Contender: Amy Siskind

Outlet: The Daily Beast

Known Biases: Patron Saint of the PUMAs

Best Known for: Being Pro-Palin post-HRC

Can't Stand Stupak-Pitts because:

She feels like Obama has been selling out women since the campaign trail.

Women's love affair with Obama started in 2007. Some loved the idea of him-while not questioning his ideas. So when some women leaders heard the candidate say things like "sweetie" or "you're likable enough," or saw Obama's speechwriter Jon Favreau groping the breast of a cardboard cutout of Hillary Clinton on Facebook (no comment), these leaders ignored the signs of subtle misogyny. The National Organization for Women (under its former leader) endorsed its first all-male ticket. And NARAL endorsed Obama over Sen. Clinton, even though she had a proven track record on reproductive rights. In January 2009, Ms. Magazine's cover featured a now-infamous image of Obama in a superman pose sporting a t-shirt that reads: This is What a Feminist Looks Like.

With these women leaders behind him, President Obama felt he could be himself. He appointed fewer women into his cabinet than President Bill Clinton. He surrounded himself with czars, more than 90% of whom are male. He appointed Larry Summers, of "girls are inferior in math and science" fame, to a key economic post. He played basketball, golfed and fished with men and men only. He had beers with Skip Gates, but ignored it when Rihanna was almost strangled to death. And so on.

The love affair started to fade with Obama's off-handed response during an MSNBC interview questioning his all-male outings: "I think this is bunk." That remark gave women a reason to take a closer look at the inner workings of Obama and his ideas. And just as Betty Friedan described the subtlety of sexism as "the problem that has no name," "bunk" revealed that the boys club was still alive and well at the White House.

Best Shot:

The sleeping giant-America's majority constituency-is awakening. Note how few men are speaking out about the fact that a major issue for women was thrown under the bus to get a deal done: That women were not valued. It is the women leaders doing the talking and the typing.

Wants to take action by:

Lesson one-we need more women in leadership roles. Women's organizations need to drop partisanship and work together to get more women into public office for both parties. Sisters, we cannot count on either party to represent our interests; we can only count on ourselves. (And when our women leaders do, on occasion, get it wrong-as Speaker Pelosi did this past weekend-we need an ample bench of women politicians surrounding her, and strong advocacy groups to steer her right).

Lesson two-with this awakening, there will be a quest to get a woman into the White House in 2012. Find us a woman leader who might have her personal beliefs, but will agree to keep them as just that, and you might just have a deal!

Contender: Kate Harding

Outlet: Salon's Broadsheet

Known Biases: Fat activism, unapologetic feminism

Best Known for: Baby flavored donuts All around awesomeness.

Best Shot:

Our supposed allies who still keep trying to convince us that one more nibble won't amount to anything much. Only this time, we're not buying it. We are ready to go there. As Smeal told Goldstein, "We didn't want to make a fuss, we agreed to a compromise that was already over-generous. And then, bango! These guys go in there like gangbusters. Pelosi was held up, like by bandits. Now the women are saying, 'That's it, it's enough.'" And it's not just the women — or just the staunchest pro-choicers — who are fed up with Democrats who act exactly like Republicans did before their party moved so far right it landed on a different planet. Kos himself (who's taken plenty of criticism over the years, including some from me quite recently, for exhorting women to ignore the nibbles for the greater good), is reminding people today that donations to the DCCC will support Democrats who "voted for the Stupak-Pitts coathanger amendment," as well as anti-healthcare reform ones. Moveon.org is also going after Democrats who voted against the bill. And gay rights activists have launched a "Don't Ask, Don't Give" campaign, encouraging progressives "to no longer donate to the DNC, Organizing for America, or the Obama campaign until the President and the Democratic party keep their promises to the gay community, our families, and our friends." Suddenly, for a host of different reasons, progressives are sending the message that we will not support these people if they keep breaking their promises and acting against our interests.

It's an exciting moment, and there's a chance to make a real difference if this latest swell of righteous indignation doesn't lead directly to the same old shit: Some of us panic about losing a Democratic majority and start hollering at others to quit being so picky and oversensitive about our "single issues" and take one for the team. (Again. Still. Always.) If we can work together as a bona fide progressive movement, rather than a bunch of competing groups who will all ultimately settle for holding our noses and blocking the worst Republicans, we might actually force the Democrats to give us more than empty shout-outs on the campaign trail. But if some of us will sacrifice gay rights for a chance at advancing our own agendas, and others will sacrifice reproductive rights for a chance at advancing theirs, and a ludicrous number of self-identified progressives will sacrifice pretty much everything they claim to believe in, just because the words "Democratic majority" sound so much better than the alternative, then nothing will change.

Can't Stand Stupak Pitts because:

Since the healthcare reform bill passed the House with the Stupak-Pitts amendment intact on Saturday night, feminists have been up in arms about the latest assault on access to abortion, and so-called progressive men have been telling us to calm down and look at the big picture. In other words: same old, same old.

Wants to take action by:

Really, when those are the options, there's only one logical conclusion: This is not our party. We've known that for too long, and yet the Democrats have known too well that they could bank on our money and our votes as long as the GOP remained even more not our party. But something's changed. Sixty-four Democrats voted to block women's access to legal medical services. That may not be quite as repulsive as some Republican shenanigans, but the difference is only one of degree. If the point of women voting for "moderate" Democrats is to avoid a majority that's actively hostile to women, then those who voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment just proved that there's no point at all. And progressive women have finally had enough. We are ready to go there. Are Democrats ready to try getting elected without us?

Judge's Call: Siskind goes for body blows, but has no artistic savoir faire. All her moves are recycled. Harding plows in with passion, wearing down her opponent before trying for the TKO.

Winner: Kate Harding, for taking the long view of both problem and solution.

Loser: The Democratic Party - because when two different factions of women are calling for blood, there's going to be some drama at election time.

How Obama Sold Women Out [Daily Beast]
Face it: The Democratic Party is not for women [Salon]

Here's the horror story that begins Jon Hochschartner's recent "Sex in the SUNY" column:

I woke up slowly, pushing the naked girl beside me for more covers. Eventually it was time to get up, so I reluctantly rubbed the sleep out of my eyes.

That's when I realized I was wet. I threw the sheets off myself and saw I was covered in blood - from my chest to my dick. I started looking for some kind of mortal wound but couldn't find anything.

So finally, I looked down at her and she was covered in it too. Then it dawned on me: menstrual blood.

I don't remember if we were drunk the night before, but clearly there was some serious miscommunication. I mean, damn, scarred for life.

Obviously we can't expect opinion columns in college newspapers to be models of enlightened views — if memory serves, my college paper once ran a screed on why no one should ever have to take English classes, and another on how gross it was to have to stand next to poor people at Wal-Mart. Still, Hochschartner does deserve a wake-up call: the "naked girl" taking up space in his bed was actually a living, breathing — and yes, bleeding — human being. I'll admit that stained sheets are an annoyance, but getting menstrual blood on oneself is a monthly occurrence for women, and yet we somehow manage to avoid PTSD. Understanding this, and accepting that the vagina is part of the female reproductive system and not just a sterile hole for your dick, is an important step toward becoming a man worthy of fucking. Hochschartner did talk to some women for his column — their recommendations include towels, shower sex, and, Dr. Ruth's favorite, diaphragms. I'd advocate that these ladyfriends involve him in regular discussions of menstruation, at least until he's desensitized. Because there's really no excuse for a guy to be afraid of a little blood.

Yesterday I recommended that women quit treating periods as a female-only topic, and I'd like to reiterate that recommendation now. Last year I had to teach a 25-year-old man — who had previously lived with a long-term girlfriend — that women do in fact need to use more than one tampon per period, and I think it's high time that guys started getting this information early. Comprehensive sex ed can help — while the girls in my fifth grade class were getting our first "changing bodies" lecture, the boys were watching The Mighty Ducks or something, and there's no reason boys shouldn't get the opportunity to hear the gym teacher say "uterine lining" too. But more than that, if boys and girls and men and women would all stop treating menstruation like some ultra-private phenomenon, the world — and the vagina — would be a happier place.

It's true that not every woman likes period sex (especially on heavy days, there can be cramping issues). And guys' tastes do deserve respect — if they really prefer to abstain until a woman is ritually pure, that's up to them. But I'd argue that learning to like period sex is worth some initial discomfort, both because it adds three to seven days per month when you can bone, and because it represents a level of comfort and familiarity with the actual female body, not the sanitized version pushed by "lad mags." And while I wouldn't advocate kicking a guy to the curb just because period sex isn't his favorite, I would wager that someone for whom menstrual blood triggers "post-trauma flashbacks" may not be a keeper.

If It's That Time Of The Month, Go On Vacation [Cardinal Points]

Earlier: Dr. Ruth Personally Advises Us On Period Sex

In his essay, "Artifice and Transformation: The Imaginary Lives of Little Girls," author Robert Greene presents a feminist analysis in defending the pageant industry, proposing that when we "respond in one of two ways" to young girls in pageants—moralizing or laughing—we might just be "imposing ourselves on them [and] responding out of certain preconceptions." Greene argues that by doing this, we are assuming that these young girls are merely the instruments of their mothers' desires, and have no desires or instrumentality of their own, because we're "not used to treating the inner lives of young girls with the proper seriousness—as a subject worthy of study and analysis."

Underneath it all is the unstated assumption that [girls] are essentially passive and weak…Boys can create their own worlds; their fantasies can be dark and violent, but we can accept the fact they correspond to some desire or need inside of them. Girls are empty vessels, screens of projection; they are not the agents or producers of their world, or so we think. We do not recognize that they could produce something strong, strange, and even freakish all on their own.

Greene goes on to explain the work of Lewis Carroll— author of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland—who also took portraits of little girls, as a way to understand them. The only way that Carroll could get them to sit still for his photographs was to give them elaborate costumes and engage them in his storytelling. By entering their world:

[H]e discovered two timeless elements in [little girls'] fantasy lives—artifice and transformation.
In the tight world of Victorian England, he found them masters at reversing conventions and creating nonsense—a literary genre Carroll would later explore, inspired by his encounters with these girls.

Greene believes that everything in our world is "fake," as our own conventions are merely creations. Our "relaxed looks in clothing are as artificial as the world of Marie Antoinette, only less spectacular and creative." He sees the portraits in High Glitz as a kind of "reverse commentary" on our "drabness and inauthentic relationship to the artificial."

While Greene's argument is compelling, the fact remains that many of these girls are entered into pageants by their mothers when they're only a few months old, and thus, personal agency is not even up for debate. However, having been a little girl who was drawn to make-up and make-believe at a very young age—and knowing, even then, that it had nothing to do with appealing to male fantasies, but rather, indulging in my own—I can say, personally, that much of what Greene says here rings true.

Perhaps gender is a construct, and liking the color pink, being partial to dresses, and having a predilection for mermaids and unicorns are learned behaviors. But then how does that explain say, transgender children, or little boys who—at ages as young as 18 months—have those same interests, despite the fact that they've been taught not to? It doesn't. But what does seem clear is that both girlie girls and trans kids alike are often told by society as a whole that their common attraction to frilly femininity is frivolous, and thus, invalid. And maybe that's a bigger problem for feminism than pageantry.


However, the fact that this little girl is only 9-years-old and looks like a Hooters calendar girl is still unsettling.


In his foreword "In Defense of Child Beauty Pageants," author and Barneys' creative director Simon Doonan gives his take on the child pageant industry:

Call me narcissistic, but I cannot help contrasting the show-bizzy lives of these tarted-up tots with my own bleak, post-war, scabby-kneed British childhood…and then I become horribly jealous. If only somebody in our house were to have figured out that all I ever wanted was to parade about—like a Madame Alexander doll come to life—in front of a cheering crowd, bathed in adoration and soft pink light.

Doonan realizes that his views aren't popular, but he doesn't care.

The knee-jerk antipathy towards this all-American ritual is starting to bore me. The predictable tongue-lashing meted out to child beauty pageants is clearly coming from dreary, over-educated, middle-class people who have never been intoxicated by the spotlight.

And while he doesn't directly question the mental and social implications of the physical—and sexual—values instilled in these little girls at such a young age, he does bring up a good point with the likely trajectory of their futures:

Will these girls end up huffing glue on the street corner? Will they become the Amy Winehouses of the 2020s? I seriously doubt it. As with teen beauty queens, the most likely scenario for a former pageant babe entails, at the very least, marrying a local business man, and/or reading the weather on the local news channel, and/or slinging peanuts on a domestic airline. Nothing less, and possibly more: Always remember that Shirley Temple, the primordial glitter from which all child pageant contestants subsequently emerged, lived to become—drum roll—a U.S. Ambassador.

Much of the pageant world is confusing to outsiders. For example, why does a 2-year-old need acrylic nails? In the "High Glitz Style Guide," Anderson breaks down the elements of the pageant categories, explains the specifics and purpose of each part of the presentation and costumes, and describes the required model stances like "Pretty Feet."


This getup would be filed under Pro-Am (aka Sportswear or Western Wear). The "liquid beading" and fringe of these Bob Mackie-esque outfits are strategically placed, and a proper Pro-Am costume includes a "Rip Off" (the part of the garment that is removed during a routine and used as a prop for twirling), and "Oohs and Aahs" (facial expressions). Still, the Style Guide doesn't explain the purpose of a fabric Frisbee with a hole.

All images courtesy of High Glitz, by Susan Anderson, published by powerHouse Books.

In Touch
"Oh, Baby! 'We're Ready!'"
Here's what Margaret learned: Kendra is a die-hard Nancy Grace fan and is worried about people who hurt children. "I tell Hank, we're going to know every neighbor, every teacher, every priest, everybody around us. We will make sure to be surrounded by good people. Like Jaycee Dugard — how can you not know your neighbors have kids living in tents in the backyard?" Khloe went to breastfeeding classes with Kourtney. None of this is scintillating, but there it is. Also inside: Suri Cruise has found her "sole mate" — another little girl who wears heels! (See image 7). Lots of random stuff in the Aniston/Jolie/Pitt story: Jennifer Aniston has given her friends permission to talk about Angelina for Andrew Morton's book, because she wants the world to know what Angie is really like. While they were filming Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Angie would call Brad repeatedly. "Angelina wanted to plant a seed of doubt in Jen's mind that something was going on with her and Brad," says a friend. "Jen and Brad would fight about it, then Brad would seek comfort from Angelina." At the time, Brad and Jen were actively trying to have a baby. Brad's pal says the book will probably contain information about Angelina that would make it easier for Brad to leave her — with nobody thinking worse of him. Dr. Gilda Carle, who does not treat anyone involved, says the book could open up communication between Brad and Jen and may lead to them reuniting. A story about Beyoncé's baby plans begins, "Beyoncé may soon be putting a diaper on it instead of a ring!" Does that even make sense? Lastly: Kate Hudson is "so desperate" to marry A-Rod, she even agreed to sign a pre-nup agreement to protect his $300 million fortune. A friend says she's already met with an attorney, intent on proving she's not after his cash.
Grade: F (rotting fish)

Ok!
"Angie's Adopting… Without Brad!"
Angelina is "preparing" to bring home a little girl from Syria, "a move that could result in an almighty showdown" in their "already strained relationship." Angie met the girl in October when she traveled to Syria with the UN Refugee Agency. Some more hyperbole: "Blinded by her desire to adopt again, Angie has failed to see the many glaring issues that are threatening her relationship with Brad." Just so you know, this adoption will be "a slap in Brad's face." Moving on: Matthew McConaughey's ladyfriend, Camilla Alves bought son Levi a baby bunny as a pet. (See image 8). Lastly: Secrets from the set of Glee! Madonna requested DVDs of the series for her kids, and is letting the show use her songs for an episode! Quinn and Rachel used to be roommates in real life!
Grade: F (rancid meat)

Life & Style
"Angelina's A Total Fake"
Apparently Angelina "manipulates and controls" every aspect of her life. Is that really a bad thing? Anyway: According to an "insider," Angelina has "mastered the ability to play the greatest role of her life — that of a doting mother and partner who'd do anything for humanity. But the truth is more complex." The mag claims Angie has "no sense of right and wrong" and convinced Brad that their relationship was fine when he was with Jennifer Aniston. "Angie created a world where he was free of accountability and responsibility for another person's feelings." Angie told Brad what was happening between them was bigger than they were and there was no way to deny it. She said they were destined to be together. Maybe she was right? Anywhoo, "Though the actress has stated that she wants the kids to be worldly, growing up in many places, some believe it may be harmful to deprive them or a stable home base." Also, Angelina and Brad are addicted to adopting, and Angelina is addicted to fame. More accusations and bullshit too tedious to print inside. Oh, and she "Says one thing, does another." (See image 9). She says she doesn't think about what she wears on the red carpet, but uses a stylist? That doesn't make her a hypocrite, that means someone else is thinking about what she wears on the red carpet. Gah. Moving on: An insider close to Jay-Z says: "Jay wanted to marry B and make babies with her from practically the day they met." When they were engaged, he called her "wifey" and "my baby's mama." Jennifer Aniston and John Mayer went on a date! He took her to his manager's birthday party. An eyewitness says: "They were clearly a couple. They were acting very lovey-dovey… She was giggly all night." Finally, TLC's T-Boz has Swine Flu! Over the years, she's been diagnosed with sickle-cell anemia, had brain surgery to remove a non-cancerous tumor, and now: H1N1. It took her two weeks to recover, but she says she won't get the vaccine next year, because whenever she gets a flu shot, she feels sick for about three days.
Grade: F (sour milk)

Us
"Angelina's Cruel Lies"
Ian Halperin's new book, Brangelina: The Untold Story of Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie , has lots of claims, like: Angelina spread nasty rumors about her romantic rival Jen Aniston; a tipster says Angie was recently taking crystal meth; and Angelina and Brad are just one year from splitting. According to one of Halperin's exes, who worked on Troy with Brad Pitt, but never saw Brad with Angie, "They've broken up so many times, it would make your head spin." A limo driver says: "She has a temper like a cobra." Halperin claims that in 1998, Angie was so distraught that she hired a hit man to kill her. LOL. Also, Brad met a Sudanese model named Amma at a Darfur event and they flirted, fueling fears of cheating. An employee and the Dorchester Hotel in London overheard Shiloh refer to a nanny as "mommy." And, Halperin says, "It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the two were broken up by Christmas 2010." On the other hand, Us reports that Angie and Brad are enjoying "a peaceful French life" : A recent visitor says Angie was in the kitchen doing dishes while the kids were running outside; she could watch from the window. The kids have free reign on the estate's 880 acre grounds; Pax and Maddox run around for hours pointing their fingers at each other like guns. Shiloh and Zahara bond with the ponies and donkeys on the estate and "revel in golf cart rides with Daddy." An insider says: "Every time the cart goes over a bump, Shiloh squeals with delight." Moving right along: We love 3 of the "25 Things" you don't know about Dolly Parton: "I have a treehouse where I write a lot of children's songs." And! "I still believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and true love. Don't even try to tell me different." And! "I get acrylic put on the inside of my nails as well as the outside. It makes them just like guitar picks." On another page, Kim Kardashian reveals, "I lost my virginity to an R. Kelly CD." Wait, you had sex with a disc? "We put up the music really loud," she clarifies. Lindsay Lohan was "trailing after" Kellan Lutz (Twilight, 902010) at a club and "when she wasn't following him, she was texting him." She talked to him for 5 minutes — but it ended there. He has a girlfriend.
Grade: D- (freezer burned ice cream)

Star
"Mind Games!"
An insider says Jen and Angelina despise each other, and take great pleasure in seeing each other squirm. "Neither has an ounce of empathy." After Thanksgiving, Brad is filming The Lost City Of Z in Brazil, and Jen is planning a vacation in Mexico, but will take a side trip to Brazil! "Jennifer sees her chance for a reunion far from the prying eyes of Hollywood," a source says. "And she knows that when Angelina finds out — and she certainly will — she'll be livid." Jen gets drunk and calls Chateau Mirval in the middle of the night — and she likes that she wakes up Angie. Every time she hears that Brad and Angie are having problems, Jen will call Brad and "act sweet." Then Brad unloads on her, telling her Angie's being moody and difficult, and Jen loves that. Angelina steals all the roles that Jen wants and laughs when Jen's movies bomb. Angelina knows which designers Jen likes and when her "spies" find out she's asked for something, Angie tries to get it first, and be photographed in it. Angie knew that Jen wanted to wear an Elie Saab dress to the Oscars, but Angie got it first, and poor Jen had to wear Valentino. : ( Angelina isn't crazy about Brad's scruffy look, but Jen recently texted Brad, telling him he looked handsome and distinguished in his goatee. Brad likes watching them fight over him, so he purposely leaves out his cell phone so that Angie can see Jen's called or texted. Moving on: A handwriting expert analyzed Twilight autographs, and now we know that Robert Pattinson is highly intelligent; Kristen Stewart is "more traditional and stiff" and Rob and Kristen "feel safe with each other." (See image 10.) Blind item! "Which former TV host shocked patrons at LA's Voyeur night club on October 29 when he debuted his new face? Sources say he recently got a hush-hush eyelift that made him unrecognizable." Since his kid was born, Colin Farrell's girlfriend put a swear jar in his house — every time he curses he has to put in $100. Tobey Macguire was running and heard a "pitiful meow" and saw a scared kitten stuck in a tree! He pulled her to safety with his Spider-Man grip. Rihanna told Diane Sawyer that she doesn't hate Chris Brown, but and insider says she "despises" Chris — so much that if someone mentions his name, she'll say. "Please don't talk about him." Lindsay Lohan went to Crown Bar, where she ran into her former live-in love, Courtenay Semel. She asked to be moved to a table away from Courtenay, then "flirted heavily" with Twilight's Kellan Lutz, to no avail, then ran from the club to "sob in an alley." Lindsay also partied super-late three nights in a row at Leonardo Di Caprio's house. "Wow! Jessica's Revenge" is about how Jess Simpson dropped 15 pounds in 30 days "and she's not done yet." First she lost 5 lbs. by doing a three-day cleanse; then she cut meat from her diet and eliminated her favorite fatty Mexican foods — and has barely touched alcohol. A doctor who does not treat Simpson says: "This is the old Jessica we all know and love." Yes, not the sad, burrito-loving one! The vengeful, fasting one! The whole time Bradley Cooper has been dating Renée Zellweger, he's also been hooking up with his ex, Isabella Brewster — the younger sister of Jordana Brewster. "He wanted to keep it hush-hush, so usually, they'd just grab takeout and stay in," says a source. "He'd call and tell her, 'Bring your hot self over here, and don't forget dinner.'" Lastly: A man who wrote a book titled Blown For Good — about escaping Scientology — says Tom Cruise audited him when the guy was 17. This was 20 years ago. The dude says: "Tom would talk to inanimate objects, like books, desks, bottles, even ashtrays — for hours. You tell the ashtray, sit in that chair. And then you actually go over and put the ashtray in the chair. Then you tell the ashtray, 'Thank you.' Then you do the same thing with the bottle and the book. And you do this for hours and hours." Why? It's Scientology's "Book and Bottle Routine" that "rehabilitates" your ability to control things and be controlled. The guy says he was in a Scientology compound where he was forced to watch clips of Tom Cruise on talk shows. But then he snuck a small TV in and started watching late-night talk shows that made fun of Tom. "I'd see Conan O'Brien dissing Tom, and I was like wait a minute… They were all laughing their butts off about Tom Cruise being a crazy nutjob, but I thought he was awesome."
Grade: D (furry, moldy berries)

Click "full size" to enlarge.

Click "full size" to enlarge.

Earlier: All previous Midweek Madness posts

No one's really saying. This is what a spokesperson for W just told us: Photographers Mert Alas and Marcus Piggott "did not do anything unusual or out of the ordinary on Demi Moore for the photo on the cover of W. Demi is an extraordinary beautiful woman and we feel our cover reflects that."

Well, okay. As long as anatomically impossible renderings are usual and ordinary.

Although W has a history of using master retoucher Pascal Dangin for its celebrity covers and fashion editorials, the magazine's rep says that the retouching was done in-house by Alas and Piggott's staff. We contacted Demi's rep, too, but haven't heard back.

By the way, if you check out the runway shot of the Balmain leotard Moore is wearing, the W cover makes model Anja Rubik look positively curvaceous. Appearing to out-narrow a hauntingly bony model? Now that's "still sizzling."

Demi Goddess [W]

Earlier: "The Frustrating Part Is That The Type Of Roles I'd Be Interested In Are Not Really Coming To Me."

Related: Pixel Perfect [The New Yorker]
Demi Moore For W Magazine [Project Rungay]

In the latest Vanity Fair, James Wolcott unleashes the sort of despairing tirade that intellectuals have been haplessly aiming at our culture's demise since the dawn of Survivor. "The influence of Reality TV has been insidious, pervasive. It has ruined television, and by ruining television it has ruined America," he proclaims dramatically, and enters into the sort of acid-tongued dismissal of televised whoredom that's become an armchair sport of its own in the past decade. America's obit also contains the lines "it is also true that the mega-dosage of reality programming has lowered the lowest common denominator to pre-literacy," and "Reality TV wages class warfare and promotes proletarian exploitation."

But fruitless as such rhetoric may seem in our benighted times (and, I'm sorry, but Super Nanny is an excellent and educational show that has taught me how incredibly easy raising other peoples' kids is) there was one salient point I found to be tragically apt. Quoth he,

Reality TV has annihilated the classic documentary. When was the last time you saw a prime-time documentary devoted to a serious subject worthy of Edward R. Murrow's smoke rings? Since never, that's when. They're extinct, relics of the prehistoric past, back when television pretended to espouse civic ideals. Murrow and his disciples have been supplanted by Jeff Probst, the grinny host of CBS's Survivor, framed by torchlight in some godforsaken place and addressing an assembly of coconuts.

Well, anyone who's spent much time on Netflix knows that reports of the documentary's death have been exaggerated, but let's talk about the greatest casualty of the last decade: The History Channel. Yes, I know: before it was all-Hitler, all the time. If you were lucky, you got a dash of Churchill, or maybe a few re-enactors running onto a battle field. Historians talked. Voiceovers intoned. Hitler's final days approached inexorably, while an actor who didn't really resembled him gesticulated wildly. Sometimes we saw the holy land or a weathered piece of parchment. You know, the History Channel!

Now, the network is beyond parody. The viewing public is, the programmers seem to feel, unwilling to watch anything that doesn't involve Da Vinci-Code-style speculation, cryptic pseudo-historians, and, whenever possible, the paranormal. Three times in the past week I tried to find a comforting educational program. I was presented with Ancients Behaving Badly, something about Lord of the Rings involving what looked like a reenactment of the movies, and Ancient Aliens, respectively. Take a smattering of shows from the current schedule: Nostradamus Effect: Satan's Army; MysteryQuest: The Lost City of Atlantis; Fort Knox: Secrets Revealed and UFO Hunters: The Silencers. I never thought I'd be so glad to run across Civil War Journal: Stonewall Jackson.

I don't want "mysteries" unless they're staid Mysteries of the Bible, thanks very much. I don't want buried treasure. I don't need the founding fathers to have hidden a treasure map in the Constitution because, call me a nerd, but the Constitution is interesting sans Nic Cage. Templars don't need to be skulking around for Church history to have a bearing on the development of England. And, oh yeah, aliens have nothing to do with history. To put this in terms the New History Channel will find more engaging: It's like Indiana Jones. The ones based on real history (yes, I'm talking about the holy grail and the arc of the covenant; work with me) are better. The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was idiotic. (I'd say these aren't actually suggestions, but programs already exist pertaining to each of the films. The Crystal Skulls are ancient alien artifacts - maybe.)

Old programming has been shunted onto History International, where you can still get a comforting fix of Medieval weapons and Nuremberg (although the homepage gamely advertises Cults: Dangerous Devotion, Ku Klux Klan: A Secret History and the perfectly dignified show that for some reason has been christened The Naked Archaeologist.) It's not the same. It knows it's second-rate, that the powers that be don't think it can pull in the youngsters. It's not sexy. The History Channel was always for the regular joe; it wasn't for academics or historians. But it assumed people like history, because we're living it, and it's interesting, and it has a bearing on who we are today. Now, we're controlling the programming instead. Maybe it does have to do with reality TV, or the general dumbing-down of the culture. Personally, I blame Dan Brown (although not in a grand-conspiracy way.) All I know is, these half-facts and bits of speculation and scholars' cautious assertions quickly cut with a more dramatic reenactment are, well, boring. And while I'm more than happy to don a gratuitous explorer's fedora and say cryptic things about the role of ancient dolls any time the History Channel wants me to, that's not really the kind of history we need to make. Hmph.

I'm a Culture Critic … Get Me Out of Here! [Vanity Fair]

Law professor Gail Heriot says, "I had seen articles that suggested that some colleges and universities were discriminating in favor of men and against women in their admissions processes." She and her fellow members of the Commission plan to subpoena the admissions records and policies of 12 or more institutions to determine if such discrimination is occurring. Some, however, think there's no need. Jennifer Delahunty, dean of admissions at Kenyon College, says, "Is there evidence of this? Who has it? Where is it?"

As NPR's Claudio Sanchez points out, one of the people who has such evidence is Delahunty herself. In a 2006 New York Times op-ed, she wrote, "The fat acceptance envelope is simply more elusive for today's accomplished young women." She went on to describe an impressive female Kenyon applicant whose admission was still up for debate. She explained,

Had she been a male applicant, there would have been little, if any, hesitation to admit. The reality is that because young men are rarer, they're more valued applicants.

Here Delahunty seems to be outright confessing that Kenyon gives male applicants an edge. Why? She says,

At those colleges that have reached what the experts call a "tipping point," where 60 percent or more of their enrolled students are female, you'll hear a hint of desperation in the voices of admissions officers.

Beyond the availability of dance partners for the winter formal, gender balance matters in ways both large and small on a residential college campus. Once you become decidedly female in enrollment, fewer males and, as it turns out, fewer females find your campus attractive.

So favoring men is at least partly a numbers game. But Tom Mortenson of the Pell Institute says gender-imbalanced colleges are also bad for education. He tells Sanchez,

The people who work on these campuses say that boys frankly are not at their best where they are outnumbered two to one by girls. It's probably not a healthy situation for either gender.

It's tempting to suggest that boys who "aren't at their best" with too many chicks around might like to call the wahmbulance, or just cool their heels and wait for the day when they make more money than women for doing the same job. But given the recent focus on men's college woes (the president of the University of Alberta drew fire last week for declaring herself an "advocate" for underrepresented white men), it's worth examining whether or not gender "balance" is a good thing to strive for. It may not be particularly high-minded, but I can understand why straight women might balk at attending a college where they greatly outnumber men — a highly skewed dating pool can lead to some unpleasant social dynamics, not to mention reduced options. Then again, there's no reason women can't date outside their colleges, and the idea that a post-secondary education should also provide mating opportunities may be an outdated and damaging one. Maybe it's time we stopped thinking of college as a place of sexual awakening, and simply focused on learning.

So do students learn better in a mixed-gender setting? In primary and secondary school, there's some evidence that single-gender education has benefits, and many who attended women's colleges swear by the experience. On the other hand, there is something to be said for an educational experience that mimics the real world — but gender aside, colleges may be moving farther and farther from this goal.

Ultimately, the gender makeup of selective colleges may be a moot point. As college costs rise and real income falls, the "traditional" college experience is becoming out of reach for more and more students. Probably more important than the gender balance of a place like Kenyon is the growing gap between those who can afford Kenyon and those who can't. While some colleges had begun beefing up their financial aid prior to the recession, many are now in dire straits and forced to relinquish need-blind admissions. It's worth examining whether female applicants are suffering discrimination, and the underlying reasons for boys' educational problems deserve study as well. But the biggest problem facing America in the coming years isn't going to be about who gets into what top college. It'll be about who never had the money or support to apply in the first place, and couldn't attend even if they did get in. And unfortunately, this underrepresented group is growing.

Do Colleges Favor Male Applicants? [NPR]
Women Push Back [Edmonton Sun]

Related: To All The Girls I've Rejected [NYT]

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