After all, look at how bad it used to be!

Now, I have to admit, the piece gave me a bit of pause. In the intro article, the writers explain:

So it's worth stopping to look at what happened while we were busy ending the Cold War and building a multicultural society and enjoying the longest economic expansion in history.

Umm. Yeah. That's not quite how I'd describe the last thirty years, though many of these goals are works in progress. While reading through the fifteen segments that compose Time's series, I kept thinking of a phrase I hear often in anti-racist circles when discussing the realities of racism. The phrase (which adapts a bit depending on the speaker) is that whites like to measure progress by how far we've come; minorities like to measure progress based on how far we have left to go. This article is definitely taking the "how far we've come" view.

Much of the article frames gender issues as small matters, individual squabbles between couples, instead of systemic issues. However, it also does a bit of reframing, pushing the idea that women are the cause of their own problems:

This is not to say there's nothing left to argue about. More than two-thirds of women still think men resent powerful women, yet women are more likely than men to say female bosses are harder to work for than male ones. Men are much more likely to say there are no longer any barriers to female advancement, while a majority of women say men still have it better in life. People are evenly split over whether the "mommy wars" between working and nonworking mothers are finally over.

And the tenuous idea of happiness resurfaced:

Among the most confounding changes of all is the evidence, tracked by numerous surveys, that as women have gained more freedom, more education and more economic power, they have become less happy. No tidy theory explains the trend, notes University of Pennsylvania economist Justin Wolfers, a co-author of The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness. "We looked across all sectors - young vs. old, kids or no kids, married or not married, education, no education, working or not working - and it stayed the same," he says of the data. "But there are a few ways to look at it," he adds. "As Susan Faludi said, the women's movement wasn't about happiness." It may be that women have become more honest about what ails them. Or that they are now free to wrestle with the same pressures and conflicts that once accounted for greater male unhappiness. Or that modern life in a global economy is simply more stressful for everyone but especially for women, who are working longer hours while playing quarterback at home. "Some of the other social changes that have happened over the last 35 years - changes in family, in the workplace - may have affected men differently than women," Wolfers says. "So maybe we're not learning about changes due to the women's movement but changes in society."

And of course, there is the idea that inequality can be completely resolved in the span of forty years, and suddenly men will be the ones with a systemic disadvantage:

If male jobs keep vanishing, if physical strength loses its workplace value, if the premium shifts ever more to education, in which achievement is increasingly female, then we will soon be having parallel conversations: What needs to be done to free American men to realize their full potential? You can imagine the whole conversation flipping in a single generation.

It's no longer a man's world. Nor is it a woman's nation. It's a cooperative, with bylaws under constant negotiation and expectations that profits be equally shared.

Journalist and First Lady of California, Maria Shriver, writes an ode to her recently departed mother, Eunice, but also goes into a discussion of shifting gender roles and confusion. However, I appreciate how she still reframes the argument to look at the inequalities that have not been resolved:

Men are feeling out of sorts and stressed out as well. Wherever I went, I was surprised at how open men were to sharing their bafflement about what women want - and their insecurities about what's expected of them. "All of us grew up thinking this was a man's world, that doors were just gonna open to us because we had a Y chromosome," a Seattle man told me. "And suddenly we have to adjust to the fact that that's not the case. And the recession has made it even more intense for us. So every family is trying to figure out what does it mean that we're both working, or that I'm laid off and you're working? We haven't thrown some switch to go from a man's world to a woman's world. It's more like we're finally, for the first time, in a position where it's no longer only a man's world. Now what does that mean?"

While there's much to cheer about these days on the equality front, we still have a long way to go. Women still don't make as much as men do for the same jobs. The U.S. still is the only industrialized nation without a child-care policy. Women are still being punished by a tax code designed when men were the sole breadwinners and women the sole caregivers. Sexual violence against women still is a huge issue. Women still are disproportionately affected by a lack of health-care services. And lesbian couples and older women are among the poorest segments of our society.

What I find most interesting in the series are the discussions and breakdowns by race. While there is quite a bit of consensus, it's interesting to look at just how different opinions can be along racial lines.

Take "The Argument About Women Working is Over," a segment exploring breakdowns by race, asking respondents if having women in the workplace was "a positive change":

[T]hat view holds regardless of age, race or political ideology: 81% of African Americans view it as a positive change, along with 84% of Latinos, 88% of Democrats and 68% of Republicans.

And I would love some more analysis on racial/gender attitudes toward marriage:

Being married is very important to 58% of men vs. 53% of women. Only 38% of men strongly agree that a woman can have a fulfilling life without marriage, compared with 54% of women. Both white women and highly educated women (61%) strongly agree vs. 37% of Latino women. Of both black and Latino men, only 35% strongly agree.

Also, although one section is titled "Working mothers are broadly accepted..." the actual statistics show that race does influence overall attitudes:

Seventy-four percent of men and 84% of women say women with children are just as committed to their jobs as women without children. Seventy-two percent of black women strongly agree vs. 57% of Latino women and 55% of white women.

I am in favor of looking at racial analysis alongside of gender analysis because the lives of black, Latina, indigenous, and Asian women to differ a bit from the white norm. I was at a feminist conference earlier this year, and one of my co-panelists was trying to nail home the fact that women should be grateful that we have so much power and visibility. She, an older feminist, noted that many of these advances would have been unthinkable 40 years ago, and she feels that the situation and potential for women was wonderful. She began naming successful women in Hollywood, and continued to do so until I pointed out that not a single one of the women she held up as proof women had broken through all the old barriers was a woman of color. Sometimes, our gender struggles look a little different through a racial lens, and- as the stats above demonstrate - it's important to remember that the term '"women" encompasses a large and diverse group.

The Time piece concludes by following up with some of the women profiled in the magazine's 1972 feature "Where She Is and Where She's Going." The women profiled all saw their lives changed, as some worked outside of the home in the years following the article. Other women said in 1972, they felt fine with their lives and placing others first, but also felt grateful their daughters had more opportunities. Interestingly, the original article also wondered why women were not happy, when they had so much more than women of previous generations.

I will admit one thing though - the Time article certainly has me reflecting on where I am and where I would live to be in terms of gender equality. Readers, how does "The State of the American Woman" look from where you sit?

The State of the American Woman [Time Magazine]
Where She Is and Where She's Going [Time Magazine]

The article begins by explaining Rotana's policies, with an emphasis on their liberal application of the country's mandatory dress code and women in various positions of power. The work environment is such a radical departure from the normal manner of doing business that men who apply to work at the company must be tested to see if they can handle such a dramatic shift:

The sight unnerves enough men who come looking for a job that human-resources manager Sultana al-Rowaili has developed a trick to see if a male applicant can handle working in a mixed-gender office. She arranges for a female colleague to interrupt the initial interview, and watches to see if the man loses concentration or stares too much. Sometimes even that isn't necessary. Many men are undone by the very idea of being interviewed by a woman. "They are in a state of shock to see a woman in a position of authority and to have to ask her for a job," al-Rowaili says.

The women of Rotana appear to be happy and fulfilled with their work, and Andrew Lee Butters uses their cheerful beginning as a way to discuss the changing role of women in Saudi Arabia. While women are becoming increasingly educated and have indicated a willingness to participate fully in society, they are still faced with large obstacles:

Critics outside the government say the state is still failing to take a systematic approach to dismantling gender barriers. While the government is trying to encourage women to enter the workforce, for example, there are still no clear guidelines as to what is legal and what is illegal in an office setting, according to Abdulaziz al-Gasim, a former judge who now runs his own law firm in Riyadh. "We would like to hire women," he says. "Women in the law faculties send us their CVs. But where would we put them?" Without a separate entrance for women, or gender-specific meeting rooms, firms fear they could be prosecuted. There are also still no laws to protect women from harassment at work. "There is no meaning behind female education if they can't enter the workforce," says al-Gasim.

In addition to matters of law, matters of perception also influence how much women can push for change. Sadly, it appears that many women are just fine with the status quo:

There's evidence, too, that many women don't want radical change. A government poll in 2006 - one of the few attempts to gauge women's opinions - found that 86% thought women shouldn't work in a mixed environment, and 89% agreed women shouldn't drive. Iman al-Alqeel, the editor of Hayat, a conservative magazine for girls, says most of her readers find the thought of working or studying around boys and men intimidating. "They want to be able to relax and not worry about what other people think about them," she says, though that's partly because Saudi men don't know how to behave around women. "Before you bring in something new you have to fix the old habits," she says. "If you want women to drive, send the men to driving school."

Still, the article ends on a hopeful -yet defiant - note:

"We are not a bunch of Barbie dolls," says al-Rowaili, the Rotana television executive. "All of us have faced so many challenges to get here. We are pioneers. And we are going to win."

Saudi Arabia's Small Steps for Women [Time]

As Time's John Cloud writes:

The basic problem is that while it's true that exercise burns calories and that you must burn calories to lose weight, exercise has another effect: it can stimulate hunger. That causes us to eat more, which in turn can negate the weight-loss benefits we just accrued. Exercise, in other words, isn't necessarily helping us lose weight. It may even be making it harder.

Cloud cites a study from the peer-reviewed journal PLoS ONE (PLoS is the nonprofit Public Library of Science). The study, supervised by a colleague of Ravussin's, Dr. Timothy Church, chair in health wisdom at LSU, randomly assigned into four groups 464 overweight women who didn't regularly exercise. Women in three of the groups were asked to work out with a personal trainer for six months; women in the fourth group were the control and were told to maintain their usual routines. The results?

On average, the women in all the groups, even the control group, lost weight, but the women who exercised - sweating it out with a trainer several days a week for six months - did not lose significantly more weight than the control subjects did.

Cloud supposes, jokingly (?) "The control-group women may have lost weight because they were filling out those regular health forms, which may have prompted them to consume fewer doughnuts."

Of course, exercise has its benefits: Enhancing heart and circulatory health, helping prevent disease, improving mental health and cognitive ability. Cloud points to a study released by the University of Alberta a few weeks ago which found that people with chronic back pain who exercise four days a week have 36% less disability than those who exercise only two or three days a week.

But weight loss is a different issue. As is self-control. Cloud explains:

Many people assume that weight is mostly a matter of willpower - that we can learn both to exercise and to avoid muffins and Gatorade. A few of us can, but evolution did not build us to do this for very long. In 2000 the journal Psychological Bulletin published a paper by psychologists Mark Muraven and Roy Baumeister in which they observed that self-control is like a muscle: it weakens each day after you use it. If you force yourself to jog for an hour, your self-regulatory capacity is proportionately enfeebled. Rather than lunching on a salad, you'll be more likely to opt for pizza.

This strikes me as somewhat questionable, as I — and most people I know — tend to be quite loathe to "undo" any work put in at the gym with high-calorie snacks. But this working-out-makes-you-eat movement even has conspiracy theorists!

Steven Gortmaker, head of Harvard's Prevention Research Center on Nutrition and Physical Activity says, "If you're more physically active, you're going to get hungry and eat more." He's suspicious of the playgrounds at fast-food restaurants. "Why would they build those? I know it sounds kind of like conspiracy theory, but you have to think, if a kid plays five minutes and burns 50 calories, he might then go inside and consume 500 calories or even 1,000."

In any case, the key seems to be not to be total sloth and a lead a sedentary lifestyle but just to keep on moving. Cloud writes:

Many obesity researchers now believe that very frequent, low-level physical activity - the kind humans did for tens of thousands of years before the leaf blower was invented - may actually work better for us than the occasional bouts of exercise you get as a gym rat. "You cannot sit still all day long and then have 30 minutes of exercise without producing stress on the muscles," says Hans-Rudolf Berthoud, a neurobiologist at LSU's Pennington Biomedical Research Center who has studied nutrition for 20 years. "The muscles will ache, and you may not want to move after. But to burn calories, the muscle movements don't have to be extreme. It would be better to distribute the movements throughout the day."

Of course, since none of this is conducive to working a desk job (blogging for a living included) we're gonna add: Good luck with that.

Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin [Time]

Earlier: Does Exercise Make You Hungry Instead Of Thin?

Actually, the dress she wore to the congressional speech is mentioned, but there's so much more — from who walks Bo (she does in the morning; the President does the "last walk" at 10pm) — to what Michelle misses about her life "before." ("The anonymity of just living your life and making choices and decisions, and moving through the world without sort of constant commentary. That was nice.")

But the best parts are when Michelle is talking about her status as a role model for girls, for women, and for people. She tells the story of growing up on the South Side of Chicago and not knowing anything about the University of Chicago:"It was sort of like another world that didn't belong to me," she explains.

And there are so many institutions like that around the world, and so many kids like that who are living inches away from power and prestige and fame and fortune, and they don't even know that it exists. And the White House, all these wonderful buildings, these monuments and capitols ... I'm sure there are children who feel that way. I'm sure there are people in this country who feel the same way about these places that I did about the University of Chicago.


And I have probably dedicated more of my life to trying to break down those barriers for people. I think that might be one of the small themes in my professional life, is to try to be the bridge so that more people feel like they have access; that their voice, that their faces, that their worlds count in places like this, and that there is understanding across those divides. And as I grew up and came to work in those places, right, and got to know them, I realized that the misunderstanding or the disconnect goes both ways; that folks outside of these communities have no idea what goes on within these institutions, and sometimes the people in the institutions have no real understanding of the people who live outside. You know, everybody is dealing in these misperceptions about one another because there is no bridge.

Michelle also discusses how she'd like to inspire females: "How powerful would it be for young girls to come into this space and hear from other really powerful, impressive, dynamic women, and to have that conversation go on here in the White House?"

But the First Lady is emphatic about the fact that she is not that special, fairly normal, really:

My mother said this in an interview and I completely agree with her, and it's something that, you know, I want young people to remember, is that ... my mom said in this Essence article, Michelle and Barack aren't new; there are thousands of Michelle and Barack Obamas all over this nation. And that is true ... I know them, I've gone to school with them, I live with them.

So the truth is, is that there are thousands of role models like me. I just happen to be the First Lady. So that's why I feel like I have a responsibility because people see me, but every single day there are people doing what I'm doing. When I visit a health care organization or a youth center or a service project, those heroes are working, they're serving on their boards, they're packing the boxes, they're teaching in the schools. And again, those are the people who have the real opportunity to impact because they'll be with those kids each and every day.

…It's just reminding us as a nation that you don't have to be the First Lady, you don't have to have the title to do the work and ... because it's happening all over the place.

And of course, on one hand, she's right. If you look, there are inspiring stories of smart, successful people — many of them people of color — all over this country. But of course, no one is as high-profile as the Obamas right now. Yet, by spinning her story as an American story, the First Lady demonstrates what is so awe-inspiring about her: The intelligence, the humility, the elegance with which she conducts herself.

Of course, the interview wouldn't be complete without an awesome "Mom in Chief"-type anecdote: When discussing the First Dog with her daughters, Michelle proclaimed:

I said it's on you if Bo eats Tiger or Blankie, which are two beloved characters in the household. It's on you. [Tiger and Blankie] have been members of the family for a long time.

So I just sort of told them, I said, you've seen what he does to stuff. He's a puppy, he doesn't know the sentimental value of your things. And if you leave your stuff somewhere, it will be destroyed, and there's nothing I can do about it. (Laughter.) So you can either close your door ... and they close the doors, religiously. So he's been good. But we try to set him up for success.

Interview with the First Lady [Time]
Related: The Meaning of Michelle Obama [Time]

India-based human-rights lawyer D. Geetha estimates that at least 30 of the nearly 400 Indian children brought into Australia in the last 10 to 15 years were trafficked. The Time investigation found dubious agencies, illegal practices, false signatures; stolen children shipped to wealthy countries. The children were processed through an adoption agency and orphanage known as Malaysian Social Services. According to Time, Australian authorities knew that MSS was a suspect agency. Its license was suspended in 1999 after one of its staff was arrested for handling four babies stolen from a hospital.

Here's the problem: The chances of the biological parents reclaiming their children? Slim. Former Australian Family Court Judge John Fogarty says: "I wouldn't like to be acting for the Indian parents. You might get pro-bono lawyers, but the bottom line would be the best interests of the child, and that may be a one-way street. If you compared the position of the child in Australia returning to poverty in India, you would have to be a pretty dramatic judge to send a child back to the slums."

Meanwhile, Zabeen's biological mother would love to see her: "I am yearning," she says. "I must embrace her."

Let's just say for a minute you were an Australian judge. Would you send Zabeen back to her Indian family after eight years? Or would you let her stay with her new parents, who are "horrified" that they unknowingly adopted a trafficked child?

Stolen Children [Time]
Children 'Kidnapped For Aussie Adoption' [News.com.au]
Earlier: In China, Child Kidnappings Are An Equal Opportunity Affair

Pregnant Student Denies Pregnancy Pact [AP via MSNBC]

Earlier: Pregnancy Pacts: Better Than Suicide Ones, Still Not That Good
Sex And Consequences

The Good:
Amy Poehler: Actress, comedienne, Christian Siriano copycat.
I can only hope that Angelica Huston was invited for her amazing turn in The Darjeeling Limited as a mother/Buddhist nun who doesn't know what to talk about when we talk about love.
Ann Moore, left, is the CEO of Time, Inc. Indra Nooyi, right, is the CEO of Pepsi Co. Donatella Versace would be happy, surely, to see women in power wearing dresses.
Arianna Huffington: She writes books, she runs blogs, she wears ballgowns.
Elizabeth Gilbert, author of Eat, Pray, Love, which was apparently a little smug, highly readable and very "influential." (I hate that word.)
Georgina Chapman designs for Marchesa and married Harvey Weinstein. I'm not sure if these things, independently or together, make her a person of merit. But what do I know?
Kristen Wiig of SNL: Further proof that women are funny.
Madeeha Hasan Odhaib is the "Mother Theresa of Baghdad." I wonder if George Bush, or even fellow attendee John McCain, even care.
I love Martha Stewart: She runs an empire and still manages to can her own preserves. Also, she does it in heels.
Mary Lou Jepsen founded Pixel Qi and was also the founding Chief Technology Officer of One Laptop Per Child, which strives to deliver mesh-networked laptops to children in developing countries.
Nancy Brinker, who founded Susan G. Komen for the Cure, is a breast cancer survivor and mother, and was also appointed to the position of Chief of Protocol by President Bush.
Rupert Murdoch and Wendi Deng: The dark overlord and his whipsmart wife.
Suzanne Vega: She sings.
Sure Baby Mama is supposed to be the anti-Knocked Up or whatever, but more importantly, Tina Fey has brought Liz Lemon and Tracey Jordan into our lives.
Did you participate in Teach for America? Or have eighty gajilliion friends who did? Thank Wendy Kopp, who founded the program, for the experience.
Ziyi Zhang: She acts. Also I am in awe of her bone structure.

[Images via Getty.]

Over on the blog Feministe, Jill Filipovic writes, "I see a scary animalistic black man, a primal scream, and a beautiful white woman. Google image King Kong for a comparison." What's interesting is that the editors had another, more "civilized" photograph of LeBron and Gisele they could have chosen. Upon seeing this more "civilized" image, blogger Angel from Concrete Loop asks, "Why wasn't this the cover instead of that other HORRID one?" Commenters on that site agree: "Lebron is straight up perpetuating a stereotype (that of the brutal, wild savage) that helped enslave, lynch, and murder hundreds of THOUSANDS of our black men for centuries... and I'm just supposed to be content because he made it onto "massa's" magazine?! Take that weak shit somewhere else," "MJ" writes. Adds "cococola72284": "This 'King Kong capturing the damsel in distress'... is offensive. Not only does this man look like an ape, but he's got this good ole prize, a white woman on his arm. There are a number of black high fashion models they could've paired him with and other shots they could've used of him. At least put him in a suit. He carries a suit VERY well." On this site, a shot of the cover prompted similar comments.

Why didn't the editors chose the more "civilized" image for the cover? Were they looking for something more dynamic and animated? Did they want something with action, with impact? Why not put LeBron James in a suit? (FYI, other athletes in the issue — skater Apolo Anton Ohno, snowboarder Shaun White and swimmer Michael Phelps — also appear in sport "uniforms" while the models wear high fashion.) Was it easy — maybe even on a subconscious level — to choose a photo that casts the black man as "big and scary" and therefore comfortable and familiar?

"Nobody says more about fashion size and shape than Gisele and LeBron," Vogue spokesman Patrick O'Connell tells Time. Really? Nobody??

LeBron James To Grace Vogue's Cover [Time]
I Know Vogue Isn't Exactly Racially Conscious, But... [Feministe]
Comment Spotlight: LeBron & The Vogue Cover [Concrete Loop]
Preview of US Vogue April 2008: The Shape Issue [ONTD]
Earlier: Holy Itshay, What Is That Big Black Man Doing On The Cover Of Vogue?!
Men's Vogue: Not Afraid Of Black People
What's The Message Behind A Black Man In Heels On The Cover Of Vogue?

The thing about Clooney is that he knows how to play the game properly. "You don't say, I don't talk about my personal life," he explains. "People say they won't talk about their personal life. And then they do. And even when the tabloids say really crappy things and it pisses you off and you know it's not true, you have to at least publicly have a sense of humor about it." He's extremely passionate about his campaign to stop the genocide in Darfur: "I've been very depressed since I got back. I'm terrified that it isn't in any way helping. That bringing attention can cause more damage. You dig a well or build a health-care facility and they're a target for somebody," he says. "A lot more people know about Darfur, but absolutely nothing is different. Absolutely nothing." And yet, he can find a silver lining: "I have a U.N. passport. It says 'Messenger of Peace' on it. It's very cool," he says.

During his dinner with Stein, some sort of alarm goes off. Clooney proceeds to scour the house for the source, and even goes into Stein's dusty, musty crawlspace. (There's video!) He finds nothing, but then when the beeping starts again, he discovers it's the carbon monoxide detector in an outlet near the table. "Either it needs a battery," he says, "or we have six seconds to live."

And yet: Even this funny, charming, practically perfect star is not good enough for Hollywood's standards: behold how someone PhotoShopped the hell out of Clooney in the promotional shots for his upcoming film, Leatherheads. If George Clooney isn't good enough just the way he is, what is this world coming to?

George Clooney: The Last Movie Star [Time]
By George! Mr. Clooney Receives The Airbrush Touch [Daily Mail]

She didn't really provide much scientific evidence, but I think we both learned to respect our differences. Also, all the girls and the one gay I IM-ed pretty much said they were built for monogamy, though I didn't ask Tracie, and she'd probably disagree. Meanwhile, the only straight dude I asked, my ex-boyfriend, said he was not. Too bad I never sensed that from the pheromones he emitted!

MOE: Ok, so this interview you sent me is really interesting
MOE: But i was trying to determine who, the interviewer or the TIME guy, you took issue with
MOE: the interviewer irked me more

POLLYPOCKET: yeah they were both sort of swirling in a pool of awfulness
POLLYPOCKET: what i didn't like as I told Anna is the idea that they're still trying to talk about how marriage is some kind of baseline
POLLYPOCKET: as if the only real kind of "romance" we should worry about is marriage
POLLYPOCKET: even though all scientific evidence shows that we weren't built to marry or be monogamous
POLLYPOCKET: also the thing about women tricking men with birth control was heinous

MOE: well that was the interviewer

POLLYPOCKET: but I was really pissed about the time mag package in general
POLLYPOCKET: where they say "romance is this chemical illusion" but then use that as an excuse to basically say well so you just have to fight biology and stay married kids

MOE: Well, I see it as part of the whole "evolutionary biology is the new socialization" trend.

POLLYPOCKET: yeah
POLLYPOCKET: it is very much part of htat

MOE: But that's not what he said.
MOE: He said the chemistry of early romance was an unsustainable chemical state

POLLYPOCKET: exactly
POLLYPOCKET: but then he goes on to basically talk about how "dangerous" it is to try to find that state again
POLLYPOCKET: because it disrupts family, etc

MOE: Well, see
MOE: I think that's true
MOE: But I'm specifically thinking of men.

POLLYPOCKET: I think it's true if you build your whole society around the idea of monogamous marriage being the best way to raise kids
POLLYPOCKET: which it obviously isn't
POLLYPOCKET: nuclear family suxx

MOE: Hahaha what's your proposal?
MOE: BRING BACK THE ORPHANAGE

POLLYPOCKET: well we've only had this obsession with the nuke family in the US for about a century
POLLYPOCKET: I think extended families, kinship networks, more laxity in terms of being "faithful" — having an understanding that people can fuck around and have those happy chemicals without it having to undermine their family life
POLLYPOCKET: I mean, why not have a nice kinship network for your family/kids, but also have the chance to have little romances on the side?
POLLYPOCKET: that's truer to biology
POLLYPOCKET: and more fun
POLLYPOCKET: (c.f. Woman on the Edge of Time)
POLLYPOCKET: not that "being true to biology" is always a good thing . . .
POLLYPOCKET: /soapbos
POLLYPOCKET: box

MOE: See, I think the problems you're attributing to the "nuclear family" have more to do with poor urban planning.

POLLYPOCKET: Hmm

MOE: Not that we have discussed those problems
MOE: I also kind of hate falling in love though.
MOE: "Early romance" is not my bag.

POLLYPOCKET: Yeah it feels like taking a lot of speed
POLLYPOCKET: I hate it too

MOE: Hahahaha I take speed every day.

POLLYPOCKET: I mean, it's like the crawly awful part of the speed

MOE: to me it's like heroin.
MOE: Not that I would know

POLLYPOCKET: yeah I think heroin is actually supposed to be nice while it lasts
POLLYPOCKET: what I mean, is that you feel all crazed and tooth grindy and paranoid during that early love stuff
POLLYPOCKET: which makes sense it's the same chemicals that give you the meth high
POLLYPOCKET: anyway all I was saying was that I think it's weird that we have all this scientific evidence that humans are not really built for monogamous marriage
POLLYPOCKET: and it's weird that we keep insisting that's the way to go

MOE: So yeah, I don't know how much is socialization and how much is evolution and how much is just my particular set of genes, but I am very good at the middle stage of a relationship. And I really really want to find someone who agrees. But I had a happy childhood living in a city around lots of other kids etc. etc. so that's my narrative. But I definitely think I personally am built for monogamous marriage.

POLLYPOCKET: I think some people clearly are

MOE: However

POLLYPOCKET: But you might be an outlier

MOE: Hahaha I am on everything else
MOE: why not this

POLLYPOCKET: yeah, I think it's probably a spectrum (just like sexuality)

MOE: EXACTLY

POLLYPOCKET: some are totally mono, some are "sometimes mono," some are polyamorous freaks like me (I have 3 partners, I know gross)

MOE: Now, if only those same pheromones that attract you to a person with a different immune system
MOE: Could attract you to someone with the same views on monogamy.

POLLYPOCKET: yeah

MOE: So you have three partners
MOE: This is like Springer!
MOE: I kid

POLLYPOCKET: I do think that if our culture wasn't so obsessed with monogamy, it might be easier for a mono person and a poly person to be together without stigma
POLLYPOCKET: I know I am total springer material

MOE: OK so your partners

POLLYPOCKET: you don't know the half of it

MOE: are they poly?
MOE: Are they into each other?

POLLYPOCKET: they are NOT into each other that would be livejournal scary

MOE: hahaa
MOE: are they into others?

POLLYPOCKET: drama times four hundred
POLLYPOCKET: yeah they are poly too
POLLYPOCKET: well two of them are geeks, so they are poly when they can find others who crave Linux

MOE: hahaha
MOE: well you live in San Francisco right?

POLLYPOCKET: yup — home of sexual deviance
POLLYPOCKET: and Linux lvoers

MOE: SF is its own socialization

POLLYPOCKET: that's certainly true
POLLYPOCKET: though there is a giant poly network in Boston too for some reason
POLLYPOCKET: they all buy giant houses together
POLLYPOCKET: scary

MOE: Hahaha bc they're too cold to have the energy to go out and fuck around in Boston.

MOE: well i am a big believer in pheromones

POLLYPOCKET: me too
POLLYPOCKET: there are people I can't do because of how they smell (and I don't mean they smell bad or anything)

MOE: andwhat i do not understand is why some dudes just indiscriminately try to fuck girls that way

POLLYPOCKET: yeah I know several guys like that

MOE: it takes a very specific chemical mix to me

POLLYPOCKET: it's sort of like OCD — "try this one" "try this one"

MOE: ok, here's a question, poly gay lady!

POLLYPOCKET: hahah poly bi lady please
POLLYPOCKET: I want to sound as 70s as possible

MOE: with lesbians, are you ALSO attracted to pheromones of ppl with opposite immune systems?

POLLYPOCKET: I might be a bad person to ask about this because I prefer boys

MOE: oooh

POLLYPOCKET: And the girls I like are usually tomboys

MOE: ahhhhh

POLLYPOCKET: I loooooove tomboys holy shit
POLLYPOCKET: and I like girly guys who remind me of tomboys

MOE: me too i like tomboy girls like samantha ronson

At this point the conversation becomes ridiculous and somewhat unpublishable. But it ended well!

POLLYPOCKET: kthxbai

"The outlook is decidedly more upbeat than two decades ago, when a cover story in the magazine gloomily predicted that a 40-year-old woman would have a better chance of being taken out by a terrorist than finding a husband."

Thank God. Because where would we be without husbands, eh?