Miriam Forman-Brunell's Babysitter: An American History, takes on the trope of the teen sitter. As opposed to the more obviously fraught dynamic of nanny and mom (as examined in Tasha Blaine's Just Like Family and by the estimable Dodai), a babysitter's role is more marginal. Usually a social equal, generally a teen girl, the bebysitter is a transient figure, less a servant than the object of fantasy, idolization, and, in the world of John Cheever, sexual intrigue.

Babysitting's also an important trope in the teen girl world: it's often the first job a girl has, and, as embodied by The Babysitter's Club, an important way for girls to achieve financial independence and life skills, and an introduction into "teen" existence. As an interview in the New Yorker with the author tells us, the practice started in the 1920s, and has been going strong since.

Whereas nannies are characterized by their accountability - the tyranny of references and the omnipresence of moms - babysitters have always occupied a weird place: they're generally unqualified, but given a lot of responsibility. And, in the popular imagination, hijinx ensue. From the brats of Beverly Cleary's Fifteen to the adventures In Babysitting or the misadventures of Honey I Blew Up the Baby a stint with the sitter is less a part of the world than an opportunity to step outside of the norm, whether this means, for kids, entering a teenage world (Dar Williams-style) or, for the sitter, raiding the fridge and sneaking in a boyfriend.

The reality, of course, is usually a lot more boring: make the mac and cheese, get the teeth brushed, watch TV for a few hours, get $40. So why is the babysitter an "ambivalent" figure in pop culture? Says Forman-Brunell,

Teen-age girls have been contesting traditional gender ideals in highly visible ways since the nineteen-twenties. The babysitter has conveniently served as a lightning rod for adults' uncertainties about what the limits of girls' autonomy and empowerment should be. These uncertainties have played out in the media: for instance, unease about the influence of feminism, the sexual revolution, and the counter culture on girls' behavior in the nineteen-sixties led to depictions of delirious babysitters who endangered children and slutty sitters who destabilized marriages in soft-core-porn novels. In the nineteen-seventies, maniacs in horror movies like "Halloween" and "When a Stranger Calls" sought vengeance on teen-age girls unwilling to curb their pursuit of personal independence. In the eighties, it was the babysitters themselves who turned murderous in made-for-TV movies, a fantasy created, perhaps, in response to girls' uninterrupted determination to achieve authority and self-sufficiency.

The author also notes that, in the early days, male babysitters were actually considered more desirable: dependable and level-headed, as opposed to flighty girls. Whereas nowadays, where a boy might be considered a desirable mentor to a wild male child, most parents are going to turn to a female neighbor as a safer choice. Does this indicate a shift in our attitudes towards young women, or merely a calcification of gender roles? Maybe both. And maybe also something less palatable. Nowadays, it seems like oftentimes the moms who employ a neighbor as a sitter is eager for a responsible older girl's influence on her daughters - as opposed to the quotidian care of a nanny, who presumably doesn't have the same wisdom to impart. I know as a teen nerd, I was in high demand in my neighborhood as a "good influence" - and the fact that I was always free on a Saturday night didn't hurt, either. I get that, especially in a world rife with questionable influences. But the contrast between the babysitter and the actual employees - even when some people tossed the terms around with optimistic interchangeability - sometimes felt weird. Says the author, The ultimate evidence of sitters' dissatisfaction over the past century has been the frequency with which girls faced with other options turned their backs on babysitting." But maybe the fact that there will always be some who do it is even more telling.

Ask an Academic: Babysitters as Bad Girls [New Yorker]
Related: Nannies: Friends, Family, Or Employees?

I was picking up a 10-year-old girl — for whom I'd been babysitting for a while — from school, but I'd forgotten my wallet. Her school — and her home — were in my neighborhood, so when she came bounding out of the school, I told her that instead of going straight to her house we were going to stop at my place first. She'd never been to my house, but she said, "sure," but then asked: "Is it one of those buildings where people are hanging out of the windows going 'yo yo yo'?" Hmm. I guess this was a valid question, in a way. But it still stung; basically this little white girl wanted to know if I, a black woman, was taking her to the ghetto. I'd taken her to the park, and to piano lessons, and I assumed that she trusted me — and to some extent, she did — but she was also surprised to find out that my mom's building had a marble lobby and a doorman (hers had neither) and that a pal in her class lived on the floor above us. But I think I was hurt because as odd as it seems, I thought we were friends. And you don't ask friends stuff like that. But her question reminded me of my "place."

This memory was triggered by reading about Just Like Family, a new book by Tasha Blaine, which explores the role of nannies, the people paid to become part of a family.

"I've heard nannies say a lot that you have to love the children like they're your own, but at the end of the day you have to know they really aren't. You are like family, but you are an employee," Blaine tells Salon. For the book, Blaine — who has worked briefly as a nanny — interviewed over 100 nannies, and found that that they fall into two camps: The "career" nannies, and the "amateurs."

Blaine focused on three women: Claudia, an immigrant from Dominica who has left a son behind to work in the New York but faces eviction while watching someone else's two small children all day; Vivian, an American-born, college-educated nanny who works with the International Nanny Association; and Kim, a live-in in Texas going through a divorce and forcing herself to accept that she may never have kids of her own.

Of course, in the book, there are the stories about how, though families welcome these women into their homes, line between what is and what is not appropriate is blurred. for example: One day, Claudia tries to figure out if her employer will be working from home the next day so she can plan a schedule for the children, and she "gingerly" goes to his desk and flips through his calendar. As noted in this New York Times piece, "Unspoken, but implied: She can be present for blowout fights, wash their dirty laundry, and help raise their children, but she can't look at a calendar?" Then there's the time Kim is invited to a baby naming event on her day off — and discovers she's expected to set up all the food, carrying heavy platters up flights of stairs, because she is the help. It's like, just when you think you're something more, you're forced to remember you're something less.

But most interesting is the fact that generally, these are working women working for working women. Says Blaine: "They are women who are often navigating the same issues as the women who hired them. There are class and often race differences, to be sure. But Claudia and her boss are both working mothers." As for why people look down on nannies, Blaine offers, "I think it comes right along with our society undervaluing what it takes to raise children."

And, at this point, Blaine doesn't think she would hire a nanny, even if she could afford to: "I don't know if I'd be very good at navigating that relationship. Part of the problem was, having done my book, I would start talking with them and instinctively wind up getting their life stories. So then I would have the guilt. And I would want to be their friend. And I knew that if I thought they were doing something wrong I would probably not bring it up as well as I should. Day care was a better fit for me."

The Secret Lives Of Nannies [Salon]
How Do Nannies Manage? Gingerly [NY Times]

To Jezebel commenter SuperSally, who said to Ms. Bennett:

I may be in the minority, but I'm with Magpiegirl. If you can't take care of your kids without almost round the clock help from multiple individuals then WTF? Either a)you had too many damn kids and didn't bother to think about it as you were popping them out or you are b)incompetent or c)both. And it has nothing to do with the work.stay-at-home war. Lots of moms work and still manage to take care of their kids without a fleet at their beck and call. If Laura couldn't do it, Laura should've thought of that before having them just to have them.

Seriously, we would not even be debating this if it were cats instead of kids. Crazy cat ladies get no pass, why should crazy baby ladies?

Laura now replies:

Experiencing the pain of childbirth does not make me love my children any more, that's why God invented epidurals. Similarly, changing every diaper, cooking every meal, and doing every pickup and dropoff does not make me love them more either. Choosing not to do so hardly makes me incompetent.

And to commenter PureBlarney, who had this to say:

I cry inside every time I wait for the subway next to a child and his/her nanny. I will be raising my kids, thankyouverymuch, even if I have to pull teeth to keep any semblance of a career in tow.

Ms. Bennett's response is:

Awww. You've got to love an idealist willing to perform dental procedures to be with her kids. But would she rather see a totally stressed-out mom pushed to brink of frustration? A dicey thing while standing on the edge of a subway platform.

Yeah, I believe she just said that raising 6 kids without any help in Manhattan makes her homicidal. You have to admire her honesty, because frankly it would do the same to me. Thing is: I don't have 6 kids. I don't even have one. And I thank the FSM, my gynecologist, my IUD, condoms, birth control pills, the potential infertility of anyone I ever slept with, the morning-after pill, Vaginal Contraceptive Film, spermicidal foam and withdrawal (yeah I was young and stupid) for that little fact.

Anyway, Laura Bennett's mom-snark aside, she does have a bit of a point. She and her husband have the wherewithal to provide for their six kids — one of whom is learning-disabled and one of whom is in college — and to give them nannies, orthodontists, music lessons, sports lessons and speech and language therapy.

The problem is, mostly, that she calls the caretakers "girls" and blames that on her Southern upbringing — Laura, honey, honest, you can learn new tricks — and that she doesn't really recognize that most of the things she identifies as "needs" for her children are really unnecessary desires that's she's able to fill because of her privilege.

I could pretend to be some sort of self-aggrandized über-mom who does it all, but the truth is I couldn't possibly get all my kids to places they need to be, well-fed, relatively clean, with homework completed all by myself without going completely postal.

I mean, many families scrape by to afford school clothes, let alone orthodontists, music lessons, speech therapy (even when it's needed), tutors, after-school sports and the like. Her kids don't need to be on opposite sides of Manhattan in the afternoons, nor do they need a manny to supervise their weekend sledding and movie-going. But they have those things because Ms. Bennett can afford to give them those things. And that she doesn't seem to recognize that distinction — that her (probably expensive) nannies are just "girls" and their music lessons are "needs" — is probably a big part of why the commenters (and Jennifer) got a little up in arms.

So, yeah, people say mean things on the Internet and judge the choices that others make — choices, by the way, that Laura Bennett brought up in the first place. I guess a person has to either learn a little humility or cry in her frozen hot chocolate, whatever the fuck that is.

God Bless My Nannies [The Daily Beast]

Earlier: The Greatest Show On Earth

What: A distasteful nanny with a penchant for sunflower seeds and male porn.

Where: Levin Playground in Central Park

When: Today, (Wednesday, October 1, 2008) at about 10:30 AM

Who: A woman of about 30 years of age with dishwasher blonde hair, frumpy, wearing a plaid man's shirt over a blue t-shirt. She removed the plaid shirt, revealing the t-shirt for some part of her time, including a time when she meandered over to the children to check on them and she was bra less; and if ever I have seen a woman more in need of a bra, then it would have to have been when my 83 year old demented, mother-in-law once appeared in my kitchen stark naked, but I digress. This woman was oddly proportioned to say the least. Her legs were rather slim, but her mid section was rather large and her chest was gigantic. So gigantic, that she became a spectacle as she jostled (picture water balloons bustling about under cheap cotton). The woman was shameless. She returned to her seated position to carry on a conversation with a woman of the approximate same age. The other woman had a distinct, Polish accent. The woman with the mammoth chest was wearing Lee blue jeans and tennis shoes with a graffiti design. After being drawn to stare at the woman after watching her walk shamelessly across the playground, I honed on her activities to try and figure out her story. It was pretty evident that she was a nanny. She had a stack of magazines that included a large word search puzzle, an O magazine and some sort of Male men's magazine. I am not sure of the title but I have the distinct impression it was a pornographic magazine intended for homosexual men. I thought it in poor form for her and her friend to giggle and fawn over the pictures during broad daylight on a children's playground. I can't say she was especially a bad nanny. She did check on the children and knew where they were the whole time. On a side note, the entire time she was there, she ate sunflower seeds. It was a pretty disgusting spectacle. She was using a pepsi can as a make shift spittoon.

Levin Playground In Central Park NYC [I Saw Your Nanny]

And in case you felt compelled to write in anonymously to a website to report some possible neglect: none of the nannies pictured is engaged in texting, yelling or inattention — capital crimes in the ISYN universe.

I Saw Your Nanny [Official Site]

Earlier: ISYN Update: Bad Perm And Stroller In Street Spark Frenzy!
I Saw A Crazy: Nanny Policing Goes Off The Rails

"nanny sighting logo About 11:45 A.M. on Monday 8/11/08 Gladwyne, PA. I saw an overweight caucasian female with blond hair and a bad, frizzy perm pushing a dark bluish stroller down Conshohocken State Road towards the Post Office. She was wearing an indescript dark green t-shirt, jeans and white sneakers.

This road is only one lane each way - with no sidewalks. She was pushing the baby going the same way as traffic. Cars and trucks (it's a major thoroughfare) were whipping around them.

I was sick when I saw this. It may as well have been a freeway. It is an extremely dangerous road. There have been many accidents and deaths on it, and it is very twisty as well.The baby had light brownish/blondish hair and looked not more than about a year old. She had on a pink foral shirt, denim clamdigger looking shorts, and soft leather pink shoes. They went into the post office where the woman spent quite alot of time. Baby was very antsy and unhappy. The woman thrust a piece of paper at the baby (in a very exasperated way) to try to distract her. Not even a toy, but a post office pamphlet or something to that effect. As a mother I would never expect for someone to put my child in such a dangerous situation as this. I am assuming this was a nanny as this particular location is extremely wealthy, and she did not have the appearance of a resident."

Comment Digest:

"This post bothered me. Not because of the person pushing the stroller. But the description of this individual. And to automatically asssume it was a nanny because of her appearance. That seems a little stuck up to me. Maybe, shes a struggling mother, who doesn't have a car at her disposal. And she can't help it if theres no sidewalk. Maybe, instead of writing on here, you can call the town up, and mention that you see people walking on the side of this dangerous road. And suggest they put in a sidewalk. Thanks"

And:

"Appearance of resident= stuck up, sexually frustrated, miserable human being. And FYI, darling, while Gladwyne is certainly no ghetto, it is not nearly as nice or 'wealthy' as you think it is."

And:

"when we see people puttiing children in harm's way or neglecting them, we usually see them in the ugliest of lights. that's the truth. deal with it."

And:

"I'm sorry but the author of this post sounds like a stuck up snob. "a bad, frizzy perm" ...well what if she liked her perm that way?! and overweight? I'm sorry that not everyone has the perfect body, and I'm sorry...some overweight frizzy haired people can be wealthy, or maybe she had to walk farther then that "wealthy" neighborhood because maybe that was her own kid and she HAD to walk and didn't really have a choice whether or not she had to be on the road.people driving need to look out for pedestrians no matter what, no matter how curvy the road may be."

I Saw Your Nanny

Earlier: I Saw A Crazy: Nanny Policing Goes Off The Rails

In brief, West Indians make "marvellous surrogate mothers, which is odd because they have such terrifying children themselves" while Australians "are famous in Nannyworld for needing sex about as often as Bentleys need filling up. And in the same quantities," while South Africans are mostly to be avoided for their accents, (Elsewhere in British GQ it's noted that cover girl Charlize Theron has none.) Old liberal Europeans are "expensive and demanding" but will teach your child conversational French and to write letters "demanding the release of Aung San Suu Kyi." while Soviet bloc New European girls "will life happily in a converted broom cupboard and talk wistfully of how they could fit their grandmothers and cousins into the airing cupboard," though they are "seriously predatory when it comes to solvent men with their own cars." Having chosen an ethnic group compatible with your budget, political leanings and number of accumulated delusions of grandeur you intend to project onto your offspring, the more divisive dilemma of pretty vs. ugly takes center stage. "Mothers go for ugly because they just had a baby and they are flabby, grey-faced, lank-haired and tearful," he explains. "On the other hand, who would purposely go and buy a huge piece of hideous furniture to stand in the middle of every room of the house? Having a grim nanny is a constant aesthetic poke in the eye."

At this point, readers, you probably recognize that the point of posting this is simply to say, "See? Seeeeee how the satire-lite thing works, guys? See what they get away with?" Etc. etc. But Gill isn't done!

You may wonder why I'm telling you all this hideous, racist, sexist, 19th century, embarrassingly stupid shit…You wait: having a child, being responsible for children, gives the parent permission to say and do the most appallingly pernicious, unfair, vain and inconsiderate and cruel things. The moral of the nanny conversation is that you have to be a good person before you become a good father. Fatherhood won't turn you into a good person. Quite the reverse, it may make you into a far nastier one.

But hey, if you're a father, chances are you are a bad person, even if you weren't before, which is why family men have an easier time getting laid, because that's how evolution intended it, according to one of those new studies intended to prove to "nice" guys women sleep with dudes like A.A. Gill, when actually the real reason A.A. Gill gets laid is because, you know…it's a joke! There's no way he could possibly be that bad…

Yes, I digress.

British GQ

Bad Guys Really Do Get The Most Girls [New Scientist]

Then the comments begin. I have done the dirty work and waded through hundreds of comments to bring you the annotated "Best Of." (That said, if you have a few free hours, read the whole exchange. You won't be sorry.)]

Angry Mom: If there is not a crackdown there needs to be. I am so tired of going to the beach, the playground or wherever and seeing people who have their children swimming and playing nude. Aside from pedophiles, what are you teaching your children about respecting their bodies??

Defiant Mom: I get the whole pedophile angle and keeping your kid dressed but respecting your body? What sort of uptight repressed Victorian crap i
s that?

Angry Mom: Sorry, I don't think that teaching children to respect their bodies by keeping their privates PRIVATE is uptight at all. Sure, my kids enjoy a naked romp IN the house now and again, and I walk around topless IN the house regularly. But, when in public I feel they should be covered. A child under maybe 2 years old could be changed outside, no problem, but any older needs to use a restroom with privacy.

Random Mom: Seriously?

What is wrong with you people? I am in the NYC area and I have not heard of a crackdown. True, nanny could be sparing a not so bright mama's feeling, but also it could be that nanny was lazy. Changing a child's cloths requires effort. The most effort I have seen a nanny display was wrangling the wrapper of a Mr. Goodbar in the 95 degree heat. She used her car keys, teeth and eventually, just her tongue. Oh I wish I had that photo!

Crazy Mom: No one wants to see their vagina's and penises hanging out.

Self-righteous Mom: To mom who is so grossed out by the penis or vagina of a 2 year old? Get your mind out of the slimy filthy gutter.

Wry Mom:

THE SKY IS FALLING

THE SKY IS FALLING

THERE ARE PEDOPHILES WITH HIGH POWERED LENSES AND ERECT PENISES!

They are children. People have been having them for eons.

Get over yourselves.

Batshit Crazy Mom:Undercover regular..you ares oooo wrong..I have watched you and so many of your "Liberal,regular,fellow posters" for years now and I have got to tthank you all for getting us where we are today.

You all jump down my throat every time I post..I never see things the way you do and let me just tell you..we do have a choice..but thanks to %&44##@@ voters like yourselves..instead of taking care of things and keeping our families safe..you all do your liberal magic and these damn pedophile's..discusting shits that they are get out after rehabillitation..and over 60% of them violte again!!

How do you vote MMP, mom, Cali Mom, UNdercover regular, manhattan mama,sprak??

Tha bastards,if found guilty beyond a doubt should be hung..and then perhaps we would be able to take our children to the park, school or beach without worrying so much!!

Your posts anger me to NO end..you are all the same PC jerks who have caused this problem!!

And don't for one second try to play it off like you beleive in the death penalty ..you are the ones who vote to set these freaks free!!

Your posts over the last few years give you away!!

you are all anti spanking anti death penalty, pro ilegal alien, pro positive reinforcement PC dummies who have made our sick worl what is is today!!!

Kill the pedophiles and rapists,
close the borders
spank your child and get this country back in order!!

or stop bitching ..afterall you are the ones allowing them on the very streets your children play on!

…and I'm out.

Nudity Crackdown [I Saw Your Nanny]

• In her new memoir, Auditions, Baba Wawa gives the dirt on Star Jones' and Rosie O'Donnell's departures from the View; On Rosie: "The premise of 'The View' is that of a team working together, but for Rosie it was more like Diana Ross and the Supremes, as little by little she took over." [NYDN]
  
• The problem with Miss Jones was not just her diva behavior (though Walters et. al. were embarrassed about her fiasco of a wedding to Big Gay Al) it was that Star made her View-mates lie about her gastric bypass. Walters writes: "Joy [Behar], in particular, resented having to go along with a lie that implied all one needed to do was situps and ingest one cookie instead of two."[NYDN]
  
• The septuagenarian Babs is so scandalous! She also talks about her adulterous affair with Massachusetts Senator Edward Brooke, the first black Senator since reconstruction. [NYDN]
  
• Jimi Hendrix's sex tape? A hoax, cries the company that owns the rights to Jimi's music. Sigh. We'll always have Cynthia Plaster Caster. [Reuters]
  
• Marilyn Monroe's sex tape? The FBI cries fake! It's amazing how many stars can issue denials from the grave. [MSNBC]

• Speaking of fake naked Marilyns, Lilo's alleged lady love Sam Ronson is suing the lawyers she hired to sue Perez Hilton for defamation. Sam Ron says the lawyers "grossly overcharged" her. [TMZ]
• Miley Cyrus is skipping a Disney appearance in Orlando the wake of her Vanity Fair sorta nudie pics. She didn't want Mickey Mouse's ears to turn red. [Yahoo]
• Pete Doherty: getting out of the pokey today. The Babyshambles frontman spent 29 days in jail, and according to a friend, Petey will "go straight to play a gig — and then get smashed," upon his release. Oy. [The Sun]
• More on Star Jones! NBA star Dwyane Wade denied a romantic relationship with the much-older Jones, saying they're "just friends" on the TNT show Inside the NBA. Inside co-host and consummate gentleman Charles Barkley added, "I like Star. She's a cougar." [AP via Yahoo]
• Uma Thurman took the stand yesterday in a lawsuit against her stalker, Jack Jordan. Thurman said Jordan's persistent letters, phone calls and visits made her fear for her life. Poor Uma! [UPI]
• Pam Anderson Lee Rock Salomon is holding an estate sale for her Malibu pad before she retires to Vancouver. She is selling a jacuzzi, among other things. Might want to steer clear of it — I hear the skeeze of Rick Salomon is water soluble. [E! Online]
• The Mariah/ Nick Cannon wedding — reportedly no pre-nup! If Cannon ever tries to lay claim to Mariah's vast collection of Hello Kitties, you know she'll have her unicorn cut him. [Perez]
• Even though Britney still doesn't have custody of her kids, she will spend Mother's Day with wee Jayden James and Sean Preston. Aw. [MSNBC]
• This headline says it all: "Rob Lowe's ex-nanny discusses her countersuit, cries." [AP via Yahoo]

Of course, that can also be a double-aged sword: "Those with two full-time nannies say that, since each is aware of what the other is doing, there are times when each one feels unfairly burdened with too much work and thinks the other is slacking. "You have to explain, 'You're here looking after the baby and the house, but she bought groceries and went to the post office to send a certified letter for me, and she got the kids to the tailor and playdate,' says Yael. "You wish they could figure it out on their own, but you have to intervene." Perhaps someone should get a team of McKinsey consultants in to optimize these work flows?

In other cases, too many nannies may mean that children don't learn to do things for themselves. "Sometimes nannies do things the child should be doing, like picking up toys," says Stacy Rosenthal, a West Village resident who works in product development.

Or um alternately like the recession could not arrive soon enough.

First off, the other woman didn't seem insulted at all when Heather assumed she was the nanny. But more importantly, women have got to stop feeling so fucking guilty about every decision they make. The highly publicized upper middle class "opt-out revolution", wherein highly educated women were dropping out of their prestigious careers to be stay-at-home moms, took its toll on vulnerable nanny employers across the nation. Moms like Cabot saw their peers dropping out of the partner track at their law firms and thought "Holy shit, am I a bad mommy for my ambition?" The answer is: NO...

matter what you do your kids are going to blame you for something. My working mother was the only parent who did not come to my second grade luncheon honoring the 50 states. I still have yet to forgive her, but she's totally over it. What can I do? The woman gave me life. And paid for college! I feel guilty just thinking about what a crap mom I'll be in comparison. But do I go and have a massive guilt-induced breakdown about it online? No.

Is it possible, Heather, you're just feeling guilty about not taking your own advice? For rampant hypocrisy? Or maybe you're feeling guilty about profiting off the female obsession with guilt? Or are you feeling guilty for feeling secretly triumphant you were confused with a nanny???

You know what? Don't answer that.

Who's Your Mommy? [Huffington Post]
The Opt-Out Revolution [New York Times]

[Bel Air, Calif.; July 6. Image via x17]

[New York, June 27. Image via Flynet]

Is parenting for losers? America's Future President seems to think so, and anyone who read last week's New Yorker story on his old deputy police chief John Timoney knows top cops tend to think so? News that Madonna's nanny is writing a tell-all suggests Madge might be a pretty miserable mom herself, and shocking evidence that she went to the Britney Shears school of How To Protect Your Kid in a Car and here's hoping that Jenna Bush calls out her dad for his global abortion gag rule.

But hipsters seem to love having kids - and we're down with anyone willing to irritate the Mother of Dumb Sociological Phrase Invention David Bo-Tard Brooks! Bloggers like the Sartorialist (whose sperm spawned Claudia, above) love having kids. And after Penelope Cruz made it look soooooo hot in Volver, her fellow world famous Latinas Gisele and Salma Hayek both got knocked - well, Salma for sure - which has to be good for that pitiful Spanish fertility rate we've been hearing about.

We can't decide. After all, we were parented once, but on the other hand, that was before Wal-Mart was the nation's largest employer and when social security was solvent. But who's fit for the job anymore? Smell a POLL coming, anyone? Yeah, so do we, but the admin won't let us in. To be continued.