To recap Hirshman to date: Back in April, she wrote that focusing on the abusers isn't nearly good enough: we had to start embarrassing the victims.

Shouldn't we be focusing on the abusers? Well, not exactly. Old-style feminism would say "the personal is the political," as long-time columnist Katha Pollitt put it in her own tale of personal sexual betrayal, Learning To Drive: And Other Life Stories. A social movement that passed political judgment on a subject as intimate as domestic violence may be tough on the victim, but, as Pollitt concluded, "at least it offered a perspective."

According to Hirshman, it was feminists' duty to ask individual victims how it is they could be so stupid and anti-feminist so as to stay with an abuser, all but ignoring the well-documented psychological effects of abusive relationships.

When called out on on that steaming pile of victim-shaming bullshit that in no way actually helps women leave abusers, Hirshman got all defensive.

I implied that women are natural victims, and I was just using battered women as a battering ram against "choice" feminism. If there's one take-away message in my piece, it's that women are not natural victims. Which means there must be a way to reduce or arrest battering. Silent sheltering and waiting isn't enough-that leaves between 600,000 and 2,000,000 women battered right now.

Now, no feminist — choice or otherwise — would call women "natural" victims. What we can and have pointed out is that there is a vast body of research into how some women do become victims and what methods are useful for helping them exit abusive relationships and, moreover, that the blame for the abuse should fall squarely upon the abuser and not his victim. We also suggested that stopping abuse means providing means for women to exit relationships and better means of detection, prosecution and education for men about abuse. We just disagree that shaming women who are being abused is in any way, shape or form helpful to the end goal of helping women exit abusive relationships, what with one of the major causes of abused women's isolation being the shame they feel for either bringing the abuse upon themselves or being unable emotionally to leave.

Obviously, Hirshman still isn't keen to hear that part of any explanation. Her apparent takeaway from the discussion is that "choice" feminists believe women choose of their own volition to stay in abusive relationships and we should support them in their decisions. And so she's so very surprised that us "choice" feminists aren't attacking President Obama for his NAACP speech in which he encouraged African-American men and women to raise their children to work hard and do well in school, rather than succumbing to circumstances that might make them believe they can't succeed. (It's a little like Hirshman forgot Obama's speech on the same topic last June, actually).

In fact, because so little has been written by particularly white, feminist commentators (who, I don't know, might not feel quite right criticizing a speech by the first African-American President to African-Americans about raising African-American children for some odd reason), Hirshman thinks Obama's getting a pass in a way she wasn't.

Are women different from African-Americans when it comes to writing their own destiny, as the president powerfully expressed it? Apparently.

In other words, Obama suggesting to African-American parents that they encourage their children to dream of being scientists is exactly the same as suggesting that feminists try to shame women out of abusive relationships by telling them that it's their fault (and a betrayal of feminism) for staying.

It is difficult to imagine the same writers suggesting that President Obama is interfering with the freedom of choice of black parents when he tells them to prepare their children to be scientists rather than rappers.

If anything, the argument for leaving an abuser should be an easier one to make, no? But a few months ago, after reviewing Leslie Morgan Steiner's memoir of her four years as a victim of domestic abuse, I took a pounding for asking: Why didn't she leave?

Now, again, not a single feminist who disagreed with Hirshman argued that women should stay with abusers because it's their "choice" or that feminists shouldn't do what they can to reduce domestic violence, punish abusers and engage in productive measures to help women leave abusive situations. What we all collectively argued is that just asking women why they stayed or didn't leave is asking a woman suffering from psychological trauma to explain or justify themselves isn't fucking helpful to the end goal of enabling them to leave. But, obviously, Linda Hirshman knows better than silly "research" and we're all just obsessed with "choice."

Hirshman, though, has an explanation for her behavior.

[Her question was] Maybe not accusatory, but yes, the question is and was intended to be judgmental.

In other words, Linda Hirshman feels entitled to sit in judgment of victims of domestic violence. She wants to judge victims of domestic violence — in the same way that she judges sexual assault victims — because, like many people, she thinks herself immune. Like most people who've never been the victim of a crime — particularly a violent crime — she believes the world is a rational ordered place where if you just do the "right" thing, nothing bad will happen to you. Linda Hirshman lives in a fantasy world in which just being a good enough feminist protects you from domestic violence, or infidelity or sexual assault, because women aren't "natural victims." The problem is that crime isn't natural — no one is a "natural" victim.

Hirshman ends her piece with an appeal to the school of feminism that has declared the personal, political.

True, some of the oppression of women is imposed in private, emotional relationships, as opposed to on a bridge in Selma, Ala. or at a lousy crumbling inner-city school. But such manipulative emotional relationships do involve political oppression, just like the political oppression that produces those awful schools and the lack of job prospects upon graduation. That's what the old feminist insight "the personal is the political" was intended to illuminate.

Ah, let's do get back to the oppression Olympics! Jim Crow laws are just like individual cases of domestic violence! It's good to know that Hirshman can so reliably drive that wedge down in between white feminists and womanists of color again. And, again: how does what Hirshman is saying actually help individual victims of domestic violence? That the personal (for instance: rape, domestic violence, wage discrimination or freedom of sexual expression) is political is not an anathema to so-called "choice" feminism; the idea that the political should inevitably trump the expression of the personal, including the ability to use empathy and other, non-political tools to help enable women to exit abusive relationships, is.

In science Linda Hirshman probably should — but likely won't — look at, social scientists Jennifer Hardesty and Lyndal Khaw at the University of Illinois have identified the 5 discrete stages women go through when trying to distance themselves from an abusive relationship. Why is that important?

"Leaving a relationship is much more complex than just deciding to change, and it involves more than a woman's prioritizing her safety. Other actors are involved. The abuser makes decisions that affect a woman's movement through the stages. And children can be a powerful influence in motivating a woman to get out of a relationship and in pulling her back in," Hardesty said.

In other words, it's not just telling someone they need to get out: quite often, they know, but there are also reasons they see to stay. She adds:

"Discouraged friends and family members have to learn to view leaving as a process and realize that there's little they can say to speed it along. It's important for them to reinforce the risks the woman is facing by asking such questions as 'Has he become more abusive? Does he have a gun?'

"When talking to an abused friend or family member, you should always emphasize safety, but for your own sanity, you should realize that leaving is a process and she has to work her way through it herself," she said.

In other words: asking "Why don't you just leave?" does nothing to contribute to the process of emotional and physical disentanglement that a woman has to go through in order to get out, including finding shelter and the financial wherewithal to leave as she is emotionally disengaging. "Tough love" doesn't help most women who find themselves in abusive relationships, as personally and politically satisfying as Linda Hirshman might find it to dish out.

Talking Tough Love [double x]
Crazy Love, Crazy Choices [Slate]
Sheltering Women: Linda Hirshman Responds to Hilzoy [Slate]
For Abused Women, Leaving Is A Complex And Confusing Process [EurekAlert]

Related: Obama's Father's Day Speech Urges Black Fathers To Be More Engaged In Raising Their Children [Huffington Post]

Earlier: Writer Implies We Can Collectively Guilt Rihanna Into Leaving Chris
Former Victim Counselor Takes On Assumptions That Leaving Abusers Is Easy
Linda Hirshman Won't Let Domestic Abuse Victims Off The Hook
Who You Calling A Bad Feminist?

[In case you're wondering, the image of Linda Hirshman in a crown is her own head shot at double x]

On Sunday, the Guardian Observer published a feature story titled "Sex, drink and fashion. Is this the new face of American feminism?" (Sounds like a gem of an idea for an Onion story.) In it, writers Amelia Hill and Eva Wiseman recount a supposed online "war" between this site – which will celebrate its 2-year anniversary this Thursday – and Double X, an offshoot of Slate that launched a week ago with an array of impressive essays on modern feminism.. and a handful of badly-received ones, including one by professional tantrum thrower Linda Hirshman, who accused Jezebel of harming the young women of America.

If Hirshman's piece sounds absurd, it's because it IS absurd. In fact I laughed it off when it went up online, not only because it's patronizing to our readers, but its author made it embarrassingly clear that she was completely unfamiliar with our work and very bad at both basic facts and common decency when arguing her point. (Hirshman's screed contained an attack against two of this site's editors - current and former - and the decisions they made not to report their respective rapes; she may or may not hold a grudge against one or more of these editors.)

But back to the Observer piece. In addition to a misleading, accusatory, reductive and sensationalist headline, it, just like Ms. Hirshman's piece, spent numerous column inches misrepresenting our website, its staff, and a now-notorious, long-over public appearance by two of its writers. It, just like Hirshman's piece, was at best willfully ignorant, and at worst, deliberately nasty, except that the Observer attempted to assume an air of journalistic respectability with actual "reporting", i.e. the inclusion of a few more "traditional feminist" voices, including that of Briton Julie Bindel, who, after unilaterally revoking this site's feminist club card, went on to accuse us of being "lazy, bone-idle women who have no interest taking part in a political movement for change but are trying to get credibility for their selfish lives by playing identification politics."

Yeah, fuck you too, lady.

Which brings me to this: The F Word. It seems to me that all this manufactured brouhaha can be blamed on the fact that a few people have VERY specific opinions as to who can or cannot call herself a feminist. (I used to believe that the reluctance of young women to call themselves feminists could find its roots within the culture wars of the Reagan era; now, I'm not so sure. Perhaps Ms. Bindel's suggestion, "dickhead," is an unintentionally inspired alternative?)

And let's be clear: this this brouhaha WAS manufactured. Last Thursday, an Observer writer, apparently unaware of this site's clearly-visible masthead, contacted a few of Jezebel's junior staffers requesting an interview; after the query was forwarded to me, I called her, chatted briefly, and agreed to answer some of her questions via email. (Apparently, none of these answers – my electronic back and forth with her can be seen here - warranted inclusion in her piece; another blogger had the misfortune of being misquoted, the second in as many days.) The writer suggested that she was interested in feminism and young feminists, but, as mentioned above, the piece ended up hyping a supposed "online war" that simply does not exist. (Don't women have to grapple with enough manufactured rivalries - for jobs, for the attentions of men - as it is?) If the Observer was actually interested in the sturm und drang between "traditional feminists" and other "young bloggers" - and I'm not convinced there really is any - why didn't their piece focus on the proprietors and activists behind any one of the dozens of well-written, carefully-curated, provocative feminist blogs? If they were interested in the debut of a new, high-profile, female-focused website, why didn't they write about that?

The former question could be asked of a few other people who purport to care about young women and the state of feminism today, including Ms. Hirshman and a certain Noted Comedy Show Creator. Unfortunately, the answer to that question seems to be that, for whatever reason - laziness, insecurity, need for attention - there is less interest in actually parsing the work of young feminists and more interest in stupid shit that fits a headline-worthy, time-honored, ultimately dishonest narrative: That women who drink alcohol, have sex, and talk or joke about it occasionally are committing Crimes Against Womanity. (It's no coincidence that within these critics' protestations and related stories there are a few - but very telling - factual inaccuracies and gross generalizations that underscore their utter ignorance of this site, its editors, its readers, and feminism in general. Naomi Wolf is the "newest strain" of feminism? The Spice Girls are on par with Buffy the Vampire Slayer?) Fuck the patriarchy: With all this slut-shaming and victim-blaming, maybe it's fuck the matriarchy.

If I'm starting to sound pissed, it's because I'm starting to GET pissed. These adventures in unhelpful, self-righteous semi-hysteria (yes, I went there) completely overlook the dozens of thoughtful, passionate, courageous and engaging women on self-described feminist blogs who actually deserve to be featured in fancy Sunday newspaper editions and on the pages of ambitious new websites, women who are grappling with and debating issues of a whole host of issues, including the wage gap, women of color, the ongoing epidemic of violence against women, the continued attacks on abortion rights…I could go on. I suggest people begin paying more attention to THEM - they can start by looking at the blogrolls on these well-regarded websites - because there are only so many times a person can cry wolf before everyone else stops paying attention.

[Image via AllPosters.]

Earlier: • Comic Confrontations: Judge Judy Vs. Michele Bachmann
Comic Confrontations: Judge Judy Vs. Perez Hilton
•Comic Confrontations: Judge Judy Vs. The Real Housewives Of New York
•Comic Confrontations: Judge Judy Vs. Kathy Griffin
•Comic Confrontations: Judge Judy Vs. Sarah Palin
•Comic Confrontations: Judge Judy Vs. Amy Winehouse
•Conceptual Confrontations: Judge Judy Vs. Latarian Milton
•Comic Confrontations: Judge Judy Vs. Crazy Hillary Supporters

She's responding to Hirshman's assertion that feminists need to question individual victims on why they don't leave. Hilzoy — a former shelter volunteer and staffer — says:

A lot of women are afraid that their abuser would try to harm them if they leave. And with good reason: about a third of female homicide victims were killed by a spouse, lover, or ex-lover; and that's not counting the women who are "merely" beaten, stalked, and so forth. Staying in a case like this, at least until you had figured out how to leave safely and cover your tracks, is not mysterious or perplexing.

You mean, there might actually be situations in which women feel they can't leave? And they might be, at least temporarily right?

Hilzoy also tackles Hirshman's assumption that women who are abused have terrible judgment.

Moreover, while I think the assumption that battered women stay because they are just dumb, or have staggeringly bad judgment, is wrong and insulting, there are a whole lot of battered women, and it would be very surprising if none of them stayed for such reasons. We asked women who came to our shelter when the abuse had started; one woman told me that her husband had thrown her from a moving car on their first date, at which point I wondered silently why on earth there had been a second date, let alone a subsequent marriage. But in my experience such women were a vanishingly small minority.

But then Hilzoy turns to the women Hirshman was really attacking — those who Hirshman thinks ought to know better, and have the means to get away (women like author Leslie Morgan Steiner).

To start with, it helps to know that (last time I checked) the two most common times for violence to start were the honeymoon and the first pregnancy. By the time you reach either point, you're already in a pretty serious relationship, and leaving is not something that anyone would do lightly.

Hirshman suggested in her piece that these women, like Rihanna, ought to be asked, repeatedly, why they wouldn't leave someone who abused them. Hilzoy suggests that one should try seeing it from the perspective of the person abused.

So imagine yourself, in love with someone, on your honeymoon or pregnant, when suddenly this guy just goes ballistic, often for very little reason, and hits you. For a lot of women, this is profoundly shocking and disorienting. There are things that are comprehensible parts of the world, even if they're rare, like having your car stolen; and then there are things that are unexpected in a completely different sense, like having your car turn into an elephant before your eyes: things that make you wonder whether you're completely crazy. Being beaten up by someone who apparently loves you is one of those things.
What this means is that precisely when a woman needs as much confidence in her own judgment as she can muster, the rug is completely pulled out from under her. And it's not just that she questions her judgment because she got involved with this guy in the first place; she questions her judgment because something so completely alien to the world she thinks she knows has just happened.

It is this woman to whom Hirshman suggests that feminists ought to direct their questions — a woman who is likely experiencing a crisis of self-confidence in her own judgment is who Hirshman suggests feminists ought to direct questions about their judgment. Hilzoy puts it this way:

Trusting your judgment at that moment is like trusting your sense of balance when someone has just poured a fifth of vodka down your throat.

Hilzoy then goes on to describe her experience with emotional abuse, and her own crisis of self-confidence and the feelings of guilt for leaving that she struggled with despite not having any legal ties to or children with her abuser, and the ability to end things quickly.

But then there are the women who stay as the violence escalates (as some reports say that it did between Rihanna and Chris Brown).

The longer you stay, the worse it gets. And since, as before, the capacity that is under attack [self confidence in your own judgment] is the very one you need in order to get out, this makes it harder and harder to leave. And, of course, the longer you stay, the dumber you feel about staying.

Which is exactly why then further questioning the judgment of someone who stays feeds into the cycle, rather than breaking it.

There are, of course, the other hallmarks of abusers: their ways of isolating their victims and undermining the support systems that might otherwise help them get out, the Jekyll and Hyde aspects most victims describe, the apologies, the charm they employ. All of which is to say to people like Hirshman - who think that many feminists are just coddling domestic abuse victims - that, like most things in life, leaving isn't so easy. And finger-pointing isn't exactly helping.

Why Do They Stay? [Obsidian Wings]

Earlier: Writer Implies We Can Collectively Guilt Rihanna Into Leaving Chris

Hirshman writes:

The bulk of the stimulus program will provide jobs for men, because building projects generate jobs in construction, where women make up only 9 percent of the work force.

It turns out that green jobs are almost entirely male as well, especially in the alternative energy area. A broad study by the United States Conference of Mayors found that half the projected new jobs in any green area are in engineering, a field that is only 12 percent female, or in the heavily male professions of law and consulting; the rest are in such traditional male areas as manufacturing, agriculture and forestry. And like companies that build roads, alternative energy firms also employ construction workers and engineers.

This, on its face, is relatively true, though it could certainly be argued that expanding job growth and opportunity in these areas, particularly in the long term, would encourage more women to enter into the field, etc. It is, nonetheless, a fair criticism of what the stimulus package — as written — would do.

Here's where Hirshman ruins her entire argument — an argument, notably, that has been made by others before her.

But today, women constitute about 46 percent of the labor force. And as the current downturn has worsened, their traditionally lower unemployment rate has actually risen just as fast as men’s. A just economic stimulus plan must include jobs in fields like social work and teaching, where large numbers of women work.

Yeah, see, um, that part? It's not true.

Megan McArdle of The Atlantic, Daniel Drezner and The Economist all point to a story in last week's Boston Globe that shows the exact opposite to be true. There is a net job loss among men in this country to the tune of more than 1,000,000 male jobs — and women have added a net 12,000 jobs, even in this economy.

Men are losing jobs at far greater rates than women as the industries they dominate, such as manufacturing, construction, and investment services, are hardest hit by the downturn. Some 1.1 million fewer men are working in the United States than there were a year ago, according to the Labor Department. By contrast, 12,000 more women are working.

This gender gap is the product of both the nature of the current recession and the long-term shift in the US economy from making goods, traditionally the province of men, to providing services, in which women play much larger roles, economists said. For example, men account for 70 percent of workers in manufacturing, which shed more than 500,000 jobs over the past year. Healthcare, in which nearly 80 percent of the workers are women, added more than 400,000 jobs.

Heck, The Economist even points out that, given the expected layoffs in the auto industry, the gender gap in the downtown is likely to be even more pronounced — and more in favor of women. Drezner even adds that if you look at the percentage of unemployment among men and women before the start of the recession in September 2007 and as of last month, Hirshman's still wrong.

Monthly data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that Hirshman’s assumpton is a flat-out falsehood. Immediately prior to the start of the recession (November 2007), the unemployment rate for men was 4.7%; the rate for women was 4.6%. As of November 2008, the unemployment rate for men has increased to 7.2%, while the unemployment rate for women has only risen to 6%.

Look, is there a rationale for arguing that the stimulus ought to include more jobs in traditionally female sectors of the economy? Sure, though I don't see where teachers and social workers come into it (or where they have faced layoffs, other than in a few libraries that Hirshman cites). Why not in the health care sector? In, um, media (or is that too self-interested)? Many of the women I worked with when I worked in banking doing backroom transactional work have probably been laid off as a result of the financial and housing crisis. Of course, one might also easily note that many of these groups of workers (and women) would be helped as part of Obama's other spending priorities and stimulus plans — and Hirshman does, but just dismisses it as not good enough.

The problem is, as again The Economist notes, that the stimulus is intended to provide assistance to the fields that are facing layoffs, cutbacks and hard financial times that are not otherwise affected by other legislation (like the financial bail-out). In most cases, these are male-dominated industries. But choosing to ignore both the facts of the gender gap in unemployment today and arguing that the stimulus needs to include more female-dominated sectors (like teaching) that are actually not nearly as affected as the male-dominated industries, Hirshman isn't arguing for parity or making a case for gains by women. She's arguing that we use the economic crisis to reduce the gender gap in wages and employment in this country by using limited resources to help women, possibly at the expense of men. By being, you know, wrong on so much, she negates the impact of the few things on which she might have arguably have been right.

Where Are The New Jobs For Women? [NY Times]
Women's Work [Megan McArdle]
Clearly Linda Hirshman Doesn't Read This Blog. What A Sexist. [Daniel Drezner]
Which Gender Needs More Stimulating [The Economist]
Losing Jobs In Unequal Numbers [Boston Globe]

Related: Looking to the Future, Feminism Has to Focus [Washington Post]
The Feminine Mistake [Washington Post]

Earlier: What You Get When You Pick On "Old School" Feminists' "Bedside Manner"

First of all, the country has made a sharp right turn since those halcyon hippied-out days of the late 60s and early 70s, when people were more sympathetic towards women who sought abortions. Already, Hirshman notes, "Four states — Louisiana, Missisippi, North and South Dakota — [have] trigger laws explicitly aimed at making abortion criminal upon Roe' s demise, and seven others that have committed to acting to the extent that the court may allow."

But it gets worse. Not only are these "trigger laws" much more stringent than the pre-Roe anti-abortion laws, but there is evidence that states will prosecute women for crossing state lines to get abortions. "Missouri already allows civil litigation against anyone who helps a minor cross state lines to get an abortion without parental consent. Congress was well along to passing a law making it criminal to take a minor from a state requiring parental consent when the Democrats won in 2006 and stopped it," Hirshman explains.

How would they prove that women had abortions when they took that joyriding trip into Illinois, Hirshman asks? Well the border regions of ultra conservative states could turn into a modern day West Germany, as in the 80s, when abortion was severely limited, "The guards would stop young women and ask them about drugs, then look for evidence of abortion, such as sanitary pads or nightgowns, in their cars, and eventually force them to undergo a medical examination — as West German law empowered them to do."

Obviously, that's a worst case scenario, and not the immediate chain reaction that will commence if McCain and that anti-abortion avenger Palin are elected. But the article is a stark reminder that we should not take our reproductive choices for granted. If the recent memo from the Department of Health and Human Services allowing health care workers to practice their consciences when it comes to reproductive medicine is any indication, if there is another Republican White House, the battle for choice will continue.

If Roe Goes, Our State Will Be Worse Than You Think [Washington Post]

Earlier: Roe Vs. World

The WaPo is reporting that, as Governor of Alaska, Palin slashed funding for a program that benefited teen moms.According to the WaPo, "Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million. Covenant House is a mix of programs and shelters for troubled youths, including Passage House, which is a transitional home for teenage mothers…[where, according to Passage House's website] 'young mothers a place to live with their babies for up to eighteen months while they gain the necessary skills and resources to change their lives.'"

And since we're all on board with not prying into the circumstance of Bristol as an individual, let's take a look at the fate that lies ahead for most other teen mothers, shall we? Linda Hirshman, writing on Slate's XX Factor blog, runs through what the average American teen mom experiences, and honestly, it's bleak. "Even controlling for social and economic backgrounds, only 40 percent of teenage girls who bear children before age 18 go on to graduate from high school, compared with the 75 percent of teens who do not give birth until ages 20 or 21" Hirshman notes. "Overall, teenage mothers—and their children—are also far more likely to live in poverty than females who don't give birth until after age 20. Two-thirds of the families begun by a young unmarried mother are poor. These families are more likely to be on welfare and to require publicly provided health care." And we know what Palin thinks about publicly provided health care: She thinks it shouldn't exist!

Even Seventeen editor Ann Shoket has something to say about Bristol's pregnancy and what it means for the American teen. "No matter how you feel about her politics, Sarah Palin is a shining example of the potential and power of women," Shoket notes in the Huffington Post today. "And in one hot moment with her boyfriend, her daughter gave away her power to make the decisions about how she wanted her future to play out."

Pretty harsh words coming from the editor of a usually soft and fluffy teen mag. And here's the thing. Individually, Bristol Palin will be fine. But despite what her mother's campaign would have you believe, the Palins are not regular folk. They are a gubernatorial family with the resources and the connections to help support a teen pregnancy. Obviously, a teen pregnancy is not the end of the world, nor is it anything to be ashamed of. However, it is something that should be prevented as much as possible, and considering Palin's stance on abortion, it seems she's only concerned about the individual pregnancy of her daughter and not the pregnancies of our nation's daughters. Linda Hirshman says it better than I can: "For the millions of women each year who do not want to make that choice, and for the parents who do not want that fate for their daughters, the cruelty of the Republican position on abortion rights is now graphically laid bare."

UPDATE: Despite some Republicans' request for privacy with regards to Bristol, the Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates points out that many conservatives are already using this unborn child like "a political football." Coates quotes the following passage from the WSJ to illustrate his point: "Gov. Palin and her husband 'have embraced the grandchild about to be born,' Gary Bauer, a social conservative activist and onetime presidential candidate, told the Texas delegation. 'They already are teaching America a lesson about the sanctity of life,' he added, as the delegates jumped to their feet in applause.'"

The Candidate's Daughter Could Use Our Sympathy And A Lot More Privacy [Washington Post]
Palin Slashed Funding for Teen Moms [Washington Post]
Do As We Do [Slate]
What Was Bristol's Plan A? [Huffington Post]
And Now Back To Your Regularly Scheduled Program [The Atlantic]

Related: The Numbers on Teen Pregnancy [Freakonomcs/NYT]

• The Republican National Committee has finally released its speaker line-up for the convention, which McCain spokesman Rick Davis says is designed "to showcase the 'diversity' of the Republican Party." [HuffPo]
• Which is why the line-up is 75% male and 86% white. "Diversity." [Washington Post]
• John McCain's doesn't question Obama's patriotism, just his judgment, so Obama should just shut up and accept that we need to keep on keeping on with the war in Iraq. [Politico]
• Which is why McCain would be cool with having a draft again, since once we're done in Iraq we'll still have Osama bin Laden to chase down and we won't have enough troops for that. [ThinkProgress]

• Rush Limbaugh is just dying for Obama to pick Biden because Biden says stupid crap. And Rush Limbaugh knows all about saying stupid crap. [Time]
• Like this gem: "it is striking how unqualified Obama is and, and how this whole thing came about with, within the Democrat Party. I think it really goes back to the fact that nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy." [Media Matters]
• Moe's intellectual nemesis, if you want to call Linda Hirshman an intellectual, agrees with Rush Limbaugh that Obama's critics were silenced too early and she agrees with John McCain that Obama is the new Paris Hilton. Guess we know who's decided our reproductive rights are less important than her ability to say "I told you so." [Washington Post, Washington Post, Huffington Post]

Most American women, you see, are not professors, lawyers, doctors, or even bloggers (I know, you're shocked). Many are cubicle dwellers, spending their 9-5 hours toiling under bad lighting in stale air. "When it came to interactions with different partners, the women ranked interactions with their children as more enjoyable than those with clients/customers, coworkers, and bosses," Loh reports.

Have middle class and lower class women really been the beneficiaries of what Loh called the "extended whine of a privileged, educated upper class?" In some ways, yes, but in many ways, no. I don't really buy Hirshman's trickle down feminism; I don't think that if all of those Harvard Business School grads stayed at Goldman Sachs, life would get any better for the average working woman. Loh writes, "While the economy benefits, for working-class families with young children, so much of a second income is eaten up by child care and taxes and other costs." These women are just as trapped in some ways as the unhappy housewives of Friedan's era.

Earlier this month, Hirshman wrote an essay against "intersectionality" in the feminist movement, which Moe rebutted. Moe used the example of the upwelling of support from Jezebels for those felled by honor killings in Iraq. While of course there are more glaring incidents of violence against women outside the United States, we can't forget that there is still feminist work to be done within our country. And the work isn't going to be done through hundreds of articles written by upper class, educated, white feminists attacking each others' choices in an endless elite media circle jerk (the words "women" and "opt-out" appear in over 6,000 NYT articles). Loh's article is called "I Choose My Choice," and perhaps more writers need to acknowledge that a very, very small percentage of working women in the United States have anything close to a choice in the first place.

I Choose My Choice! [The Atlantic]
Looking To The Future, Feminism Has To Focus [Washington Post]
The Feminine Mistake [Washington Post]

Like rampant fiscal irresponsibility to the greenback! Which leads me to a stupid but maybe-accurate metaphor that brings into account Maria Bartriomo's opinions on tax policy. Maria Bartiromo argues that people who make $200,000 shouldn't be necessarily described as "rich." This is because she lives in New York, but also because she must abide by the paradox that dictates that successful females invest not only colossal sums of money but roughly two hours extra daily simply to avoid the appearance of being "devalued." Of course, that investment, which is not optional, carries with it not only tremendous opportunity cost, which is devaluing in its own way, but the additional degradation of scrutiny and/or mockery re the process itself (Callan's heels, Bartiromo's Botox) and the additional nuisances of the Boy's Club, sexual harassment etc. It almost makes you want to just have kids and freelance and endure the contempt of people like Linda Hirshman, which is all fine and good, but after all that you're still stuck getting your period. So basically you're screwed either way and no wonder we are all programmed to be somewhat lesbian.

Callan, Gregory Out At Lehman [WSJ]
Becky Quick Teaches You How To "Dress Like A Financier" [Dealbreaker]

The Feminine Mistake [Wash Post]

The Journal breaks pregnant women's rights down thusly: Employers can fire, lay off and refuse to hire knocked up ladies, but they have to provide ample proof that they held men to the same standards. They also have to provide maternity leave, as they would provide leave for any other medical issue, but in 48 of the 50 states, that leave doesn't have to be paid (readers in California and Washington State, you're the lucky ones).

And then, many women have to deal with blowhard employers like Sir Alan Sugar, the CEO-star of the British version of the Apprentice, who told the Times of London that, "Companies have no divine duty to help with childcare. Companies employ people. It's the Government's responsibility to provide childcare. You pay a person a salary and they cut their cloth accordingly." Sugar also added that female bosses are more likely to discriminate against female employees, because they are "more ruthless than men. They are more conscious of not employing other women because they feel they're not going to get the value of work out of them."

In Linda Hirshman's infamous American Prospect article about the "opt-out revolution," she suggests that if women want real equality, they must major in (mostly non-liberal arts) subjects that prepare them for the job market , make money, as money is "the marker of success in a market economy," and marry a man with bleak economic prospects, as he will be more likely to stay home with the babies. It's not that I don't agree with Hirshman — I think she's pretty much on the money — but I personally don't want to do any of those things, even though I acknowledge that I'm not helping feminism by being an English major who works in a low-rent field. Many self-proclaimed feminists feel the same way, so would it be more useful to organize and change the pregnancy laws instead of berating ourselves for making the choices that Silda, and so many of the rest of us, might one day make?

Why Stand By? [New York Magazine]
More Women Pursue Claims Of Pregnancy Discrimination [WSJ]
Women Bosses Are More Likely To Discriminate Against Mothers, Says Sir Alan Sugar [Times of London]