In the almost two weeks since his Thanksgiving weekend car crash, much has been speculated about the state of Tiger Woods's marriage...and the reason for the crash itself. (In a press conference last week, the Florida Highway patrol announced that its representatives saw no evidence of anything but reckless driving and, in a statement a few days later, Woods confessed to "transgressions.")

Of course, Tiger's reported infidelity and problems with his wife are private matters, but matters that filtered through to the public consciousness long ago. Nothing better epitomizes this than this past Saturday's SNL skit with Keenan Thompson playing Tiger Woods and Blake Lively as his wife Elin.

The skit moves the assumptions about what happened to Tiger Woods three steps forward. "Elin" is shown standing behind Woods at a press conference, during which Woods makes increasingly feeble excuses as to his battered state, finally holding up a sign saying "help me." Many of the excuses the writers provide are classic lines from the domestic violence "script" ("I fell down the stairs...") and Elin hovering behind him menacingly is supposed to add to the laughs.

Obviously, many people found this funny. But in the context of how we talk about domestic violence in this country, I found it downright depressing. It's hard enough to get these sorts of conversation going without a catalyst - reports on domestic violence often go unremarked upon, and unless there is a celebrity hook, most news outlets will not spend much time going into detail about those reports. And, as we saw in the case of Chris Brown and Rihanna - the latter was the musical guest on SNL, as Hortense pointed out - even if it eventually emerges that domestic violence did occur in a high-profile couple, most of the public conversation revolves around blaming the victim and trying to silence discussion entirely. But, as Elizabeth Mendez Barry wrote over on The New Agenda, the way in which we frame such conversations has a great many unintended consequences:

The Bloods have a strict policy against domestic violence. That's what a 16-year-old male affiliate proudly told me last year before a weekly "gang awareness" meeting of about fifteen teens, most of them Crips, Bloods or Latin Kings, at a high school in Castle Hill, the Bronx. That week, the topic was domestic violence, and several members of the group, including the 16-year-old, said that hitting a woman was never acceptable. Others argued that there were situations where it just couldn't be helped.

The conversation turned to an article I had written about domestic violence in the hip hop industry for Vibe. The rapper Big Pun grew up near the high school, and his devastating abuse of his wife (which started when the couple was just 16) was described in the piece. "I heard she cheated on him," said the only young woman in the group, and others repeated some of the many rumors that swirled around Pun's wife when she told her story (up until then she had been Soundview's favorite widow). Several people enthusiastically launched into scenarios where it was OK to hit a woman. There were many. The bottom line: sometimes you've got to teach a woman a lesson if she gets out of line. It sounded like a man's responsibility.

In the midst of the rationalizing, one usually talkative young man stood up and walked out. When he returned twenty minutes later, he quietly told the group that his aunt had recently been murdered by her abusive boyfriend. It was no longer a hypothetical conversation. The jokes stopped. Young men who were significantly invested in their inner gangsters gave them time off, and started talking about how domestic violence had affected their lives–and it had affected most of them. The young woman, who minutes before had been arguing in favor of beating females who didn't know their place, talked about how despite the rules, male gang members beat up on female gang members. Behind her swagger, she seemed anxious.

Why discuss teenage gang members when the issue at hand is a couple of unaffiliated celebrities? Because frank conversations like the one I described are rare, but they're crucial to stopping relationship violence and healing the wounds it inflicts not just on its victims, but on their families, and even on abusers, many of whom grew up in abusive households themselves. Because of one young man's honesty about his own experiences, everyone else anted up. The conversation got past knee jerk reactions, and revealed some of the pain lurking behind them. It certainly didn't resolve all the issues that came up, but it was a start that gave a group of teens an opportunity to share the conflicting emotions they had about the issue.

Teenagers and children are listening to how we treat these conversations. With Chris Brown and Rihanna, many different groups, writers, and bloggers spoke out against victim blaming, about stereotyping based on race or nationality and about quickly forcing someone into the advocate role.

With Tiger Woods it's a bit more difficult. It's true that we do not know exactly what happened, in large part because Woods and his family aren't elaborating and, perhaps more importantly, because the State of Florida sees no further reason to suspect domestic violence. Thing is, with skits like the one shown on SNL, the message being sent is that it is okay to joke about punishing men with force. That it's understandable for women to react to allegations of infidelity with violence. Such demonstrations tell us that men bearing the brunt of a woman's rage should be the subject of laughter, not concern.

Some, of course, won't see what the big deal is. Admittedly, I didn't either - until recently. I was walking through New York one night with a friend when we passed a heterosexual couple who appeared to be having an argument - but with an inverted dynamic. In this case, the male (who was taller and heavier set than the woman) was trying to retreat while the female aggressively screamed, pulled and tugged at him. I sighed and kept going. After we got about a block up the street, my friend stopped me. "I'm sorry, and I'm sorry for dragging you into this, but we really have to go back." She explained that her brother was in a situation with an ex-girlfriend that was violent and full of manipulation, but that neither police, nor his apartment security took seriously the fact that his petite ex-girlfriend was out to do him bodily harm. "I have to help," she pressed. We turned around. Standing on the corner closest to the still-warring couple, she asked, "I'm sorry to be intrusive, but do you need any help?"

"Mind your business bitch!" shouted the woman, now trying to leap onto the man's back.

"Yes, I do," he said. The woman hit him.

For the next twenty minutes, the four of us engaged in horrible game of frogger: my friend and I would flag down a cab, and the woman would physically block the man from getting in and leaving the scene. Repeatedly, he lifted his hands, making sure to announce loudly "I am not touching you, I am not trying to touch you, please let me get in the cab."

Occasionally, the woman would remember we were around and would scream at us to leave - she was insistent that he come home with her and not to his house. After the third pissed off cabdriver left with no charge, we decided to call the police. The man didn't want us to leave and the woman showed no signs of giving in. When the cops showed up a few minutes later, one of the officers rolled his eyes. We left.

Even with that experience, I might have not taken violence against men seriously - except for the fact that it kept cropping up in seemingly strange places. A coworker laughed off a prominent mark on his face with a bashful, "oh, you know the wife." A friend asked me to accompany him to pick up his child in an increasingly rancorous (and increasingly violent) shared custody situation. Another coworker initiated divorce proceedings when the honeymoon went sour and his wife started taking literal bites out of his skin.

I know many people will shrug this off as well - but it's worth asking why we sweep violence against women under the rug, and play violence against men for laughs, but are still too afraid to risk confronting any of these issues directly. Saturday Night Live writers: I'm asking you first.

Update: TMZ reports that The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence is not pleased:

During the show, the audience laughs, but Smith claims, "There's nothing funny about this story, particularly if violence was part of the events that took place ... I hope that SNL refrains from using this kind of skit in the future as it diminishes people's support for victims of domestic violence."

Beyond Gossip, Good and Evil [The New Agenda]
Domestic Violence Group Rips SNL's Tiger Sketch [TMZ]

Earlier: SNL Brings Us "Shy Ronnie," The Salahis, And Gossip Girl: Staten Island
Game Over: Woods Charged With Reckless Driving; No Evidence Of Domestic Violence
"Some Simple, Human Measure Of Privacy": A Textual Analysis Of Tiger Woods

Julie and Julia, the stunt-phenomenon that made Julie Powell a literary star, was a book very much about envy, and resentment, and discontent. So for those who related to Powell's jealousy, in that book, of her more successful friends, it may perhaps gratify you to know that her success, her portrayal by Amy Adams, did not spell contentment. Instead, she felt unmoored and unhappy and entered into a torrid, bondage-tinged affair, which morphed into the world's most awful-sounding open marriage, which turned into obsession and depressing sex with strangers, which in turn made her become an apprentice butcher. Memoirs, generally speaking, fall into two categories: "I can relate" and "I want to go on your adventure." This is somewhere between the two, and not quite enough of either.

And, yes, the butchery metaphors flow. Mind-numbing pages of carcasses being broken down (and I'm interested in this stuff!) as Julie tries to escape/find herself amidst locally-raised meats interlock with equally lurid accounts of sex. Relationships and meat get chopped up - repeatedly, and explicitly. Muscle and bone and grass-raised gore become preferable to the author's fixation on the guy who's dumped her - like having to watch a friend make really bad choices, but covered in animal blood. The writing is good - but as in all such writer-immerses-himself-in-new-world, there's an element of cultural tourism (I'm not even talking here about her fifth-act stint with the Masai) that made me, for one, relieved when Powell is rejected by a number of grizzled third-generation butchers and ends up instead at a new-wave artisanal spot in upstate New York. (It never seems to be that third-generation butcher - the one who does it every day, for years - seeing his work in terms of beauty and metaphor.)

I'm not questioning the author's genuine commitment to butchery, but it's pretty clear that more is going on with the meat metaphor - hell, the meat book, a genre in itself - than an enthusiasm for aged steak. Meat has become a cultural touchstone, be it old-school masculinity, new masculinity (looking at you, Jonathan Safran-Foer), defiance (The Shameless Carnivore), ambivalence (The Compassionate Carnivore) locavore rock-stardom or self-exploration like Powell's memoir or the recent Meat, A Love Story. And it's rarely about the protein. It's about masculinity, femininity, place in the world and planet. (Short-order short-hand, if you will.) It's a disingenuous return to the primitive, but it's suspiciously on-trend. That said, if Powell's book was designed to forestall envy of a freelancer-made-good, in one regard she failed: it's still hard to get past the freedom to pursue an interest for six months - not to mention the international meat tour she takes afterwards to Elizabeth Gilbert her heart and mind into order. And as her discontent seems far from resolved by book's end, I'd guess we haven't heard the last.

Cleaving [Amazon]

Onee-kei is about looking pulled together - cute, but still practical - and features combinations of clothes to wear to the office or after hours. S Cawaii, Vivi, JJ, Classy, and Glamorous are Japanese magazines that reflect the current trends. Other titles, like Kera or Pretty Style reflect different versions of the same thing. As with most fashion magazines, however, all the titles adjust depending on the dominant trends.


These magazines have one major difference from their American and British counterparts - though Elle, Vogue Nippon, and the other usual suspects all have Japanese versions of their magazine - these glossies are really just look books... page after page of how to put together stylish outfits, a little advice on hair and makeup, and some small sections (food and lifestyle) near the very end. As you can see, many of the pages revolve around a theme, and different ways to play to a trend.


(They also feature handheld gaming systems as a fashion accessories. And run ads with women playing games. I love this.)


Clothes geared toward the office are more functional, but planning a striking outfit for going out is apparently the fashion equivalent to preparing for war. (I'm also wondering what's beneath the orange jacket - perhaps the tiniest LBD on the planet?)


The day wear and casual items are often basic - simple tops, jeans, shoes, many of which readers can obtain state-side. But it's the pairings (and attitude of the models) that keeps it fascinating.


Models are rarely seen jumping, and are often posed in sexy or goofy positions, in a variety of locations around town. This shot leans artistic - however, S Cawaii is also known for having its models give sexyface on one page and then stick out their tongues in a teasing gesture in the next.


Looking through the merchandise can get frustrating. I would love to rock that Sesame Street cardigan.


Domani magazine is on the edge of onee-kei style - it typically features professional career women of means (ads for high end brands are dominant), and women who are in their 20s, 30, and 40s. Despite being out of the general age range for onee-kei (which generally stops in the mid-twenties), the glossy still has the same visual aesthetic, just more work (and luxury) focused.


Domani demonstrates how a look can go from casual to pulled together with simple accessories, or perhaps a change of shoe. This is helpful to those of us inclined to be non creative with our daily wardrobes. Especially, if you're like me and unemployment/working from home/working in a casual environment means you tend to forget how to dress when you need to go somewhere.


The look books often take a trend - like the no collar jacket, and provide ideas on multiple ways to incorporate the style.


Accessories are often given full focus, like the studded leggings that make a plain dark gray top and denim shorts more visually stimulating.


The moderate but unusual pairings are a good reminder to try being less conservative with both clothes and accessories: A leopard print shoe would work with a variety of looks.


Another reason to love J-fashion mags? The freebies, which are often bundled into the magazine. (I am currently wearing the star socks shown.) Over the years S Cawaii has also gifted me a tote bag which says "I heart Moussy" and a small red pouch with black skulls on it that I use as a makeup bag.


"Thou shalt be fly" is the onee-kei philosophy when it comes to fingernails - they are often an artistic extension of your outfit. Interested in recreating these in the U.S.? It will be tough, I warn you. But if you really like these nail designs, the best way to get them (and keep costs down, lest you find yourself with a $100 manicure) follow on the next slide.


(1) Embrace the two finger design. Pick whichever art you like the most and ask for that on two fingers, with a more basic complementing design. (2) Bring a picture and look for a nail tech who is interested in learning the design. (I sometimes sweeten the deal by offering to let them see all the designs in the book. Scanning color copies also works.) (3) Have your own tools on hand - most places do not stock much beyond colors and rhinestones. Nail accessories can be found in specialty stores, online, and in craft stores (some of the designs you see on nails are actually stencils or small charms. (4) Tip well.


With a little patience and skill, some designs are achievable at home, with some effort.


While some magazines prefer to dazzle with designers, S Cawaii lets you know there is no shame in going faux. They even announce the "fake wool coat" the model is wearing.


Sure, these glossies focus a lot on attainable fashion, but they occasionally build in fantastic images. The nod to Alice in Wonderland is fabulous, yet the elements of the outfit are surprisingly wearable.


This isn't my style at all, but it's cute.


Unfortunately, as time goes on, the onee-kei magazines are absorbing more and more American style. Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie, Kate Moss, Lindsay Lohan and Lauren Conrad are taking up page space (in keeping with onee gal style, which places a heavy focus on celebrity) and twelve dollars is a lot to pay for fashion I see for free.

I confess! It was a thoroughly enjoyable experience.

This despite the fact that it was a cold, rainy night in New York, and we had to wait outside. (Our wait was made slightly more tolerable by the doling out of wristbands and Mardi Gras beads… It's hard not to get excited when you start getting swag right away!)

Once inside the lobby, we were informed no cameras were allowed, so there was a line of people who had to check them at the door. (My shots are with an iPhone.) But upstairs in the stunningly gorgeous Ziegfeld theater, the mood was lively, excited: From where I sat (with my brother and mother) I could see at least five or six little black girls wearing tiaras; when I turned around I noticed that they were everywhere. It was obvious that large groups of friends and families — moms, dads, sisters, brothers, aunts, cousins — had made a night of it. And everyone had to get the special popcorn/soda combo with the collectible cup.

When the lights went down, I was ready to be focused, objective, critical. But the truth is this: The story swept me away. The movie is Disney at its best: fun, funny, but with a lot of heart, and a message. The animation is sublime — a dream sequence Tiana has stands out as being especially dazzling — and the characters are vibrant and lovable. As an audience, we experienced joy, laughter, sadness and satisfaction. Even the character I was most worried about — the firefly with poor dental care — turned out to be hilarious, charismatic and charming. What his teeth say to kids about the bayou, I don't know. I do know that I was moved, when I didn't think I would be, laughed more than I thought I would, and came away feeling, well, happy. That's what Disney does, isn't it?

After the movie, even organizers held an "Ultimate Disney Exprience" event at the Roseland Ballroom, which had been transformed into a "bayou." Standing around on little platforms were all of the Disney princesses… and Tiana was in the center, on a stage. Watching little girls line up to take their picture with Cinderella, Jasmine, Ariel, Belle, Pocahantas, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Mulan and Tiana, I was reminded of the huge impact Disney has on children. Many of the kids there weren't even born when the most recent "princess" movie, Mulan, hit the screen. ( Snow White came out in 1937.) Children and parents snapped pictures, gushed over costumes and generally looked thrilled to "meet" all of the "princesses" who, obviously, are well-trained actresses. They're even schooled in what to say when a thirty-something single man with zero kids is giddy to take a picture with them — my brother had his photo snapped with every single princess.

But the best part, for me, was all the little girls playing dress-up. As you can see, the one in the photograph above already had the official dress, as well as a crown. Her name was Tiana, too, and it was clear that she — and her mother — were having a night they would never forget. For me, that makes it a success, whether the movie ends up a box-office smash or not. But whatever cash Disney doesn't make in theaters, I'm betting it will make in merchandise: One dad — after buying a dress, CD soundtrack and rhinestone tiara at the little gift shop in the lobby — asked the clerk, "What else ya got?"

Earlier: Do Disney Princesses Provide "Thinspiration" For Little Girls?
Writer: Disney's Frog Flick "Capitalizes" On Obama Family
The Princess And The Frog Is Full Of Magic
Cue The Singing & Dancing: Disney's Black Princess Arrives At Themepark
11 Cool Things From The Princess And The Frog
5 Possible Problems With The Princess And The Frog
How About An Animated Movie With A Female Lead Who Isn't A Princess?
About That Princess And The Frog Spoiler…
Disney's First Black Princess Is A Little Green
An Early Look At Characters From Disney's Black Princess Movie
Why Has It Taken So Long For Disney To Create A Black Princess?
The Princess And The Frog
Why Is Disney's First Black Princess Such A Challenge?

Writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, Celia Walden explains the female sex's supposed antipathy to Knightley thus: "mention of her name prompts women of every age to spring forward, enthralled and enraged, to postulate on the size of her pout, bosom and talent." Why? Well, what's the reason women ever dislike another woman? Jealousy, of course! Says Warden,

Female jealousy is a form of lust, the desire to know every inch of a beautiful woman in the same way that a man wants to through sex. But this lust is more powerful than the male kind, and is what has propelled Knightley to her position as a fashion figurehead, role model and Hollywood actress.

This is thoroughly confusing. Women apparently hate Keira Knightley because they are jealous of her, and are jealous of her because they want to "know every inch of her," and this desire is a form of lust. Also, somehow this hatred/lust is responsible for Knightley's fame. I found all this especially mystifying in light of the fact that my feelings about Knightley could be summed up with a resounding "meh." A "male friend" of Warden's identfies Knightley's problem thus: "She makes this stupid face, just like my girlfriend does when she looks in the mirror." This guy doesn't sound like a very good boyfriend, but I do agree that Knightley seems capable of only one face. It's not stupid, exactly, just kind of startled, and while it looks pretty, it's ultimately not that interesting. Certainly not interesting enough to light the fires of either hate or love.

What does get me kind of riled up, though, is the constant fetishization of female jealousy. We're jealous of Megan Fox, we're jealous of Sarah Palin — we barely have time to get anything done, we're so busy with our envy. Of course, it's a rare woman — or man — who hasn't felt jealous of someone else. But why does women's jealousy get so much play? Walden's piece offers a clue: maybe it's kind of hot.

Walden's claim that female hatred of Keira Knightley is all about lust just makes explicit what's always been a subtext in discussions of jealousy: that the green-eyed monster could lead women into a catfight, or maybe even some hate-fueled girl-on-girl action. Women fighting each other is a time-honored soft-core trope, and all the better if the combatants actually kind of want each other. Of course, Walden and others who've advanced the they're-just-jealous position have been women — including the reader who asked us "is it REALLY honest at all to pretend that a lot of the 'hateration' towards Megan Fox is not attributed to how reader's boyfriends and husbands, male acquaintances would/do react to her?" But this wouldn't be the first time women have knowingly or unknowingly performed for the male gaze, and while there's some truth in what they say — of course, women can be nasty about one another's looks — the sexual focus of their words is telling. Both Fox and Knightley (and, of course, Palin) have made impolitic public statements, but the reason women dislike them must be some strange form of desire — or, in an especially male-centric formulation, their effect on "boyfriends and husbands." Again, this is not to say that women are exclusively acting out a male script when they call out their fellow women for jealousy. But I would argue that the way Female Jealousy is constructed and discussed and invoked ad nauseum does indeed stem from lust — just not women's.

Why We Hate Keira Knightley [Sydney Mornign Herald]

In one of the most in-depth examinations yet of the ins and outs of the Polanski case, The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin explores not just Polanski's crime and its aftermath, but Polanski himself. Polanski the man has, in the words of his agent Jeff Berg, "a very existential approach to life." This existentialism allows him to live without "bitterness," again according to Berg, about the death of his mother at Auschwitz and the murder of his wife Sharon Tate. It also produces some rather upsetting statements. In his autobiography, he wrote that during his time in Gstaad after his wife's death,

Kathy, Madeleine, Sylvia and others whose names I forget played a fleeting but therapeutic role in my life. They were all between sixteen and nineteen years old ... They took to visiting my chalet, not necessarily to make love — though some of them did — but to listen to rock music and sit around the fire and talk.

And two years after his rape of Samantha Gailey, he told Martin Amis,

I realize, if I have killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But ... fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls — everyone wants to fuck young girls!

This last reveals a solipsism (everyone wants exactly what I want!) that may have deserted Polanski in the long years of his rather comfortable exile, many of which he has spent married to actress Emmanuelle Seigner. While Polanski's claim that everyone was so worked up about his rape because of their desire to have sex with thirteen-year-old themselves is idiotic, it's true that others' feelings about the way he conducts his life — whether informed by jealousy, disapproval, or admiration — have influenced the progress of his case.

Toobin notes the now-famous probation officer's report, which creepily praised Polanski for being "solicitous regarding the possibility of pregnancy" (this solicitousness took the form of anal sex). He mentions an "equally smitten" psychiatrist, who reported that prison time "would impose an unusual degree of stress and hardship because of [Polanski's] highly sensitive personality and devotion to his work." Both men were, in Toobin's words, "starstruck" by the famous director. Toobin also notes that part of the reason Samantha Gailey (now Geimer) was unwilling to testify was because of the high-profile nature of celebrity trial. This unwillingness enabled Polanski to plead down to statutory rape, a bargain that not only shortened Polanski's potential sentence but also allowed many people to forget how severe his crime really was.

On the other hand, all the public attention on Polanski's trial may have made Judge Laurence Rittenband harsher. Polanski's prison sentence was stayed (again, a bit of leniency likely influenced by his fame) so that he could finish a film — while in Munich, apparently working on a distribution deal, he was photographed sitting with women and smoking a cigar. The photograph would never have been made public, and probably never taken, had Polanski not been world-famous. But along with public reaction to the case, it made Rittenband consider a longer sentence for Polanski, and possible deportation. It was at this point that Polanski fled.

In the end, Polanski's fame may have done him more good than ill — he'll never have to stand trial for rape, only for unlawful sex with a minor, and he can't serve more than two years. At the same time, Judge Rittenband was under all the pressure of public scrutiny in sentencing, and this may have influenced the result. Amanda Knox's case is obviously much different from Polanski's — for one, the details of her crime are far less clear. But she too may have suffered from a judicial system that wanted to make an example of a high-profile defendant. And on the flip side, she too has benefited from that high profile.

Just a few days after Knox's conviction, a senator from her home state is already advocating on her behalf. The Secretary of State may get involved. While many Americans — and Italians — revile her, many others leap to her defense without ever having met her. Knox isn't a famous director, but she's pretty and young and white, and her story makes better human-interest news than, say, those of the over a million people arrested for drugs in America this year.

Knox and Polanski became cause celebres to different people, for different reasons, but both now enjoy the benefit of supporters far beyond their own families and defense teams. Sadly, many people indicted in America and worldwide don't even have that much support. In the upcoming weeks, we'll be hearing a lot about both Knox and Polanski. We won't be hearing about the countless men, women, and teens represented by overworked public defenders, who will be convicted during that time of crimes they didn't commit, or given unfair sentences for crimes they did. The pressures of celebrity justice may sometimes work against famous defendants, but the pressures of racism and classism and unenlightened tough-on-crime-ism work just as steadily against the anonymous, and the problem that gets less media attention may actually be the more important one.

Image via The New Yorker.

The Celebrity Defense [The New Yorker]

The commenters on Gawker Media's stable of properties are known for their smarts, savvy, wit, breadth of knowledge and curiosity, but great online communities always need a set of rules and regulations to keep the discourse high and humming along.

If you're a relatively new reader to Jezebel: Welcome! We're thrilled to have you. As you may have figured out, commenting privileges on the site are not open to everyone, which means that we are able to maintain a higher caliber of contributions than those found on other, open and unmoderated websites. Want to become a commenter? You'll need to audition (a how-to here.) In addition, you'll probably want to take a look at our commenting policies, where are outlined here, here, here, here and here. (Lifehacker's old, but still good, post on how to comment on weblogs is also worth a look.)

Whether you're a brand-new reader or a commenting veteran, we ask that you take time to craft your comments, and that includes close attention to spelling, grammar, capitalization and punctuation: these basic requirements go a long way towards making us all look better. Make friends with your 'Shift' key. (Did you notice a mistake in your comment? Just click on the pencil icon next to your published comment and you will be given the opportunity to make edits.) Another good rule of thumb when commenting is to stay on-topic - editors and moderators may caution readers when a thread has gone off-topic - or to take your off-topic contributions to our vibrant reader forum, #groupthink, which we will discuss in more detail in a separate post later today. Notice a spelling or other sort of error in a post? Leaving this information in the comment of the post is strongly discouraged: editors do not always have the time to read the comments on their posts thoroughly so please, take a minute to email the editor in question or send the entire staff a heads-up by contacting us at tips@jezebel.com.

Many readers have already discovered how to make their voices really stand out via our #tips page, where you can share breaking news and tips, links of interest, timely video, or anything and everything else you think might be useful to Jezebel editors. (If you need a primer on how to use our hashtag system, go here.) Plus, if you give us some substantive explanation as to why we should follow up on your tip, your contribution might be promoted or featured on the front page. At #tips, quality contributors have the spotlight.

As always, when commenting on Jezebel, keep in mind that personal attacks, inappropriate behavior and off-topic rants are subject to bans, disemvoweling and deletion. Courtesy is of utmost importance: There are real people involved here, both on the front-end (writers/editors) and the back (commenters); ignore or disrespect this fact at your peril. (Starred commenters should be aware that their privileges are not guaranteed, which means they should be careful in the comments they approve and promote: do not feed the trolls! If you're an unstarred commenter, don't despair: there's an army of us on the lookout for the best and the brightest contributions.) We want the community to be the best it can be.

Questions? Leave them in the comments or email our beloved moderator, Hortense, at commenters@jezebel.com.

Earlier: Our New Look: Let Your Fingers Do The Talking
Extreme Makeovers: Update Edition
The Girl's Guide To Commenting On Jezebel: Version 1.2
A Message From Hortense, Our Commenter Moderator
The Girl's Guide To Commenting On Jezebel
Comment FAQ

Related: Geek To Live: Lifehacker's Guide To Weblog Comments [Lifehacker]

Though Swift's career was already in pretty great shape leading up to the now-infamous Kanye West incident at this year's MTV Video Music Awards, she has been seemingly inescapable ever since; she's hosted Saturday Night Live, she's on the most recent cover of In Style magazine, she's reportedly in a tabloid-teen-dream-worthy relationship with New Moon star Taylor Lautner, and her album is currently racking up multiple end-of-the-year awards and accolades, including 4 CMA awards, 5 American Music Awards, and 8 Grammy nominations. It has been the year of many things, most of them craptacular, but as a commenter on a new profile of Swift in the New York Times' T Magazine writes, Swift is "one of the brightest stars in a really dark year."

Of course, with great success comes great scrutiny; as Kate Harding notes in a piece for Broadsheet, Swift's super wholesome image and princess-fairy-tale lyrics have made her a target of bloggers such as Sady Doyle and Amanda Hess, who feel that Swift's music and public persona "reinforce some not-so-woman-friendly stereotypes in extremely annoying ways." Yet Harding also notes that though Swift's lyrics leave something to be desired, her songwriting abilities, which allow her to have some control over her own music and career, are worth celebrating: "It will be a great day when more female artists are calling the shots, topping the charts and writing lyrics that don't make me cringe — but two out of three isn't a bad start."

My feelings toward Swift are similar to Harding's; for every aspect of her princess-fantasy image that irritates me, there's something sort of refreshing about a teen pop star who writes her own songs and doesn't feel the need to hump an ice cream truck pole in order to drum up a bit of publicity for her record. However, there's also something about icky about the fact that Taylor Swift's fame rests on an image of purity, on a perception of niceness, on her imperfect-to-the-point-of-being-relatable voice and lyrics that read like they were written in a dreamy high schooler's diary, most likely because they kind of were written in a dreamy high schooler's diary.

She's completely non-threatening to some because she doesn't rely on overt sexuality to sell records, and yet she's incredibly threatening to others because her image seems to rely on the suppression of sexuality in order to sell records. Taylor Swift, in short, is confusing the hell out of everyone. As Amanda Hess of The Sexist writes, "I don't know if Taylor Swift is a feminist role model, or a palpable pop princess sent from the Christian right to corral the youth of America into antiquated gender roles."

But what do we really want from Taylor Swift? What identity does she need to assume to make everyone happy? Attacking Swift's image at this point isn't going to do much, as the train has already left the sparkly, relatable princess station. Debates over her lyrical content and whether or not she's a feminist pop star are all quite fascinating and will mostly likely continue over the course of her career, but I'm not sure what the ultimate goal is. I'm in full agreement with Doyle that Swift's image is just as "calculated as any other pop star's personal brand, with an added noxiousness due to its edge of moral superiority and '50's-style coy submissiveness," but at the same time, I wonder if Swift herself will be a victim of this carefully crafted image: at 19 years old she's still growing and figuring things out, and I imagine it will be difficult for her to transition into her twenties, both lyrically and image-wise, without disappointing some of her fans.

We are often quick to decimate a pop star; it's a reaction brought on by legitimate concerns over that young woman's influence on other women around the world. At 19 going on 20, Swift's age, Britney Spears was already declaring that she was "not that innocent" while still pushing the story that she remained a virgin. At 19 going on 20, Lindsay Lohan debuted her "Rumors" video, writhing around in a club while complaining about paparazzi attention. At 19 going on 20, Christina Aguilera was trapped in an image she destroyed 2 years later with her "Dirrty" video, which she claimed was a reaction to being "very pushed to look a certain way and act a certain way, and it wasn't me." Who Taylor Swift is at 19 going on 20 is a reflection both of the world she has created for herself over the past 4 years or so and of the increasingly juvenile world we live in today, where nobody wants to grow up and leave the dreamy world of high school romance behind.

Is Taylor Swift a feminist? I don't know. Is Taylor Swift the Stephenie Meyer of pop stars? I don't know. All I know is that Taylor Swift is a 19-year-old who has a long career ahead of her, and perhaps we should wait and see how she evolves as an artist and a writer before making a final judgment on all she is and all she stands for. I don't think anyone wants Taylor Swift to assert herself as an adult by walking out on stage in a see-thru bodysuit with a snake draped around her shoulders, but at the same time, I think it's even more dangerous to continually hold her up as a paragon of wholesomeness, something her management should consider.

It may be to Swift's benefit to play the princess for now, but eventually, she's going to want to leave that tower and find another path. Perhaps Taylor Swift will be the pop star who ditches her Disney Princess exterior without running to FHM or "accidentally" leaking some pics on the internet. If the world, and Swift's management, pull back on the virginal princess image and adoration just a bit, it might allow Swift to navigate her twenties, and all the ups and downs that come with them, in a manner that shows her fans that life is very much not a fairy tale, and that there really is no such thing as a perfect princess. Even the girl-next-door has to fuck up sometimes, thank god.

Taylor Swift Wants To Ban Access To Your Lady Bits [Bitch]
Taylor Swift: Pop Princess, Feminist Villain? [Broadsheet]
Christina Aguilera, That Dirrty Girl, Cleans Up Real Nice [NYTimes]
Taylor Swift: Feminist, Princess, Avatar [TheSexist]
Little Miss Sunshine [NYTimes]

After a trial that lasted 11 months, the jury took 11 hours to reach a verdict, returning to the courtroom at midnight to deliver the results of their deliberations. Knox and Sollecito were both found guilty on all counts and sentenced; Knox received 26 years in prison, while Sollecito faces 25. Knox reportedly sobbed as the verdict was read.

When we first discussed Amanda Knox on the site, in November of 2007, former editor Jessica Grose noted that the already-in-media-overdrive story was "a Lifetime movie waiting to happen." The story had all of the twisted details usually reserved for "ripped from the headlines" episodes of Law & Order, and the story—Knox in particular—quickly became the subject of public fascination. The press jumped on Knox's MySpace nickname, "Foxy Knoxy," and the unfortunate moniker (as well as the femme fatale characterization attached to it) has followed her ever since.

When the story broke, much attention was paid to Knox's beauty: Time hypothesized that "those who are convinced of her guilt no doubt will hate her even more because she is beautiful," and Knox herself seemed to agree, noting in her diary: "If I had been ugly, would they have acted in the same way? I don't think so."

Indeed, it is Knox's image that dominated much of the trial coverage: her ex-boyfriend and fellow suspect, Sollecito was pushed to the background for most of the trial, and Rudy Guede, who is already serving 30 years in prison after being found guilty of both the murder and sexual assault of Kercher (he's currently in the process of appeal, seems to be a lingering ghost in the story, as well. It has always been the "Amanda Knox Trial," even though she wasn't the only one facing judge and jury over Kercher's death (most headlines regarding the verdict, including my own, display this today). The world, much like the jury, was presented with two starkly different versions of Amanda Knox: the innocent abroad caught up in something much bigger than herself, and the devious beauty filled with rage.

These two versions of Knox were presented throughout her trial; Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini painted her as a "compressed spring," who, under the influence of both drugs and alcohol, seized on the opportunity to hurt Kercher during "an unstoppable crescendo of frenzied violence." Mignini also claimed that Knox's motive for the attack may have centered around financial disputes the two were having, sending Knox into a rage and causing her to lead the sexual assault on Kercher in order"to take revenge on that prissy girl."

Knox's parents and her attorney Luciano Ghirga, however, remained firm in their belief that Knox was innocent, and a victim herself of the media and the Italian judicial system. Ghirga argued just two days ago that Knox had been "crushed by the system," and Knox herself faced the jury to state that she was "afraid of being labelled as someone that I'm not, of doing things I didn't do and having the assassin's mask clamped to my skin." Defense attorney Giulia Bongiorno also attempted to paint Knox as "a naive, slightly extravagant, spontaneous young girl who is 60 percent imagination and 40 percent reality," a sharp contrast to Mignini's portrayal.

Knox's parents also felt their daughter was being painted unfairly by the prosecution: "This was a horrible crime," her mother, Edda Mellas, was quoted as saying, "but I couldn't understand why immediately Amanda was painted in this horrible light, where she was unrecognizable." Convinced of her innocence, bought her a plane ticket home a month or so ago, hoping she'd get a chance to use it. They are expected to give a statement regarding the verdict shortly.

Though the trial is finally over, it's doubtful that we've seen the last of Amanda Knox. If prior high-profile cases have taught us anything, the debate over who she really is and what really happened that night will surely continue; a civil suit has already been filed by Kercher's parents, who are seeking $37 million dollars from Knox, Sollecito, and Guede. The suit hinged on a conviction; now that Knox and Sollecito have been found guilty along with Guede, it looks as if that suit will go forward. We will most likely be seeing and hearing much more from Amanda Knox and her family in the future, but perhaps it is best to end with the words of Meredith Kercher's mother, Arline: "Her death was unreal in many ways, and still is. We will never, never get over this."

Update: The Knox family has released the following statement:

We are extremely disappointed in the verdict rendered today against our daughter. While we always knew this was a possibility, we find it difficult to accept this verdict when we know that she is innocent, and that the prosecution has failed to explain why there is no evidence of Amanda in the room where Meredith was so horribly and tragically murdered. It appears clear to us that the attacks on Amanda's character in much of the media and by the prosecution had a significant impact on the judges and jurors and apparently overshadowed the lack of evidence in the prosecution's case against her.

We want to thank the excellent work by Amanda's attorneys, Carlo Dalla Vedova, Luciano Ghirga and Maria Del Grosso, who successfully showed there was no credible evidence against Amanda and who fought hard on her behalf.

We also want to thank the many supporters both in Seattle and around the world who have contacted us with their support of Amanda and of us. We ask for their continued support.

We will immediately begin the process of appealing this verdict. Amanda is innocent and we will continue to fight for her freedom.

Knox Reaction: "We're Going To Fight To The End [Seattle Post-Intelligencer]
Friends And Family Of Amanda Knox Await Verdict [Seattle Post-Intelligencer]
Italian Jury Finds Amanda Knox Guilty Of Murdering Roommate [CNN]
Italian Jury Convicts U.S. Student Of Murder [NYTimes]
Exclusive: Amanda Knox's Parents End Their Silence [ABCNews]
Meredith Kercher's Family Breaks Silence On Second Anniversary Of Murder [ABCNews]
Lawsuits Fly In Amanda Knox Murder Trial [CBS]
Prosecutor Asks For Life Sentence For Knox [Seattle Post-Intelligencer]
Meredith Kercher Trial: "Don't Give Me The Mask Of An Assassin," Says Amanda Knox [Telegraph]
Amanda Knox's Lawyer Tears Up In Court [CBS]
Amanda Knox Prosecutor Imagines The Attack [ABCNews]
Knox Hated Slay Victim, Prosecutor Says [CBS]
Amanda Knox "Had No Motive For Kercher Murder" [BBC]
Rudy Guede Guilty Of Meredith Kercher Murder, Amanda Knox Faces Trial [TimesOnline]
Amanda Knox: I'm Only A Target Because I'm Sexy [TimesOnline]
A Murder Year Abroad? [Time]

Earlier:
Amanda Knox: As Sweet And Innocent As A Montmartre Housebreaker
Amanda "Foxy Knoxy" Knox Will Stand Trial For Murder
Don't Hate Alleged Murderess Because She's "Ivory Soap Ad" Beautiful

(Image of Mallory Shear-Heyman by Jim Lo Scalzo via The Center For Public Integrity)

The Center for Public Integrity is in the process of publishing a multi-part series on campus assault. Their initial findings are chilling, and accurately summarized as "High Rates of Rape, Closed Hearings, and Confusing Laws:"

One national study reports that roughly one in five women who attend college will become the victim of a rape or an attempted rape by the time she graduates. But while the vast majority of students who are sexually assaulted remain silent - just over 95 percent, according to a study funded by the research arm of the U.S. Justice Department - those who come forward can encounter mystifying disciplinary proceedings, secretive school administrations, and off-the-record negotiations. At times, policies lead to dropped complaints and, in cases like [Kathryn] Russell's, gag orders later found to be illegal. Many college administrators believe the existing processes provide a fair and effective way to deal with ultra-sensitive allegations, but alleged victims say these processes leave them feeling like victims a second time.

Kathyrn Russell was a student at the University of Virginia. She was allegedly* raped by another student and initially went through the normal channels to try to get help:

Days before filing her complaint, Russell learned that the local district attorney wouldn't press criminal charges - a typical outcome. Experts say the reasons are simple: Most cases involving campus rape allegations come down to he-said-she-said accounts of sexual acts that clearly occurred; they lack independent corroboration like physical evidence or eyewitness testimony. At times, alcohol and drugs play such a central role, students can't remember details. Given all this, says Gary Pavela, who ran judicial programs at the University of Maryland, College Park, "A prosecutor says, ‘I'm not going to take this to a jury.'" Often, the only venues in which to resolve these cases are on campus.

Out of options, Russell pursued her case through the with the campus based process. The Center then describes how these panels work from school to school.

Internal disciplinary panels, like the UVA Sexual Assault Board, exist in various forms on most campuses. But they're not the only way schools handle rape allegations. For decades, informal proceedings run by an administrator have represented the most common method to adjudicate disciplinary matters. Typically, an administrator meets with both students, separately, in an attempt to resolve a complaint. Occasionally, they "mediate" the incident. Officials find such adjudication appealing in uncontested situations. If a dean elicits a confession, says Olshak, of Illinois State, who headed the student conduct association in 2001, "We'll be able to resolve the complaint quickly, easily, and without the confrontation of a judicial hearing." Resolution, as in formal hearings, can mean expulsion, suspension, probation, or another academic penalty, like an assigned research paper. By all accounts, informal processes take place almost as frequently as formal ones ; at UVA, for example, the administration has held 16 hearings since 1998, as compared to 10 informal meetings.

And these proceedings can turn out positively for student victims. In January 2005, Carrie Ressler, then a junior at Concordia University, near Chicago, reported being raped by a football player after attending a party in his dorm. On January 19, within hours of the alleged assault, the police arrested the student athlete; by October, he'd pled guilty to battery for "knowingly [making] physical contact of an insulting nature," court records show.

At Concordia, Ressler's report landed on the desk of Dean of Students Jeffrey Hynes. The morning of the arrest, the dean summoned her to his office. "He told me he'd be telling the perpetrator he needed to leave by choice," she remembers Hynes saying. "If not, he'd be expelled." Within days, the athlete had left Concordia. Hynes declined to comment on Ressler's case.

"The dean acted in my interests," Ressler says. She recognizes, though, that the informal adjudication served the university's interests, too. "I got the sense from the dean that the school wanted to keep this case hush-hush."

Resolving the cases speedily and quietly are in the school's best interest, from a publicity and liability standpoint. But what happens when this emphasis on discretion begins to help the assailant?

More formal proceedings are sometimes no less shrouded. College disciplinary hearings, unlike courts, lack the trappings of transparency - campus spectators. Advocates can't attend unless serving as "advisers" to students. Only integral participants like board members or administrators have any clue when a hearing occurs. "They're secret because they're closed," says S. Daniel Carter, of Security on Campus Inc., a watchdog group.

Administrators see it differently, arguing that there are important distinctions between "secrecy" and "privacy." They can't open up internal proceedings - formal or informal - because that would amount to granting access to private educational records, which FERPA prohibits, they say. But that doesn't mean they're operating in secret. "Not providing private information to the rest of the world is respecting confidentiality and respecting FERPA as a law," says Mary Beth Mackin, assistant dean of student life at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. And while proceedings remain hidden to outsiders, administrators maintain they're conducted so students feel they're as open as possible.

Lisa Simpson would probably disagree. Her allegations of rape at the University of Colorado at Boulder blew open a scandal of sexual assault allegations against football players and recruits in 2004; three years later, her Title IX lawsuit brought against CU ended in a $2.85 million settlement in her favor. Yet she found CU's judicial process a mystery. In December 2001, Simpson, then a CU sophomore, alleged she was raped by five football players and recruits during a beer-soaked party. They claimed she was a willing participant. Within days, Simpson's rape report made its way to CU's judicial affairs director, Matthew Lopez-Phillips. During a meeting in his office, she recalls him relaying how a panel of students, faculty, and staff would adjudicate. At the time, CU's official conduct code stated that alleged victims would generally be expected to participate in the process by "providing testimony at the formal hearing of the accused," among other things.

But Simpson never appeared before a panel. No panelist interviewed her about the report, or the victim impact statement she filed. Even after her five-year legal battle against CU over its response to her case - a battle that sparked a broader investigation, as well as systematic reform - she has no idea what transpired before the panel, or if it actually even existed. CU documents obtained by the Center show one accused student underwent a formal hearing as a result of Simpson's report; three others had informal, administrative proceedings. But some CU documents on the panel remain sealed by protective order, and only one includes a list of 17 possible panelists. Court records have revealed the identity of only one panelist. "For all I know," Simpson says, "it could have been a panel of athletic coaches."

The report returns to Russell's experience. Bound by the school's repeated admonishments that all proceedings were confidential, she and the student she accused were to both come before the panel and present their case. The person she accused had this to say:

Russell and the alleged assailant agreed on initial details - they ran into each other at a bar; he ended up at her dorm; she offered him an air mattress to sleep. But they painted different pictures of what transpired next. The man, Russell said, grabbed her from behind, ignored her pleas to stop, and "used [me] for his sexual need." Russell, the man countered, "tacitly agreed to have sex," demanding a condom, and never saying no. "Not all my actions would in a day-to-day situation be considered kosher," he wrote in his April 23, 2004 defense. "But none of my actions broached or even swept near the arena of rape."

So, something was amiss. He just didn't think it was rape.

Interesting.

I wonder if he would have seen things differently if, instead of looking for the absence of a no, the cue to continue sexual activity was universally understood as an enthusiastic yes. However, Russell didn't realize how deeply ingrained this type of thinking is until the panel came back with its decision. The report continues:

Kathryn Russell didn't think much about her school's policy until things went badly. At the hearing, board members asked questions making her wonder about their training - "Did it occur to you to perhaps leave the room?" "Why not just shut the door [on him]?" Sources familiar with the UVA board's training describe it as extensive; in 2004, the school required members to undergo a day of preparation featuring a videotape and reading materials, as well as sessions with outside experts on campus sexual assault. One previous board member describes Russell's panelists as open-minded and thoughtful. But the panel also judged her complaint using a "clear and convincing" evidence standard, which the Education Department ruled, in one 2004 case, is higher than Title IX authorizes - and which victim advocates argue is illegal.

In the end, the student Russell accused was found "not responsible" for sexual assault. The board instead slapped him with a verbal reprimand. "We … believe that you used very bad judgment," Sisson declared. The case resulted in one of nine "not-responsible" verdicts the UVA board has handed down over the past decade, as compared to seven responsible ones.

"You can have a bad sexual experience but not be sexually assaulted under the university's definition and standard of evidence," says the prior UVA board member.

Russell saw it differently. "It was just a charade," she said.

Russell isn't the only one who found herself pressured into accepting an unsatisfactory decision.

In November 2003, Mallory Shear-Heyman, then a sophomore at Bucknell University in Pennsylvania, underwent a confidential mediation after reporting being raped in her dorm by a fellow student. Mediations became popular in disciplinary matters involving sexual assault earlier in the decade, and remain common today - despite controversy. In 2001, the Education Department deemed mediations improper partly because they carry no punishment. And while mediation is generally considered effective for resolving interpersonal conflicts, the department - and many critics - argue that it falls short in instances of sexual violence. The reason: an intimidating element exists between victims and their assailants because, like other serious assault, sexual assault is a violent act "In some cases," the department states in its guidance document, referring to sexual assault cases, "mediation will not be appropriate even on a voluntary basis."

But Bucknell administrators defend their use of the practice, which they now call "voluntary facilitated dialogue," precisely because it only occurs at the request of an accusing student, with the willing participation of an accused student. Any power imbalance, they argue, is evened out by the presence of two administrators - one male, one female - guiding the conversation and assuring a comfortable setting. "Our students have really been key spokespeople for indicating they want some sort of option to have this dialogue," says Kari Conrad, judicial administrator for sexual misconduct. "We feel confident in keeping this process as a responsible response."

Shear-Heyman remembers Bucknell officials portraying the off-the-record session as an attractive way to confront the accused student, "as if it were the best option ever." Confidentiality, they relayed, would allow for more open and honest discussion. She was presented with a waiver, which specified that "information first disclosed during mediation may not be used in any subsequent internal University proceeding."

But Shear-Heyman wouldn't grasp the waiver's implications until the accused student, she says, implicated himself. Bucknell records show the student apologized to her in instant messages, admitting "b/c you got hurt, yes," what had occurred was rape. She says he repeated the admissions before the two deans who participated in the mediation - Gerald Commerford and Amy Badal. The waiver did not prevent Shear-Heyman from pursuing outside remedies. But the deans, she says, gave her the strong impression that she couldn't use what had occurred in the session - on or off campus. When she later considered pursuing criminal charges, she says, the deans claimed not to remember the accused student's alleged admissions.

In response to the painful facts pulled into sharp focus by the study, Feministing points to The Campus Accountability Project, a joint effort by SAFER and V-Day. The Campus Accountability Project has set a three year time frame to gather data on the school sexual assault policies, reach out to activists looking to challenge unfair policies, and prepare a new report based on their findings.

*Here, allegedly is used only because no conclusion was reached in this case in the court of law.

Sexual Assault On Campus Shrouded In Secrecy (First In A Series) [The Center For Public Integrity]
Campus Sexual Assault: A New Report And Reform Effort [Feministing]
Campus Accountability Project [Safer.org]

Earlier: What's Being Taught In College Rape Prevention Programs?

Like Kate, it's hard to imagine Natasha in high school. In my image of her, she's wearing high heels and a pencil skirt, sitting at an outdoor café, drinking and espresso and smoking a cigarette while she waits to give you sensitive information. Or to get such information from you, while making you think she's giving it. If Natasha hands you a briefcase, I can pretty much guarantee that it contains not the documents you paid a million Swiss francs for, but a single rose and a handwritten note that says, "Better luck next time." That's just how she rolls.

Even if she's not actually a spy, Natasha has a cool beauty and natural reserve that would make her a natural for spy movies. You've never been to her apartment; you don't even know where it is. Her boyfriend is some kind of financier, but you rarely see them out together. Her friends are other enviably cool women, possibly of international extraction. Some of them may be named Isabel. Natasha doesn't often show anger — or any emotion, except maybe mild amusement — but people who get on her bad side have a way of getting audited, or worse.

Of course, the quintessential Natasha is Natasha Fatale of Rocky & Bullwinkle fame. This villainess from the nation of Pottsylvania may have been a little silly, but with her stilettos and strapless dress, she definitely looks the part. So, in their own way, do actresses Natasha Henstridge and Natascha McElhone, and model Natasha Poly. Sasha Obama's name is also short for Natasha, and she seems too adorable to be a femme fatale. But she's only eight, so maybe it's too early to tell.

From a peak of #72 in the eighties, Natasha has tumbled all the way down to #413 in US popularity. Far more popular — at #13 in 2008 — is its less threatening cousin, Natalie. Both names derive from the Latin dies natalis, or birth day, referring to the birth of Christ. But watch out — if you cross Natasha, it might just be your death day.

Natasha [Wikipedia]
Natasha [The Baby Name Wizard]

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

Have you ever met a self-described "guido" or "guidette"? I haven't, and I've lived within their purported stomping grounds for a decade. In fact, I bet that 99% of Americans have never met one, which is probably the bet MTV execs were making when they greenlighted this show, because the whole point of it seems to be to allow members of a tiny splintered-off sub-group, a small social network, really, to present themselves before the the largest possible audience that will feel comfortable looking down on them. Remember in Independence Day, when the aliens came and all of the nations and religions and creeds forgot their differences and came together to fight them? The same concept is at work here (though it can be argued that all of reality TV is like that on some level.) It's been said before: we watch reality TV so we can celebrate and take comfort in the fact that we're different, we're not like these people. MTV has simply raised the ante by choosing to present eight horrible people who define themselves by the same ethnicity. And yes, that is bad, but to get too worked up about it (as Italian Americans, as people from New Jersey, as reasonable human beings with the ability to reason and a sense of fairness), while understandable, is to play right into MTV's hands.

Because as repulsive and wrong as this show is, isn't calling it racist (or ethnicist) kind of...racist (or ethnicist)? Yes, it's annoying that the people on this show choose to define themselves and their behavior as that of a particular background, but if you accept that these people represent Italian Americans you have to accept that the women who clawed for Bret Michaels' attention on Rock of Love represented American women. It's an obvious lie. It's that wrong, and that laughable, and while I have no doubt a few people out there in America are stupid enough to think less of Italian Americans based on this show, I firmly believe that when those few people turn fourteen and meet their first actual Italian American, that spell will be broken.

That said, this show is horrible and everyone involved with it should be ashamed of themselves. The biggest shock of the entire premiere was the fact that the show actually has credits (though, suspiciously, not very many!) Here are nine horrifying clips from this painful TV show about, and let's call them what they are: eight individuals afflicted with the same crippling syndrome, rounded up by an attention-hungry cable network and presented for us to laugh at and pretend to be shocked by. Let's think of it as one long, entertaining anti-tanning PSA. Above, the shore house mates meet each other.

Snooki demonstrates that she likes being the center of attention, and "Ring Around the Rosie" is given a new meaning.







"I just don't want your pukey breath on me." I have a new appreciation for the kindness and maturity of my tormentors in 7th grade.







New girls arrive, and quickly get naked. Angelina freaks.





"This situation is is going to be indescribable. You can't even describe this situation." - The Situation





The shore house becomes a yelling house.





"I should have just pounded out what's her face on Friday." Never before has a man's term for the sexual act so aptly described his bad technique.





"Guys, I gotta let you know something that's disgusting." Vinny has PINKEYE!







"Go upstairs with your whores and have fun." = Funny

"I will cut your hair while you're sleeping." = Funny

"If a girl's a slut, she should be abused." = Unforgivably sickening. Like this show, really.

The Wall Street Journal article documents the various critiques the dolls have attracted since they hit toy story shelves. Everything from the hair texture of the dolls to their features to their packaging has come under harsh scrutiny.

While the piece is pretty standard fare, one sentence in particular stands out as if it were surrounded by neon lights:

The criticism over Mattel's new black fashion dolls underscores how difficult it is for large commercial companies to please a widely diverse black community with a single image or two depicting young African-Americans.

This is where discussions of representation, politics, and commerce get thorny. One of the reasons that the So In Style Dolls are attracting so much attention is because there isn't an endless fountain of African American images to choose from. It is costly to create customized dolls for every variance in skin tone, facial structure, and hair style. My Twinn dolls, which are created in the image of the child who plays with the doll, retail for close to $150 dollar a piece.

For the toy maker seeking to turn a profit, mass production is generally the way to go. However, due to costs, these designs are limited. So from a business perspective, it would make sense for Mattel to drive money into a few different designs that will hopefully appeal to a broad range of people.

However, a market-based explanation does not take into consideration the long history of exclusion of African-Americans (and other minorities) from other aspects of the American cultural landscape. This exclusion, often intentional, was often rectified by making token gestures - like making sure that there might be one black friend, but ONLY one. As a result, because these opportunities for representation are so few and far between, the reactions come quickly.

And, in light of the societal preference for light skin/long hair, an unintended side effect of doll play is that young girls learn that the features and traits their dolls possess are pretty or beautiful, and often seek to emulate them. Irby-McBride acknowledges this dynamic in a video on the Mattel site, explaining that dolls do influence the behavior of young girls. She made a conscious decision to provide the dolls with younger sisters to encourage mentoring, and had the girls interested in science, math, and music to promote school engagement. However, she did not extend her concern to the physical cues that the girls may get from the So In Style line:

[Irby-McBride] also wanted them to be fun. She loved playing with Barbie's long hair as a child, she says, and Mattel's extensive research repeatedly shows that young girls want their dolls to have long hair they can brush and style. The So in Style dolls also have a hair-styling kit to curl and straighten the hair.

The black women recruited by Mattel to give input during the dolls' production had extensive discussions with the company about giving at least some of the dolls varied and representative hairstyles, says Ms. Johnson, the mother of a 14-year-old girl. Mattel's concession was to make one doll's hair wavy and give one of the little sisters short puffy pigtails.

For a lot of people, particularly those of us who want our children to love and embrace the hair that grows out of their heads before they start making any changes, this kind of oversight undermines what we are trying to teach. If we teach that long, straight hair is beautiful and fun to play with, and there are no representations of short hair, cropped hair, or kinky hair, what kind of message does that send to a child?

In an interesting twist, the WSJ asked doll modification expert Loanne Hizo Ostile (whose work we have featured before) for comment:

Loanne Hizo Ostlie says she also likes the dolls, but thinks Mattel did black girls a disservice by not giving them a more varied, representative look. For more than 10 years, she has been customizing dolls, specializing in creating black dolls from Kelly dolls, Barbie's little sister, and selling them on the Internet.

In the past, she also customized Barbies, but the field got increasingly crowded, she says. Now, she's turned to the So In Style little-sister dolls, painting their eyes brown and giving them "dreadlocks, Afros, cornrows and kinks."

Amazing.

Perhaps full and equitable representation is a bit much to ask from profit-driven enterprises, like Mattel. However, I am encouraged to see doll makers like Stacey Irby-McBride and Loanne Hizo Ostlie, each doing a small part to correct representations that they see as problematic.

Are Mattel's New Dolls Black Enough? [Wall Street Journal]
So In Style [Barbie.com]

Earlier: Dear Mattel: This Is How How You Make Barbie More Diverse

Forgive me if I revert to a 16-year-old Valley Girl version of myself, but ohmigawd, grody. This is soap wrapped in felt. My bathroom pet peeve is hair on soap. SOAP, BY DEFINITION, SHOULD BE CLEAN. If there's pube hair on your Lever 2000, your shower is VOID. Ew ew ew.

The sweater seems nice and all, but my lust is reserved for that Clothbound Penguin Classic version of Sense and Sensibility. Actually, my favorite designs in the series are the chandelier-covered Great Expectations and the peacock-feathered Picture Of Dorian Gray. You have Coralie Bickford-Smith to thank for the exquisite patterns.

This "message in a bottle" thingy is $16 for a little glass jar and some blank paper. Blink. Blink.

Is the "in-the-clouds scarf" pretty, in a shabby chic/grandma's attic kind of way? Yes. Is it $168 pretty? No.

Someone's been in the Ugly Betty wardrobe department.

My problem with Shabby Chic is my same problem with Olsen twins chic. It's not hip to be homeless, so why is it hip to LOOK homeless? Derelicte your own balls.

The "noble lore" blouse is probably cute and Blair Waldorf-esque, but the "hazy" photo treatment makes it hard to tell. It's worse than the time they shot shit underwater, because it makes me feel like I have glaucoma.

If I have one gift, it's the uncanny ability to look at a page of items and only like the most expensive thing pictured. In this case it's the "Enveloped Petals Cardigan," ringing up at $248 — the Upended Poppy tee is $68; the In-A-Moment dress is $118 and the Waltzing Daphne blouse is $98.

"He said he was a painter… He asked me if I wanted to get plastered… I didn't know it he painted walls… Still, he made me feel dizzy and weak in the knees! Or was it the fumes? All I know is I haven't spackled like that in a long time."

Excellent things about this shot:
1. Eyebrows
2. Eyes
3. Masculine/feminine combo of blazer and lace

Terrible things:
1. Blazer wouldn't look good on me/fit my rack
2. Doesn't come in my size anyway

AAAAAHHHH my eyes! Make it stop.

More lovely books. The striped "Saturation Point" heels are cute, too: $88.

She is humming "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes." Mark my words.

The "Great Heights Shift," $148: Cute or corny? As a city girl, I'm a sucker for a skyline.

Oh, Anthro. This always happens. I hate you, then you do something sweet — like pairing a girl "For Flora Skirt" ($168) and pindot tights ($18) with retro "Carved Celadon" heels ($168). Le sigh.

Anthropologie [Official Site]

Earlier: Man Shops Globe: The World Is Your Boho Bazaar
Man Shops Globe: The World Is Your Boho Bazaar
Anthropologie: Sartorialist-ic "Real" People Impossibly Pretty, Well-Dressed
May Anthropologie Catalog: Totally Watered Down
Anthropologie "Adorned": Critters & Kids Steal The Spotlight From Bags & Baubles
Anthropologie "Revival": TV-Ready Fall Fashion
Pottery Barn, Anthropologie & West Elm: Bedding Porn For Sleepyheads
CB2, Anthropologie & Delia's: More Bedding Porn For SleepyHeads
Please Do Not Look The Anthropologie Model In The Eye
Anthropologie "Vignettes": Forcing Us To Look Forward To Fall
Anthropologie "Giving": We Love To Hate & Hate To Love It
Urban Outfitters, Free People & Anthropologie: What's The Difference?
Anthropologie Doesn't Care About Black People

Related: Fetchdog, Drs Fosters & Smith: Howliday Humiliation For Dogs & Cats
Dear Santa: Have You Seen The December J. Crew?
Barneys: Wooing With Witticisms & Wallet-Emptying Wares
Ashro: Stop Being Such A Slob And Get Yourself A Suit, Hat & Wig
19 Crappy & Crazy Christmas Gifts From Sky Mall
Silver Belles & Butt Floss: Christmas At Frederick's Of Hollywood
Preclears On Your List? Shop The Scientology Holiday Catalog

All previous catalog posts

The piece, "A More Perfect Union," is writer Elizabeth Weil's attempt to improve her marriage. Her marriage, mind you, is good; she and her husband are both writers living in San Francisco's Bernal Heights, with "two kids, two jobs, a house, a tenant, a huge extended family." But.

The idea of trying to improve our union came to me one night in bed. I've never really believed that you just marry one day at the altar or before a justice of the peace. I believe that you become married - truly married - slowly, over time, through all the road-rage incidents and precolonoscopy enemas, all the small and large moments that you never expected to happen and certainly didn't plan to endure. But then you do: you endure. And as I lay there, I started wondering why I wasn't applying myself to the project of being a spouse. My marriage was good, utterly central to my existence, yet in no other important aspect of my life was I so laissez-faire. Like most of my peers, I applied myself to school, friendship, work, health and, ad nauseam, raising my children. But in this critical area, marriage, we had all turned away. I wanted to understand why. I wanted not to accept this. Dan, too, had worked tirelessly - some might say obsessively - at skill acquisition. Over the nine years of our marriage, he taught himself to be a master carpenter and a master chef. He was now reading Soviet-era weight-training manuals in order to transform his 41-year-old body into that of a Marine. Yet he shared the seemingly widespread aversion to the very idea of marriage improvement. Why such passivity? What did we all fear?

So, they start the marriage-improvement project, "But how to start? What would a better marriage look like? More happiness? Intimacy? Stability? Laughter? Fewer fights? A smoother partnership? More intriguing conversation? More excellent sex?" To find out, she starts a round of self-help and classes (which, in the Bay Area, would appear to be thick on the ground) and therapy, both sexual and emotional. And through this, they realize there are Underlying Problems.

We spent far more money on food than we did on our mortgage. Sure, we ate well. Very well. Our refrigerator held, depending on the season: homemade gravlax, Strauss organic milk, salt-packed anchovies, little gem lettuces, preserved Meyer lemons, imported Parmesan, mozzarella and goat cheese, baby leeks, green garlic, Blue Bottle coffee ($18 a pound), supergroovy pastured eggs. On a ho-hum weeknight Dan might make me pan-roasted salmon with truffled polenta in a Madeira shallot reduction. But this was only a partial joy. Dan's cooking enabled him to hide out in plain sight; he was home but busy - What? I'm cooking dinner! - for hours every evening. During this time I was left to attend to our increasingly hungry, tired and frantic children and to worry about money. That was our division of labor: Dan cooked, I tended finances. Because of the cooking, in part, we saved little for retirement and nothing for our children's college educations.

When she admits that "I garnered no sympathy from our friends," we feel them (despite the passive-aggression of acts like "slipping crispy fried pigs' ears" into her salads). She and her husband start to fight, although whether from the stress of the "project" or the result of self-discovery is unclear. "What if my good marriage was not floating atop a sea of goodness, adrift but fairly stable when pushed? What if my good marriage was teetering on a precipice and any change would mean a toppling, a crashing down?"

Ultimately, she finds that the project was either effective or ineffective. It's hard to say - because marriage is complicated. In a review of Jane Gardam's new novel The Man in the Wooden Hat, Louisa Thomas writes that

In Gardam's hands, marriage can be the stuff of comedy, especially farce. One minute Betty is despairing, still feeling trapped in her marriage, and the next she's pressing her face against her husband's shirt, thinking how much she loves him. Over the course of their 50 years together, the complexity of their relationship only intensifies. They keep some secrets and confess others; they act generously but also with passive aggression, sometimes in the span of a single moment.

Gardam is a writer who evokes marital intimacy with special vividness, probably because of a willingness to acknowledge these obvious ebbs and flows and the inherent drama of longevity. I couldn't help but think of that, and of the classic Monogamy (which Weil should, perhaps, have read and saved herself a lot of money), in which Adam Phillips writes, "Growing old together, or growing young together? There is always something to resist, or defy." He's right; the difference is, most people don't need to manufacture it.

A More Perfect Union [NY Times]

I decided to ask a few professionals. Raves and nominations notwithstanding, as casting director Mark Bennett (The Hurt Locker, Junebug) puts it when asked for his professional opinion, "Unfortunately Hollywood is still a system that doesn't produce a lot of great parts for black women and doesn't produce a lot of parts for women who aren't conventionally beautiful. And that's not going to change overnight."

In a piece last month on The Root, cultural critic Stanley Crouch was outright pessimistic:

"Gabby Sidibe better enjoy her fame while she can because black actresses never have less than a hard row to hoe. Even if the inner life they bring to characters is as beautiful as they are physically, they have little chance."

Crouch cited several black actresses whose careers were, as he puts it, "pissed away by the system," and argues that even with Precious's success, at the end of the day, "Hollywood will continue to go along as it has gone." And he didn't even touch on the fact that Hollywood has had little use for any women larger than a size zero.

So far, Sidibe has shot a pilot for Showtime – The C Word, a dark comedy starring Laura Linney – and also wrapped a Sundance lab film called Yelling to the Sky. But her most significant post-Precious performance has probably been on the talk show circuit.

The greatest risk Sidibe initially faced was best articulated (inadvertently) by Roger Ebert in his November 4 Chicago Sun Times review of Precious:

"Her work is still another demonstration of the mystery of some actors, who evoke feelings in ways beyond words and techniques. She so completely creates the Precious character that you rather wonder if she's very much like her."

You can wonder, but the answer is no. "It's called acting," her manager, Jill Kaplan, says. Sidibe herself has skillfully, but seemingly effortlessly, put space between her character and herself with her television appearances, which exhibit both poise and comic timing.

"When you see her being interviewed, she's so charming. You look at her and say, I'd like to watch her in other parts so you can see her acting different personalities," says Bennett.

Both Bennett and Billy Hopkins, the casting agent who co-discovered Sidibe at an open casting call (and Precious director Lee Daniels' former partner), point out that cable television offers a far greater range and depth of roles for actresses. And they both speculate that she'd make a good talk show host. (An appealing, if entirely premature, prospect).

Hopkins sounds determinedly optimistic about Hollywood's receptiveness to an actress like Sidibe. "Is she a hard type to cast? Yes. But is she talented? Yes. So I think those will balance each other out," he says.

Eyde Belasco, who cast Sidibe in Yelling To The Sky and has worked on movies like (500) Days of Summer and Half Nelson, writes in an email that her own choice had "very little to do with her look and everything to do with her amazing acting abilities." She adds, "I think the best types of roles for Gabby going forward, to keep her from being typecast, are ones that are not linked to her look. Maybe it's about taking on a great supporting role (such as her role in Yelling To She Sky) that has very little to do with her physical appearance and all to do with her performance. If an actor can afford to do it, it's about waiting for the right role. Gabby does have a very specific look. But, hopefully, filmmakers and casting directors will want the best actress for the role."

It can be hard to get insiders to discuss industry prejudices on the record, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. "Hollywood tends to think of actors like Gabby as being perfect as a white person's friend. She'll have to work really hard to distinguish herself in their eyes," says Bennett. "The soft prejudice that she's going to face is going to be getting cast in parts that aren't written for a black girl. At the end of the day, I find there's a certain risk aversion in terms of Hollywood casting. It wouldn't surprise me if she finds her most fulfilling professional opportunities in the coming years outside of Hollywood."

Bennett's advice to her is not to wait to pursue the parts she wants: "It's a mistake for actors to sit around and assume that Hollywood as a monolith will have imagination. Actors have to insist on what they're capable of."

Kaplan, Sidibe's manager, is reluctant, for obvious reasons, to have the actress pigeonholed or even discuss that risk. She says Sidibe has gotten all kinds of scripts sent her way. "It doesn't have to be about changing Hollywood's ideals – it's just about a talented actress," she says.

She adds, "I think she can do anything. She's a prodigy – she's very funny. She really loves Judd Apatow movies and comedies in general. We're looking for a big fun comedy for her, or maybe something romantic…She loves superhero movies."

Speaking of Apatow and comedies, I tracked down Allison Jones, the casting director who has worked with him since Freaks and Geeks, and who was also responsible for the inarguably inspired casting on Curb Your Enthusiasm and The Office. Here's what she writes:

A good comedy director I think values instincts more than line readings...so if her comedy instincts are as solid as her dramatic ones (on talk shows she is a riot and so delightful), then she will have no problem... Someone's funny, she's funny. Someone's good, she's good. [In addition] as much as anyone's physical appearance can limit their appropriateness for a role (including the stick-thin actresses), she will not be right for everything. But maybe there are more opportunities out there rather than fewer.

Hopefully those opportunities will exceed the comic roles that the industry has so far offered larger black women (or men pretending to be them)—where their sexuality is a punchline in itself.

As the awards season kicks off, Sidibe's name is already on many ballots — she was just nominated for an Independent Spirit Award for best actress — and expected to be on more, including those for the Oscars (announced February 3). And maybe that's what it'll take to clinch her broader appeal, should anyone need convincing. Kaplan doesn't want to make predictions. "I can't say what's going to happen," she says. "I'm definitely trying. I'm working on it right now. People are going to see outside the box."

Hollywood: Same As It Ever Was [The Root]

Related: Et Tu, Amy Poehler? What's So Funny About Desiring A Big, Black Woman? [What Tami Said]
Sumpin' Turrrrble: SNL's Keenan Thompson Performs Minstrel Act [Racialicious]

Divided into sections titled "Reading," "Being," "Seeing," "Feeling," and "Remembering," Changing My Mind is a book of "occasional essays," which Smith describes as "written for particular occasions, particular editors." Because of this structure, the collection doesn't feel particularly unified, but that isn't necessarily a weakness. Different readers will likely find different essays to love, but even those that don't grab the heart tend to engage the brain. Not having read any George Eliot, I found "Middlemarch and Everybody" hard going at first, and all the essays in "Reading" are pretty unapologetic about the specialized knowledge they require for full enjoyment. On the other hand, Smith's writing usually had the effect of making me really want to read the book she was talking about, especially Hurston's Their Eyes Were Watching God. Smith writes,

This is a beautiful novel about soulfulness. That it should be so is a tribute to Hurston's skill. She makes "culture" — that slow and particular and artificial accretion of habit and circumstance — seem as natural and organic and beautiful as the sunrise. She allows me to indulge in what Philip Roth once called "the romance of oneself," a literary value I dislike and yet, confronted with this beguiling book, cannot resist. She makes "black woman-ness" appear a real, tangible quality, an essence I can almost believe I share, however improbably, with millions of complex individuals across centuries and continents and languages and religions...

Almost — but not quite. That is to say, when I'm reading this book, I believe it, with my whole soul. It allows me to say things I wouldn't normally. Things like "She is my sister and I love her."

A more evocative description of literary identification I've never read, and Smith's examination of the ways her blackness does and doesn't influence the way she reads Hurston will resonate with anyone who's ever found a "sister" on the page, of any race. It also provides a corrective to the opposite but equally restrictive notions that we can only enjoy books whose writers we identify with culturally, and that cultural identification has no place in the literary experience.

There was a strain of nastiness in Smith's novel On Beauty — characters who lacked physical self-confidence sometimes seemed like the novel's whipping boys (or girls) — and that nastiness occasionally resurges in Changing My Mind. In "Two Directions for the Novel," it's pretty clear that Smith thinks writer Joseph O'Neill has chosen the wrong direction. Of a passage from his novel Netherland, she writes, "an interesting thought is trying to reach us here, but the ghost of the literary burns it away, leaving only its remainder: a nicely constructed sentence, rich in sound and syntax, signifying (almost) nothing." "Two Directions" makes an interesting argument for Tom McCarthy's novel Remainder as a model for fiction that gains new flexibility by breaking through the restrictions not just of attractive language but of human psychology. But can't fiction writers learn to praise one kind of writing without denigrating another? Is literature really a zero-sum game?

In a way, though, Smith's meanness just added to the growing conviction I had as I read Changing My Mind: that I was being granted a peek into the idiosyncratic brain of a very, very interesting person. This conviction reached its apex with Smith's film reviews. Smith claims in the very moving "Dead Man Laughing" that at her audition for a comedy troupe at Cambridge, "I wasn't funny. Not even slightly." She appears to have rectified this. Here she is on Get Rich or Die Tryin', addressing Fiddy directly:

I love that there are more naked men in this movie than in Brokeback. I love that you keep getting your fellow gangsters to admit that they love you. Really loudly. In the middle of robberies. I love the Beckettian dialogue: "I'm in it for the money." "For what?" "Sneakers." "Anything else?" "A gun." "What you need that for?" "I don't know." I love that you watched GoodFellas and Scarface, like, a million times and decided to ditch all that narrative arc crap and get straight to the point with a minimalist voiceover: "Crack meant money. Money meant power. Power meant war." I love how your acting style makes Bogart look animated. I love that the boss of your gang is dressed like Brando and is doing the voice from The Godfather. And then there is this: "So that was the crew. Four niggas dedicated to one thing and one thing only: getting paid and getting laid."

And sometimes Smith is just bizarre. In her review of The Weather Man, she writes,

I think I found the film palatable because I read it perversely. As I see it, the film's central concept is the aversion most right thinking people have to the actor Nicolas Cage. And he accepts this mantle so honorably and humbly in the film that I think maybe now I quite like him. It's an honest and comic performance and seems filled with all the genuine humiliations that one imagine Cage himself has suffered in the past 10 years. I don't want to tell you any more about it — it's best stumbled upon without expectations but with my reading kept in mind.

This is basically an anti-review, and Smith's general approach to film reviewing is so funny and ad hoc and fucking weird — yet so frequently spot on — that it made mean wish she hadn't quit doing it in 2006. More than that, it made me wish I still wrote film reviews. Changing My Mind may be most inspiring to other writers — I don't know of anyone else who actually likes essays on writing, even ones as smart as Smith's "That Crafty Feeling." But anybody who appreciates frank and well-informed and slightly off-center thinking will likely find what I did — that Smith makes one want to read more, think more, and generally be smarter, which is about the best thing a writer can do.

Changing My Mind: Occasional Essays [Amazon]

In "No Way Out?" Rachael Combe explores the "scientifically, mathematically, and economically proven" notion that women are "kinda bummed out." She proposes several reasons for this, one of which is that we're all disappointed in the way the women's movement panned out. You see, now that women have more choices, "it has opened our eyes to new ways we might fail." Also, according to Combe, while women and men are logging in equal hours of housework, men actually enjoy it. Furthermore, now that we have this feminism-given right to complain, "misery has become a badge of honor" sending women in a downward spiral of unhappiness. Combe concludes that women can increase happiness by giving back to the community. While this is a noble notion, it seems kind of lost when the pages surrounding her article are inundated with all sorts of other "choices", namely expensive shit to buy, thin models, and gift suggestions that are unlikely to make anyone feel festive. For example, does your mom like to travel? Give her this super-useful, $50 leaning tower of Pisa replica. Does your friend like to eat food? How about a salad plate that looks like a lettuce leaf? Or a $2,730 pearl choker with gigantic strawberry charms? Below, the other "gifts" Elle is bestowing upon us this season.

After all, if we can deputize flowers, chafing dishes and seating charts to someone else, I don't see the contradiction in bringing in expert advice where an actual human being is concerned. And apparently, with all the swag and debate clogging Babies R Us and the blogosphere, sometimes you just need a pro to help cut through the spiels.

Okay, "need" is a relative term. But services like Nest Help, the Chicago baby-planning service profiled today on Breitbart, (and that's one of the less cutesy names out there, trust) seem to serve a function, for those who can afford it. As Melissa Moog, president of - wait for it - the National Baby Planner Association (which, unlike the Catholic League, has members),

We're like wedding planners, but we're helping you prepare for your baby's arrival and all the information and research you have to deal with...to basically reduce the overwhelming feelings of stress and save time so you can spend quality time on what matters to you. If what's important to you is going to birthing classes instead of doing research on car seats, I can do that for you.

Or, as another "baby concierge service" puts it, "Whether you are having your baby the old-fashioned way, adopting, or using a surrogate, we take the labor out of your delivery."

Accordingly, they tell you what you need, find the best products, shop if needed, set up registries and can even interview midwives and nannies. (Things we'd probably want to do ourselves, but to each her own.) The price? $50 to $150 an hour, or "by packages, which can cost several hundred to several thousand dollars." From the planner's perspective, why not? It's a great idea, and clearly a service which, in this world of competitive parenting, people are willing to pay for. As Heather Cabot wrote on the HuffPo,

Big business it is. The book, Parenting, Inc. by Pamela Paul estimates the booming "mom market" nets $1.7 trillion dollars every year. Think of all of those fancy "must-have" strollers, diaper wipe warmers and designer layettes and it isn't difficult to comprehend that figure. After researching their idea for more than a year, the partners discovered that busy moms, especially full-time working mothers seemed willing to pay big bucks to outsource some of the preparation and planning.

The issue, of course, is that the services reinforce the notion that all this stuff is still necessary. They're not opting out of competitive parenting; indeed, they're reinforcing its existence and importance. Says one busy mom-to-be in the article,

A mother today looks a lot different than a mother 15 years ago...She is powerful. She is strong. She is knowledgeable. Women today know it's OK to ask for help. That's a victory for all of us.

Well, but what about the strength to throw off society's absurd expectations that a woman be a supermom? Wouldn't that save just as much time - and money? That said, this whole industry is going to inspire a killer rom-com.

New Moms Hiring Baby Planners To Help Pre-Baby [Breitbart]
The Baby Planners [Official Site]
The Baby Planners [Huffington Post]

Jayde unsubtly uses an engagement party as an appropriate place to pester Brody about where their relationship is going, and Brody maturely explains that it's not the right place. And then later he makes plans to dump her. What's with these young girls wanting to get married like there's a stipulation in their trust funds that requires marriage for them to get the money or something?


Spencer confronts Heidi (who was apparently waiting in the foyer for him to call her name?) about the pregnancy test he found. He actually sounds reasonable at the end of the talk, but then you remember that earlier in this episode he passive-aggressively hounded Heidi about this in front of a small child.


Aww, Justin (Bobby) has to pretend to like Kristin here. For the script!


Justin (Bobby) and Kristin enter into a mature, loving, communicative, all-the-way relationship...or whatever. Let's hope next season she cheats first.