In a way, Martin's article is optimistic — she writes about young men getting together not to slam feminists or domestic violence victims, but rather to "share strategies for getting college men involved in gender-based activism" and say "no to toxic masculinity." But what does nontoxic masculinity look like? For young, feminist men — and yes, there are some — this is a difficult question. Martin writes that "we've certainly got plenty of pictures of men who are stubbornly clinging to the old paradigm of maleness," but relatively few examples of any new paradigm (the closest, she says, is Stephen Colbert). As a result, Martin explains,

Many young men, it seems, are stuck in stage one of gender consciousness. They want to prove that they are one of the "good ones" and separate themselves from all the gendered behaviors and beliefs that they now see as oppressive. That, or they wallow in guilt. (This is not unlike the stage many white kids get stuck in upon fully realizing their role in perpetuating racism.) At worst, this point of view is paralyzing. At best, it leads to burnout.

It's tempting to say that there are so many misogynist men in the world that we don't need to worry about the feminist ones. But men can be incredibly useful allies — a young Tucker Max fan might be more inclined to listen to a couple of right-thinking buddies than the women he's been conditioned not to respect. And men themselves could benefit from the removal of calcified standards of old masculinity. Martin writes:

Guys who reject traditional masculinity, for starters, have a greater chance of finding fulfilling work that isn't just a symbol of their provider status. They might explore the joy of relationships — being nurturing with their kids, real with their friends, open with their partners. They have the opportunity to shed their socialized skin and all the anxiety that comes with trying to be a "tough guy" and make a happy life defined, not by their paycheck or their size, but by their humanity.

If men weren't constricted by the expectation that they behave like emotionless dick-bots, they'd be a lot happier — and so would women, children, families, and society. But it's true that men currently have little to put in place of this expectation. I know several young men for whom feminism manifests itself as guilt, and this doesn't really help them or the feminist cause. As Martin says, men need to acknowledge their privilege and work around it, rather than being obsessed with it. Women can help by accepting men as allies and friends, and by not censoring ourselves in front of them — men can handle discussions of feminism, relationships, vaginas, and periods, and we can help them realize this by not treating these as women-only topics. Men can help by listening, and by offering women the same openness, rather than reserving some types of conversation for dudes.

But do men need, in addition, "a positive, masculine gender identity?" It's something of a strange concept — few feminists would ever say that women needed "a positive, feminine gender identity." While plenty of women take pride in being female, "femininity" is so loaded with patriarchal expectation that, for feminists, it's kind of a dirty word. This may not be a bad thing — in fact, I'd argue that "masculine" should go the same way.

Gender is incredibly complicated, and the ways in which we construct it for ourselves are myriad, fascinating, and worthy of celebration. As the "Men At Their Most Masculine" project shows, both cis- and trans-men have built identities that they see as "masculine," and these identities are satisfying for them. But the idea of a top-down "masculinity" for men to aspire to, of "models," as Martin puts it, just seems restrictive. Yes, young men need to see thoughtful, feminist men, especially if they're not yet truly comfortable with women. But said thoughtful, feminist men don't necessarily have to offer a new masculinity — rather, they can simply teach that how men understand their gender is up to them, and that they shouldn't feel the need to fit themselves into any particular mold. This might be difficult — young people, despite their protestations of rebellion, kind of like molds — but it would move us one step closer to a world in which gender was an opportunity for self-expression, not a cage of expectations. The lack of a new paradigm for masculinity may look like emptiness, but it's also freedom.

Image via Beard Revue.

What's The Alternative To Tucker Max? [The American Prospect]

In a new interview with ABC News, Obama explains that the wedge issues currently receiving so much attention weren't really the point of the bill:

You know, I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.

And I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test — that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices, because one of the pledges I made in that same speech was to say that if you're happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, that it's not going to change.

So, you know, this is going to be a complex set of negotiations. I'm confident that we can actually arrive at this place where neither side feels that it's being betrayed. But it's going to take some time.

I still hate that "sneaking in funding for abortions" line: It's like the lawmakers heard the cries for affordable premiums and comprehensive coverage, and thought Yeah, but what about all those unscrupulous whores scheming to use their health care coverage to go to abortion parties and make fetus-necklaces? WTF? Doesn't the Hyde Amendment go far enough?

Melissa McEwan at Shakesville thinks Obama's milquetoast cry for unity is a crock:

There is no fucking "common ground" between people who believe in women's right to autonomy over their own bodies and people who believe that women's bodies are property of the government, or their doctors, or their husbands, or anyone else who gets a vote on whether they have to be pregnant even if they don't want to be. Either you stand on the side of women's equality and independence or you don't.

It is fucking ludicrous that our DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT refuses to take a stand on this issue.

And this mealy-mouthed bullshit-"I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill"-is contemptibly craven. I'm absolutely fucking livid that a man who had the audacity to claim to be a champion of women's right to choose would abandon women in this way.

Nancy Pelosi is cool with her decision, saying:

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday that while she opposes an anti-abortion amendment to the House version of the health care bill, it was necessary for the measure to pass.

The California Democrat said the language to prohibit the new government insurance plan from covering abortions "would have been in the bill one way or another." She said backers of the far-reaching legislation to overhaul the U.S. health care system thought it was better to have the language included as an amendment to be voted on than as a provision "that could take down the whole bill."

Pelosi, please. Why didn't you launch a counter-attack explaining that certain factions want to use health care reform as a weapon for their pet issue? Put some pressure on people! They had no problem making issues out of non issues, as is made clear by these comments from Senator Kent Conrad:

"I think all of us have recognized throughout that there are three things" - abortion, illegal immigration and the public option - "that could really bring this down," said Conrad, the only Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee to vote with Republicans on amendments restricting abortion rights.

The only thing that should have conceivably been on that list is the public option. But abortion and the issues of undocumented workers and resources? It's trumped up bullshit, preventing people from paying attention to little asides like this one:

Summarizing her study of the bill over the past 10 weeks, [Senator Susan] Collins said it was "too timid" in revamping the health care system to reward high-quality care. She said the bill included "billions of dollars in new taxes and fees that will drive up the cost of health insurance premiums."

And she noted that many of the taxes would take effect before the government started providing subsidies to low- and middle-income people to help them buy insurance.

Thus, Ms. Collins said, "there will be a gap for even low-income people where the effect of these fees will be passed on to consumers and increase premiums before any subsidies are available to offset those costs."

The bill sets standards for the value of insurance policies, stipulating that they must cover at least 65 percent of medical costs, on average.

Most policies sold in the individual insurance market in Maine do not meet those standards, Ms. Collins said, so many insurers would have to raise premiums to comply with the requirements. As a result, she said, the premium for a 40-year-old buying the most popular individual insurance policy in Maine would more than double, to $455 a month.

Wait, wait, wait - what? Fuck this, let's call Angie from Politifact on this one.

In the meantime, NPR published a quick guide to the language, noting:

Government Money: In general, government money cannot be used to pay for abortion. The government-administered health plan - often called the public option - will not cover abortion, unless a doctor certifies that a woman is in danger of death without one, or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

If you get your health insurance through the government, or with help from the government in the form of a tax subsidy, your plan will not cover abortion. In this case, you would have the right to buy extra coverage - with your own money.

If you get your health insurance through your state, as in Medicaid, your state could buy supplemental abortion coverage for everyone it insures. And 17 states already do this under Medicaid.

The Exchange: The next section of the abortion amendment deals with the exchange. That's the government-administered service where people can buy insurance and join a risk pool. One of the reasons health care is so expensive for people who don't get it through their work is that they're not in a large risk pool. The bill tries to group them together and cut costs for everyone.

Private insurance companies that offer a health plan through the exchange are allowed to cover abortion. But if they're going to, the companies must also offer another plan that is identical in every way, except that it does not cover abortion.

So, say you're buying insurance with your own money, and you get it through the exchange. You can choose a policy that covers abortion, or one that doesn't. But if you're getting help from the government to buy that insurance - in the form of a tax subsidy - you may not choose a plan that covers abortion. You are still allowed to buy a supplemental policy with your own money.

Private Insurance: The Stupak amendment does not apply to private insurance bought with private money. It is also not close to becoming law. The Senate bill does not have similar language, though lawmakers on both sides of the debate are now looking at it.

Politifact goes a bit further, denying a lot of the pro-choice rhetoric surrounding Stupid-Shits, saying that there is no proof that doomsday is on the way. Taking on Representative Nita Lowey's comments, Politifact writes:

But Lowey said the amendment "puts new restrictions on women's access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market even when they would pay premiums with their own money." We believe that Lowey's formulation is, at best, misleading. The people who would truly pay all of the premium with their own money — and who would not use federal subsidies at all — are not barred in any way from obtaining abortion coverage, even if they obtain their insurance from the federally administered health exchange.

Lowey's office counters that exchange participants who get the subsidies do indeed pay a share of their premiums with their own money, maybe even a majority of the cost. But if that's what Lowey meant, she should have said abortion coverage would be prohibited "even when they pay part, or most, of their premiums with their own money." Not making that distinction, combined with her failure to specify that she was discussing only people who use the exchange, suggests that the restrictions are more severe and widespread than they actually are.

Some in the abortion-rights community do actually make a stronger case that the amendment would harm individuals who pay for their coverage without subsidies. This line of argument involves what insurance companies might do from a business perspective in response to the amendment.

Some critics say that the amendment throws up enough obstacles against offering abortion coverage on the health exchange — particularly the requirement to offer two separate plans, one of them without abortion provisions — that insurers will simply take the path of least resistance and offer a single plan that leaves out abortion coverage. Some also argue that companies will be reluctant to offer riders for abortion coverage, or that there won't be much demand for them. This could indirectly diminish the abortion coverage options for people on the exchange who don't take subsidies, even though the law doesn't limit their options directly.

There's plenty of room for debate about how the Stupak-Pitts amendment will eventually shape the availability of abortion coverage.

There is tons of room for debate, especially when the assumption is that women are the unscrupulous whores, and not the "profits over patients" philosophy of insurance companies. They're supposed to trust the same people that classified domestic violence as a pre-existing condition and denied a four month old coverage for being fat? And they're supposed to trust that what they produce won't amount to an abortion penalty? Not happening. Even if insurance companies still offer the same coverage they always have, it would amount to the middle class facing what poor women have since the 70s - when you accept government funds, you are giving the government the right to dictate the decisions you make about your life and your well being. Planned Parenthood is calling it "the middle class abortion ban," but any way you slice it, the ramifications of this amendment are far reaching.

Still, the debate promises to get more interesting. There are rumors swirling about former President Bill Clinton getting involved with health care reform, and one of the staunchest Roe foes, Senator Bob Casey, has stated "health care reform should not be used to change longstanding policies regarding federal financing of abortion which has been in place since 1976."

Curiouser and Curiouser.

TRANSCRIPT: ABC News Exclusive Interview with President Barack Obama [ABC News]
Pelosi discusses health care bill on Seattle tour [AP]
Senate faces abortion rights rift [Politico]
Obama Seeks Revision of Plan's Abortion Limits [NY Times]
Official Site [Politifact]
Breaking Down Abortion Language In Health Bill [NPR]
Lowey says Stupak amendment restricts abortion coverage even for those who pay for their own plan [Politifact]
Too Fat for Health Insurance? At Four Months? [ABC News]
"Middle-class abortion ban" [Politico]
Bill Clinton Tackles Senate Abortion Rift [CBS News]
Casey: No new abortion restrictions in bill [Politico]

Earlier:

Reproductive Rights Left Behind After Health Care Bill Passes House
Democrats Vow To Eliminate Domestic Violence As Pre-Existing Condition

The thing about models is that they are rarely the subjects of long, investigative, detailed magazine profiles, leavened with biographical information about their parents' backgrounds and whatever psychological tells the writer can seize upon during his or her reporting. Models are mostly seen in pictures. They're there to entertain our projections, and that's easiest done mute. It's celebrities who are endlessly, redundantly storied, profiled over and over again until such mundanities as what Leighton likes to eat for lunch and the fact that Angelina has a pilot's license have been entirely too thoroughly plumbed for metaphoric depth. The glimpse-of-fame profile is an essential part of the celebrity-sartorial complex, but the problems with it are manifold. As the celebrity profiles proliferate, the pool of unreported information that might actually be interesting or affecting to a wide audience shrinks. The pool of under-covered celebrities — who are (of course) pretty and (nearly always) white and (duh) thin enough to fit sample sizes in the standard lavish photo shoot — dwindles, too, until we're stuck reading about the Deep Thoughts of reality TV stars and teenagers ad nauseam. And as women's magazines' reliance on Big Cover Stars to anchor their issues grows, the conditions imposed by the army of protective flacks — writer approval, preset no-go topics, limitations on access — become more byzantine. (Hence why Elle spiked even this pretty tame profile of Jennifer Lopez at the request of her reps. Hence why you'll never read about the night Charlize Theron's mom shot and killed her dad while 15-year-old Charlize watched in a women's magazine. You will instead be told that she's really pretty, and much too polite to be thought of as having opinions, or as Vogue puts it, "far be it from her to ruin a perfectly nice luncheon trying to prove that she's a serious person.") Models get talked about as images but don't tend to get covered as people. Celebrities talk all too much, but far be it from them to say anything interesting.

So into this morass of diminishing returns steps Lara Stone, and it is just so weird to read a story that starts off in the standard mawkish key of celebrity profile writing — obligatory meaningless quote from Mario Testino; repetitive physical description along the lines of "naked Venus...austere, Flemish face...Her breasts are so perfect even I found it hard not to stare at them"; entirely too much attention paid to what she is wearing — before switching codes entirely.

What's the longest she has stayed in one place in the past two years, asks Vogue's Vassi Chamberlain, after Stone confesses she has spent seven days at a stretch, max, in her London apartment since moving to the city six months ago.

She answers without hesitating: "Four weeks." Was that on holiday? "No. That was to rehab." ... "I am a complete alcoholic," she says. "It used to be so easy to tell someone, 'Get me a bottle of vodka,' and they'd run and get it."

Okay then! Consider our expectations raised.

In the story — which you cannot read at British Vogue's website, but which people have taken the time to scan here and here — Stone goes on to make various statements which aren't "bold" or "interesting," with all the self-consciousness those imply, so much as they are just affectingly real. She doesn't sound like she's talking from a well-rehearsed script when pressed about controversial industry practices, as can the otherwise clever Lily Cole. Cole recently claimed in the Times of London, "I saw eating problems more at my school than in that industry. I do get that there is an aesthetic — it changes generation by generation. There's always been an ideal, from the Fifties or the Eighties," which is an ingenious dodge of the size-zero question and a very disingenuous thing to say. Stone, who despite her 34"-24"-35" measurements is sometimes considered one of the larger straight-size models, calls herself "fat" and says, "If I could have the discipline to be super-skinny, I would be. I think of dieting, then I eat pizza. I'm a woman, and every woman wants to be skinnier. Unfortunately." Cole, testy: "I think drugs are taken all over the world. And I've never really experienced it." Stone, realistic: "I never really wanted to be that model on drugs, the sort who gives head for a line of coke."

Stone isn't interested in running interference for an industry that treated her with standard disinterest for the better part of a decade before she, at the improbable age of 23, started to enjoy breakout success. As a teenager in Paris, she lived in an Elite model apartment with up to seven other girls. She was not a sensation. "We did 15 castings a day, visiting the same people over and over again. They'd make bitchy comments about us in French, thinking we didn't understand." (Sounds...familiar.) Stone also worked in Japan, where her agency measured her weekly, instructed her never to smile, and contracted her to do up to three shoots a day. Models who got pimples were sent back. Not that Stone is dewy-eyed about model solidarity: she pushed a girl who wouldn't get out of her way at the Jaeger show this season. "I kept saying, 'Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me,' because I had to get to the catwalk, but she just kept posing. So I pushed her. It was only a few stairs." It's not easy to imagine Kate Bosworth confessing to something so human.

"Men don't like me," reports Stone. For all her much-vaunted "curves", she says, "I haven't been on a date in six months." She last dated an investment banker in New York; the end of the relationship coincided with her stint in rehab and her move to London. "I've just started a club with a girlfriend," she reports, "called the We Hate Men But We Can't Be Gay Club."

I Hate Women's Magazine Profiles But Can't Stop Reading Them.

Ones like this are pretty all right, though.

British Vogue [Official Site]
Stone Age [The Fashion Spot]
Charlize Theron At Home On The Range [Vogue]
Time Out: Lily Cole [Times of London]
Behind The Glow [Daily Beast]

Earlier:French Vogue All Lara Stone, All The Time
The 5 Great Lies of Women's Magazines

It's hard to read the details of Caroline and Steve Cartwright's case, reported in the Telegraph, without giggling a little bit. Their sex noises apparently drowned out neighbors' televisions, and aural witnesses described them as "unnatural" and ''murder." The sounds were apparently so disruptive that the city installed a decibel-meter in the Cartwrights' home, which found that the couple reached 47 decibels (a suggestion that neighbors may be overreacting: 47 decibels is actually below the level of normal conversation, according to several charts). Cartwright and her husband were banned from "shouting, screaming or vocalisation at such a level as to be a statutory nuisance." They were convicted of violating the ban, and now Caroline Cartwright is appealing — she says that her sex life deserves respect, and that a sexual psychologist will testify that she can't help making noise. So is she right?

Well, folks, I Googled "women's sex vocalization" so you don't have to (though if you'd like to know what a) rats, b) mice and c) brunettes sound like while engaged in intercourse, by all means go ahead), and I came up with a book called The Male Sexual Machine, by Kenneth Purvis. The book's overview makes the specious claim that "the practice of gynecology has brought millions of women to a greater understanding of their own sexual health, its male counterpart, andrology, remains largely an unexplored field" (sounds a little like a certain Onion article), but it does offer some semi-intriguing evolutionary explanations for women's sex sounds. Apparently a woman's moans speed a man's ejaculation, possibly improving the odds of simultaneous orgasm and thus of conception. And somewhat more upsettingly, female moaning may have evolved to attract more male partners to the area, back in monkey-times when most sex was group sex. All of Purvis's arguments seem like they deserve a pretty big grain of salt, but it is possible that women's sex noises have a biological basis. And while most of us can keep them in check when we're, say, staying at our parents' houses, there's an element of the involuntary in the sex moan, and it's not hard to believe that some people might have trouble stifling it.

So should they be obligated to try? For my part, I've never really been all that bothered by loud sex. I lived for a while in a part of a co-op affectionately known as the Sex Hallway, and later shared an apartment with a woman who had a really distinctive — and frequent — keening fuck-moan. In both cases I at first found it a little hard to look people in the eye after I'd just heard them boning, but I got over that pretty quickly and generally found their vocal antics harmless. My years of communal living have taught me that I'd much rather hear people fucking than fighting. That said, I get why one might not want to live near people whose sex-sounds carried across the street — not everyone wants to imagine their neighbors going at it. The question is, do we have the right to demand a sex-free airspace? Or does Caroline Cartwright deserve to moan her heart out, since her cries are, after all, far from "unnatural?"

Image via Telegraph.

Woman Claims Order Banning Her From Noisy Sex Is Breach Of Human Rights [Telegraph]

Car repair? That's for boys. That look on his face says: "I'm thinking about overcharging you."

Cooking and cleaning? That's for girls. The young lady on the left might also be discovering that a frying pan can double as a weapon, but that's for advanced users.

Grilling? That's for boys. Even though cooking on a stove is for girls, if you cook with fire, you're following our ancestor, Homo Erectus. Early Man, not Early Woman!

Playing with your food is something both girls and boys can do; although only girls work at McDonald's.

Related: When I was four, I loved McDonald's intensely and thought it was a burger and shake heaven on earth. So when a teacher asked me — the only black kid in my pre-k class — what I wanted to do when I grew up, I said "work at McDonald's." My mom witnessed this interaction and, I think, almost died of disappointment.

Being a pretty princess, wearing make-up and jewelry? That's for girls.

And just because you're a princess doesn't mean you shouldn't bake, make toast or blend a smoothie. Duh. That's what girls do.

A plush pet condo, for girls ages 2 and up. Because it's never too early to be a crazy cat lady!

Something all girls look forward to: Graduating from a baking princess to a Queen Of Clean. Maybe someday she'll be in one of those sad mop commercials Sarah Haskins is always making fun of.

Don't tell Danica Patrick, but car racing is for boys. Falling in love is for girls.

Sports are for boys.

Except soccer. Girls can play soccer. And whatever that other thing is.

OMG progress: Girls can be doctors! Or star in primetime medical dramas!

But boys can be paleontologists, truckers, law enforcement officials or doctors.

Lilly's Kids [Official Site]

Earlier: All previous catalog posts

Khloe's mom Kris took on the planning of the event and, in the process, tried to influence Khloe to opt for a color scheme that was more flattering to herself; decided that the meal would be steak (which Khloe doesn't eat); and dominated the wedding registry with her own selections, including silverware priced at $750 per setting, which, Khloe pointed out, her friends would never be able to afford.


Bruce Jenner, Khloe's stepdad, wasn't very enthusiastic about the engagement when he first learned about it (on the evening news), but came around eventually. He gave a really touching toast at the rehearsal dinner, and teared up when discussing the promise he made to Khloe's late father.


Kim managed to get over herself and decided that she was going to support Khloe, but there still seemed to be a bit of tension there.


All was forgiven, though, when Khloe basically handed the bouquet toss to Kim.

Thompson, you see, disappointed many of her fans earlier this fall when she signed a petition — along with a host of other boldface names, including Salman Rushdie, Natalie Portman, and Diane Von Furstenburg — demanding that Polanski be freed on charges relating to his rape of a 13-year-old girl in 1977.

Luckily, Caitlin Hayward-Tapp was nowhere near as abstemious as the View ladies: last week, the 19-year-old Exeter University student gutsily convinced Thompson to remove her name from the petition demanding Polanski's freeing. But as of this morning, Thompson's name was still on the petition, which is hosted on the website of French public intellectual Bernard Henri-Levy.

After we contacted her a few hours ago, Ms. Thompson's publicist told us that her client "...requested that her name be removed when she said she would. We have asked for confirmation from them but have not yet received it."

We also asked Mr. Henri-Levy's camp for an update, and Liliane Lazar, a former French professor who worked with him on the petition, responded, saying that Thompson's name will be removed Wednesday. As for why it would take several days to remove a line from a posting on a webpage, Ms. Lazar has yet to say.

Related: Thompson Talked Out of Support For Polanski by 19-year-old Student [Independent]
Polanski Business: In Which Emma Thompson Breaks My Heart [Shakesville]
Dear Emma... [Shakesville]

Earlier: Emma Thompson To Remove Name From Polanski Petition?
Letters From Hollywood: Roman Polanski's Rape Of Child No Big Thing

After an entire season of having his sleep interrupted by Betty, the baby, and Conrad Hilton, Don finally had to wake himself up. This seemed to be one of the themes of this episode, as Don put all his effort into to saving Sterling Cooper, and came to terms with the fact that he couldn't do the same for his failed marriage.


When his relationship with Connie was severed after the news that Sterling Cooper and its parent company were being sold, Don was justifiably bitter, saying, "You come and go as you please, and you don't care that my future is tied up in this mess because of you." It's ironic that it completely escapes Don that he just verbalized exactly how Betty feels about their marriage.

Connie replies, "I've got everything I have on my own. It's made me immune to those who complain and cry because they can't. I didn't take you as one of them, Don. Are you?" He's not. And Connie's speech was the horse kick in the head Don needed to stop feeling sorry for himself and start feeling empowered as a man who is actually in control of his own destiny.

Like Connie, Don is immune to those who "complain and cry" at the idea that they don't have something of their own—namely, Betty.


But unlike Connie—who took a shine to Don because he saw a piece of himself in the creative genius—Don, at times, resents in others what he does himself. Seriously though, didn't you reflexively rubberneck and think, "Who you callin' a whore?" It isn't even a pot/kettle situation: Betty hasn't even consummated her relationship with Henry Francis yet. (And yes, she did fuck that guy in that bar that one time, but her extramarital bedpost is still relatively intact compared to Don's, which has been whittled down to a toothpick at this point.)

More ridiculous was Don's insistence that Betty should see a doctor because she hasn't been "herself". The fact of the matter is that she hasn't been herself during the entire marriage—and possibly for her entire life. She's been the woman she was told she should be. The change Don has seen is evidence that she's actually been getting in touch with herself and her wants and her needs, and she's realizing that Don doesn't fulfill them. She was right when she said she deserved more.


But Don was right, too. Betty built herself a life raft in order to jump ship from her marriage. Don wasn't exactly the whole problem—depending on him to make her happy was. And now she's going to depend on Henry. Will she have to go through a second divorce to realize that what she wanted and needed was independence?


Which brings us to Peggy. Earlier, Roger told Don, "You're not good at relationships because you don't value them." Don's relationship with Peggy in this episode mirrored that of his relationship with Betty. He doesn't ask, he just assumes that she'll follow him around "like a nervous poodle," and everyone thinks he does all her work, even him. He's taken her for granted, saying, "There's not one thing that you've done here that I couldn't live without." She lets him know that she's had other offers—just like Betty.


But unlike his interactions with Betty, Don tries hard to win Peggy back. Like many people, Don subconsciously places more importance on the work that Peggy does more than the work of a housewife. It's interesting how in every scene in his office, Peggy always sat on the right, and Don—in the power position—on the left. Now their roles are reversed. And he says everything to Peggy that he should've been saying to his wife, like, "I've been hard on you, but only because I think I see you as an extension of myself. And you're not."

Perhaps Don took Roger's comment about valuing relationships to heart, because he stresses to Peggy, Pete, Lane, and Roger how indispensable they each are. He seems to know exactly what to say to everyone to make them feel valuable—except for his own estranged wife.


Or his children, for that matter. Although he does try.


Still, his efforts are paying off in some ways. Peggy needed that validation from Don, and now she's sure of her worth—and it doesn't involve fetching coffee for Roger.


Joan—and Roger—however, always knew exactly how valuable she was, and is.


Trudy's pretty valuable, too. She's becoming a Lady MacBeth of sorts, and is proving to be instrumental to Pete's success. It's yet to be seen if he knows this.


Unfortunately, though, the eldest Draper kids are merely afterthoughts. Are they really gonna live with Carla for those whole six weeks that Betty is in Reno?


At the end of the episode, the closing song included the lyrics, "The future is much better than the past. In the future, you will find a love that lasts." Betty's face seems to imply otherwise. Like Don said, "Something happened—something terrible—and the way that people saw themselves is gone." We shall wait and see.

1.) Toes
Tyra had guests this week who get fake toenails put on.

And there were these idiots, who pay $65 a session to have their toes read.

2.) Mariah
She made the talk show rounds. She stumbled on Leno.

Then she went on Larry King Live, where she blinged out his logo.

And then smelled her tits.

Also, Larry serenaded her.

3.) "Where are you?"
Sex Rehab with Dr. Drew premiered this week. One of its cast members, Nicole Narain, was on The Joy Behar Show, where she answered Joy's question a little too literally.

4.) What happens when you slouch in Judge Judy's court.

5.) Cougars
The Insider is taking this taking this cougar thing way too far. Although, I do like the little glimpses of Wasilla townies we get.

Niecy Nash is now literally referred to as "the resident cougar," and for the past two weeks, she's been going on dates with younger men.

Is this supposed to be sexy? Chest stubble and exaggerated nipples?

It reminds me of when Homer got plastic surgery so that Marge wouldn't leave him for a younger man.

And his nipples cried.

6.) Heather from Rock of Love on It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
She played a hooker.

7.) Why did Sandals have to ruin a perfectly lovely song?

8.) Jon Gosselin implied that he's on the same professional level as Mary Hart.
And she didn't like it.

9.) Kirstie Alley on her coke days.

10.) Michelle Obama is fun.

I've always liked the name Kate. It has a take-no-prisoners shortness and efficiency — I envision Kate walking down a major street in a big city, wearing cigarette pants and stylish ankle boots, with her head in the game and her eyes on the prize. Katherine may dither, Kathy may chirp, but Kate speaks in a serious, matter-of-fact voice, and when she speaks, you listen. Often, when I think about names, I think about high school, but I can't imagine Kate before she had her own apartment (studio; well-appointed but not ostentatious; clean) or her demanding yet extremely cool job (architect; investigative reporter; corporate detective; spy?). Kate doesn't have a lot of time for friends, but when you manage to catch her in town (she travels a lot for work), she gives great advice. And she tells a great story, although you always know there's a better story she's not telling. Kate could star in a modern-dress production of The Taming of the Shrew — except that in the final act, she'd tell Petruchio where to shove it.

But there's also a dark side to Kate. She's so cool and successful it can make her stuck up. She's not a mean girl, and she's not interested in shit-talk or gossip, but she might not have compassion for people less together than her. Sometimes she just doesn't understand how you could date that guy, or that girl, or why you lost your job when she just got a promotion. This aspect of Kate I can imagine playing out in high school — she's the girl who couldn't see why everyone didn't get an A on the bio test, since it was so easy. Kate doesn't take pleasure in other people's pain, but she has no appreciation for messiness in life, and if you're a little bit of a mess, she has no time for you.

Famous Kates don't necessarily bear out my vision of the name. Kate Moss, whom I consider the iconic Kate, certainly dresses like one. She has the badass aspect of Kateness down, but she's also no stranger to messiness. Kate Winslet just seems too lushly gorgeous — and also too down-to-earth — to fit my image of the somewhat unforgiving Kate. Cate Blanchett might be closer — that angular, ethereal face looks like it could deliver some harsh judgments. But Kate Bosworth seems the closest to the ice-queen version of Kate, especially since her enthusiasm for horseback-riding adds a little upper-crustiness to her image.

Kate hit its peak of popularity — #97 in the US — in the 1880s, and it seems like a pretty good name for a Victorian lady, especially the kind who plays the piano and paints and knows three languages and looks down her nose at you if you use the wrong fork. The name fell all the way down to #843 in the fifties — maybe those traditionalist times favored less hard-driving names for women. Now the name has rebounded to #139, but if you're a Kate, you probably don't give a shit. You're probably not even reading this — after all, you have a plane to catch.

Kate [Wikipedia]
Kate (popularity) [The Baby Name Wizard]

Earlier: J Is For Jennifer, The Vanilla Of Names
I Is For Isabel, Who's Snooty, But Earns It
H Is For Hillary, A Barrel Of Laughs
G Is For Grace - What's That Up Her Sleeve?
F Is For Francesca, And I Wish I Were Her
E Is For Emily, Who Seems Sweet (At First)
D Is For Danielle (Or Dani, Who's Apparently Kinda Judgey)
C Is For Courtney, Who's Too Cool For School
B is for Beth (And Barack! And Bandana!)
A Is For Anna: What My First Name Says About Me

I have to say, it was pretty cool that the designers went to the Getty Center. I've been, and I think it's spectacular, and the trip almost made it seem like the old Project Runway was back — when contestants would be inspired by architecture, art or Postal Service uniforms. That said, the clothes that came out of this challenge were atrocious. These people have got to be some of the WORST the show has ever had. Where's the dreamy romance, a la Leanne? The couture drama, courtesy of Christian Siriano?

Where is anything that looks like this?

Anyway. Althea was inspired by the architecture of the Getty.

Carol Hannah was into one specific Frenchy French bed.

Irina liked this painting, with its different textures: Fur, marble, flesh and sheer dresses.

Christopher was inspired by a fountain: Specifically, the rocks. And the algae.

Gordana was moved by Monet.

Of course, putting the inspiration in action was mostly a disaster. Tim thought Irina's fur was apacalypto.

Tim Gunn: Perplexed by preposterous, problematic pebbley puckery panels.

Christopher painted himself as a martyr, saying "I know who I am, I'm the wacky weird guy." Wacky? No. Repetitive? Maybe.

Anyway, the runway was rough. Did you catch the look Althea gave Irina's dress?

Guest judges Cynthia Rowley and Cindy Crawford joined Nina and Heidi in trashing Irina's dress… Or at least, the styling. And the length.

But guess what? Irina was the first one to be told she was going to fashion week. Were you rooting for her? I wasn't.

Althea's dress was called a "messfest." But she went to fashion week too.

Carol Hannah's dress was kind of meh. And yet! She rounded out the final three.

Christopher's rock dress was really similar to his Vampire bride gown. And it was too stiff, the judges thought. And so he was out.

Poor Gordana really put her heart and soul into her angelic cathedral dress. But it wasn't enough to get her into the final three.

As you know, Fashion Week already happened. In February. So if you want to see images from the final three's shows, Racked has photos. Now that we know who the contestants are, it's fairly easy to tell that the one with all the fur and knits? Irina. I'm guessing collection one is Althea; collection two is Carol Hannah. But I could be wrong! In any case, the three shows got terrible reviews. Cementing my gut feeling that this was the worst season ever.

Liveblogging the Shows: Project Runway [Racked]
Earlier: The Tragedy That Was The Project Runway Show

Hope was the last thing I was expecting when I delved into the story. Foremost on my mind was a Racialicous post from January, "Reveling in Bleakness," an essay that digs into the issues surrounding Push/black literature in mainstream culture; furthermore, any online discussion of Precious, was followed by mention of writer Percival Everett's book Erasure, a literary response to Push published in 2001. In short, all initial discussion of the book and the movie was a race and class-related cacophony, and I hadn't even opened a page.

I settled in for what I thought would be an extremely painful and devastating read...or, worse, something so disgusting and exploitative that I would reject it outright as poverty pimping. Instead, I fell headlong into the alternately horrific and hilarious world of Precious Jones, a world that felt simultaneously familiar and alien. Precious' rapid fire thoughts, and casual allegiance to Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam are fascinating, as is her openness to the world, even as she is limited by her life's circumstances. I understand the impulse to cringe at her story, painted as it is with dysfunction and pain (the graphic depictions of sexual and physical violence aren't for the faint of heart). But again, I read the novel dry-eyed. Perhaps I didn't have any tears left to shed for Precious. I've been holding in the secrets of others for years - and although the circumstances described in Push are extreme, they're not unimaginable. I smiled when I closed the book.

The next day, I hopped on the train to NYC to catch a screening of the film adaptation. Again, I prepared for a devastation that did not materialize. I did break down - especially during Mary's final monologue - but I spent a lot more of the movie laughing along with the title character (sometimes, life is so fucked up it moves into the absurd, which is what happens in Precious.; but the abject misery of the dank apartment Precious shares with her sadistic mother is mitigated by many other scenes, especially those of Precious' fellow students reclaiming their lives and their narratives).

My favorite character, outside of Precious, is Joanne. Actress Xosha Roquemore clearly evokes the spirit of Remy Ma and drops her into the 1980s. I died laughing at her empathy and warmth, undercut with flourishes of hard posturing.

The film does many things well, starting with the Susan L. Taylor cameo as the fairy godmother who opens the film's first fantasy sequence. Daniels is able to capture the horror of what happens to Precious without glamorizing the violence, making use of quick cut scenes and strategically placed fantasy sequences to pull both Precious and the viewer away from the acts committed upon her. In addition, Daniels stays fairly true to the book, pulling many lines directly from the pages. In addition, Daniels makes wonderful use of visuals - the laughter-filled, happy scenes with Precious in the hospital, surrounded by friends and a doting vegan nurse (Lenny Kravitz) provide a stark contrast with her return to the brown void with her mother.

Though I would count the film as a success, there is a major stumble that took place when moving the book from page to screen.

Over at Feministing, Rose writes:

A few days remain until Precious debuts across the country on Nov. 6th. The story, originally told by Sapphire through the novel Push, is an ode to negotiating inclusion and exclusion in the media. It's about much more than the New York Times' account: a "Harlem girl raped and impregnated by her abusive father." (That's practically all the ink dedicated to Precious the character despite an accompanying a column that extends for 5 pages.) It's about inclusion and what it says about who is valuable in our society. That's best captured in Push, when Precious explores this:

I am comp'tant. I was comp'tant enough for her [Precious' mother] husband to fuck. She ain' come in here and say, Carl Kenwood Jones—thas wrong! Git off Precious like that! Can't you see Precious is a beautiful chile like white chile in magazines or on toilet paper wrappers. Precious is a blue-eye skinny chile whose hair is long braids, long long braids. Git off Precious fool! It time for Precious to go to the gym like Janet Jackson. It time for Precious hair to braided.(64)

But what I love about the book is that Precious is not a defenseless subject. She is a survivor who resists against her exclusion by striving for her own inclusion. She does this by learning how to read. She then uses her literacy to read about the lives of Black women through writers such as Alice Walker, Ann Petry, Ann McGovern and others. The story ends with her literally penning her own story fully epitomizing the agency she had all along despite sexual trauma and despair.

This is precisely my take. From the beginning of the novel, Precious' voice explodes on the page, providing us with a heroine who may not be the most educated or literate, but has a vibrant inner life. This doesn't exactly translate on screen - Sidibe voices some of Precious' thoughts, but slowly, and nowhere near as many random, flitting ideas are explored in the movie. This omission changes our perception of Precious - in the book, she is bright, quick-witted, and runs a constant narration about the things she has encountered in her world. And once she discovers the alternative school, the reader is excited as Precious is finally given a chance to express what she is thinking - she has a space in which to speak where she is valued, as well as a new method (writing) that unlocked more possibilities for reflection, introspection, and discussions.

In the film, these elements are flattened a bit. I'm aware that books cannot be translated exactly to the screen, but condensing Precious' thoughts removes a lot of her own agency. For example, after Precious acts out in math class and gets into a verbal confrontation with her teacher, Mr. Wicher, she feels some remorse and ruminates on a goal that's slightly out of reach:

I didn't want to hurt him or embarrass him like that you know. But I couldn't let him, anybody, know, page 122 look like page 152, 22, 3, 6, 5 - all the pages look alike to me. 'N I really do want to learn. Everyday I tell myself something gonna happen, some shit like on TV. I'm gonna break through or somebody gonna break through to me - I'm gonna learn, catch up, be normal, change my seat to the front of the class. But again, it has not been that day.

This was on page five. Sapphire establishes her acharacter as wanting something more, knowing there is something more, but not quite understanding how she can reach her goal. The movie makes the classroom scenes closer to a "Freedom Writers" scenario, with Paula Patton veering way too close to the typical "nice white lady" trope.

Ah, Paula Patton.

While I think Patton is gorgeous and talented, I don't think she did the character of Blu Rain justice.

Part of this is not her fault - the character of Blue Rain in the book is considerably darker, with dreadlocks. Now, this may not seem so important on its face. After all, casting makes character changes all the time, right? This shouldn't be this big of a deal.

And it wouldn't, if the character of Precious wasn't so thoroughly indoctrinated with self hatred, displaying her color consciousness throughout the entire book. In Push, after she has her first child, Precious wastes no time in calling an EMT a "spic", quickly revising her opinion of him to use the more respectful term "Spanish" and comment on his "coffee-cream color, good hair" after he comes to her aid. Her nurse in the hospital is described as "butter color" - Precious worships light skinned people in general, whites most of all, believing that if she were white, her life would be better. She says:

My fahver don't see me really. If he did, he would know I was like a white girl, a real person, inside.

Marinate on that for a second. She would be real if she were white.

He would not climb on me from forever and stick his dick in me 'n get me inside on fire, bleed, I bleed then he slap me. Can't he see I am a girl for flowers and thin straw legs and a place in the picture. I been out the picture so long I am used to it. But that don't mean it don't hurt.

In Precious' mind, whiteness is equivalent to being loved, safe, and wanted. The movie briefly touches on this, showing Precious looking in the mirror and seeing a young white girl peering back at her, but this moment is robbed from its potency unless you are exposed to the constant self-hatred throbbing in her brain.

On a broader scale, as many others have noted, the positioning of Paula Patton and Mariah Carey as Precious' light skinned saviors reinforces existing societal ideas - the evil or helpless dark skinned people being uplifted (or punished) by the benevolent light skinned people. The casting serves to help reinforce existing prejudices that we see played out onscreen time and time again.

Even outside of that, Patton's portrayal of Rain did not make me believe that she was someone Precious could trust. That Mad TV sketch I linked to above? That was the scene between Precious and Blu Rain after Precious confesses she is HIV positive. Down to the heavy handed command, "write."

The other moment in the film that radically departs from the book is Mary's final monologue. In the social worker's office, Precious' mother gives voice to what caused her to look the other way when she knew her child was being sexually abused, and gives insight into why she chose to perpetuate this dysfunction. In the book, this speech isn't much of a speech - it's a confession, with Precious cursing her mother out in her head the whole time. And while the sight of the film's monstrous antagonist breaking down and offering to forgo the sacred welfare for a chance to be reunited with her daughter adds to the movie immeasurably, I don't think Mary should have automatically been humanized on principle. If you want the evil mom to be given full representation and humanity, go read the Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao. But here, I think Sapphire deliberately chose not to humanize Mary's character. Why? I believe the answer lies on page 31.

I talk loud but I still don't exist.

In life, the character of Precious Jones is marginalized and invisible, ignored unless someone wishes to do her harm or use her in some way. Her only refuge is her mind, where she keeps herself company. And thus, Sapphire - who revealed a bit of this sentiment in her recent interview with Katie Couric - makes the entire novel about her. It's all about her thoughts, her eyes, her reactions, her perceptions. (The other girls publish their stories in a supplement after Precious' story ends.) And so, shifting the focus to anyone else would ultimately start to overshadow the story of Precious, even for a moment.

There is so much more I could write - perceptions about the film, familial violence, sexual abuse, black stereotyping, the single story conundrum, other critics take's, race and Oscar bait, what I thought about Erasure - but those will have to wait for another day.

Precious [Official Site]

Related: Reveling In Bleakness [Racialicious]
Erasure [Amazon]
The Not-Rape Epidemic [Racialicious]
Precious: Based On The Novel Push By Sapphire [IMDB]
On Representation: Push Versus Precious [Feministing]
Reflections On Lola [The Brief Wondrous Life Of Oscar Wao] (Part 1 of 2) [Racialicious]
Katie Couric Interviews Sapphire [What About Our Daughters]

Earlier: What We Talk About When We Talk About Precious

Fred is really fashion-forward this season, with metallics and retro-looking bra and panty sets. (We're ignoring that lace monstrosity inset, mmkay?

So much silver! Pretty classy, considering.

The color here is called "Moonbeam." Heh. Moon. We haven't even gotten to the ass-centric part yet.

This would be a good outfit to wash dishes or pay bills in. I mean, it's going to lift your spirits! And your tits.

Has it ever occurred to you that "babydoll" is kind of a weird word to use when talking about lingerie? Empire waists and fluttery, ruffled chemises are fun, but let's leave Lolita, Baby Spice, Caroll Baker and other thoughts of sexualization of children out of it.

Am I turning into a prude? The more see-through it is, the less I like it.

Wait! I think I can get behind that flirty half-slip on the far right. Heh. Get behind.

If you're going to be riding in a one-horse open sleigh, you're going to need a bit more coverage. Especially with H, the teddy on the bottom left. A person could get frostbite in places you really don't want frostbite.

Mean Girls flashbacks, anyone? I enjoyed KG and the Power of 3.

Dear Santa,
If someone brings me a maribou-nipple thingie with "Jingle Bell Crotchless Boy Shorts," I will be sad…

…And I don't want a bow on my business, either.
Love,
Me.

Re: That woman on the far left. You'd be laughing, too, if you had a Fraggle in your cleavage.

This panty supposedly has a "low back." But isn't it so much more than that? Seems like you could go to the doctor's office and get a Malaria shot without even taking your undies off.

Here we go: Butt bows, butt laces, butt butterflies.

And! Special for 2009! Limited Edition! Rhinestones! In your butt!

No, really: Right up in there. Ouch.

Still, I can't hate on this catalog, because they carry plus sizes, some of the bras are quite lovely, and the retro -ish stuff is actually pretty! And some bras come in sizes up to 42F.

Just stay away from the cheeky crack charms. You'd better watch out. You'd better not try.

Earlier: Frederick's Of Hollywood's Marketing Techniques Haven't Changed Much In 45 Years
Frederick's Of Hollywood Has A Heart-On For Valentine's Day
Frederick's Of Hollywood: Not As Slutty As You Might Think! (But Still Pretty Slutty)

Click here for all previous catalog posts.

According to Klein, Clinton is a bundle of contradictions. She messed up an opportunity to advance fruitful peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians, except such talks are almost never fruitful. ("For the past 40 years, the awkward Middle East press conference has helped define the job of Secretary of State. You go to Jerusalem or Ramallah; you stand there 'guardedly optimistic' in public; in private, you try to move a comma, but the Israelis or Palestinians move a semicolon to block your comma. The result is almost always the same: gridlock.") Clinton's big mouth made the administration look bad — by reinforcing things Obama had already said. "The conventional wisdom," is that by installing Clinton as Secretary of State, Obama "succeeded in neutering her" (nice), but then, he also gave her the power to "become a torpedo aimed at the Oval Office." She's bungled diplomacy yet made enormous strides in improving America's image abroad. Her edgier tone has been evident from the start of the Administration" — in some cases irritating the White House — yet "her reticence during her first nine months on the job," did indeed bolster the impression that she was "neutered." (Dear Joe Klein and rest of world, Can we please find a better metaphor for being rendered ineffectual?) By all on-the-record accounts, her "relationship with Obama really - really - is strong," but anonymous "emanations," "burblings" and "Foggy Bottom body language" (say that 5 times fast) indicate otherwise, maybe, sort of.

"These tensions are well within the boundaries of normal, creative policymaking," writes Klein, but he seems determined to make something more of them nonetheless. An "essential rule of diplomacy," he says, is "boring is almost always better" — but obviously, an essential rule of journalism is the opposite. So I can sympathize with the need to jazz up a story that amounts to, "She seems to be doing a pretty OK job — not perfect, but whatever." But the way he does it is sort of dizzying. Is she fucking up or doing smart, new things? Is she too blunt or too retiring? Too powerful, or too [new metaphor]? Is she putting words in Obama's mouth or vice versa? Do they lurve each other or secretly plot against each other? The contradictory questions don't balance the portrait of a complex woman so much as they obscure it.

By far the most interesting and enlightening parts come in the middle, when Klein sits down and talks to Clinton, whom he's known for a bazillion years. They talk about her first trip to Pakistan in 1995 — he was there — and she gushes about the experience and admits what a Benazir Bhutto fangirl she was. In this section, Klein points out that "Ironically, the rise of Sunni extremist groups like al-Qaeda has brought Clinton's interests - microfinance, education and health care - to the center of national-security policy for the first time" — oh hey, she has interests! — and says Clinton's excellent relationship with military leaders at home has "helped make the relationship between State and the Pentagon less fraught than usual." She has "a palpable toughness" to her, and unlike a lot of journalists, Klein seems to mean that as a real compliment. He mentions repeatedly that she is intensely guarded and private, which undoubtedly explains a lot of his (and everyone's) difficulty in pinning her down, but still, this middle part is where we get a sense that he's talking about a real person with identifiable strengths, weaknesses, goals and accomplishments. That angle just couldn't sustain a whole feature, I guess.

Perhaps the big lesson to take from this profile, then, is that Hillary Clinton is nowhere near as predictable as we'd like her to be. For as long as she's been in the public eye (and under insane scrutiny to boot), it really seems like we ought to know her well enough to anticipate her next move — and fully understand her last. But it turns out we might not. Which makes it hard to analyze her but really interesting to watch her.

Hillary's Moment: Clinton Faces The World [Time]

The evening seemed to focus on how we talk about feminism, perhaps because it's what all three panelists (that's not them in the pic) do in their jobs, but also because issues of language and rhetoric are a really important part of being a feminist in the larger world. The conversation touched on blog comments — which all three agreed were like a more public version of 1970s consciousness-raising groups — before zeroing in on the word "feminist" itself. Valenti said she embraced the word, and that there was no point in picking another, less loaded term because "I think any word you use to talk about women's rights is going to become a dirty word." Feldt concurred: "the first thing people do to you when they want to diminish you is they diminish you with language."

Unfortunately, the panelists seemed to feel that a successful diminution had occurred in the linguistic fight between words "pro-choice" and "pro-life." Harris said she had stopped using the term "pro-choice" in writing because "we lost that rhetorical war" — because anti-abortion advocates had successfully cast "life" as representing the moral high ground, and "choice" as somehow frivolous. I get what she was saying — I, in fact, stopped using "pro-life" in writing a while ago, in response to a consciousness-raising comment on this blog, no less. But I still use "pro-choice," because even though the opposition tries to frame the term as superficial — like choosing between different flavors of gum — I think it still stands powerfully for a woman's right to self-determination and autonomy. And I think that any substitute term — Harris mentioned "pro-abortion rights" and "pro-reproductive rights" — will be demonized just as "pro-choice" has been. To paraphrase Valenti, any word you use to talk about a woman's control over her own body is going to become, for some people, a dirty word.

In some ways, the highlight of the evening for me was when a college student asked how she could explain her views to her non-feminist friends without "coming off as a caricature of myself." I'm a lot older than her, and this is something I still struggle with. It's also something I feel a little bit guilty about — now that I'm a professional feminist, maybe I shouldn't be worrying about how I come off. But Valenti took her question seriously, saying it was actually one she was asked all the time. She told the young woman that "pop culture is a great entry point for these conversations," and she's right — as a shared language, movies and TV and even gossip can be a way not only for feminists to start a conversation with not-yet-feminists, but for young people still experimenting with feminism to hone their views. When I first started blogging, I wrote a lot about Kate Moss and the Olsen twins, and although most of what I wrote looks sophomoric now (and sometimes, unfortunately, mean), it was a way for me to get comfortable having opinions and making them public. I still don't like making a harsh distinction between "fluffy" and "serious" subjects, and I think Valenti's right that an ostensibly superficial conversation about some celebrity or movie can actually lead into a real discussion of values.

Harris, too, had a suggestion for the student — "be yourself." She apologized for the cheesiness of her tip, but she had a good point — teaching your friends about feminism can be as much about modeling behavior as it is about explicitly explaining your political views. Just by admitting that you're mad when you're mad, and not saying you agree when you don't, and refusing to body-snark on yourself and other women, and generally standing up for what you know is right, whether it involves women or not, you can show everyone you know that (to quote a T-shirt Valenti name-checks in Full Frontal Feminism) "this is what a feminist looks like" — and you'll make feminism look pretty good. In fact, even though I still have it from time to time, I do think the worry about looking like "a caricature" comes from feminism's enemies, from people who think a woman criticizing anything is cartoonish and shrill. For these people, just as "feminism" and "pro-choice" are dirty words, speaking up may be a dirty act, no matter how you do it. But for, I hope, a larger number of people, women and men, speaking up is just something they aren't familiar with yet, something they haven't quite learned to do. I hope the college student who so handily voiced my worries last night keeps on showing them how.

Planned Parenthood NYC Action Fund [Official Site]

More on Barbie toe.


Marisa also gave other modeling tips, like don't touch your boobs, keep your mouth closed, and pose to the side.


But just like Tyra, Marisa doesn't like it—or even realize it?—when girls are taking her direction too literally.

My colleagues and I are convinced that one of our co-workers is insane. The details are bizarre and too numerous to go through, but as an example, when collecting clothes for needy children we found that this worker, who admitted to never having been in a relationship, mentioned that he had a basement full of toddler clothing. When I told him about an encounter with a pushy beggar, he said: "You should have sliced his hand off with my knife." I have this fear that something bizarre will happen and then when the police ask: "Were there any signs?" we'd answer: "Sure, tons of them." Yet what were we going to do? Go to human resources and tell them he's crazy?

Dorothy Parker: Sticks and stones are mighty harsh/But beat your body in a marsh.

Soapy Smith: "Collecting clothes for needy children?" I know that game.

Lizzie Borden: Don't you travel with your own weapons?

Michel Foucault: Maybe you're insane.

Marie Antoinette: What are these "coworkers" of which you speak?

Jesus Christ: Y'know, you should really be more careful how you treat beggars. That's all I'll say. Verily.

Sigmund Freud: And who are you, Freud?

Jeffrey Dahmer: In his defense, there are much worse things you could have in your basement.

Robert Frost: Good fences make good neighbors.

Oscar Wilde: At least madness would be amusing; this is tedious.

Henry Darger: What? Some of us really like toddlers. And sometimes the state won't let us adopt, okay?

Baby Jane Hudson: Exactly! How else are you supposed to do musical numbers?

Jack the Ripper: Hand? Then they can identify you! That's why the lord made "disemboweling."

Franz Kafka: You say "something bizarre" like that's a bad thing.

Jane Austen: One may live a very full life without a "relationship," Sir.

Jack Kerouac: Fuck offices.

DearLucy [Financial Times]

The clip above is provided mostly for the "Awwwww!" value, though it contains a bit of real information about what it took to persuade Michelle to sign on to a presidential campaign. First, watch as mom and daughters fight adorably over their game! Watch as Sasha adorably mugs for the camera! Watch as Malia adorably tells "Daddy" on the phone that she had to eat a lot of chocolate that day, then adorably hands the phone to her sister, who will go on to adorably hand it to Michelle with a gentle "Mommy," instead of the "MAAAAAAHM! PHONE!" any normal kid would have gone with. Then clean up the ovary shrapnel that just flew out of your abdomen and listen to what Michelle has to say about the campaign.

She had a lot of practical questions she wanted answered before she agreed to support her husband running for president, such as: How often would he be on the road? What would be expected of her? I'm almost paying attention now, until we cut to Michelle adorably but perhaps unwisely asking Malia to hold her ice cream cone, which Sasha adorably but unsuccessfully attempts to share, and... campaign, whaa? (Sasha, I feel your baby sister pain!) Oh wait, here's more: "How would we structure our time to make sure that our girls would not be pulled out of their lives? How much would it cost us, as a family?" She specifically refers to the loss of her own income being tough on the family, which I have to assume has not been a great concern for many previous potential first ladies, so that's pretty cool. But all those questions were eventually answered to her satisfaction, and the rest is history. Literally.

More adorable Sasha mugging! She wants to be an actress! There's adorable dancing! STOP IT, STUPID DOCUMENTARY! I have an anti-family, child-hating, godless-dirty-liberal-feminist reputation to protect!

Then Malia gets a little heartbreaky by mentioning that she'd like to see more of her dad, but you know, it's cool to go places and stuff — which sums up the fundamental Obama family dilemma right there: Gain access to pretty much everything and everywhere in the world, lose dad. And when you're 10, it's kind of a toss-up.

But after that bargain was made, Michelle apparently took to campaigning better than expected, as evidenced by the clip below, in which she lovingly mocks undecided voters at an Iowa veterans' home:

"Were you listening to me? Were you awake? Were you awake? You know you love me!" Hee! I wish the networks would just play that clip in response to every single baseless attack ever hurled at Obama. Because really, that's exactly what the wingnuts deserve.


Finally, in the clip below, soon-to-be-President Obama addresses both his wife's reservations about undertaking the campaign, and why she ultimately decided it was the right time: "We're still almost normal."
A few years ago, he says, they were still living in a too-small condo, paying off student loans and credit card debt, trying to figure out how to save both for Sasha and Malia's college educations and their own retirement. "The point is, we've gone through what people are going through right now, relatively recently. We don't forget it."

"We're still almost normal" is — as he says while crediting his wife with it — a great line. And there's a lot of truth in it. Perhaps the larger point, in fact, is that they were almost normal in the first place, as opposed to the endless line of politicians born white, wealthy and well-connected. But still, even if the Obamas have more "regular American" credibility than most, it's only saying so much. Paying off Harvard Law School loans is not quite like paying off chemo. Owning a somewhat cozy condo is not the same as worrying about whether you can make rent next month. Struggling to save is not struggling to live. This has always been my problem with Obama, and every other politician who tries to win votes by pretending he's just an average guy — i.e., all of them, but with Obama it's more of a dilemma, precisely because it's so tempting to believe him. And believing that he's just like us makes it tempting to become complacent and forget to think critically.

It's similar to all of the terrific, at least partially truthful lines about their marriage. As I said last week, there's a lot to admire and even envy about that marriage, but focusing on those elements, or even on Michelle's all-around awesomeness, distracts us from the fact that she sacrificed a lot to get him where he is, and that for much of his daughters' lives, she's been a constant presence while he's been a disembodied voice on the phone. What makes for the best story — the first family is just like us, the first couple is nauseatingly happy and in love — is rarely the whole story. And that's fine, as far as it goes. But as much as I want to take Malia and Sasha out for ice cream and have a cocktail or 4 with Michelle every time I see them on screen, I have to remind myself that that's exactly the response I'm supposed to have, that the first family is being packaged and sold to me just as surely as any other celebrities. And in the end, what matters is not how recently the president was dealing with debt, or how painfully adorable his daughters are, or how ass-kicking his wife is, but what he does in office, whether he keeps the promises he made to the American people. I love seeing images like these, but I'm a little scared by how forgiving they make me.

*I haven't watched the whole thing, on account of not having HBO, but I have been assured by those who did that if you obsessively followed the campaign watching David Axelrod yap about it some more was not especially enlightening. A schedule of upcoming screenings is here.

By The People: The Election Of Barack Obama [HBO]
By The People: The Election Of Barack Obama - Full Schedule [HBO]

Earlier: NYT Magazine: How Can A Marriage Be Equal When One Of You Is President?

In an "explanatory note" on the text, Levitt and Dubner admit (in somewhat disingenuous "we're-so-bad" fashion) that their previous book, Freakonomics, lacked "a unifying theme." Superfreakonomics sort of has one — the authors write in the introduction that "it seems to be part of the human condition to believe in our own predictive abilities — and, just as well, to quickly forget how bad our predictions turned out to be." Their aim is to provide a lighthearted and eclectic corrective to this stodgy short-sightedness — a challenge to the status quo, complete with jokes.

Some of their revelations are quite interesting. Particularly timely in light of the recent horror in Richmond is their takedown of the standard view of the Kitty Genovese story. Genovese's death has become a symbol of the apathy of Americans — and New Yorkers in particular — in the face of suffering. A New York Times account of the event famously began, "for more than half an hour 38 respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens. [...] Not one person telephoned the police during the assault; one witness called after the woman was dead." In fact, the number of witnesses was more like six, and one of them may have called the police in time to save Genovese — but they were slow to respond because they thought it was a domestic violence call. As Levitt and Dubner frame it, the Genovese story is less about uncaring bystanders and more about incompetent police and sensationalizing reporters. They roll this information together with a critique of modern altruism research to form a convincing argument that people at large are neither as evil nor as good as they're sometimes made out to be.

Levitt and Dubner are less enlightening on the subject of women in the workplace. We've already critiqued their discussion of prostitutes, but a drop in hookers' relative wages isn't the only social development they try to pin on "the feminist revolution." The other is the decline in the quality of schools, which they blame on women's entry into high-paying professions that had previously been closed to them, like medicine and law. Levitt and Dubner write,

As a consequence, the schoolteacher corps began to experience a brain drain. In 1960, about 40 percent of female teachers scored in the top quintile of IQ and other aptitude tests, with only 8 percent in the bottom. Twenty years later, fewer than half as many were in the top quintile, more than twice as many in the bottom. It hardly helped that teachers' wages were falling significantly in relation to those of other jobs. "The quality of teachers has been declining for decades," the chancellor of New York City's public schools declared in 2000, "and no one wants to talk about it."

The authors don't suggest that we turn back the clock on feminism in order to benefit schoolchildren, but they do question whether women have really profited from their increased opportunities. They mention the wage gap, then contend that because women take fewer finance classes and more "career interruptions" than men, they are actually choosing their lower wages. Levitt and Dubner write, "while gender discrimination may be a minor contributor to the male-female wage differential, it is desire — or lack thereof — that accounts for most of the wage gap." It's hardly a new argument, and their question, "could it be that men have a weakness for money just as women have a weakness for children?" isn't particularly groundbreaking. They don't explain why women should bear the full responsibility for educating schoolchildren, or how districts might make teaching more competitive with other professions. By bookending their discussion of women's work with talk about working girls, Levitt and Dubner try to make their arguments sound hip and different — but really, blaming women not only for their own lower wages but also for the problems of society is pretty darn conventional.

Then there's Levitt and Dubner's discussion of global warming. This part of the book has gotten a lot of media play — Levitt talked about it on The Daily Show — and it's likely to be the most controversial. To be clear, the authors don't argue that global warming doesn't exist — they just don't think we need to cut back on fossil fuels in order to stop it. Rather, they champion a series of cool-sounding inventions like a hose that would squirt sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, blotting out just enough light to cool the earth. These plans sound interesting, and it's not clear whether the scientific and environmental communities are considering them seriously. Part of this lack of clarity may have to do with the fact that Levitt and Dubner portray Al Gore and everyone else who believes in carbon reduction as at best a bunch of stick-in-the-muds and at worst a cult. They write,

[T]he movement to stop global warming has taken on the feel of a religion. The core belief is that humankind inherited a pristine Eden, has sinned greatly by polluting it, and now must suffer lest we all perish in a fiery apocalypse.

In response to ideas like the sulfur dioxide hose, Levitt and Dubner quote Al Gore as saying, "I think it's nuts." It's unclear if that's all he had to say, or if he perhaps had an inkling that he was about to be portrayed as the "patron saint" of a misguided religion and decided to clam up. Whatever the case, it's hard to evaluate the "geoengineering" ideas the authors present because the larger scientific community doesn't get to have a say. The authors have a stake in appearing contrarian and cool, and they don't give much space to the lame-os who might disagree with them.

Levitt and Dubner write in their introduction that "we're trying to start a conversation, not have the last word." If their book really does spark a discussion about creative ways to reverse global warming — or to improve schools, for that matter — that will be all to the good. Unfortunately, right now Superfreakonomics looks like that very dangerous thing, a little bit of knowledge. Casual readers may pick it up, find out that women don't want higher wages and that a special hose will save the world, and assume that neither social nor environmental change is necessary. Because as much as Levitt and Dubner portray themselves as upstarts, many of their ideas just give people permission to behave as they always have. And as much as they claim to want to open a dialogue, they don't really give the other side its say.

SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, And Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance [Amazon]