This isn't going to be a big "I hate Betty Draper" screed. I agree with my co-blogger Tami, who, in September, wrote in a piece called "Sexism Makes Me Hate Betty Draper:"

The character of Betty Draper, who was fresh and hopeful in season one, is now nervous with periodically shaking hands. She is withdrawn, bitter and cold. She is alternately dismissive and cruel to her children (particularly her daughter), her friends and other family members. She is unhappy and the world knows it. Personal misery can make for an unpleasant personality.

I understand why Betty is the way she is. She was molded by her family and a society that viewed women like her as dolls not living, breathing women with needs and desires. In Sunday's episode, Betty's father Gene hints several times that he, too, didn't know what kind of person he was raising. He mentions that Betty is nothing like her independent mother, his wife, who was working when he first met her. He frets that he shielded Betty from too many things, raised her to be a princess—"Scarlett O'Hara" he calls her. After he tries to discuss his final wishes with his daughter, she huffs: (paraphrasing) I know it must be hard for you to face whatever it is your facing, but can't you keep it to yourself? It's selfish and morbid for you to talk to me about it. I'm your little girl! Later, Gene tells his grandaughter, Betty's child, that she can be whatever she wants to be..."no matter what your mother says." It is likely a message he never gave his "little girl" Betty. Nor does it seem he encouraged his wife's independent streak, as there is no mention of her working after they married. [...]

A commenter named Lgreer28 on Television Without Pity asked just this question to the Betty haters:

I find it amazing that people are always pointing out Betty's immaturity, while ignoring the immaturity of the other characters. Why do they expect her to be the perfect parent? Why is it that her flaws are not tolerated, yet the flaws of the other characters are? Why do they constantly complain about Betty's flaws and ignore Don's? Why do they ignore the fact that Don is no more a perfect parent than Betty? Why do they ignore his own immaturity or his tendencies to indulge in his own illusions?

Indeed. Betty is a bad mother, but "Mad Men" is riddled with bad fathers. Betty is selfish, but not nearly as selfish as her errant husband. As for my beef, Betty hardly created the hierarchy of race and femininity that strangles her and all of the other women on the show—black ones, included. There is scarcely a man on the show who hasn't committed Betty's "crimes" and much more and who isn't 10 times more responsible for perpetuating the inequities of the time. Yet, she is the person that gets all of our hate, which maybe proves that when it comes to sexism, we aren't so much more enlightened than folks were in Betty's day. We tut and gasp over the biased treatment of women on "Mad Men." "My God, I'm so glad things are different today!" But as we analyze the show and its characters with our 21st century eyes, a woman is still judged more harshly than a man for similar infractions. We've laid aside the mid-day gin at the office, the skinny ties and girdles. But it seems that, in some ways, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

In addition to Tami's take, Amanda Marcotte writes about the ire of some conservatives that so much focus is given to Betty's unhappiness:

Oh, I can't imagine what it must be like to be a social conservative invested in that show. You must flinch every time Betty walks onscreen, looking pained, bored, and miserable. That she herself is a petulant brat doesn't make up for that, because the show is making the point that oppression isn't suddenly right because the oppressed aren't perfect people. And the show implies that certain ugly character traits are the result of oppressive systems, that Betty Draper is a miserable person because she's been turned into one. How dare the show suggest that bitchy women might be more pleasant if they weren't treated like second class citizens? And so [Benjamin Schwartz, writing for the Atlantic] gave you an out: Betty's character makes you uncomfortable because it's not realistic, and January Jones is a bad actress, and women in the 50s were never bored because being someone's sex-and-domestic appliance is what every woman really wants! It's not you, it's January Jones and the evils of feminism. [...]

And really, Schwartz's contempt for the character and his scapegoating of the actress—-and especially the applause he got from social conservatives for it—-shows the underlying contempt for women in the paternalistic platitudes about how women were happier when being a housewife was mandatory. Dreher's being upfront about it. Asking us to spend time on the feelings and thoughts and fantasies of Betty Draper is boring, because the whole point of wives is that they're in the background, making it possible for the real actors—-mostly men—-to make things happen.

The conservative reaction to the Draper marriage shows exactly how effective that storyline is in making its point. A lot of liberals, I've found, are bored with Betty for another reason entirely. They can't understand why she doesn't just pick up and leave already, if she's so unhappy. We're on the other side of it—-so feminist that it's hard to wrap our minds around the psychology of someone who isn't. But conservatives flip the fuck out, get defensive and start scapegoating January Jones, going so far as to argue that her dull affect is evidence that she can't act, when in fact it's evidence that the actress is being fearless in her portrayal of someone whose entire personality has been flattened out by boredom.

I have to admit that part of the Betty hatred comes from the fact that I can empathize with Carla. Betty is, as Tami explains, "the embodiment of pre-Feminine Mystique, upper-middle class, white womanhood." It's part of the same reason I also hate Pete Campbell.

But more than that, there is another element at play. More than just Betty's character flaws, what makes her unwatchable is the painful lack of an inner life.

As I wrote about the fate of minorities on the series in season one, the third season has been categorized by stripping away at the inner lives of all the women on the show, Betty most markedly. Betty, from seasons one and two, had a strong inner life outside of Don. Even while she was confused as to the general reason for her shakes and malaise, she was curious and introspective. She maintained arm's length relationships with other women, but still revealed much of herself. On occasion, she acted out of character, expressing her protective streak by shooting the neighbor's birds, or when she decided to take out her aggression sexually, using a sexy stranger.

For most of season three, Betty's been pouty and insolent. The shades of insight into her motivations and personality have generally vanished, as Betty is mainly used to help advance the plot, at the expense of her own development. (Weiner, in an interview with the Daily Beast today, appears to view her childlike nature as key to her character.) Now, again, this isn't unique to Betty - Peggy and Joan also lost their inner lives this season, appearing mostly in the context of the men they were involved with (romantically or professionally).

But watching Betty go through the motions of finding out Don's secret and falling for another man while stripped of her inner life was something like watching her die a slow, painful death. Gone are the casual conversations with Francine, just hurried discussions about the reservoir. The look into the inner workings of Betty Draper achieved with the psychiatrist are a memory. Without her inner life providing insights to her behavior, we are left with a direct reading of Betty: spoiled, selfish, cruel. The only time a glimpse of the season one and two Betty surfaces is during her finale fight with Don, his careful facade smashed to pieces. They attack each other, brutally, Don focusing in on their class differences and Betty dredging up the scorn, confusion, and anger that's plagued her for the last three years:

In the end, Betty flies off to Reno, leaving behind the suburbs, the failed marriage, and the lingering doubts of her own sanity. She's moving forward with a man she doesn't know, in order to escape another man she doesn't know. Fitting, really.

So while I hate Betty, I kind of can't help to see her for who she is - a flawed, miserable person stuck in an increasingly desperate gilded cage. The marriage was already poisoning the two children - having it end will probably be for the best. Perhaps Betty's story line could have been salvaged. Perhaps Matthew Weiner could have humanized her more, given her more space to experience grief and rage before she got the upper hand by finding Dick Whitman's box of secrets. Perhaps then, instead of being a tangle of privilege and petulance, Betty Draper would have been seen as a woman in an impossible position, seeking a savior, instead of looking like an opportunist.

But either way, it's over. The Draper family is dead. Long live the Drapers.

Related: Sexism Makes Me Hate Betty Draper [What Tami Said]
Why Does Betty Draper Have To Make Wingnuts Feel Guilty? [Pandagon]
"Fuck Pete Campbell!": Mediations On Mad Men And Whiteness [Racialicious]
Why "Mad Men" Is Afraid Of Race [Double X]
On Mad Men And Race [Racialicious]
"Shoot" Wins ADG, Matt Weiner's Visions, Birds [Basket of Kisses]

Fade in. Ms. Gaga, ever the generous host, is just chilling with her minions, listening to music.

She is wearing her razor-blade sunglasses, because a girl can never be too careful. The world assaults us with images! We must fight back! (Or, as she told MTV News: "I wanted to design a pair for some of the toughest chicks and some of my girlfriends - don't do this at home! - they used to keep razor blades in the side of their mouths… That tough female spirit is something that I want to project. It's meant to be, 'This is my shield, this is my weapon, this is my inner sense of fame, this is my monster.") I certainly hope you're taking notes.

FYI: Motherboard, barbed wire or fine screen door mesh manicures are the new hot shit. Adjust accordingly.

Suddenly, there's a flash of light.

A room! With Ukranian vodka! This must be a dream. Or a nightmare?

Coffin-like pods line the floor. Note the one which reads "Monster," as therein lies our heroine.

By the way: Since The Lady refers to her creative team as the Haus of Gaga, this scenario, naturally, takes place in the Bath Haus of Gaga.

The Lady emerges, wrapped up for freshness.

It's important to loosen up the joints and muscles after being transported — nay, kidnapped — into a questionable dimension. Working out with friends keeps you motivated.

Speeding through a hole in the time/space continuum often leaves a layer of grime. Bathing is a must.

Here, her eyes are wide with knowledge, not fear: She is a captive!

Product placement! Did you know that Dr. Dre, who has his own Beats By Dre headphones, worked with The Lady to make Heartbeats by Lady Gaga?

Back to the story: Gaga is ripped from the bath by her captors.

She is really just an innocent young thing, what could they possibly want with her?

Well, first they'd like to strip her of her latex garments…

…Then they'd like to force imported vodka down her throat. The usual Tuesday night stuff.

Fueled by liquor, Gaga is trussed up in a sparkly ensemble, robbed of her Burberry overcoat and forced to dance.

So many male bidders, so little time!

The Man With The Gold Chin Strap takes an interest in Ms. Gaga. Gold+Man= Goldman? As in Goldman Sachs? Is Gaga part of the bailout package?

Her brain aches; she must make a choice. She can flee. Sure. But she can also stay and dance her ass off, use this man the way he wants to use her. She could really, really use the money, you see…

…She's got a little problem with her spine. And Oxford won't cover the surgery.

So she dances. She seduces him because she has to. And because she can.

According to The Woman's Dictionary Of Symbols & Sacred Objects, the bond between cats and women has always been strong. There was a time that the patriarchy, suspicious of this connection, would accuse any woman seen talking to or petting a cat of witchcraft. Cats were sacred to the Ancient Egyptians, and festivals for the the cat goddess Bast were huge. The Norse goddess Freya rode in a chariot drawn by cats, and felines were generally thought to be magic. So save your shaved pussy jokes until the end.

Oooh, looky! Our favorite ankle-snapping Alexander McQueen shoes from his Spring 2010 show in paris. You know, the Futuristic Interplanetary Mutant Alien Queen one. Not Derelicte In Wonderland… that's so Fall 2009.

If you saw the McQueen ensembles and thought to yourself, "Who wears that? Now you know.

Anyway: Gaga drags herself and her bear carcass peignoir to do what she knows she must do.

Mr. Goldman awaits, hand creeping toward his stimulus package.

He'd like to see what he's purchased.

She's happy to oblige.

But! Little does he know — she has power, strength, and can, like a young Drew Barrymore, start fires with her mind.

(See, she has already informed the others that there will be a revolt! That's where the red and the leather come in: Viva La Revolucion!)

Yes, the bed is aflame. Fire can be symbolic of passion, but in this case, she is using it as a weapon, to destroy her enemy.

In the end, her sparkbra is saved, but Mr. Goldman? He is merely a charred skeleton.

The moral: Buy flame-retardant lingerie.

Here's the video clip, sans commentary. Enjoy.

Lady Gaga Says 'Bad Romance' Video Is About 'Tough Female Spirit' [MTV News]
Bad Romance Exclusive Premiere [Facebook]
Lady Gaga Bad Romance [YouTube]

Earlier: Questions About The High Fashion & Domestic Violence In Lady GaGa's Video
An Analysis Of The Underlying Themes In Britney's New Candie's Commerical

This version of the necessity defense sounds like something out of Law & Order, but it has been tried before. Paul Jennings Hill, who murdered an abortion doctor and his bodyguard, attempted to use the defense, but was barred from doing so. He was later executed. Clayton Waagner, a domestic terrorist who sent hundreds of envelopes containing fake anthrax to abortion clinics, also tried to advance a necessity defense in his 2003 trial. He too was barred from doing so by a judge, and was convicted of threatening to use weapons of mass destruction. In 1993 and 2007, courts ruled that the necessity defense cannot be used in crimes against abortion providers — and for good reason. The Free Dictionary identifies three main elements of the defense:

(1) the defendant acted to avoid a significant risk of harm; (2) no adequate lawful means could have been used to escape the harm; and (3) the harm avoided was greater than that caused by breaking the law

In the 1993 case, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the "harm avoided" cannot be a legal activity like abortion. Law professor Margaret Raymond says Roeder's case is unlikely to overturn this decision. She explains,

Typically, you don't get to use that defense in murder cases. The problem with a necessity defense in this case is that it is hard to say that something that the law permits is an act that must be prohibited at the cost of death.

Though the defense is unlikely to get him acquitted, or even to be allowed by a judge, Roeder is receiving some support. His public defender seems flummoxed by his choice — he says, "I'm not sure if we've had a parting of our thoughts here or what. We'll have to talk with Scott and see what's going on in his head, I guess" — but Roeder has met with Georgia lawyer Michael Hirsh, an expert in similar defenses. Hirsh hasn't commented on Roeder's case, but he did say in a previous interview,

The fact is that there is a mountain of scientific evidence that shows the humanity of an unborn child. And Dr. Tiller was notorious, by his own designs, for specializing in late-term abortions. So there's no denying by rational people the humanity of an unborn child, and the only difference in the unborn child and you and me is size, age and location.

Roeder's goal may be less to get an acquittal and more to turn his trial into a referendum on abortion. That was Waagner's aim back in 2003. Of that trial, Salon's Frederick Clarkson wrote,

Originally, Waagner wanted to use his trial as an international media stage to put abortion on trial. [...] He was bitterly disappointed that he was not allowed to use the necessity defense, and made a point of getting the judge to reassure him that he could appeal partly on the court's denial. Acting as his own attorney, Waagner tried to raise his issues at every turn.

Dave Leach, who helped organize the short-lived eBay auction to pay Roeder's legal fees, also wants "to put abortion on trial." He says that by admitting to the murder, Roeder has shifted the focus to whether his crime was justified:

In probably all previous cases, the dog-and-pony show proceeded, the prosecutor bringing in his witnesses to prove what nobody seriously contests. That way there is an appearance of a right to trial by jury. The jury gets to weigh the facts, which the defendant does not contest. But I have proposed to Scott that he stipulate to the alleged facts, making the dog-and-pony show irrelevant to any additional information the jury needs to make its determination, and dramatically isolating the necessity defense as the sole contested issue of the case.

He adds,

Legally protecting a harm does not render it harmless. The necessity defense requires reasonable people to judge whether a harm is in fact harmless, regardless of how courts or lawmakers feel about it.

Leach thinks a jury will acquit Roeder, which is almost certainly false. His trial may spark abortion debate, but probably not in the way he wants. Yesterday a group of abortion foes, many of them jailed for crimes against abortion providers, signed a letter arguing that Tiller's murder was justified. Kathy Spillar of the Feminist Majority Foundation responds,

This clearly shows [Roeder's] connection to the most extremist branch of the anti-abortion movement, which has long advocated this defense, that somehow the murder of doctors is justifiable. It's a defense that should not be allowed, but it shows his deep connections. We can only hope that law enforcement is looking into those connections and any possible involvement in the murder of Dr. Tiller.

The more people in the anti-abortion movement stand up to excuse the killing of abortion doctors, the less Roeder looks like a lone gunman. And if, indeed, many in the anti-choice camp condone murder, their claims of compassion and moral uprightness lose credibility. Roeder's defense strategy may well attract attention to the anti-abortion cause — but that attention may be negative.

Murder Suspect Confesses To Killing Abortion Provider [LA Times]
Suspect Admits To Tiller Murder, Will Attempt Necessity Defense [Iowa Independent]
Des Moines Man Hopes To Free Alleged Tiller Assassin With ‘Necessity Defense' [Iowa Independent]
Suspect In George Tiller Murder Confesses; Experts Doubt Defense [Wichita Eagle]
Suspect Confesses To Killing Wichita Abortion Doctor George Tiller [American Chronicle]

Related: The Quiet Fall Of An American Terrorist [Salon]

In the December issue, we learn all about what men are really thinking. Or rather, what Cosmo editors pretending to be guys think men are really thinking. The article "Guy Love Diaries" ostensibly features relationship journals from two real men, but we have a hard time believing "Paul, 29" used the term "BFF." Also, he writes:

"When girls get together at showers and bachelorette parties, they usually talk about boys and swap sex techniques. Sara always comes back with new sex tricks and great fellatio.

How could a man know that "wedding shower" is really code for "getting sex tips from Grandma and Aunt Janet?"

In both guys' diaries, they mention that they like it when women pig out in front of them, but stay skinny. Cosmo explains:

"Men fear they will marry a gorgeous girl, and then a couple of years later, she'll let herself go and put on 100 pounds. If you're not eating in front of him, he's nervous about what might happen when you let your guard down later on.

Josh Duhamel must have been terrified when Fergie had to gain 17 pounds for her role in Nine. Yet curiously, he didn't stop loving her! Fergie's secret?: "In Italy, Catholic boys are raised to believe that there are two types of women: the Madonna and the whore. And me? I'm both."

That may work for pop stars, but Cosmo advises you drop the whole "Madonna" thing in the bedroom. There's one dirty move guys "crave" and "you're gonna want to drop the magazine and do it on the spot." Thing is, it isn't actually a "move"; guys just "want to be wanted." Tips? Try sneaking up behind your boyfriend while he's on the phone and grabbing his penis, putting lotion on your nipples and dragging them across his chest, or taking his dick to "massage his tip all over your upper body — lips, cheeks, breasts — all while maintaining eye contact." That should give him a hint.

(Click to enlarge.)

The Killer Inside Me is set for release in 2010; its five minute trailer promo gives away a good chunk of the plot, which seems to involve quite a lot of graphic violence against women. This isn't particularly surprising, considering the long-standing media fascination with sex crimes, and the rising acceptance of rape scenes on prime time television (we're particularly reminded of the Last House on the Left trailer, which clearly showed a very young actress being raped). However, the level of violence shown in the clip is striking, and given the context, quite disturbing.

The film is based on a 1952 novel by the same name by writer Jim Thompson. According to Wikipedia, the novel centers around a young deputy sheriff living in a small town in western Texas, who has always felt the presence of some sort of "dark rider," to use the Dexter-terminology. Lou Ford is a sadistic monster, but he generally keeps his sociopathic tendencies under wraps (except for that one time when he sexually abused a young girl as a teen). As an adult, Ford takes up with a prostitute, in an apparently consensual sadomasochistic relationship that ends in her death. He then attempts to cover her murder by embarking on a series of killings, which ultimately ends up exposing his "sickness" to the world.

Judging by the clip, director Micheal Winterbottom has decided to stay pretty close to the source material. It's clear that Ford is a fucked up dude, who escalates from isolated acts of torture to beating his lover until her face is memorably described as "stewed meat, hamburger." Gwen from Sociological Images writes:

Clearly, Casey Affleck's character is a sadistic asshole (the cigar on the guy's hand), but in the promo, at least, the graphic, sexualized violence is reserved for women…who also appear to like it, at least for a while. Jessica Alba gives in to him, and apparently starts a relationship with him, after he pulls her pants down and whips her. Perhaps that's because she's a prostitute; of course she'd like a dominant man who plays rough, right?

The thing is, you could make this movie and tell the same story without actually showing all the violence in such a graphic way. Movies imply things all the time. It's a choice to show this type of violence toward women as a form of entertainment…and to show the women liking it.

Full disclosure: I'm a horror movie fanatic, and I generally don't shy away from violence on film. I have no problem with Tarantino, and I've seen more of the Saw franchise than I'd like to admit. And yet, Gwen's final comments hit the nail on the head as to why this is particularly bothersome. Not only do we get a truly horrific glimpse of Jessica Alba's face after she's been beaten to death, but we also see the start of their relationship, which begins with a beating, followed immediately by passionate, consensual sex.

It's this series of events that bothers me. Less than a minute in, we see him carry a screaming Jessica Alba to the bed, where he turns her over and whips her with his belt while she screams in pain. Suddenly, something changes - he's no longer an abuser, but a lover. Now, there is nothing wrong with enjoying some healthy, consensual BDSM, but those relationships don't start out as a brutal attack. As far as I can tell, it appears that the first time these two characters meet, he begins to act out his violent fantasies upon her, but it's turns out O.K. (for awhile), because she likes it! This is a dangerous way of approaching sexual violence, for although she may be enjoying the spanking, it is clear that she is never in control. And this is the main problem with portraying rape fantasies and BDSM sex: If there is no discussion of power-play, it just ends up sending the message that women like rape or want to be beaten. Furthermore, Lou Ford's penchant for violence is explained away simply as a "sickness," which, while it may be good for the plot, glosses over the prevalence of rape culture. In making this an illness, particular to one individual, the movie is able to dabble in the same tropes that we see over and over again, and exploit the thrill of watching violence against women, without touching the greater issues at play. So unless Winterbottom is willing to delve into the dynamics of consent/control, The Killer Inside Me will be no better than a snuff film.

"The Killer Inside Me" Promo [Sociological Images]
The Killer Inside Me (Novel) [Wikipedia]
The Killer Inside Me [IMDB]

It's no surprise that Self put Clarkson on its key September issue – her August 2007 cover was a top seller that year, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. But according to WWD Memo Pad's Stephanie D. Smith (a former colleague), "The issue was the magazine's worst seller through September on newsstands, pulling in 220,000 copies and causing the magazine to miss its rate base that month." What went wrong? It's tempting to believe that widespread disdain at a grotesque Photoshop job was to blame, but that's not the whole story.

Once upon a time, women's magazines had a list of rules of what worked on covers –- which teases, colors, numbers postures, type of celebrity. The media world is a lot more crowded now, the rules are continually broken and disproved, and any ladymag editor will readily admit that predicting what will sell on a cover is by no means a science. Would you have guessed, for example, that Zooey Deschanel would be Self's best selling cover so far this year, outselling even number two contender Beyonce? (That's according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations' publisher reports).

Something that fanned the popular outrage against the Self cover was the fact that anyone who cares could find out exactly what Clarkson really looks like online – and did. Everyone knows there's an element of fantasy in magazines, but when the reality (seen in hourly paparazzi and red carpet shots on blogs) and the polished image are so glaringly far apart, you can't blame readers for feeling like they're being taken for fools and walking on by.

Aggressive Photoshopping also serves to make all celebrities look exactly the same — who hasn't stood at a newsstand and wondered which indistinguishable blondish and lean cover star is which? A casual glance might easily miss the fact that that's the ever-popular Clarkson, thoroughly transformed. (Incidentally, Clarkson also got the shrink treatment from the photo department at Elle in 2007, but fewer people seem to expect body-positivity - or reality - from a high fashion magazine.)

Yeah, Deschanel hasn't moved as many units as Clarkson or Beyonce. But take a look at that cover photo again. It's sunny and appealing – and it looks like her.

A Better Self In 2010 [WWD]

Earlier: Kelly Clarkson Slimmed Down On Self Via Photoshop

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.