The Guttmacher Institute has released a new report:

The recession has put many women in an untenable situation. They want to avoid unintended pregnancies more than ever, but are having trouble affording the contraceptive services they need to do so," says Dr. Sharon Camp, Guttmacher president and CEO. "The very providers these women turn to in times of crisis are themselves struggling to make ends meet. It is time to bolster the nation's family planning system to help women avoid unintended pregnancies and the unplanned births and abortions that would result."

The nation's publicly funded family planning centers provide contraceptive services and related health screenings to women across a broad socioeconomic spectrum, and these centers are the primary safety-net providers of these services to economically disadvantaged women. Compared with Americans overall, women of reproductive age are more likely to lack health insurance, and lower income and younger women (those 29 and younger)-who are already at the greatest risk for unintended pregnancy-are even less likely to be insured.

Why the hell aren't Stupak, Pitts, Vitter, and Nelson sponsoring amendments to solve this problem?

Recession Puts Strain On Family Planning Centers As Demand Rises And Resources Shrink [Guttmacher Institute]

Britain's loveless Bridgets may be taxing its housing stock (a mere 72.6% of thirtysomething British ladies are shacked up with a partner), but you can be married with eight children by Christmas. You just have to follow the right dating advice. But how to find it? Dating tips have been around forever, as these examples from 1938 attest. And everybody's getting in on the act, including the authors of Principles 101: Feminism, Manhood, and You, an online book that purportedly "exposes Feminism, the 'Seduction Community' scam, the failure of cliched dating advice and why men find women increasingly difficult to deal with in this Feminist dating climate." Principles 101 seeks to teach men how to reclaim their "male authority" — starting with a cover featuring the words "cunts," "pussification," and "mangina." Below, we compare the dating wisdom of 1938 with the observations of the Principles — and add a few (unisex) tips of our own.

On driving
1938: Don't use the car mirror to fix your make-up. Man needs it in driving, and it annoys him very much to have to turn around to see what's behind him.
Principles 101: Women lack foresight for the same reason children lack it; they focus on themselves to a dysfunctional degree. Without male guidance, women neglect to consider the viewpoint of others. As a result, women, in relation to men, lack the capacity to bear heavy responsibilities. Yet, because of Feminism's reckless encouragement, they happily volunteer to "steer" the lives of others, oblivious to the dangerous situation this creates for everyone; our Feminist society lowers academic, professional, and civil service standards to accommodate women's irresponsible desire to accept duties they were never designed to fulfill. Consequently, our schools, our economy, and our lives must all sit in the passenger seat, waiting for the inevitable crash.

On neatness
1938: If you need a brassiere, wear one. Don't tug at your girdle, and be careful your stockings are not wrinkled.
Principles 101: Right now, whether you realize it or not, you are disorderly.

On conversation
1938: Don't talk about clothes, or try to describe your new gown to a man. Please and flatter your date by talking about the things he wants to talk about.
Principles 101: [W]hen men try to initiate or lead social interactions, instead of respecting this chore, "bitches" will attempt to subvert male authority by degrading the social status of men. Condescending remarks about social desperation, lack of friendships, lack of social competence or inadequate appearance are not uncommon. If these women haven't already refused to acknowledge their existence with lack of eye contact or verbal response, an uphill battle of dysfunctional conversation can be expected. Men will find themselves being interrupted or talked over as dominating the interaction becomes these women's focus.

On what men want
1938: Careless women never appeal to gentlemen. Don't talk while dancing, for when a man dances he wants to dance.
Principles 101: Your Manhood is expressed in the form of authority. Its function is to discipline and bring into submission those who should rightly be under your authority. Your authority is necessary to enforce your expectations. By training others to recognize and apply the principles governing their respective gender, you bring them into a functional state where they become useful, thus valuable.

On dissipation
1938: The last straw is to pass out from too much liquor. Chances are your date will never call you again!
Principles 101: Consider the punk rocker lifestyle. Its dysfunctional nature advocates the dismantling of social order. Only dysfunctional people are drawn to such a chaotic lifestyle. Their houses, cars, personal appearance and relationships are all one big disorderly mess. If you were to stop taking care of your house and personal appearance, they would gradually and spontaneously start resembling this lifestyle.

While Principles 101 may offer helpful hints on becoming a punk rocker (just quit mowing your lawn!), it's probably too absurd to help men actually get a date (readers might want to keep under their hats, for instance, the author's opinion that women shouldn't get to vote). But it does reveal some similarities between women's dating tips and total misogyny. Yes, the tips above are from 1938, but the idea that men's desires need to control every aspect of dating, from what you talk about to what you wear, persists today. And "experts" are still lining up to tell women that being deferential is the key to lasting love. Not so into submission? Luckily, there's an easier way. Behold, the Jezebel Dating Guide.

Step 1: Don't be an asshole.
Step 2: Do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't violate Step 1.

I lied above — this dating guide may not get you an entire family in the next two weeks. It will, however, allow you to maintain self-respect without belittling other people, something the 111-page Principles 101 can't claim. So this holiday season, instead of worrying about whether you're "flattering your date" or engaging in "dysfunctional conversation" just ask yourself whether you're being an asshole and adjust accordingly. Or, just read everything Principles 101 says and do the exact opposite. Warning: you may become disorderly.

Tips For Single Ladies (1938) [Sad and Useless]
Principles 101 [Scribd]
‘Bridget Jones' Singletons Threaten Housing Crisis, Figures Suggest [Telegraph]

The AP summarizes the situation thus far, and where it could potentially go:

Buoyed by a presidential pep talk and intense rounds of negotiations, Senate Democrats hope to move closer to embracing a major health care bill this week by tackling the nettlesome issue of abortion. [...]

A government-run insurance program, or "public option," is one of the bill's most contentious issues. At the urging of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a group of moderate and liberal Senate Democrats met again Sunday to seek a compromise, after Obama's pep talk.

One idea calls for national nonprofit insurance plans to be administered by the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the popular Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

The proposal seems to appeal to a key Republican, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who met with Obama at the White House on Saturday.

On Sunday, Snowe called the possible compromise "a positive development" because it would give consumers more options for buying insurance.

Snowe's potential support for the Democratic-crafted bill is crucial. Supporters need 60 votes to overcome filibusters, and the chamber's 40 Republicans hope to draw at least one Democrat to their side.

It could be Nelson, who says he will not support final passage of a health care bill unless it includes the tight abortion restrictions he wants. If so, Democrats would have to woo moderate Republicans such as Snowe.

So what's at stake if the Dems can't overcome a filibuster? The health care bill may suffer the same fate as the bill to strengthen the options currently provided by Indian Health Services, which is responsible for providing health care and social support for the indigenous community in the United States. However, IHS is plagued with shortfalls and necessary infrastructures and equipment simply aren't available when needed. A senate bill was proposed in 2008 to strengthen IHS services and plug some of the gaps in service - but this was quickly derailed by Sen. David Vitter. Racewire reports:

While native communities have a big stake in health care reform, they're also prone to becoming a political football. Last year, a Senate bill to strengthen IHS foundered when Sen. David Vitter injected a poison pill amendment specifically aimed at restricting access to abortion for native women. Vitter's amendment could be seen as symbolic in that it replicated the language of the Hyde Amendment's broad restrictions on federal funding for abortion services. That longstanding anti-choice policy disproportionately impacts all poor women.

Still, since the proposed amendment would codify Hyde in the IHS statute—and because native women suffer from huge health disparities and barriers to care, advocates argued that Vitter's move would subject native women to an especially discriminatory, more permanent and restrictive version of Hyde. Vitter figured that in attacking abortion rights, there was no better place to start than one of the most medically disenfranchised groups of women in America.

Last Friday, Senator Byron Dorgan submitted an amendment to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and added an amendment to offer contract medical care to supplement IHS services. On Saturday, Senator David Vitter submitted two amendments to restrict access to abortion services for Native Americans.

Beyond the question of abortion coverage, the public option still remains as the other key issue to be resolved. As Ezra Klein puts it:

Currently, insurance plans are regulated by the states, which means they're different in every state. That makes it hard for them to achieve certain efficiencies of scale or maximize their leverage against providers. But back in September, I noticed a promising provision in Max Baucus's draft that would allow for national insurance plans, so long as they met a minimum level of federal regulation. That seemed like a potentially huge change, but I never heard another word about it, so I let it go.

The compromise being discussed is built atop that provision. The idea is that the Office of Personnel Management would choose nonprofit plans that met national standards and offer them on every state exchange (unless states opted out). These plans would be private, but the OPM would act as an aggressive purchaser, ensuring that they met high standards and conducted themselves properly. It's a private option with a public filter, essentially. But more importantly, it's a menu of national, nonprofit plans, which would be much more interesting from a competitive standpoint than state-based, pubic plans.

But the fact remains that private plans are not public options, no matter how much extra scrutiny they're subjected to. Though the liberals in the room are listening to this compromise, sources close to the discussion tell me that the conversation is opening up beyond the insurance offerings.

Today might mark the Senate's vote on abortion coverage in the health care bill, according to Majority Whip Dick Durbin. This vote will determine what is put forth in the final bill to Obama, and while abortions rights advocates are hopeful, nothing is set in stone until the final votes are in on the outstanding amendments.

Feingold: Deal on public option 'getting closer' [Politico]
Public option compromise still in the works [Politico]
Senate to confront abortion in health care debate [AP]
Indian Health and Abortion Rights: A Dose of Hope Laced with Poison Pills [Racewire]
Latest amendment list [Politico]
The not-a-public-option compromise, and beyond [Washington Post]
Abortion vote could come Monday, Durbin says [Politico]

(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?

Wilderness warrior Spencer "Crocodile" Morgan has risked life and limb to bring vulnerable males some much-needed details on the cheetah, via noted field biology resource The New York Observer. Below, a breakdown:

The behavior:

Cheetahs are apparently younger than cougars, but more dangerous. The cougar satisfies its mating instinct and then moves on to the next victim. Not so the cheetah:

Much has been made of the so-called cougar, the older dame, early 40s on up, who has developed a taste for the younger man-beast. Dana's hunting methods and psychology bear no resemblance to the cougar. As Seth aptly points out, "A cougar would fuck and then leave and not feel bad."

Instead, Seth awoke to Dana's limpid eyes, followed by an awkward kiss in broad daylight as the two parted ways on the street. The cheetah stays the night.

The hunting season:

I immediately thought of the widely held view that single women are keen to get their paws on a hunk of man to hunker down with for the winter months. I looked out the car window-it was raining. A cold, insinuating rain. The conditions were perfect for a cheetah to a strike.

Yes, winter is the cheetah's favorite time for hunk-hunkering. Her preferred weather? "Insinuating" rain. What is this rain "insinuating?" Perhaps it whispers, "don't pay attention to stupid trend pieces." Or, "holy shit, a talking raindrop!"

The method:

In order to snare their prey, cheetahs have evolved a mechanism known as "cock loitering."

"A cock loiterer is typically a girl who has recently come out of a relationship that she's been in for a long time, and she suddenly realizes that getting laid is not as easy as it once was," [noted cheetah expert A.J. Daulerio] explained. He noted that the cheetah hunts alone, and prefers gatherings where she can blend into the crowd until the quarry grow weak and sloppy. "You know, she's the type who'll come out to the sports bar for Sunday football and then, whereas most people will leave after the 12 o'clock game ends, she'll stick around for the 4 o'clock game," he said.

Other animals employ similar tactics — the "dick waiting" behavior of the Yellow-Bellied Dick-Waiting Armadillo, for instance, is well documented — but none is more dangerous than cock loitering. Many men whose cocks have been loitered on never recover.

The markings:

Cheetahs sometimes attempt to blend in with male humans. Writes Morgan,

The cheetah is most often a just-one-of-the-guys girl. That's her cover. In nature, a cheetah will lurk in the high grass and use her spots as camouflage.

Some very skilled cheetahs can actually change their skin color to mimic an Ed Hardy T-shirt. However, many also wear makeup. Daulerio describes one cheetah who "was notorious for looking dreadful without her makeup on." This is actually not unique to cheetahs. Iguanas are well-known for looking like shit without their mascara, and have you seen an owl when it gets up in the morning?

The experts:

For help warning the populace about this scourge of the savannas, Morgan enlisted "new-media mogul and man-about-town Lockhart Steele," "John Carney, of Businessinsider.com," and "A.J. Daulerio, who runs the sports news website Deadspin.com." That these men all happen to work in media no doubt only increases their experiences with cheetahs, as large predators are noted readers of blogs (tigers really like Politico). That they are all personal friends of Morgan, and one another, should not invalidate his contribution to biological research. In fact, many advances in life sciences have been brought about by polling friends! Darwin's On the Origin of Species was actually based, not on many years of exhaustive field work as is often thought, but on a conversation Darwin had with some guys he met in a bar. In fact, the first edition really began thus:

Mr. Jonathan Smythe-Horton of Smythe-Horton's Dry Goods says, 'Finches look pretty at first — who doesn't want to take a cute little Geospiza conirostris home for a night of fun? But they're always Twittering about your relationship! And then they evolve into big fat hens who steal your money.'

The animal kingdom, dear readers, is a dangerous place.

Rrrowl! Beware Cougar's Young Niece, The Cheetah [NY Observer]

Obama outlined the history of the conflict, and reminded Americans why we were involved in the first place. He then outlined his main policy items:

Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months. [...]

Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security. [...]

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

He also directly addressed concerns and criticisms of our efforts thus far:

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now — and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance — would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort — one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

After this point in the speech, it flips over to a rehash of all the things we heard during the Bush-Cheney years. Watching reactions to the speech on Twitter, I think my friend Nisha Chittal, blogging for Care2, came closest to summarizing the general feel of disappointment:

Obama is a master of words and rhetoric, but rhetoric cannot obscure the ugly truth here: we cannot afford the cost of this war, both in money and in human lives. And despite delivering a powerful speech, as Obama so often does, there are too many questions that still remain unanswered:

Will we really phase out troops by 2011? Will Afghani security forces really be secure enough by then? Or will this withdrawal timeline turn into another empty promise?

Where will we get the projected $30 billion needed for this troop surge when we are already in an economic crisis with no end in sight?

What will happen to Afghani women and girls? Their plight is terrible, but was barely even mentioned in tonight's speech. Are we going to continue to turn the other cheek to the human rights crisis faced by Afghani women on a daily basis?

Tonight, the President faced what will go down as one of the deciding moments of his administration. There is no longer any question: this has become Obama's war. He had the misfortune of inheriting two wars when he came into office. But instead of ending them, he has chosen to extend them. He rehashed the same explanations thrown at us by prior administrations over the past eight years.

Ben Smith, over at Politico, also noticed the lack of discussion about Afghan women and children:

"For the Afghan people, a return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people - especially women and girls," Obama said in March.

Tonight's speech includes a passing, abstract reference to "human rights" — but not a single reference to Afghanistan's women and girls.

That, presumably, falls into the category of "nation building."

Also missing from the much of the post-speech analysis were the voices of people in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and those working on the ground. Al Jazeera reports:

The goal, Obama said in a televised address on Tuesday, is to esculate the battle against Taliban fighters, secure key population centres and train Afghan security forces and so clear the way for a US exit in 18 months time.

But Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai, a former prime minister of Afghanistan, expressed disappointment with Obama's speech and his strategy.

"Sending more troops is not the solution to the Afghan crisis," he said.

"I was expecting Obama to announce the withdrawal of 30,000 troops within two months but unfortunately, he did the opposite which will increase killings of both Americans and Afghans." [...]

Al Jazeera's James Bays, reporting from the Afghan capital, Kabul, said: "This wasn't a counter-insurgency speech; it was a counter-terrorism speech, a very different mission from the one General Stanley McCrystal has been preparing himself for.

"He only mentions the Taliban twice in the whole speech. He started talking about 9/11, he ended with talking about 9/11 and all the references in between were to al-Qaeda."

Bays added: "I think there will be some in the military here in the command centre of Kabul who will be having to rethink things rather urgently."

However, after Tuesday's speech, McChrystal said that Obama's decision "has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task".

In a statement released after the speech, General Stanely McChrystal also said:

In the meantime, our Afghan partners need the support of Coalition forces while we grow and develop the capacity of the Afghan army and police. That will be the main focus of our campaign in the months ahead.

"The 42 other nations of the Coalition will benefit from a strengthened U.S. commitment, as success in Afghanistan must be an international, integrated civil-military effort – from our security and training capacity to the governance and economic development assistance that sustains long-term stability. The concerted commitment of the international community will prevail in bringing real change to Afghanistan - a secure and stable environment that allows for effective governance, improved economic opportunity and the freedom of every Afghan to choose how they live.

But will this kind of effort work with the current resources available to the United States? The Administration has created a timeline in which to hand control over to Afghan patrols and troops, but this investigation by Al Jazeera shows that we may be overestimating key aspects of the strategy - including the actual number of troops on the ground:

After the speech aired, I asked some national security people to give their take on what this means for the United States and its foreign policy. Patricia DeGennaro, expert on U.S. Foreign Policy, National Security, and former consultant to the Office of the President in Afghanistan, writes:

So overall, Obama gave a moving speech. He reminded the country about the reason for going to Afghanistan in the first place or "why we are fighting" – the September 11 attacks. He spoke directly to the people who will be shouldering the burden while address the Afghan people themselves informing them that there is no intent to occupy.

In my mind however there are major shortcomings in the speech. First and foremost, he still failed to identify a clear objective for US forces. "Disrupt, destroy and dismantle Al Qaeda" is not a a mission that solely rests on Afghanistan. It is a far reaching hope. One that will entail a worldwide initiative by intelligence and Interpol agencies, not a military. The international forces need a "job" in order to finish one and unfortunately none of us really knows what that is, which makes it very hard when you are trying to plan.

The President outlined the same objectives. First, a military strategy to combat Al Qaeda and the Taliban who are growing ever closer while training and arming an Afghan national army, police force, and a few random militias. The militia part we tried and are still combating. Many of the militia members trained are now leaders of the insurgency and Taliban. It seems Obama missed the most recent Mullah Omar (head of the Taliban) memo that stated, "Afghans will shoot the invaders before their own brothers." Perhaps it is not a good idea to give them M-16s.

Second, Obama promised a civilian surge. One that will assist in security, development and agricultural production. It is not clear however, where these people will come from since the US has all but succeeded in destroying its international civilian capacity. Of the civilians promised to the Embassy, the Administration has sent about one-third of the promised civil officers – they are short 300 people to date.

Third, what does it mean that we are acting with Pakistan? The Kerry-Lugar act is providing Pakistan with $1.5 billion a year for five years in non-military development aid. Will the Administration be providing more military funding or armaments as well? That seemed to be hinted in this statement. Although unclear, it is worrisome.

Finally, setting a timetable is dangerous. This is not Iraq. Allies would like to leave sooner and this gives them no incentive to stay, but it gives adversaries all they incentive they need to stand pat. The reality Is Obama made a strong speech for why there is a war, the shortcoming was in the direction and management of the effort. They have a saying in Afghanistan, it looks like the same donkey with a different saddle. This saddle is a bit more compromising, but the devil is still missing the lifesaving details threatening any hopes for something I've never heard of – a speedy war.

I would say that all the above things [I wrote] are understood. However, the larger picture is that the US has not defined a more applicable post cold-war strategy. This country is still in the mindset that all that matters are our ‘vital' interests and how we perceive things to be without considering or learning about who we are dealing with the the consequences they will face by our one-sided interventions. I heard nothing about how the Afghans would suffer, be protected or partnered with during the next 18 months. I think Obama [in his speech] was struggling with the way that US policy is always formulated and they way he would like to change the formulation of US foreign policy. Washington is like a trillion pound barge, it takes all the energy you have to move it a centimeter.

Malou Innocent, of the Cato Institute, had this to say:

Last night, President Barack Obama declared "our security is at stake" in Afghanistan. As I mention here, President George W. Bush was also adept at keeping the American public in an elevated state of panic. That tactic may be useful for advancing controversial policies, especially in Afghanistan, but it also forces us to overlook how our policies intensify the region's powerful jihadist insurgency and entangles us deeper into a costly and protracted guerrilla war.

As the president's national security adviser, General James Jones, noted in October, "the al Qaeda presence [in Afghanistan] is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies." We don't need 130,000 soldiers to chase down 100 al Qaeda fighters. But yet another disturbing aspect of the current debate over Afghanistan is an inadequate examination of the war's core assumption: the safe haven myth. As Paul Pillar, the National Intelligence Office for the Middle East between 2000 and 2005 notes, the preparations most important to the September 11, 2001 attacks "took place not in training camps in Afghanistan but, rather, in apartments in Germany, hotel rooms in Spain and flight schools in the United States."

Our security is not at stake in Afghanistan. Not only is remaining in that country neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for keeping America safe, but prolonging our occupation is likely to tarnish America's reputation, undermine its security, and erode its economic well-being more than would a cost-effective policy limited to targeting al Qaeda.

In the coming days, Americans will know more about how the new strategy will be implemented. Today, Secretary of State Clinton, Defense Secretary Gates and Joint Cheifs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen are appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. C-Span notes that this will be followed later by a "House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing regarding Pres. Obama's new Afghanistan war strategy." Stay tuned.

Obama's Address on the War in Afghanistan [New York Times]
Afghanistan: We Cannot Afford More War [Care2]
Missing from the speech: Afghan women [Politico]
Afghans react to Obama troop plan [Al Jazeera]
Statement: McChrystal on Afghan Policy [Time]
Patricia DeGennaro [SheSource]
How a U.S. Aid Package to Pakistan Could Threaten Zardari [Time]
Malou Innocent [SheSource]

Earlier: No End In Sight: Obama Gears Up On Afghanistan
Why Is 35% Of Development Aid Being Routed Back To The U.S.?
On Women, War & The Elections In Afghanistan

Lately, we've heard a lot about female desire, or lack thereof. In this weekend's Sunday magazine, the Times' Daniel Bergner wrote about the rather undernourished the study of the phenomenon. And then there's the Times' examination of the need for female Viagra. Says one woman quoted in the latter, "So many women give up...That's a shame. It's so important. You marry your best friend, but intimacy is what makes a marriage work."

Then, just by chance, the Daily Mail brings us the rather...more colloquial? story of one woman whose sex life was "pepped up" by joining a group of other female writers, the Contemporary Women Writers' Club. The group started as a means for housebound writers and mothers to meet like-minded women in their somewhat isolated rural area.

But what actually emerged from the increasingly drunken conversation was I should write a short story that had sex in it and see if it helped....At first I thought I absolutely could not do it. Every time I sat down to write my story, I blushed so much I could barely think of the words. But, eventually, I gave myself over to it. I decided to set it somewhere foreign, sexy and hot. It ended up in Argentina and involves an older woman and a gaucho and it's about as raunchy as I can get. Did it work for me? Absolutely. I found writing about sex made me feel far more sensuous about myself. And so, gradually, over these past two years, we have all begun to change.

While both the gaucho porn and the raisin-fondling Bergner describes in a sex therapy group may seem goofy, there's a similar premise behind both: destigmatizing female sexuality and getting in touch with a dormant part of one's self. The problem is, the whole issue is still couched in awkwardness - or rather, the defiant off-throwing thereof. It's still an issue that reduces us to 12-year-old boys. (Consider if you will the recent raft of "OMG pathetic women love Edward Cullen!" cream-puffs that have clogged the newstand and the inbox, to say nothing of Cougars.) What I've been trying to remember is if we found talking about male sexuality as hilarious before we were all inured to "Viva Viagra," or whether it's more purely a result of age-old Madonna-whore disconnects. Is it the stigma of 1970s Our Bodies, Ourselves sexuality discussions that tarnishes the discussion? And will this aggressive onslaught of the sublime, ridiculous and white-coat serious ultimately wear us down as surely as the little blue pill? I hope so. I think.

In Search Of Their Own Elixir of Love [NY Times]
Women Who Want To Want [NY Times]
How Joining A Group Of Female Writers Pepped Up My Sex Life! [Daily Mail]

The lyrics above are actually how Finding illustrates the somewhat cyclical nature of how our culture interprets and accepts sexual or domestic violence. The article opens with the song, explaining:

Back in 1962, the Crystals released a song called He Hit Me (And it Felt like a Kiss). "If he didn't care for me," warbled one of the most popular American "girl groups" of the day, "I could have never made him mad. But he hit me and I was glad."

Deborah Finding, from the gender institute at the London School of Economics, recites the line in a monotone before adding: "It sounds all the more chilling in the light of what we now know about their producer, Phil Spector. Not just about the murder of Lana Clarkson, but also his treatment of Ronnie Bennett of the Ronnettes." She was his wife at the time. She claims in her autobiography that he kept a gold coffin with a glass lid in the basement of their mansion and threatened to kill her if she left him.

Finding decided upon her interesting PhD title by combining two of her interests: music and narrative.

Finding's parents ran a disco. "The wardrobes at home were always cluttered with singles," she says. And she has an impressive collection of over 2,000 CDs at her home in west London. "I've always tuned into the lyrics," she says. This proved invaluable as she embarked on a project directly connected to the work with abused women she has been carrying out with various non-governmental organisations since leaving Cambridge in 2000. She has a degree in philosophy and theology and a masters in Jewish-Christian relations after the Holocaust. "I was always interested in the narratives people tell about their traumas and whether or not they are believed," she says.

"I knew that I wanted to do a PhD that would contribute something to the overall understanding of the way sexual and domestic violence was represented in our wider culture and how that influenced the way people think about the issues personally and politically."

Finding explains that part of the strength of the narratives came from the acceptance from society that this type of gender based violence was a social problem as well as an individual problem. She points out that artists like Tracy Chapman, Tori Amos (above), Suzanne Vega, Beautiful South, Sheryl Crowe, and Alanis Morrisette gave voice to all aspects of a woman's experience, from very explicit violence to hazier, more gray actions. However, Finding is beginning to see the cycle of acceptance shifting back into a narrative that accepts sexual violence:

We've gone full circle in the post-feminist era," Finding says. "Florence and the Machine, hotly tipped for this year's Mercury prize, recently came out with A Kiss With a Fist is Better Than None, equating violence with passion in a way that sounds depressingly familiar."

When asked about misogyny in hip-hop and rap lyrics, Finding provides an interesting response:

These are female artists for the most part. But what about the men? What about "gangsta" rap and hip-hop, and their alleged encouragement of aggressively misogynistic attitudes? "That's been written about elsewhere," she points out, "and it worries me that there's usually a racist element to these discussions. Black artists are condemned, while white bands like the Rolling Stones and the Stranglers get away with deeply unpleasant lyrics. I was more interested in analysing the way that women were narrating their own experience of sexual violence or how they imagined other women's experience."

Personally, I would love to see a visual representation of Finding's work mashed up with Sut Jhally's Dreamworlds 3. Ever since I watched Dreamworlds 3 one video in particular stood out. Limp Bizkit released a video for their song "Eat You Alive" which is the epitome of glorifying violence against women:

The lead woman's palpable fear fades away into lust and desire after Durst decides to paint a pretty picture of their future - after screaming in her face lyrics like this:

Hey you,
Miss. too-good-to-look-my-way
and that's cool you want nothing at all to do with me.
But I want you,
ain't nothing wrong with wanting you cause
I'm a man and I can think what the hell I want,
you got that straight?

No doubt now (no doubt),
I'd love to (id love)
sniff on them panties now.

I'll EAT YOU ALIVE!!!! i'll eat you alive.....
I'll EAT YOU ALIVE!!!! i'll eat you alive......

There is power in placing these images and words into context, a subversive power. Dreamworlds 3 was able to tap into this by juxtaposing image after image together so the viewer looks at one long pattern, instead of several distinct images. Another subversive adaptation of music and lyrics comes from Tori Amos, who decided to cover Eminem's "'97 Bonnie and Clyde":

Amos did not change any of the lyrics, just presented it in a different light, though a woman's voice. In one of her many responses as to why she chose that particular cover, she notes:

Eminem's fans hate her cover. "That's the greatest compliment I've received," she says, teeth gritted. "My version invades his space, and men aren't used to feeling invaded, it drives them mad. Empower the wife, give her a voice. That's how you are an activist, I think. Is the song pretty? No, but I never said it was." Her blue eyes blaze. "Singing it is not a tribute." — Tori; The Times (UK), Dec 18, 2001

Ultimately, Finding's work is amazing because it illuminates the role of narrative in healing from assault or abuse by speaking these stories into existence. And if they happen to live on in the popular consciousness because they were attached to a song lyric, then so much the better. As is stated in her piece, many of us use music "as a means of emotional support."

And Then He Hit Me [Guardian]
Eat You Alive Lyrics [ST Lyrics]
Tori Amos/Eminem [Here In My Head]

Joe Kremer, the Dell executive, shared a story that feels very, very familiar. Kremer advertised a job that listed six key criteria.

Several male employees who could meet two or three criteria lobbied for the role. Each had a plan for how they would skill up to meet the rest.

"The person who should have got the job was female but she didn't apply. I approached her and she said, 'but of the six things I need, I only have five of them nailed'."

Mr Kremer persisted and the woman applied and landed the role.

As a result of Kremer's observations, he pushed for a women's mentorship program at Dell, to make sure women were not being left behind. However, he notes that only half the battle will be recognizing women's talent.

The harder fight is getting women to take credit for their own accomplishments.

Talented women too modest about abilities - expert [News.com.au]

Sometimes in a job where you run across a lot of media, depressing patterns appear, seemingly unrelated incidents and articles that, in some, begin to point to dispiriting conclusions about our society. Take today. Writes the Daily Mail's resident "working mum" Lorraine Candy, "it's been catfight corner at home and catfight columnists at work. While my daughters try to murder each other noisily about the house, the toxic sisterhood has been hissing and spitting at each other in print." Ah, the toxic sisterhood. That innate meanness that forces us to hate Megan Fox and makes the author's 5-year-old leave the following note for her sister in the cutlery drawer: 'Dear Sky, why are you so gredey?'"

I thought of this when, shortly thereafter I saw the NY Daily News's piece on hockey-moms' icy wrath. In this case, it was Palin's ability to hold grudges and slag off enemies in print. And specifically, campaign aide John Bitney, widely regarded as the architect of Palin's gubernatorial victory and, indeed, of the image that's served her well. The reason for Palin's hatred of Bitney - and his summary firing - aren't quite clear, although the authors mention that "Bitney appears to have been the victim of a particularly salient grudge after he admitted to having an affair with a Palin family friend - a woman he would later marry." He then lists a catty aside Palin makes about Bitney's slobby dressing.

We expect a level of inside-baseball score-settling in these kinds of books, of course. And Palin invites gendered criticism when she tries to play both sides of the "hockey-mom" coin. But this level of public pettiness - or at any rate, interpretation thereof - was intensely dispiriting. One wants to be able to refute the female stereotypes that led Candy to embark on an arbitrary week-long campaign of "kindness" (which here is interpreted as suspending all judgments, not speaking up against racism and instead utilizing techniques "that I learnt in the anger management course my staff sent me on last year.") And as many a frustrated critic has pointed out, Palin never makes this easier. And sometimes you just want to ask her, "why are you so gredey?" And tell Candy for her part that sometimes the toxic sisterhood is helped by a few well-placed judgments.

The Icy Wrath Of A Hockey Mom: How Sarah Palin Uses "Going Rogue" To Get Back At A Former Aide [NY Daily News]
Female Fury Towards Other Women Starts Early - But Is It That Difficult To Be Nice? [Daily Mail]

For someone who's so good because she understands that the personal in itself isn't worth a damn and that emotional clouding's for amateurs, Joan Didion has inspired a lot of gushing. V.L. Hartmann touches on this in a lovely essay today, acknowledging that while the incisive Didion is not "the most maternal of literary idols", for all that

I am not alone in my generation in thinking of her as a sort of mother figure. In 2006, she had a public conversation with then Paris Review editor Philip Gourevitch at Summer Stage in Central Park, and the crowd was filled with over a hundred people in their twenties and thirties, many gazing at her with adoration. She read from The Year of Magical Thinking and tears streamed down the faces of girls who clutched copies of her books.

When I've seen Didion read or talk (I wrote about one such instance here) - and it's something you do, if she's reading, and if you can, because she's a bedroom saint - it's kind of like that. The disconnect between what she's saying and writing and the palpable veneration is always kind of jarring. Ironically, for all her detachment, we all feel we know her. She has transcended her work and become a figure of tragedy and a national treasure. As a keen student of hero-worship, Didion herself must find it fascinating.

Hartmann adds that for many young women, Didion is the spectrum through which we view our mothers' generation as well as the model for female writers. Of course, there are those who would argue that in many ways Didion's voice was heightened and sharpened by the necessity of writing in a man's world, that like many women of her generation her fiction needed to be brittle to avoid sentimentality. Didion lovers might find that a strength, but she of all people would surely want the historical pointed out with due detachment. But, see? I'm falling into it too. Although the most idiosyncratic of voices and frank of literary personalities, a lot of us have made her a figurehead and projected on our own qualities and wishful qualities. The author was prompted to write her tribute when she saw Didion on the street, tiny and fragile-looking, and found reality and mythology colliding. She concludes, "I grew up with her writing, but she wrote none of it for me. It was enough to know on that cold afternoon that I was there and she was there." I'd add, at this point she hardly needs to be, because we all have the idea. (And no, I'm not talking about the erotica...which was, it should be said, for an erotica contest at a Valentine's Day party. Still.)
Joan Didion Crosses The Street [The Morning News]
Related: Joan Didion Is Kind Of A Downer About The Election

As the New York Times reports:

Afghan women who work for Marie Stopes [International, a sexual and reproductive health NGO], distributing birth control door to door in the country's capital, have also noticed an interest. An overwhelming majority of people are still skeptical of their motives. (Foreign spies! Christian missionaries who want to reduce the Muslim population!) But a growing number are open to the idea.

"Sometimes they are kind of surprised that this kind of thing exists," said one of the workers, a woman named Aziza.

In 2009 alone, the sale of birth control pills nearly doubled to 11,000 in September from 6,000 packages in January, according to Marie Stopes figures.

One woman was so happy to have birth control pills that she hugged and kissed Aziza, ripped open a package and swallowed a pill with a gulp of water.

"She said she didn't want to wait until evening," Aziza said, laughing at the memory. The total number of the woman's children: 17. Three dead, 14 living.

The most difficult families are ones headed by mullahs. Aziza and her colleagues tread carefully in those households. Mahmouda, another worker, recalled walking into one such house and finding the mullah's wife washing clothes and trying to calm a baby. She signaled silently that Mahmouda should talk in a low voice.

"‘If my husband finds out, he'll punish me,' " Mahmouda recalled the woman saying. " ‘I'm pregnant now. I really need those pills.' "

Taking birth control in secret is not unusual, the women said. Even Aziza's own husband opposes her using it.

"He said, ‘We are Muslims and God gives us babies,' " she said.

Hence the focus on getting the Mullahs to co-sign the pill policy. Matthew Yglesias, writing for Think Progress, questions if focusing on the men is a solid strategy:

The underlying idea that lowering Afghanistan's fertility rate would help it develop economically makes a lot of sense. Especially in an overwhelmingly rural country, the tendency is for a rapid increase in population to lead to falling living standards.

That said, the specific method of trying to do this by talking to male religious leaders about birth control seems to me to be at odds with most of what we know about this subject. As a recent Economist story on fertility trends emphasized, women in the developing world generally have more children than they want to. When we see falling fertility rates, it's normally a result of women being empowered to make more decisions about their own lives.

I agree with this in principle - empowering women should not be the sole provenance of men. However, I think that Yglesias discounts the influence of religion over the lives of women. Even in the United States, there are women who voluntarily forgo birth control and sexual education (for themselves and their offspring) because they believe their religion does not condone controlling their own reproduction. In addition, the outsider dynamic must also be considered. Though Marie Stopes International employs Afghan women to distribute contraception and engage the community, there is still a significant amount of distrust. As the NYT explains:

Those who oppose [birth control] sometimes get violent. Aziza recalled people running her out of a neighborhood in Kabul after she introduced birth control there. They accused her of being on the payroll of the Americans, taking dollars to weaken the country.

" ‘They want to capture Afghanistan,' " she recalled that they said. " ‘If the Muslims are many, they won't be able to.' "

In addition, many women - particularly women of color - have cause to be skeptical of organizations promoting birth control and abortion. Stopes, like her American counterpart Margaret Sanger, embraced eugenics which has often been used as a justification to reduce the number of people of color, poor children, and people with disabilities through selective breeding. While there is no easily traceable evidence that Sanger or Stopes supported forced eugenics, a la the Nazi party (indeed, Sanger wrote often against such a thing, arguing that change must come from within a community), the idea of birth control as unwanted population control still resonates to this day.

Looking specifically at the current situation of women in Afghanistan, however, allowing women to choose their own reproductive destiny will be an important tool in helping the country to rebound. And the participation of Mullahs may increase the chances of success - if only to help persuade some God-fearing women that adopting a different way may actually be in their best interest.

Broaching Birth Control With Afghan Mullahs [New York Times]
Birth Control In Afghanistan [Think Progress]
Marie Stopes: Feminist, Eroticist, Eugenicist [Google Books]

She was not the first whom I've heard express sentiments to this effect. Now, it must be said that the "Guiliano Backlash" is a purely anecdotal phenomenon: while there have been occasional snippy pieces, they're nothing to the millions of readers who made French Women Don't Get Fat an international phenomenon, will probably see the movie (if only to see how the hell to adapt a diet book into a rom-com), and have snapped up the sequels with enthusiasm, probably with a laboriously-draped scarf around their necks and a bowl of leek water in their hands.

Personally, I have no beef with FWDGF. Would I do the leek-soup weekend? Mais non. But her basic message of moderation and eating for pleasure is wholesome and common-sensical, and nothing that hasn't been sold - in less chic sheep's clothing - for decades. I liked the recipes I tried and, while the sequel was completely gratuitous, found it innocuous. The latest volume follows much the same pattern: common sense stuff, wrapped in "French secrets" and "savoir-faire" and with a hefty dose of the same take-care-of-yourself quality-of-life ethos that powered the first two.

All that said, I get the resentment - to a degree. There are legit issues people always bring up: she's rumored to be a difficult boss. The leek soup diet is dangerous and medically unsound. French women do, in fact, get fat. It's still the same old skinny-is-God. And her whole shtick is Americanized Frenchness sold to an American sensibility. I'm not disagreeing - and her attitude towards the overweight, in interviews, often seems to border on downright disdainful (albeit not MeMe-calibur) - but sometimes these arguments have the character of the sort of justification people seize upon to explain a wholly irrational dislike of a movie star (and hey, we've all done it - I know I was gratified to learn about a TV chef apparently maltreating her assistants because it justified my totally irrational gut dislike of her antics.) There are plenty of reasons to dislike her work rationally - but it's not the rational dislike that interests me.

I wrote some friends to get specifics on the dislike. "Smug" and "superior" were constants. "Inflexibility" was another. "For all her pose of self-help, she comes across as judgmental and makes me feel inadequate," wrote one. "It's the same old 'have-it-all' and be sexy too!' shtick they peddled 20 years ago." Another disliked the adulation of her fan-base. "They ask her where she gets her hair cut etc. on her web site, and there's no acknowledgment that this is a very wealthy, privileged woman living a rareified life - with, by the way, no kids to mess up the orchids or the trips to Paris."

I have my own theories, and it's that she plays on the idea of solidarity amongst women - just-between-us advice and I've-been-there collusion - while in fact speaking from aspirational and superior heights. She has none of Oprah's weight struggles or even Martha's financial imbroglios - she's too strong-willed for either. And as such she courts our resentment, much as Stewart did pre-Camp-Cupcake. She's for women, by women - but how much does she like and respect her readership? That, and she's a successful businesswoman - who's still built her rep on weight-loss. Had it just been this, third book, it would be one thing - but in some ways it does feel like she's playing both sides of the coin, making women both her victims and her protagonists, and "empowering" us strictly on her own, thin terms.

But those are just theories. In the end, as I said, my own views are more moderate: as long as people are going to buy weight-loss books - and they are - I'd as soon it was this as Atkins. And the third book, in a vacuum, is (despite its femme-speciifc girliness) not a bad thing for a young girl to read. (Again, most of it is the same as what you'll get in any "business for dummies" text, plus snacks and walks.) But when smart, engaged women whom I respect feel this strongly, I take note - and try to give self-styled role models a second going-over.

THE SUBTLE ART OF SAVOIR FAIRE [Daily Express]
New York's Worst Bosses: Mireille Guiliano [Gawker]
Mireille Guiliano: Why French Women Don't Get Fired [Time]

Related: Angry American Pundit: "French Women Can Suck It"

"Lipstick entrepreneurs," the FT tells us, are on the rise. A new report - by, it should be said, by the "Future Laboratory for Avon" which arguably has an interest in fostering female entrepreneurs, as well as and the Federation of Small Businesses - predicts that the number of female enterprises" could double over the next 10 years, taking the number of self-employed women running businesses - from single-person ventures to more substantial ones - to more than 2m." I know, that doesn't sound like many - although it's a substantial gain since 2000.

So what at first sounds plainly derogatory, or maybe lesbian-specific, is in fact literal: a "lipstick entrepreneur" sells makeup, or similar. The rise in this kind of self-employment is an obvious result of the economy, since many families are in need of more income. And, the FT argues, due as well to an increasing number of female role models in the marketplace. To this we'd add the E-word: Etsy. While some might disagree, it's made part-time and flexible creative income seem compatible with a busy lifestyle and an enriching addition to other jobs. Or maybe it's just this female exec's rationale: women are "good at nurturing talent within our organisations, and perhaps we are not as threatened by talent as men can be. We are really good salespeople and we can be good at communicating."

Recession Spurs Rise Of 'Lipstick Entrepreneurs' [Financial Times]

We've been talking a lot lately about the delegation of household tasks. And while the conversation is obviously rooted in history, society, a traditional gap and the burden of context, one question inevitably comes up: if women want things done right, do they have to do them themselves? As the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus puts it today, "I could delegate more to my husband, but then I'd also have to accept that pasta with store-bought pesto equals dinner. If you want someone else to step up to the plate, you have to live with what he puts on it." And she puts it even more strongly: "In fact, to some extent women are reluctant to yield dominion over the home front even as they become the majority of the paid workforce."

Of course, this doesn't really address why she's not satisfied with the same sketchy domesticity. Gail Collins touched on the same issue in her interview with Doree Shafrir yesterday when she said,

Half of the world believes it's because guys genuinely do not have as high a standard about making sure you get invited to dinner every once in awhile, or having matching socks. It's possible that guys, if they don't care, then it's very hard to impose those standards. Others argue that this is all a plot and the guys are just waiting out the women. I would go for 50-50. Clearly guys enjoy the higher standards-they just don't want to be in charge of them.

I'm not the one to ask; my boyfriend and I both come from the 'wait-as-long-as-is-humanly-possible-before-tackling-squalor' school of housekeeping, whose equality, it could be argued, is certainly a harbinger of some kind of progress - or of our generation's general lack of responsibility. Growing up, my father was indifferent - and to my mother's chagrin, would ask friends over with impunity when the house was in a state she found humiliating. Maybe that was more the core issue: she saw the state of the home as some reflection on herself; my dad did not. Of course there are Felix Ungers who are defined by house-pride and a love of domestic routine. But that's why they're a comic stock character: the trait was regarded as effete, effeminate, humorous.

Discussing the report "A Woman's Nation Changes Everything," by Maria Shriver and the Center for American Progress, Marcus observes,

Both sexes agree that women continue to bear a disproportionate burden in taking care of children and elderly parents, even when both partners in a relationship have jobs," John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira write in one chapter of the report. Here's the interesting subtext, though: Fifty-five percent of women strongly agreed (and 85 percent overall agreed) that "in households where both partners have jobs, women take on more responsibilities for the home and family than their male partners." Just 28 percent of men strongly agreed, and 67 percent agreed. That's a pretty big perception gap.

Marcus suggests that part of this disconnect is rooted in, not just self-congratulation for doing the minimum, but a sort of martyrdom. As she would have it, women want help, but also control. There is, she says, "something comforting in keeping a connection to mundane household tasks even when you're running a major-league research lab. Perhaps younger women don't feel this tug toward domesticity. But for women of my generation, there remains an impulse to live up to the standards of our stay-at-home mothers even as we race out the door each morning." I'd say younger women do, indeed, feel the tug of domesticity - but largely because it's a choice. Canning, knitting, home decor - these have become reflections of who we are rather than the other way around. And the quotidian rites of household maintenance, more than servitude, imply adulthood - which is a whole 'nother kettle of ambivalence.

The Nobel For Brisket Goes To . . .[Washington Post]

Earlier: Gail Collins: "The Revolution Will Be Achieved When No One Has To Do The Ironing"