Early in the piece, called "The Mismeasure of Woman," Lipman (that's her in the white, lofting her National Magazine Award) writes,

The truth is, women haven't come nearly as far as we would have predicted 25 years ago. Somewhere along the line, especially in recent years, progress for women has stalled. And attitudes have taken a giant leap backward.

Kinda vague, but a worthwhile topic nonetheless. And Lipman does provide some sobering stats, like the fact that, "according to the American Bar Association, women in 2008 made up almost half of all associates, but only 18.3 percent of partners." After that, her essay pretty quickly goes off the rails. Both the NYTPicker and Gawker's Foster Kamer handily detail the ways Lipman's piece makes no sense. Kamer's right that the connection she draws between 9/11, the purported "end of irony" and boobs on the Internet is just bizarre, and the NYTPicker deserves props for pointing out that at least one of her allegations of sexism actually never happened — nobody called her career "leggy." But I'm not particularly interested in picking apart her arguments that sexism still exists — it does, there's better proof of it than appears in Lipman's piece, and there's no need to go into that here. What does bear some critiquing is her prescription for "chang(ing) the conversation," a vague phrase that appears to mean ending not just discrimination in the workplace but also misogyny in media and pop culture. Let's take Lipman's advice point by point (all bold is mine):

1.

First, we can begin by telling girls to have confidence in themselves, to not always feel the need to be the passive "good girl." In my time as an editor, many, many men have come through my door asking for a raise or demanding a promotion. Guess how many women have ever asked me for a promotion?

I'll tell you. Exactly ... zero.

Yes, women could use workplace assertiveness training. And yes, teachers and parents should be raising girls to be active rather than passive, and not to expect "unrealistic perfection in every sphere, from beauty to housekeeping." But why does the conversation about women and career advancement always have to be framed in terms of women asking for raises and promotions? I get that in today's world this is a necessary career skill, but a common critique of America's educational system is that it values obedience and docility, qualities that supposedly come easier to girls than to boys. Parents and other advocates use this as evidence that the school system needs to be changed to be more male-friendly — but women are still expected to change to be more workplace-friendly. I don't believe that boys are naturally less obedient, or women naturally less assertive. But we are still socialized differently, and the culture of many American workplaces is dominated by values developed and perpetuated by men — including self-promotion and aggressiveness. Again, plenty of women have these qualities in spades. But for those who don't, why can't workplace culture change to, say, reward hard work instead of repeated demands? Why do women always have to be the ones to budge?

2.

[H]ave a sense of humor. Believe me, it's needed.

Case in point: My favorite Christmas card ever came from Martha Stewart - while she was in prison in West Virginia. It was beautiful, on heavy paper stock, and showed a gorgeous wreath. And on the inside, homey as could be, it was engraved with holiday wishes from "Martha Stewart, Alderson, West Virginia."

This one is kind of mystifying. I'm not really sure what the Martha Stewart anecdote is supposed to teach us, especially since it's not even that funny. And anyway, can we stop talking about how women need to get a sense of humor? Umpteen discussions of humorless feminazis have led me to believe that the female sense of humor is like the clit — other people may not know how to find it, but we know where the fuck ours is.

And 3.

One final suggestion: don't be afraid to be a girl.

Women do have a different culture from men. And that can give us some tremendous advantages. Women are built to withstand hardship and pain. (Anyone who has given birth knows what I'm talking about.) That's a big benefit at a time like this, with the unemployment rate at 9.8 percent and rising.

Where to even start with this? How about with the fact that Lipman just got finished telling women that they had to learn to operate like men in male workplace culture — but wait, don't forget hold on to a culture of your own! The idea that women need to work "like men" but think/look/act/dress/talk/fuck "like a girl" continues to be a huge obstacle to women's equality, and is part of the demand for "unrealistic perfection" that Lipman decries earlier in the essay. Even leaving this aside, if women's culture means "withstanding hardship and pain," I'm not sure I want it. I don't buy that women are any better at this than men, and this particular type of exceptionalism crosses over pretty quickly into obligation — when women are perceived as "better" at something (i.e. childrearing), it becomes their exclusive duty to take care of it. And I'd rather men share some of the pain of the recession, thanks very much.

Point 3 segues into the assertion that women are better at weathering economic downturn because they define themselves less by their jobs. This may be true in the aggregate — things are changing, but men are still told to identify with their jobs more closely than women are. Of course, women are told that their worth depends on the love of a man, and it's hard to say which cultural message is more damaging. As the recession has shown, jobs can be as fickle as love, and failure at either doesn't make you a bad person. It's worth remembering that strong relationships with friends and family — and also, I'd argue, a connection to a cause outside yourself — can help you weather crises both in love and at work. But framing this as feminine wisdom just keeps the genders firmly in their little work/life boxes, which is exactly the opposite of what the recession should teach us, if it teaches us anything.

I feel a little dirty taking Lipman to task for all this, given that she is genuinely trying to address the problems women face. But we're not going to solve those problems by falling back on the same old stereotypes that created them in the first place. Lipman deserves credit for drawing attention to a pressing issue in a national forum. Maybe now other people will come up with better ways to address it.

The Mismeasure Of Woman [NYT]
Fallen Portfolio Editor Joanne Lipman's Self-Serving Feminism Screed: 9/11, Sissies, Etc. [Gawker]
Whoops! Leggy Former Portfolio Editor Joanne Lipman Makes Mulitple Mistakes In Today's Op-Ed Whine About Women. [The NYTPicker]

1. The covers suck.
If you love fashion, why would you pick up a magazine that had a Photoshopped roboGwyneth on it? Or an animalistic-looking basketball player? Or Sarah Jessica Parker wedged between a decapitated man's legs? French Vogue's covers are daring and provocative; American Vogue relies on Kate Bosworth's "superstar style." YAWN.

2. Photoshop is out of hand.
Art directors rendered Drew Barrymore and Tina Fey almost unrecognizable. ScarJo's waist was whittled. Not even "healthy" magazines like Self and Fitness are immune. Maybe readers are sick of the artifice?

3. Expensive Shit.
Even if you adore the fall collections and think of Galliano as God, you probably can't afford a $13,000 dress. So when you have to look at said $13,000 dress posed in the middle of a desert like it ain't no thing, you can get miffed. No? How about a $270 Bible? Or a $246 Louis Vuitton headband?

4. "News" you can't use.
Once you get past the cover and expensive shit, some mags are filled with mind-numbing, trite or just plain evil content. The illustrated "How To Take A Shower" piece in Allure comes to mind. As does the quote from Vera Wang in Vogue: "The armpit is nasty, nasty. Even young girls can have this problem."

5. The Internet.
When in doubt, blame this Web 2.0 thing everyone's talking about!

Or maybe it's something we haven't mentioned. Thoughts? Are you buying fewer magazines? Why?

'Oprah,' 'Vogue' Among Major Newsstand Losers [Portƒolio]

Daniel Gross, an apologist for blind Market worship, recently decried that the American management is such a fucking laughingstock. And why is that? He's not really sure. Maybe he should talk to Eliot Spitzer about it!

Women don't run corporate America because corporate America sucks.

I am not altogether serious about this. I mean, you know, theoretically — sometimes even in practice! — business is great. I love the systems and traditions that enable corporate innovation, and I love the speed with which industries, most notably the technology industries, can solve problems. (I know, that server outage just now might have seemed long, but that's just because y'all have been spoiled by Moore's Law.) But at a time when financial markets are melting down due to a disaster that could easily have been averted, when the Economist is starting to wonder whether Jeff Skilling might not be guilty of fraud because he just didn't bother trying to figure out what Andy Fastow was up to, it's hard not to be quietly satisfied that our gender is not to blame for this shit.

But now, you know, it's time for a new attack plan. Capitalism has been shaken at its foundations, layoffs are spinning out of control. On the plus side, managers are shell-shocked, insecure. Like a dude whose girlfriend just left him for another woman. Or something. So next performance review, do yourself a favor. Demand a promotion. You're entitled to it.

Well, not really, if you're reading this. But would that stop you if you were a dude? Rhetorical question.

Sexist Or Not? [Portfolio]
Is Jeff Skilling Innocent [Economist]
Sexism In The Workplace [Portfolio]

His old mentor Hiroshi Fujiwara:

"I just wonder how he feels when he sees ugly people wearing his clothes. If you go to the countryside in America and people are wearing Bathing Ape, that's not very cool." Fujiwara, now a consultant for Nike and Levi's, shrugs. "I thought he was more like us, but he changed."

Fashion's Next Big Bang [Portfolio]

"Glamour is not at all like Jane," says Holley. "It's the exact opposite. They preach fake empowerment of 'loving your flaws.' Jane doesn't point out flaws."

The only Conde publication worth reading is the New Yorker, but it comes out every week and your leftover Jane dollars won't go that far. Vanity Fair and GQ are okay, and saving trees is even better, but the true Jane devotee will call up Conde now and demand a subscription to its ill-fated, ill-advised business magazine Portfolio, because it will be really fun to be able to have this conversation again in six months when Conde shutters that, and it will be soooo much less emotionally fraught parting with them on eBay for birth control money on eBay in five years. (And then you get to say, I paid for that abortion with my Portfolio holdings!)

Glamour Is Sooooo Not Jane [Jossip]

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.

Barneys, Bergdorfs And The Jewish Shopping Vote [Portfolio]

An executive from a major jeans brand told me that shortly after they opened their first factory in China, another factory opened nearby. It had the same machines that his factory had, and bought materials from the same supplier. The jeans they produced had the same brand name on their label as the one on his.

Intellectual property lawyers and luxury goods executives are quick to point to links between counterfeit goods and child labor, money laundering, and even terrorism.

And also: JC dude, terrorism? Who are you, Karl Rove?

Fakes, Damn Fakes, And Fendi [Portfolio]

But then we read the post. Which, like most Lauren Goldstein Crowe posts, has been finely-engineered to offer an optimally-small ratio of "information relevant to the business of fashion" to "information relevant to making you dislike Lauren Goldstein Crowe". And so, we herewith present our first Lauren Goldstein Crowe Award for Ludicrous Fashion Insight Delivered By An Ostensibly Smart Person to .... Lauren Goldstein Crowe! A summary of Lauren's post follows.

• Manolo Blahnik launched a website.
• Lauren Goldstein Crowe "began writing online about fashion in 1996."
• Lauren Goldstein Crowe was emailing Manolo Blahnik workers — plural! — in 1996, at "really cute emails that said THEIRNAMEManolo@aol.com." She emailed them so much she remembers their emails 11 years later!
• Manolo Blahnik offers a "more conservative" selection of shoes in the US than in Europe. No way!
• Lauren Goldstein Crowe lives in Europe!
• Manolo Blahnik is frustrated about the state of his US distribution.
• Lauren Goldstein Crowe knows this because Lauren Goldstein Crowe KNOWS MANOLO BLAHNIK!

Seriously, the only thing that could have redeemed this post is a Carrie Bradshaw reference. And yeah, we mean "redeemed" in the "actually redeemed" sense. Anyone writing about the "business" of Manolos who fails to mention Sex And The City stylist Patricia Field (or, come to think of it, a single NUMBER) is... worthy of a LGC Award. Oh, and also: The first person to unearth an actual photograph of Laurie wins drinks on us. We are really sick of this fucking illustration.
Manolo Blahnik Goes Online [Portfolio]

I pity the poor Chinese consumers who have only recently gotten to grips with real luxury, now having to make sense of the cheap knock-off so soon.

Ugh. You know who we pity, Laurie? We pity the 1.3 billion or so Chinese left out of the drastically uneven economic growth that has left a few million well-connected coastal Chinese suddenly able to buy Cartier watches. We pity the people for whom "real luxury" means, you know, rice you don't have to sift the bugs out of. (Yeah, we are so pissed we just dangled that participle. Fuck you.)

PS: We also pity you for that awful illustrated head shot on your blog. WTF, Joanne Lipman? $125 mil can't buy a decent artist these days? We've seen better portraiture on the Coney Island boardwalk.

H&M: First Madonna, Now China [Portfolio]

Earlier: Conde Nast 'Portfolio' Editor As Thin, Beholden To Advertisers As Other Conde Nast Editors

And lest you think that Barbie's fashions fall straight off the beauty-pageant tacky-truck, Culmone would like you to know that that the stylish designer runways and streets of New York and Paris are her primary inspiration. "We're used to looking at a fashion on the street and saying, "Oh my God, that would be perfect for Barbie,' but you'd be surprised how different the outfit looks when it's designed for her."

Surprised? Not really. We can think of two obvious, bullet-shaped reasons why.

All Dolled Up [Portfolio, via Fashionista]

Portfolio, Issue One has some enjoyable stuff, including a somewhat drab fashion industry blog that reminds us why we here at Jezebel try to distract you from our own dubious assertions with pretty pictures.

On April 11, for instance, "Fashion Inc." blogger Laurie Goldstein Crowe (rendered in an illustration and presumably not as thin as Lipman) writes:

Umbra Fist, a columnist writing for Grist, an environmental news and advice site, recommends that we should be "buying fewer clothes." Well, OK for the environment, but what about the economy?

This got me thinking, perhaps the best way for luxury brands to counter the rise of H&M, Zara, and the new COS (which I adore), is to communicate to consumers that buying fewer, better things is the best way to save the planet. Luxury is also sweat-shop free.

Which sounds good and all, but if the "luxury brands" of which she speaks are really worried about competing with H&M and Zara, they are probably not "sweat-shop free", since anything LVMH makes that's priced accessibly to a Zara shopper is made in China. And if you're genuinely worried about the long-term health of the economy, you've probably found better places to invest your wad than the Birkin bag waiting list. But hey, no one's tapped us to sell ad pages against that message!

P.S. Joanne: Glamour's Cindi Leive wants your diet Dos and Don'ts!

Fashion Inc. [Portfolio]
In Troubled Times, A New Business Magazine [New York Times]