Katayama heard about the woman in question from a man who was her waiter that night:

The woman called her companion Peter or Stan. She ordered an appetizer for herself and a halibut dish for Peter/Stan. She was probably a tourist; she wanted to take pictures with Peter/Stan as the sun was setting, and while she was waiting for her food, she asked Joel if he could recommend any memorabilia from the gift shop so she could buy him a little something. When Joel was away, he could see her at her table talking to Peter/Stan as if he was a real person. Once or twice, she reached over to adjust him in his seat, or maybe to hold his hand. "When I walked up to the table, I felt like I was interrupting a date," Joel tells me. After about 45 minutes, the woman got up, walked to the kitchen, and told Joel that she would have to take her and Peter/Stan's dinners to go - they had a trolley car ride to catch, and she didn't want to be late.

We have so many "virtual" conversations — Facebook updates, Twitter accounts, texts and IMs. But does that mean fewer face-to-face encounters? I lived alone for about ten years — no roommates, no pets, no plants. I had friends, of course, with whom I'd make plans… But obviously a lot of my time was spent alone, especially once I started working from home. Time would pass without seeing or speaking to anyone, and it felt lonely. It took a long time to get comfortable with the idea of sitting in a restaurant alone. Sometimes I would bring a book, or a magazine, but I never considered a cardboard cutout. But would it be so bad? Kids often have imaginary friends. Are adults meant to do without? (Katayama points out that in September, NBC Miami reported on a woman who carries around a cardboard cutout of her soldier boyfriend. Does that seem less weird?) When I'm home alone, I sometimes talk back to the TV; about five months ago, Scientific American had an article about how TV can ease loneliness: "In the same way that a snack can satiate hunger in lieu of a meal, it seems that watching favorite TV shows can provide the experience of belonging without a true interpersonal interaction." But you can't take your TV out to dinner with you. (Yet.)

Men who marry video game characters, or who love their Real Dolls, get mocked. But what about the woman having dinner with a cardboard cutout? Do you have sympathy and understanding for her? Would it make a difference if the cutout depicted a soldier in Iraq? Or what if he were a character from New Moon? I guess what I'm saying is: I've been lonely. So I can't judge.

Woman Dines With Cardboard Cutout Man In San Francisco [BoingBoing]
Related: Imaginary Friends [Scientific American]

[Danboard image via HobbySearch]

According to the New York Times, she first tackled the "problem" — cited by Chief Justice John Roberts at his confirmation hearing — that some justices use rulings from foreign judges when writing opinions. Reports the Times:

Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.

"Why shouldn't we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?" she asked.

Apparently, someone forgot to tell her that America is the repository of all wisdom ever.

She also spoke about why it is that it's only in the last 50 years that many other countries instituted judiciaries that have the power to strike down legislation that makes it though the Democratic process.

"What happened in Europe was the Holocaust," she said, "and people came to see that popularly elected representatives could not always be trusted to preserve the system's most basic values."

Values, like, say, not torturing people and the importance of judicial process? It's a good warning that sometimes elected officials might use the legislative process to subvert that, I mean, we wouldn't want that to happen here.

She covered that, too:

"The police think that a suspect they have apprehended knows where and when a bomb is going to go off," she said, describing the question presented in the case. "Can the police use torture to extract that information? And in an eloquent decision by Aharon Barak, then the chief justice of Israel, the court said: ‘Torture? Never.' "

The message of the decision, Justice Ginsburg said, was "that we could hand our enemies no greater victory than to come to look like that enemy in our disregard for human dignity." Then she asked, "Now why should I not read that opinion and be affected by its tremendous persuasive value?"

"Because you're an American," is probably the answer to that.

Ginsburg also discussed her role in creating the term "gender discrimination," which is a forehead-slapper if I ever heard one.

She helped introduce the term "gender discrimination" as a synonym for "sex discrimination," she said, explaining that her secretary had proposed the idea while typing a brief to be submitted to male judges.

" ‘The first association of those men with the word "sex" is not what you're talking about,' " the secretary said, Justice Ginsburg recalled. " ‘Why don't you use a grammar-book term? Use gender. It has a neutral sound, and it will ward off distracting associations.' "

The Washington Post pointed out that is was in one of the most famous gender discrimination cases of late — the Lilly Ledbetter pay discrimination case — that Ginsburg threw up what she terms "a red flag."

Ginsburg, unlike some of her colleagues, often makes her case in public speeches. And, when she thinks her colleagues have misinterpreted a statute, she writes a dissent that on Friday she called a "red flag," essentially asking Congress to take action.

Her dissent in the court's 2007 decision that threw out an Alabama tire company manager's suit alleging discriminatory pay made Lilly Ledbetter a heroine on the left and led Congress to change the law, presenting Obama with his first major bill to sign.

In other words, she doesn't hide behind her robes.

Of course, she had trouble hiding behind her robes just a little bit.

"Now, there I am all alone, and it doesn't look right," Ginsburg said. She said she watches the number of women at each session of the Supreme Court bar, notices that four of the nine members of Canada's Supreme Court are women, including the chief justice, and sees the female reporters who cover the court.

"It's lonely for me. Not that I don't love all my colleagues. I do," Ginsburg said.

I guess we need just a little thought about gender discrimination on the court in addition to at the court.

Dahlia Lithwick, writing for Slate, thinks we need both.

But in an award-winning 2008 paper titled "Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging," Washington University's Christina L. Boyd and Andrew D. Martin and Northwestern School of Law's Lee Epstein suggest that women judges really are different. Surveying sex discrimination suits resolved by panels of judges in federal circuit courts between 1995 and 2002, the researchers examined whether male and female judges decide cases differently, and went on to look at whether the presence of a female on a panel of judges affects the behavior of her male colleagues.

Here's what they found: The male judges were 10 percent more likely to rule against alleged sex-discrimination victims. And male judges were "significantly more likely" to rule in their favor if a woman judge served on their panel.

And, Lithwick points out, it's not just conservatives, either.

History proves that you can be the most empathetic, open-minded, and sensitive jurist in all the world-and still be a complete dolt about gender. It's why liberal lion William Brennan could write so expansively about equality and fairness and justice while still refusing to hire female law clerks. It's why Ginsburg was denied a clerkship with the legendary judge Learned Hand. (He refused to hire her because he liked to use salty language.)

Oh, fuck that noise.

Lithwick finally points out that, if and when Obama does have an opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice, he'll have plenty of women to choose from.

When it comes time for Obama to appoint a new justice, he'll have an embarrassment of female talent to choose from: To name just a very few, potential candidates include appeals court judges like Diane Wood, Sonia Sotomayor, Kim McLane Wardlaw; his new solicitor general, Elena Kagan; gifted academics such as Stanford Law School's Kathleen Sullivan and Pamela Karlan; Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm; and private attorneys like Teresa Wynn Roseborough.

An embarrassment, that is, because Ginsburg is currently the sole woman on the Court despite that kind of legal talent on both sides of the aisle.

Ginsburg Shares Views On Influence Of Foreign Law On Her Court, And Vice Versa [NY Times]
Ginsburg Gives No Hint Of Giving Up The Bench [Washington Post]
The Fairer Sex [Slate]

Because, as Ms. Brett points out, even media mogul Tyra Banks pouts: "I go home and put my key in my door and... nothing; no friends, no husband, no children. I feel so full when I'm at work but so empty when I come home." And, if you pay any attention to the celeb weeklies, single women need your pity, because they are "lonely" and "can't find love." Plus, Ms. Brett refers to the Lori Gottlieb article in Atlantic Monthly, reminding us that Ms. Gottlieb wrote: "Every woman I know - no matter how successful and ambitious - feels panic, occasionally coupled with desperation, if she hits 30 and finds herself unmarried." While Jen Aniston and Cammie Diaz don't appear to be panicking, Ms. Brett ends with a quote from Cher: "I don't need a man. But I'm happier with one."

So which is it? Are "freemales" carefree, happy, independent modern women who don't think of a husband as a "must-have" in life? Or are they sad, lonely, empty, desperate souls, secretly terrified that they won't get married? (Bonus question: Are we living in a society that is so afraid of a strong, sexy, single woman that they have to be labeled lonely and thereby taken down a notch?)

Strictly A Solo Act [Sydney Morning Herald]

Earlier: Settle For Mr. "Just OK" — While Your "Marital Value Is Still At Its Peak!"
If You're Single And You Know It, Raise Your Hand
British Writer Knows Why You're Still Single

While almost every single item on the men's list (with the possible exception of "wear a duffel coat in the winter, but are not Paddington Bear" — duffel coats can look great on the right guy!) is a tip-off that the guy is a dud; two items on the women's list don't seem so bad. Number 20 is about relinquishing control. The line between "control freak" and "achievement-driven, goal-oriented lady to be reckoned with" is pretty thin, no? As for number 24, saying "Oh my God, you're a Gemini" seems a petty offense most guys wouldn't balk at. (But maybe I feel that way that's because I've said it. Shit, is that why I'm single?) In any case, aren't there plenty of married men and women who could check things off on this list? And which offenses is Jennifer Aniston (whose photo accompanies the story) guilty of?

50 Reasons Why You're Still Single [Times]

It's been ten years since Helen Fielding wrote about the "smug marrieds" in Bridget Jones's Diary, but they haven't gone away. Says 27-year-old Tara Sanders of El Cerrito, CA: "There is this feeling that they know better than you because they've managed to get married. But if I really wanted to, I could just go to Vegas and get drunk and find someone. It's not that hard."

So, how should one respond to well-meaning friends who question our marital status — er, lack thereof? We'd really like a great, definitive answer. When someone says "When are you getting married," should we laugh and say, "Hell if I know!" Change the subject? Shake our head and sigh, "I'm just so busy right now"? Reply, "I'm on the market, know any single hotties?"

Married Yet? [San Jose Mercury News, via Star Tribune]