth to a baby girl, J.M.G., at a New Jersey hospital. During labor, V.M. "behaved erratically" and at some point refused to consent to a cesarean section, despite her doctor's concerns about fetal distress. The obstetrician ordered an emergency psychiatric evaluation, which found that "V.M. was not psychotic and had the capacity for informed consent with regard to the c-section." The staff then asked for a second opinion, but before the next psychiatrist could complete his evaluation, the baby was born vaginally. And healthy. Oops...Nevertheless, a social worker at the hospital contacted the Department of Youth and Family Services, and J.M.G. was removed from her parents. Eventually, a judge agreed with DYFS that V.M. and B.G.'s parental rights should be terminated. Documents recently released by the apellate court say flat out that at that point: "the trial judge found that J.M.G. was an abused and neglected child due in part to her parents' failure to cooperate with medical personnel at the time of her birth. V.M.'s refusal to consent to a c-section factored heavily into this decision." And still, V.M. lost the appeal.

On the basis of these facts, the case provoked quite a bit of outrage, and understandably so: as Harding asks, when the parents haven't been allowed to take the baby home, how can they be accused of neglect? But as Harding looked into the facts, she found it was actually a bit knottier than this, and that the parents' behavior might, in fact, be called "erratic." To wit, neither parent showed at court hearings shortly after birth - and refused to deal with social workers on the phone - which is why the baby was placed in foster care. Evaluating psychiatrists claimed that they were "assaulted" when they tried to examine the mother (who had a history of mental illness and going off her meds), others diagnosed the mom as schizophrenic and unfit, and changing stories about whether the mother had, in fact, refused the C-section in the first place confused matters further.

While all these things in sum, from a legal standpoint, might meet the criteria for unfitness, it also seems like a bit of a chicken-and-egg: surely some of the hostility, paranoia and resistance to the process might be attributed to the fact that, I don't know, these people had their child removed, and were caught in a nightmare of red tape? If they weren't unstable to begin with, surely this could have pushed a lot of new parents over the edge. The fact also remains that none of this would even have been in question - their fitness, their mental state, anything - had the mom just gone along with the (unnecessary) C-section. And at the end of the day, that feels wrong.

Now, I understand why doctors err on the side of caution. Nowadays, the climate is such that lawsuits and prohibitive insurance policies are discouraging medical professionals from going into obstetrics, and you can understand why they'd want to avoid any complication that would result in harm to mother or child - as would most mothers. But insisting upon any procedure, even if a doctor thinks it best, is paternalistic. People have the right to refuse procedures - and often do, on, for instance, religious grounds. An appeals court judge agreed with this, in fact - stating that the Cesarean was, contrary to what internet outrage implies, the ultimate issue. A baby was not "taken from mom because she refused a c-section," - save initially - but that is what caused them to look into her mental fitness. The judge seemed to take the view, in my layman's understanding, that this was akin to an unnecessary incision - that led to the discovery of a life-threatening cancer, and allowed the courts an insight into what was best for the baby.

Now, it's hard to know what to believe. My gut tells me that, if parents want their baby, the court's first obligation should be to try to make that work: send a shrink to observe, if you must, but give them a chance to take their baby home first. Even if the parents have refused to cooperate, is foster care still a better solution? The truth is, though, I can't know anything, save that it's a tragedy. And that this whole case arose from too many people rushing to judgment.

Refusing A C-Section = Abuse And Neglect? [Salon]

Is A Woman In Labor A "Person"? New Assaults On Pregnant Women's Civil Rights In A NJ Case [Huffington Post]
Newborn Taken From Mom For Refusal Of C-Section [Babble]

Apparently the organizers had had a hard time keeping creepy dudes out of the Pinkalicious dances - now the sole women-only party Down Under. Says one company owner, "In my experience feminine lesbians are often the target of heterosexual male fantasy, and therefore subject to more intrusive attention from them...It is a major concern that heterosexual males will attend the Pinkalicious event in the hope they can achieve their desire for a sexual experience with multiple women."

There's been a backlash - particularly because only last month the Attorney General demanded that Australia's elite men's clubs open up to women. Says Sue Price, director of the Men's Rights Agency, the ruling represents a double standard, and Pinkalicious is receiving special treatment.

But gay men's bars have long had the right to ban women in Australia - and we can see far more compelling reasons for the Pinkalicious ban. After all, at the end of the day, this becomes a safety issue: the intention is to provide an environment for a group who don't have many other venues in which to feel totally secure and drink cocktails with very large pieces of watermelon in them. Or, as the head of the Human Rights Commission puts it, Pinkalicious events are important because "they offer a disadvantaged group the chance to experience supportive social occasions, feel safe in public spaces and build a sense of belonging." And let's face it: the guys who'd want to crash said event are a self-selecting population, to put it mildly, and I'm guessing it won't pose much of a problem for the non-creeps of Australia. That said, Stephen Horner is obviously going to be furious.

Such marriages are not uncommon: in poor and remote areas such as these, up to 30% of couples are married by a mullah and don't bother registering - a formality that fell by the wayside during the civil war of the 1990s, when many parents wanted to afford young daughters the relative security of marriage and the civil government was barely functioning. But it's only recently that husbands have started taking advantage of it, many leaving to find work in Russia, getting equally unofficial "talaaqs" or religious divorces so they can remarry and gain legal status, and leaving their wives high and dry. As Zebo Davlatova, of the League of Women Lawyers, tells the BBC, "Without official registration women have no right to demand their husbands provide them with somewhere to live or to pay anything at all to support the children," and often end up in other unrecognized marriages for security - as second or third wives. This is not unique to Tajikistan - there are thousands of such cases - and a problem for which, as women's advocates say, there's simply no easy answer.

The Muslimah Media Watch addressed the story today, and while they acknowledge the real tragedy of such situations, ask that we not view this as simply another tale of woe pertaining to women who are victims of a patriarchal Muslim culture - "the Orientalist theme of the weak, emasculated Muslim society that abuses women" - and points out that it's important to remember that "the real problem isn't the nikaah or talaaq, but the fact that neither of these are documented." Obviously it's larger cultural perceptions of women, and the dependent and vulnerable role they're forced into, that permits this sort of tragedy - but as MMW is at pains to point out, it's important not to conflate this with Islam as a whole. What is depressing to conceive of is the fact that thousands of men have been able to abandon their families so callously, and far more of a comment on human nature than anything else. It's not as if, after all, they don't know what they are leaving them to. Says Marhaba, "He registered his marriage with that other woman and I hear they live happily and in prosperity. But look at this shack me and the children have to live in now. They can't even go to school, because I can't afford it and they don't have birth certificates."

Legal limbo for Tajik Islamic brides [BBC]
Always an Unregistered Wife, Never a Bride [Muslimah Media Watch]

The case, detailed in today's NY Times, is heart-wrenching. The family was on vacation in Miami when Lisa collapsed, and when they arrived at the hospital a social worker allegedly told Langbehn that she was in an "antigay city and state" and would require health-care proxy forms in order to visit the ER. Although she produced the forms, she was still not allowed to see her partner for eight hours, only permitted access for five minutes while a priest administered last rites, and denied a chance to let the three children say goodbye until after Lisa was brain-dead. When Lisa's sister arrived, she was immediately admitted.

This Miami lawsuit, and a similar case in Washington State, raise an issue that is not a new one; hospital visiting rights is a common theme in the argument for gay marriage. And of course, a positive ruling vis a vis visiting rights could have major implications for all unmarried couples, to say nothing of friends and any number of relationships beyond traditional marriage. If successful, a ruling in Langbehn's favor could compel hospitals to respect a patient's wishes; right now, it's generally subject to a doctor's judgment in the case of emergency care.

Of course, there are legitimate legal reasons for having put such a policy in place - when it comes to questions like life support or other major decisions, it could conceivably get dicey to allow just anyone agency in these matters, to say nothing of legally problematic for hospitals. And certainly we get that you can't have various strangers wandering around the ICU, if that's what medical pros are concerned about. But surely there are simple, practical means of expanding this policy - the insurance equivalent of 'in case of emergency?' In a time when we're more than aware of the fragmentation of many family relationships and the importance of others, such restrictive policies and narrow definitions seem impossibly retrograde - and, when we hear about specific cases like this, inhumane. One of the more depressing aspects of the article, of course, is that legality is not guarantee of fairness - prejudice and cruelty can still find a way - but at least it's a start.

Kept From a Dying Partner's Bedside [NY Times]

Polyamory is likely as old as time, love, censure, and certainly marriage. And now that same-sex marriage is gaining a legal foothold in more and more states, the World Polyamory Association, is, as the Daily Beast puts it, "pushing for the next frontier of less-traditional codified relationships." Says one member of the "triad" profiled (a married lesbian couple who recently committed themselves to a man), "I want to walk down the street hand in hand in hand in hand and live together openly and proclaim our relationship. But also to have all those survivor and visitation rights and tax breaks and everything like that." The concern, of course, is that they'll block the sidewalk for same-sex couples.

While polyamory as a concept can encompass any number of partners, WPA is seeking legalization, at this point, only for triads. As distinct from the fraught Jules et Jim-style menage a trois of popular imagination, triads are about stability:

Unlike open marriages and the swinger days of the 1960s and 1970s, these unions are not about sex with multiple outside partners. Nor are they relationships where one person is involved with two others, who are not involved with each other, a la actress Tilda Swinton. That's closer to bigamy. Instead, triads-"triangular triads," to use precise polyamorous jargon-demand that all three parties have full relationships, including sexual, with each other.

These are relationships which, if they are to succeed, demand a level of communication, clarity of expectation,organization, grasp of math, and maturity that few of us can aspire to - maybe a clue to why the vast majority of the community are, apparently, of the boomer generation. The truth is, while the notion of verboten "threesomes" still has a lurid grasp on the popular imagination, an untitillating adult version strikes the same people as weird. And yet, it's not hard to imagine that agitiating for legal acceptance of the three-way marriages would be prize ammunition for those anti-gay-marriage types who feared doomsday "floodgate" scenarios. While caution rarely changes much, would running in this case jeopardize the right to walk? (To use that metaphor, yes, again.)

Of course, it's hard to get a read on exactly how many triads would take advantage of legal marriage - although the nonprofit "Loving More" estimates that a quarter of "the estimated 50,000 self-identified polyamorists in the U.S" live together. That's not a big number, although one imagines a lessening of stigma would swell their ranks somewhat. In any case, the triad whom the author introduces as the "face" of would-be legal polyamory is, how shall we put it, far from mainstream: the most vocal of the three, Janet, claims on her website to "travel astrally," while all three "helm the school of tantra." In short, it's easy to dismiss them as crackpots, which, while it may do the movement a disservice, certainly makes the notion less scary to those who'd be alarmed. (The WPA website home page, it must be said, features a first-person account titled "More to Love!") Says Janet, <"We should have every right to inherit from each other and visit each other-I don't care what you call it, we're not second-class citizens! Any people who wish to form a marriage with all the rights and duties of a marriage should have the legal right to." But, the thing is, they, um, don't. And in legal terms, we're guessing this is very much a discussion for another day - if not another decade. Insert walking metaphor.

Threesome Marriages [Daily Beast]

Almost everyone agrees that the "zero-tolerance" policy recommended by U.S. doctors is unduly strict, and in Europe pregnant women are generally allowed a glass or two a week with no foreseeable damage to the fetus. So, sure, plenty of people find forbidding an adult woman the occasional drink to be, in a word, paternalistic. But "medical legal expert" Dr Colin Gavaghan has taken the argument a step further, calling such strictures "sexist" and "ethically dubious."

Gavaghan's point, presumably, is that the medical establishment's unilateral ban on alcohol during pregnancy only affects women. Which is inarguable, except I guess in the case of those sensitive fathers-to-be who like to share every facet of the shared pregnancy and willingly abstain from drinking out of solidarity. "Ethically dubious" refers to a sweeping recommendation made on fairly scant evidence - it's not been proven that very moderate drinking harms the baby - and so might be construed more as "medical ass-covering" than "full disclosure." The second part, we suppose we get. But if it's true, we're gonna go out on a limb and say that these same cautious doctors would probably be just as quick to ban pregnant men from drinking, too.

But, logic - and overly free use of words - aside, isn't there always a degree of paternalism to the regulation of alcohol? Kids can't drink. And it's up to a bartender's discretion to decide when someone has "had enough" - even if that person, is, legally, a consenting adult. Also, let's talk turkey: female drinking is up - especially binge-drinking in the UK - and however paternalistic, there's something to be said for making women aware of the risks of their behavior, if it can be done without unnecessary alarmism. To the extent that Gavaghan's argument rests on "informed choice," then yes, we agree. But he undermines it with his absurd sexism charges - and we rather resent the notion that this might have been intended to sway us, the target demo, with a buzzword. As the New York Times' etiquette columnist put it rather more moderately over the weekend, "There's no law requiring pregnant women to become vestal virgins. And a reasonable mother-to-be is the best judge of her behavior." True, but the fiction that we can live any facet of our public health lives, in the modern age, free of paternalism seems disingenuous - particularly to a "legal expert" who should at least recognize that to some, our society must seem too litigious to be trusted with all the facts.

Telling Pregnant Women Not To Drink Is 'Sexist' [Telegraph]
It's Sexist To Tell Pregnant Women Not To Drink, Says Expert [Daily Mail]
Social Q's: Make Mine a Double [NY Times]

"On the morning of August 1 she was having coffee in the local café and the waitress mentioned that a body had been found in the school playing fields nearby. It was a discovery that would change her life irrevocably." The case was an unusually horrible one: a young woman had been picked up on her way home by a group of men and women, who abducted, raped and strangled her, before further raping the body, driving it to a field a few days later and setting it on fire.

40-year-old Susan Galbraith of Mayfield, KY, wanted to check the body out for herself, and what she saw appalled her. When the murder of the black teenager was handled with inept indifference, and then virtually dropped, Galbraith sprang into action. She'd seen the investigative reports of British journalist Tom Mangold (who penned the account) and wrote him the challenging note, "You think you're a hotshot reporter. Come to Mayfield and work with me on a murder case that's baffled the locals." He did. They began a cinematic odd-couple partnership that, in the movie version, will obviously blossom into a (signifcantly more youthful) romance.

I taught her basic journalism and how to research; I expanded her vocabulary (at her insistence), showed her how to employ logic, how to kill conspiracy theories even before their fragile shells cracked open; I nagged her on how to check, check and check again every single fact that seemed important and how to ignore barmy blogs and how to be very patient....She in turn taught me attitudes that occasionally transcended normal grubby journalistic ambition.

Folk wisdom is implied. He teaches her about wine and cognac and is comically appalled by the "beyond-parody" trailer-park folk he encounters.

The two "hit the streets" and started talking to underworld figures. The Brit went home, Susan started working unpaid with the detective force and volunteered to wear a wire. When they'd zeroed in the killer, Susan decided it was a good idea to go undercover and stalk him, "Columbo-style." After years of no results, Susan took it upon herself to create a website in which she listed pictures of people whom she considered "people of interest." She tracked down a girl whom she found suspicious and was able to exact what amounted to a partial confession. When cops arrested the girl in California, she confessed all and five people were put in jail, the killer for life.

As a result, Susan was formally presented with the first KBI's Outstanding Citizen Award for her services to justice, is considering becoming a P.I. and, as the author puts it, "found herself." It's a story with the best conclusion such a horrible scenario can have, but in many ways worrisome, too. After all, for every Erin Brockovitch or Susan Galbraith there are ten more people who, in such dangerous situations, could get in serious trouble. Susan Galbraith's tenacity and commitment are praiseworthy, the police's negligence appalling and surely all too common. It's going to make a very good Lifetime movie (the only question being: which 90210 alumna has the chops?) but when it's made, please, please run a disclaimer: despite the wisdom of a hundred years' worth of multimedia mysteries and thrillers, amateur sleuthing can be highly hazardous to one's health, and frequently ineffective.

How One Ordinary Woman Solved A Murder [TimesUK]

27-year-old Canadian @Maureen (Evans) has, with her collection of condensed international recipes, become something of a global sensation. I regret to say that certain things about the description of her in today's Times set of my "petty" alarm. To wit,

Though not a trained chef, she is an enthusiastic home cook and traveler, with a close connection to Twitter through her partner, Blaine Cook, who was Twitter's lead architect. They live by the sea in a rented castle; when I reached her by phone the other day, she said she was looking out over the low tide.

We've already mentioned her real job description; she describes the "tiny recipes" as " a coffee-break hobby."

But, pettiness aside, her tweets are rad. Her recipes, described as "Delicious ideas from all over the world" are inventive, ingeniously broken down, and very appealing. The ones yours truly have tried have worked, and the author of the article tests a bunch with no problems. Here's one: "Strudel Pastry: cut 2T butter/1c flour/mash tater. Knead w 2t yeast/2T h2o; rise 1h. On flour cloth gently pull 17x25"; trim-1"/butter well."

She says she likes the challenge of the condensation; the Times reporter likes the challenge of decoding them. Figuring out the recipes takes way longer than reading them, and while this may seem counterintuitive and gimmicky, it demands a level of detective work and basic know-how modern cookbooks, ironically, have rendered obsolete. In this sense, she's really a throwback to the receipt books of an earlier age, which assumed a breadth of knowledge and expertise and so could give only the broadest strokes of an idea. Beyond sites like this, Twitter's a boon for people looking for ideas; you have only to ask what your followers are having for dinner and get a barrage of suggestions and links. It takes some of the loneliness out of menu-planning and cooking. Lots of food bloggers and food diarists have taken advantage of the medium, and on a practical level, plenty of food trucks have started tweeting their whereabouts to hungry customers. When it comes to dieting, tweeting is great, too, as people can keep food diaries and compare notes with others on sites like tweetwhattyoueat.com.

If that's the sublime - and hey, this is Twitter, here - get a load of the ridic, also profiled in today's "Dining In." Basically, Danyelle Freeman, the New York Daily News' critic and a well-known blogger, has had her identity stolen - or so say she and her lawyers. A guy called Adam Robb Rucinsky has adopted her "Restaurant Girl" moniker and parodies Freeman's breezy, dizzy tone on Twitter. This might constitute trademark infringement, but is only really problematic if it moves beyond parody into impersonation. Thing is, it's hard to say: a lot of his writing is uncannily like hers. Weirder still, he adopts her "voice" on a blog devoted to Freeman's work, and on, um, his personal blog. Whether it's legal or not, this has clearly gone beyond idle interest into something quite peculiar.

Has Twitter changed the way we eat? Well, probably not, but certainly how we think about food: our obsessions are out in the open now, for good and bad. Even if you're not sold on a 140-character recipe, you can probably appreciate the back-to-basics streamlining it entails. And that someone's 140-character parodies can be recognized as riffs on 140-character originals? Altogether, this shows that when it comes to food, you can say a terrifying amount in a very few words.

Lawyers Enter Twitter Tempest [NY Times]

Take 1 Recipe, Mince, Reduce, Serve [NY Times]
Twitter for Your Lunch [New York Observer]
Latest Twitter Food Trend, Kogi BBQ [Look And Taste]
Tweet What You Eat [Official Site]

Says New York, "Even with all the cutbacks and trimming down this week, it was hard to find a sorrier spectacle than...the Project Runway show." As every sentient being knows, Project Runway 6 has been bedeviled by lawsuits between the Weinstein Company and NBC Universal and as a result, went into production without a home. Just in case it does get filmed, the show went ahead and had a traditional Fashion Week finale runway show. Except that this time, since no one has, you know, seen the show or met the contestants, it was hard to build up much excitement. The producers made the designers keep a low profile in case of leaks, so they didn't get to so much as introduce their collections: a moment that's probably a career highlight for a lot of the show's contestants. Said Christian Siriano, according to New York, "Oh, it's horrible, it's the worst thing in the world. Because this is the end and it isn't as fun and exciting. I mean, who even knows if their families are here! And that's tough, because we got to have our friends and families."

And the collections? Apparently without any personalities or drama or suspense, it just looked like a bunch of somewhat lackluster fashions in the midst of real designers' shows (although attending celebs were encouraging about aspects), and elicited what WWD describes as "muted enthusiasm from the crowd. "

New York described the collections thusly:

The parade of clothes included two rocker-type collections heavy on black and knitwear, and one collection of the kind of jewel-tone, girlie, draped-silk charmeuse dresses young starlets wear to Target store openings. The final rocker-wear designer showed shades of Alexander Wang with lots of black mixed with intricate knits; the designer also seemed on point with the season, presenting a lot of textured tight pants and leggings.

According to the New York Times, Heidi Klum announced from the runway, "We are all in a bit of a limbo, and we hope that everything is sorted out very soon." Leanne and Jay, at least, were there. And Siriano, despite his sympathy for the faceless designers, saw a silver lining, according to WWD: now mediocre designers couldn't make it through on the basis of personality (cough, Wendy Pepper.) "Every year, there's always a weed or two that manages to make it through Project Runway." Tim Gunn, back in lovable pedagogue mode, was typically encouraging, according to the Times: "We have a smashing, sensational season for you. We can't wait for you to see it." Neither can we, Tim. Neither can we.

Project Runway Show: Strong Collections, Weak Spectacle [New York]
A Down Tempo 'Project Runway' [WWD]
‘Project Runway' Battle Dampens Fashion Week [NY Times]

Here's what On Point says (they have a link to a PDF of the legal papers, by the way): So, Nelson sues Charney. Charney's legal team suggests they decide the case by arbitration to avoid the publicity of a trial. Fine. In fact, though, there was nothing to "arbitrate." Here's what Charney apparently wanted: to secretly settle, then have a pretend arbitration, which would then be "decided" in Charney's favor... and the case dismissed. At which point AA would release a statement (which they'd already written) proclaiming his triumphant exoneration. Basically, AA would pay the woman to shut up and pretend she was a liar so Charney had one less sexual harassment conviction on the record and could get back to the important business of promoting fair labor practices and half-naked teenagers. Or, as the prefab press release put it, “I am pleased that we have been able to bring clarity to the role of the First Amendment in the American workplace."

Here's the agreement Charney and his people allegedly wanted, to quoteOn Point:

According to the settlement agreement, the arbitrator would be chosen only by the defense, would be presented with 'a stipulated record of facts, and would decide that Nelson 'was not subjected to unlawful sexual harassment.' Following the filing of the arbitrator's 'decision,' American Apparel would be allowed to issue the press release.

On Point's information is said to be based on an unpublished decision from California's 2nd District Court of Appeal. And yes, they allegedly rejected Charney's "compromise." As the appeals court put it, “[T]he proposed press release is materially misleading — among other things, no real arbitration of a dispute occurred and plaintiff received $1.3 million in compensation.”

According to the article, Nelson's attorneys were predictably appalled. However, since her lawyers reportedly refused to go along with what they called a "sham arbitration," the AA people are using their non-cooperation with the charade as an excuse not to pay her the settlement. Now they're going to arbitration for reals, we're told.

I'd really like this to not be true. Because, if true, it's further proof — albeit irrefutable, revolting proof —of a sense of self-righteous entitlement that would be really terrifying in the head of America's largest manufacturer. What we already know about him for sure is damning enough! While we're likely to learn more about the case, it should be said that a lot of this squares with Charney's sense of grievance against the "selfish" women who are willing to compromise his important work for the sake of their dignity. Even were one prepared to regard the plaintiffs with a cynical eye, there would be no justifying what amounts to fraud, and at best a shocking attempt at public manipulation. Stay posted.

Fashion Mogul "Fakes" Arbitration In Harassment Case [On Point News]

Earlier: Everything You Didn't Know About Dov Charney And Weren't Afraid To Ask
American Apparel's Dov Charney Explains It All For You On SNL
American Apparel CEO Orders Subordinate To Pleasure Herself; She Services Him With A Lawsuit