Salon: Broadsheet

The sexing up of Tina Fey

Sarah Hepola — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:34:00 PST

This month's Vanity Fair cover story is about Tina Fey (maybe you've heard of her). The profile, written by Maureen Dowd (maybe you've heard of her?), features such headline grabbers as the backstory behind Fey's mysterious chin scar -- according to her husband, she was cut in her front yard by a stranger when she was five -- and the fact that she was a virgin till she was 25. More interesting than those details, however, is Fey's development from writer's room puritan with a "chord of anger running through her comedy," as her one-time colleague Adam McKay put it, into a va-va-voom leading lady.

Much like Virginia Heffernan's 2003 New Yorker profile, Dowd's piece depicts Fey as a sober, hard-driven, deeply principled woman who is a galaxy removed from the pill-popping icons who came before her on "Saturday Night Live." When Dowd asks Fey what's the wildest thing she's ever done, she replies, "Nothing." This is, after all, the woman Colin Quinn nicknamed "Herman the German." Lorne Michaels compares her to Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl. Fey's husband discloses the story of the worst trouble he ever got into with her: He went to a strip club.

"I feel like we all need to be better than that," Fey says of the incident. "That industry needs to die, by all of us being a little bit better than that."

But despite her disdain for hedonism, she has gone from a "mousy," "goofy-looking" comedy writer who never seemed to put much of a premium on her looks into television's most unexpected bombshell. (Pictures accompanying the article show Fey in five-alarm sexy librarian mode, seductively biting the frame of her glasses and wearing red stilettos.) Fey seems conflicted about her sexuality in a way that might feel familiar to any woman who has found herself choosing between muumuus and fishnets.

“I only have two speeds," she says, "either matronly or a little too slutty. I have to be steered away from cheetah print.”

Alec Baldwin remembers suggesting that Fey tart it up a bit on "30 Rock," where her character, Liz Lemon, has been known to wear a low-cut shirt or three. "You're a very attractive woman and you've got to work that," he told her at one point. "You've got to pop one more button on that blouse … Glamour it up!"

Maybe you find this depressing (a brilliant comic mind inevitably reduced shaking her cleavage). Maybe you find this empowering (a brilliant comic mind finally shaking her cleavage!). Either way, it only confirms what many of us have known for a long time: Tina Fey is one of the most fascinating celebrities out there right now. No wonder she landed a six million dollar book deal.

Not long ago, I was watching the Emmys with a male friend. Tina Fey took the stage to accept an award, one of several she took home that night. She was stunning but looked out of place, unaccustomed to the designer duds and the solo spotlight. I felt certain she would wrap herself up in a hoodie if she could. And the thing about Tina Fey is that she must have a deep and unshakeable faith in herself to have accomplished so much. She must have the courage of a champion fighter. And yet, standing there in the spotlight, she still seemed weirdly vulnerable, twitchy.

"Tina Fey is a beautiful woman who looks uncomfortable in her own skin," I told my friend.

"Yes," he said. "It's very appealing about her."

Now, finally, you may kiss the bride

Tracy Clark-Flory — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:25:00 PST

Within the purity movement, definitions of abstinence are like virginity rings: Everyone has their very own. Some purity pledges engage in everything, and I mean everything, short of vaginal intercourse. Others limit themselves to fully clothed smooch fests. Then there are those, like Claudaniel Fabien, 30, and Melody LaLuzen, 28, of Chicago, who abstained from kissing until they hit the altar.

On Saturday, the two abstinence educators practiced what they teach: They married, and then kissed each other for the very first time. The delayed consummation -- not to mention commencement -- came after a yearlong chaperoned courtship: "They made sure they were never alone with each other in a house," reports the Chicago Tribune. "When they watched movies on the couch, they snuggled sitting straight up, never lying down." (Take note, kiddies: Stay vertical, stay virginal.) What's more, the pair met in 2006, but had to delay dating until a year later, when LaLuzen ended her vow to abstain from romance of any sort for seven years.

"It really tested us and encouraged us to grow closer in our hearts and our minds, just expressing things verbally," Fabien said. LaLuzen said it was "magical" when they finally rounded first base, with all of their family and friends watching. (The magic was preceded by Fabien theatrically spraying breath freshener in his mouth.) "When you value a kiss, it becomes something of worth," she said.

Luckily, there are many ways to value a kiss, as well as all manner of canoodling, and they don't all involve abstaining until marriage -- but, you know, to each his or her own. I just wonder if kissing represents the purity movement's next target -- and, if so, will abstinence thongs be replaced by "true love waits" braces and retainers?

Male caregivers need feminism, too

Kate Harding — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:19:00 PST

I'm not a big fan of the "Men do traditional women's work; are shocked to learn it's hard" genre of human interest story, but John Leland's article in Friday's New York Times about men caring for elderly parents is actually pretty good. It acknowledges some of the unique problems men face with taking on this traditionally female role, without the usual implication that this means women are somehow "naturally" better suited to it, and thus the status quo is best for everyone. In fact, I'd say this article is a great argument for why men need feminism as much as women do.

For instance, Leland points out that men are less likely to use employee-assistance programs for caregivers because, as one man who looks after his mother puts it, "I think it would be looked at like, when they hire a male, they expect him to be 100-percent focused. I don't want to appear to be someone who has distractions that detract from performance." The idea that any employee should be "100-percent focused" on his or her job, to the exclusion of fully participating in domestic life, is something women have been working against for decades -- it's just that employers have too often taken that to mean women are lousy employees, not that everyone needs a decent work-life balance. The sexist assumption that men are more committed to their jobs and women are more easily "distracted" by petty concerns like ailing parents (or children) hurts both genders.

Similarly, the expectation that female children should be their parents' caregivers -- and men with no sisters, presumably, will hire help -- stands in the way of some men being as involved as they'd like to be. Amy Torres, helpline director at Fria, says, "Nursing homes have a very difficult time dealing with male caregivers. It's unusual for them. The male caregiver is made to feel their interest in their relative is inappropriate." As a woman, I can't imagine being told that my interest in my elderly father's health is "inappropriate," which goes to the root problem here -- the sexist assumption that women are "natural" caregivers, ergo men are not.

I think it's scandalous that a grown man being compassionate, nurturing and responsible is considered such an unusual sight that nursing home employees will be suspicious of his motives. But then, a couple of weeks ago, I listened to a friend of my boyfriend's talking about how his 5-year-old daughter just cries about everything -- due to "some kind of girl logic" -- while his son "naturally" understands that crying is to be reserved for especially devastating occasions. When people are still teaching their kids that only girls are supposed to have and express feelings, is it any wonder that middle-aged male caregivers are seen as weirdos?

D.I.Y. gift guide

Amy Benfer — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 07:37:00 PST

According to the New York Times, this season’s holiday steals include diamond earrings for $249 and a Marc Jacobs bag for $248.45. As Dan de Grandpre, editor-in-chief of Dealnews.com, puts it: “This kind of heavy discounting will continue until we see some retailers start to fail, until they start to go out of business.” Happy holidays!

But I never planned to leave home today anyway. At our house, we tend to spend most weekends with circular saws and circular knitting needles. So even before the economy tanked, we planned to make most of our holiday gifts at home. While we at Broadsheet aren’t big on inundating our readers with helpful household hints, it is that time of year, and well, I happen to know a thing or two about crafting on the cheap (I swear, it’s some sort of requirement for every Brooklyn woman of a certain age). Be warned: It’s entirely possible to spend way more on, say, Japanese imported fabric or hand-dyed silks and cashmere than you ever would on a sweater or a bag in a boutique. But if you stick to basic materials, you can make bags and jewelry for all your friends for the same price as those fancy earrings -- or even less.

By far the coolest book on the market this season is Kelley Deal’s “Bags That Rock.” Yes, apparently the lead guitarist for the Breeders got pretty good with the knitting needles while fending off boredom on tour (according to the book, she once substituted a set of drum sticks in a pinch. How rock star is that?) Most bags take minimal shaping, so even beginners should be able to figure out some of the simpler patterns, provided you can snag a friend to teach you the basics of knit and purl. More complicated designs include a graffiti-patterned intarsia design and a bag with an embroidered drum kit. Kitschy rock-star embellishments abound -- including drum sticks, guitar strings and telephone cords used as straps.

If you’ve got access to a sewing machine, you can try some of the patterns in Megan Avery’s “Bag Bazaar”, most of which can be made in a single afternoon. And you seriously need no real skills or special equipment at all to make the bags in Jodi Kahn’s “Simply Sublime Bags.” The bag in the cover shot is made from a silk placemat. Other projects are made with shower curtains, rain ponchos and duct tape. We’re talking projects for under 20 bucks here. Maybe 10. Heck, maybe five.

Gem stones, on the other hand, are hardly cheap, but making a set of peridot earrings or a tourmaline bracelet is still way cheaper than buying one. A beginner could figure out how to do so from Mia Sato-Flores’s “Wrapped in Gems”. If you want something you can make from the detritus on your kitchen counter, try the bottle-cap locket in Jessica Vitkus’s “AlternaCrafts” . Other crafts from recycled objects include hats made from cut-up sweaters, a rug made from old T-shirts, and a very cool-looking place mat made from plain wooden chopsticks. In fact, you couldn’t find gifts any cheaper in the Wal-Mart Dumpster.

But if you want a super-easy, all-purpose gift, try booze. Get a bottle of liquor (vodka, tequila, gin). Add spices and other stuff you like. Vanilla beans, peppers, cut-up fruit, whatever. Put it away for four weeks, strain and serve. It’s really that simple. You want a recipe? OK, fine, try this book.

Broadsheet will return after the holiday, with more stuff and way less fluff. I swear this is the girliest you will ever see me.

In historic summit, first daughters meet at White House

Katharine Mieszkowski — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:47:00 PST

Here's a pre-Thanksgiving smile: the new first girls, Malia and Sasha Obama, got a little schooling from Barbara and Jenna Bush on ways to have fun at the White House on their recent visit there, according to first lady Laura Bush.

In an interview on "Good Morning America" Wednesday, the outgoing first lady revealed that Barbara and Jenna showed Malia and Sasha how to whoop it up White House-style: "It was fun for the girls to get to show them not only (their rooms), but the way the big cross hall can be an obstacle course for little kids to run up and down, and the solarium ramp that you can slide down on your bottom. So they showed them all the special tricks," she said, according to the Associated Press.

The Bush twins also encouraged the younger Obama girls to jump on a tall bed: "We usually put a step out for people to step into when they stay in that room. But instead the little girls did the running jump, and Barbara and Jenna of course aided and abetted that jumping," Laura Bush said.

In other Malia and Sasha news, their mother reportedly instructed the White House staff that the girls will still have to make their own beds, when they're living on Pennsylvania Avenue, just like they did back home.

Have a great Thanksgiving!

U.K. asks women to attack escort ads

Tracy Clark-Flory — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:40:00 PST

Britain's Women's Institute, which is infamous for offering classes on burlesque dancing and sex therapy, and having members pose naked in a charity calendar, has a new controversial campaign: attacking ads for escorts and massage parlors.

Minister for Women Harriet Harman, who last week announced plans to criminalize paying for sex with women forced into prostitution, asked the group's 205,000 members to join the government in its war against human trafficking. She asked that the group monitor newspapers and complain to editors who run sex ads that just might be promoting trafficked women; in turn, the organization has asked its members to pass along tips. "Look at the adverts in your local newspaper," Harman said. "They advertise women for sale for sex. Many are young women from eastern Europe, from Africa or Asia, tricked and trafficked into this country and forced into prostitution."

It's unclear, though, what the criteria will be for actionable ads or information worthy of passing along. I highly doubt Harman expects these women to put on their amateur detective caps and investigate suspicious operations before targeting them. So, will they broadly complain about anything mentioning escorts or massage parlors? Since the U.K. does not criminalize prostitution, but does outlaw persistent kerb-crawling and public solicitation, these advertisements are a major avenue for the sale of sex. Attacking all sex ads would almost appear a campaign to eradicate prostitution, not just sex trafficking (which some suspect is Harman's real aim).

It seems the group just might target advertisements featuring foreign women. Cari Mitchell, a spokesperson for the English Collective of Prostitutes, told the Associated Press: "Members of the WI are being asked to assume anyone coming from another country is being trafficked, which is an absolute lie." She added that "most immigrant women working in the sex industry are not being trafficked."

It remains to be seen how the information collected by the institute and complaints sent to newspaper editors will actually help trafficked women. As I said when NOW launched a campaign against massage parlor ads in alt-weeklies, "these ads exist because of a sex industry that exists." Simply making the ads disappear won't make sex trafficking disappear -- but it will purge the public evidence.

Facebook status update: I'm anorexic

Tracy Clark-Flory — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 03:00:00 PST

We learn all sorts of things about our friends though Facebook. In the past two months, I've heard about two friends' breakups, one friend's new boyfriend and the birth of a co-worker's baby -- all through my Facebook friends feed. But, according to Newsweek, some users are receiving a far more shocking status update, the subtext of which is: Your friend has an eating disorder.

Controversial pro-anorexia (or pro-ana) Web sites, which encourage girls and women with eating disorders to swap tips on extreme weight loss and share "thinspiration" in the form of photos of emaciated models, have spread to the social networking site by way of member groups. Unlike typical pro-ana sites, where users post anonymously, these groups "link users' real-life profiles to their eating disorders," reports Newsweek. Of course, some create anonymous profiles for the purpose of participating in these Facebook groups -- but many use the same profile that connects them to their friends, family and co-workers. Just imagine the following showing up in your feed: "[Insert friend's name] joined the group 'Ana Boot Camp.'"

As the piece points out, Facebook allows for far more intimacy because group members are "able to see people's faces, friends and interests." Kate, a 20-year-old college student in Utah, told Newsweek: "Myspace was more focused on tips and tricks and when to exercise. [On Facebook], there's a lot of really close networking, so you add those people as friends and exchange phone numbers, and when you're having a hard day, you talk on the phone." She describes Facebook as "a lot more of a support group." Of course, most outside of the community fail to see it that way -- or, at least, as positively supportive.

Just as with anonymous pro-ana sites, there is the fear that these Facebook groups will push members further into the depths of their illness rather than toward recovery, and they have just as many opponents actively trying to infiltrate and shut them down. "Recently, they managed to shut down one notorious site as well as the Facebook account of its creator, a girl who would encourage others to post their pictures online and then harshly detail their 'problem areas,'" according to the article. Facebook employees also search for and delete groups that encourage self-harm. As a result, pro-ana groups have gone stealth: They have subtler titles and are often set to private so that they are unsearchable.

Still, some see the emergence of these groups in this semi-public sphere as a positive development. "Girls are concerned about other girls in their social group who they see toying with an eating disorder," says Marcia Herrin, the author of numerous books on disordered eating. "They may talk to them directly, they may talk to a school counselor, they may talk to the girls' parents."

Indeed. A girl could anonymously join a pro-ana site hidden at the edges of the Web without her friends or family ever catching on. But, because of the real-life link, joining one of these Facebook groups is a loud cry for help. A friend need only click over to your profile and take a look at your list of groups to become seriously concerned.

Only, it doesn't always happen that way. Rose, 17, joined several such groups hoping her friends would notice and "rescue" her -- they didn't. So, she says, she resorted to getting attention from "other sick people."

Pimps and hos in history class

Judy Berman — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:39:00 PST

At Coolidge High in Washington, D.C., students spent a day of history class completing a decidedly unusual assignment: Provided with glitter, feathers and glue, they were instructed to create pictures of a prostitute and a pimp. That same day, they listened to and analyzed a 50 Cent track called "P-I-M-P," which celebrates the time-honored tradition of men luring women into sex work.

If you're wondering what this has to do with the Revolutionary War, Catherine the Great or pre-colonial Africa, the answer is, not much. The activities are part of a special program administered by the D.C. Human Trafficking Task Force, a group that devotes most of its time to combating overseas sex trafficking. Now in its second year, the program interrupts classes in six D.C.-area high schools (selected for their high rates of family and domestic violence) to educate students about the dangers of prostitution, trafficking and abusive relationships. Andrea Powell, executive director of FAIR Fund, the organization that created the curriculum, says that it seeks to "raise all these issues of teen violence, dating violence and homelessness ... One boy said he was hungry. All of these are risk factors for sexual exploitation." So far, it seems that the task force's efforts have been successful, with organizers receiving 56 notes from male and female students who needed help getting out of difficult -- and sometimes horrific -- relationships and home situations.

It's clear that this program is filling a huge gap in students' educations by giving them the information necessary to avoid all forms of sexual violence and exploitation. But a few things get to me about this story, too. For one thing, why do these already at-risk students have to give up history classes to participate in the program? Why isn't it already part of their regular health classes (you know, the ones that should also be teaching comprehensive sex ed)? And why weren't teachers and school administrators at these schools already working to ensure that students felt comfortable coming to them with personal problems? There's no doubt that the program is a step in the right direction, but we shouldn't forget that it's also a Band-Aid solution to the boatload of negligence that necessitated it.

UPDATE: FAIR Fund executive director Andrea Powell responds:

Our program Tell Your Friends, which goes into D.C. public high schools, is a program funded by the Yahoo Employee Foundation. [Broadsheet writer Judy Berman] attributes FAIR Fund's work to the DC Anti Trafficking Task Force, which is incorrect. FAIR Fund is an active and proud member of that DC Anti Trafficking Task Force, but we are not funded by them nor do they have any control over this program. FAIR Fund is a separate 501c3 agency with anti-trafficking programs for youth in five countries with a focus on sexual violence, labor trafficking, and exploitation.

Also, I would like to point out that while it may not appear our program has much to do with history, I believe it does. Our program discusses modern-day slavery. We work with each class across the six schools during four separate sessions and very clearly cover the connections between human trafficking, American slavery, poverty, discrimination, and sex trafficking. We also would truly love to see our curriculum be integrated into health classes. That is our ultimate goal. We are grateful that the D.C. public schools and their teachers have given us a space to reach their students.

Talk about a stocking stuffer

Amy Benfer — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:09:00 PST

OK, take a minute just to stop, stare and gasp with glee. That's what I did when I ran across these swoon-worthy images of Sterling-Cooper's curvilicious head secretary (via Nerve). I don't know what mad genius came up with the idea to immortalize "Mad Men's" Joan Holloway -- played by the divine Christina Hendricks -- in glorious full color, but I can't think of anyone more deserving of the mid-century pinup treatment. We'll lose the retrograde politics of the show, but we'll take those clothes any day!

The divine Ms. H and her ladies certainly have plenty to do with the '60s fashion revival (and, in fact, those with some dressmaking skills might just be able to translate these into patterns). But why stop there? Don Draper's wardrobe may stop at the gray flannel suit, but I'd still pay to dress him up for work each morning.

Rock in a hard place

Sarah Hepola — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:40:00 PST

For some of us, our feminist awakening came in the form of a political rally, a historic election, a movie, a mother, a father. Who knows? And then, there are those of us whose eyes were opened saucer-wide by chicks making music. June Carter Cash, Joan Baez, Joni Mitchell, Patti Smith, Kate Bush, Cyndi Lauper, Nancy and Ann Wilson, The Go-Gos, Janet Jackson, Le Tigre, Tori Amos, Liz Phair, The Donnas, Destiny's Child, Pink. Hell, we could arguably include Billie Holliday in that list. Basically, if you came of age in the latter half of the century (and maybe before then -- if you know better, school me in the comments), you experienced women writing their own songs, on their own terms, and kicking ass while doing so.

Now The New York Times brings us word of an all-girl Saudi band made up of four college students placing one well-chosen finger in the face of oppressive tradition:

They cannot perform in public. They cannot pose for album cover photographs. Even their jam sessions are secret, for fear of offending the religious authorities in this ultraconservative kingdom. But the members of Saudi Arabia’s first all-girl rock band, the Accolade, are clearly not afraid of taboos.

Saudis are downloading their first single, "Pinocchio," from the group's MySpace page. You can listen for yourself here. I hear "Baracuda"-era Heart with a lot of crashing cymbals and some tinkling keyboard. The song is in English. Maybe you'll dig it; I kind of do.

Regardless, we at Broadsheet -- well, we writing this Broadsheet item -- are seriously bowled over by this kind of dedication to the rock. Because music really is a kind of freedom. And, like my mama's daddy always warned her, it's a pretty good form of rebellion, too.

New man on Broadsheet

Sarah Hepola — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:30:00 PST

This is a very special week at Broadsheet. It is Thanksgiving, yes, but it is also the week that our beloved colleague Lynn Harris welcomed a baby boy into the world. (At least, that's what her Facebook status update says.) Lynn -- who is the only reproductive rights expert we know who also taught comedy writing classes -- will be on leave for a bit while she helps her pup adjust to this brave new world, and while we will miss her dearly, we also look forward to the time she returns, when she will be wiser, stronger and (presumably) thinner.

As a small token of our affection for Lynn and her baby boy (and her husband, and her beautiful daughter), here is our favorite thing in the world. (Well, maybe our second favorite thing.) The world may be a rough place to navigate, but behold the beauty of the universe known as … puppy cam.

OMG, teens R "sexting"

Tracy Clark-Flory — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:00:00 PST

Remember the 15-year-old Ohio girl who faced child pornography charges for distributing naked cellphone photos of herself? There comes news that the charges were dropped, and the case will be dismissed if she completes a diversion program. But, most interesting of all, she revealed a typically teenage oh-by-the-way revelation during the hearing: Three of the male students who received her digital offerings also sent her back X-rated snapshots of themselves; now they might face charges, too.

That's not all in the way of teens being punished for "sexting," as it is now being called. Two teenage girls in Seattle were suspended from their cheerleading team after school officials discovered that they had taken nude cellphone photos of themselves that were circulated among students. One girl sent a topless photo to her then-boyfriend, which was "accidentally" leaked to other students; the other had a female friend take a nude snapshot, which also mysteriously ended up in other students' hands.

Now the girls' parents are suing the school, accusing "administrators of violating the girls' due process rights, needlessly sharing the photos with other school staff members and failing to promptly report the matter to police as possible child pornography," reports the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The school did not punish the students -- including a reportedly large number of football players -- who were in possession of the photos.

And there's more: Two 14-year-old girls in Livingston County, Mich., recently circulated nude cellphone pictures. In one case, the photo was sent to "as many as 200 people," according to the Detroit News. Nineteen students were suspended and roughly a dozen cellphones were confiscated by police. The other case is still being investigated.

There's a tendency to look at cases like these and dismissively conclude: Oh, well, those girls are damaged. That may be the case, sometimes -- but we certainly don't make the same assumption about a teenage boy who shares nude photos of himself. Not to mention, cases where the photos are discovered by school officials might be relatively uncommon, but I suspect that the practice of "sexting" is anything but.

It's hard to understand being very surprised at a girl taking a sexualized self-portrait, or even that she might want to share it with a boyfriend, or friends. Typically, this is not at all a safe or smart idea -- the Seattle cheerleaders being a case in point -- but we are talking about hormonally driven teenagers, after all. If we are shocked by this behavior, I think we're lying to ourselves about girls' sexuality -- especially those of us who were once teenage girls.

She went to Delamina

Kate Harding — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:00:00 PST

I've been aware of the new online jewelry retailer Delamina for all of five minutes now, and I already have a complicated, love-hate relationship with the company. When I saw this MarketWatch story about Delamina's marketing strategy -- encouraging women to buy their own damn baubles instead of waiting around for men to cough up -- I got all excited. Everything that makes me insane about the typical jewelry commercial is summed up by the Family Guy's brilliant Debeers parody: "Diamonds. She'll pretty much have to." So an ad campaign aimed at the kind of woman who watches a "He went to Jared" commercial and can barely control the dry heaves -- hi! -- was most welcome.

But then I went to the Web site, where black-and-white images of women flash on the screen, along with excuses for buying yourself the sparkly jewelry they're wearing. Some of these actually amused me: "Because the wine you opened was older than he was." "Because you didn't flip off that guy on the 101." "Because you can wear it every day" -- over a photo of a woman biting into a particularly sloppy cheeseburger. Holy crap, they're implying it's OK for women to buy our own jewelry and enjoy burgers? It's almost like there was an actual woman involved in designing this campaign!

Except the next frame is a head of lettuce, with the caption "Because you ate salad all week." Oh. Of course. And then there's "Because you like shiny things," with a picture of a woman holding a colander, since, you know, we girls pretty much live in the kitchen. Unless we're cleaning toilets, that is -- an image that goes along with "Because you got down and dirty." Hey, wait a minute, weren't we supposed to be subverting gender roles here? Isn't this the exact same premise as barfy traditional jewelry ads -- because of all the cooking, cleaning and dieting you do (mothering's in there, too, natch), you deserve something pretty! -- only here, you're the one paying for it?

And then things take a serious turn for the double-you-tee-eff. In among the '50s housewife imagery, there's a picture of a woman's arm and hair sticking out from under her bedcovers, with two empty wineglasses on the nightstand next to her. Caption: "Because it's a less risky way to celebrate your promotion." Seriously? The one woman who obviously has a job in this series of photos is also into drunken, anonymous sex? Oh, those zany career gals!

I do applaud Delamina for recognizing (at least theoretically) that women today aren't living in an episode of "Mad Men"; plenty of us would rather lay down the plastic ourselves than hope that our sex and housekeeping and patience with his affairs might eventually earn us a necklace. In the world of jewelry marketing, that's actually pretty huge. I just wish they'd considered that women who can afford precious gems probably have interests and obligations beyond salads, toilets and random hookups. I really cannot wait for the day someone makes a jewelry ad that says, "Because it's your money, and you don't need a a freakin' excuse." I'll totally celebrate by buying myself a tennis bracelet.

First comes baby, then comes marriage?

Amy Benfer — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:44:00 PST

The mother-to-be is California Democratic Rep. Linda Sanchez, and while she's clearly got a successful career going on, she's a Murphy Brown of a different stripe. She's been in a committed relationship with the baby's father, Jim Sullivan, for the past year and a half. They just haven't got around to getting married yet.

What we have here, then, is Planned Unwed Parenthood. Oddly enough, it's a trend that was so on my mind before I read this story, that I actually brought it up yesterday in a chat I had with Frank Furstenberg, professor of sociology at University of Pennsylvania, while I was researching another piece entirely. The gist of this particular trend is that couples vow allegiance to co-parenting their children first, with marriage coming later (if at all).

The most visible contemporary exemplars of said trend, it’s safe to say, are a certain celebrity couple with six children who also happen to be the most photographed family in America. But to my mind, it seems that the couples who benefit most from PUP-dom are ones just like Sanchez and her beau: professional, committed couples for whom fertility trumps party planning.

It's the biological clock, stupid. Writes Los Angeles Times columnist Patt Morrison, who broke the story late last week:

Sanchez is 39 and divorced, and early this year, her doctor told her that "if your intention is to become a mother, I wouldn't put it off." So she and Sullivan didn't. They haven't yet set a wedding date. As he told me, "We have the rest of our lives to get engaged and married -- we don't have the rest of our lives" for Sanchez to become pregnant ... Twenty years ago, it simply wouldn't have been possible ... pregnant, single and a member of Congress? Oh, the scandal! But Hester Prynne has morphed into Juno MacGuff, the culture wars have been fought to a truce of exhaustion, and "unwed mother" has been recast as "single mom."

As a single mother myself, I suppose it's hardly a surprise that I don't see much of a scandal here. But I'm actually going to push it a step further and say that I find this to be a hopeful, optimistic symbol of the many different choices available to contemporary men and women wishing to construct stable, loving families. In this case, we have two secure, mature adults quite literally putting their child first. I don't know that families get more child-centric than that.

Quote of the day

Kate Harding — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:00:00 PST

"Sexism, like racism, is a sin. And no matter how hard or how long we may try to justify discrimination, in the end, it is always immoral."

--The Rev. Roy Bourgeois, in a letter to the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. After Bourgeois, a Catholic priest of 36 years, gave the homily at an ordination ceremony for a woman last August, the CDF sent him a letter saying he had 30 days to recant his support for women's ordination or be excommunicated. In his response, Bourgeois points out that unlike him, the American priests and bishops involved in sexually abusing more than 12,000 children and covering it up have not been excommunicated. Snap!

20/20: Ashley Dupre, the girl next door

Tracy Clark-Flory — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 08:00:00 PST

20/20

Ashley Dupre on 20/20

If a biopic were made based solely on 20/20's exclusive interview with Ashley Dupré, former Governor Eliot Spitzer's famed call girl, it might be called: "The Whore Next Door." Diane Sawyer asked plenty of questions of Dupré during the special, which aired Friday night, but there was one question at its heart: How does a normal all-American girl end up selling her body for cash?

At the beginning of the special, we're shown images of average young women -- who, pssst, are actually call girls -- walking around town and drinking wine in high-end restaurants, as Sawyer intones: "Most mystifying are the girls who came from nice homes, nice neighborhoods." Sawyer later says of Dupré: "She started out in a neighborhood probably like many of ours." In case you aren't quite getting her point, she later asks Dupré, "Do you think it could be anybody's daughter, anybody's friend?" Her response: "Yes."

Dupré's story is a familiar one, and one we have come to expect from female sex workers (and symbols): Her father was absent during her childhood, and her older brother ran away from home when she was just 12. She explains, in a little-girl voice reminiscent of Britney Spears: "I think by not having my father and my brother around, I really ... I felt like I missed something," she says, choking up. "To have a certain level of respect for yourself, how to carry yourself. Have that father that, you know, if I'm dating a guy and he can't stand him, you know, stick up for me and say, 'What are you doing?' The unconditional love feeling ... I just couldn't find it." She turned to work as an escort as a way to "emotionally disconnect myself, rather than be in a relationship and get hurt and be vulnerable." Sex with clients required being "emotionally disconnected -- like from your heart to your head," she says.

The most -- OK, the only -- riveting part of the short interview comes in a moment of courtroom style tension: Sawyer says, "You say 'the work' but you haven’t said the words …" With a grin, Dupré responds simply: "The work." Sawyer offers a rebuttal: "Prostitution." Dupré's face is steel; she does not flinch at the utterance of the word. She pauses for a moment and then widens her eyes as she says: "Escort." Sawyer: "What's the difference?" She darts her eyes to the left and says through a smile: "Escort." Again, Sawyer asks, "What's the difference?" At this point I am half expecting Dupré to break her calm and storm out of the room. Instead, she utters an "um" and then pauses. "I think it's um" -- she closes her eyes -- "the same." Her eyes pop open and she adds: "Perhaps." Sawyer asks Dupré whether there is a difference in her mind, and she responds, "Prostitution is only about sex whereas an escort is more … it's time spent ... and, you know, most of the time you go in and you're just someone to talk to." (Let's be real: Sex is hardly ever "only about sex." I've heard many accounts similar to Dupré's of intensely emotional conversations with clients from self-proclaimed prostitutes who do not travel in high-class circles.)

The special's intended take-away was clearly that any girl -- your daughter, sister, friend or neighbor -- could be, or become, a prostitute. There was every early indication that ABC would choose that narrative. In promoting the interview Friday on "Good Morning America," Sawyer teased viewers: "Tonight, she talks about her choices and why she thinks it could have been any girl next door." The subtext is not so far from the promise of a late-night "Girls Gone Wild" commercial: Watch a good girl go bad! The Web site also provided "Ashley Dupré's Photo Album," with family pictures of her as a baby, an innocent schoolgirl, an adolescent cheerleader and a "pretty popular" high school student. It's an illustrated guide to Dupré's journey from sweet little girl to call girl.

So, what was there to be learned from the 20/20 interview? Not much, considering that ABC leaked much of the goods in its weeklong promotion of the special -- but they could afford to. I suspect that, more than the particulars of Dupré's narrative, we wanted to hear, once again, the story of how good girls go bad.

Take that, HHS!

Tracy Clark-Flory — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:00:00 PST

Any minute now, the Department of Health and Human Services is expected to put into effect a rule that would defend "provider conscience" over women's right to politically neutral healthcare. But just when you thought the fire-breathing HHS was ready to consume the damsel's access to basic reproductive healthcare, dragon-slaying Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Patty Murray have appeared ~~sword~~ bill in hand. On Thursday, they introduced legislation that would block the regulation from being enacted. Clinton had the following to say:

In the final days of his administration, the President is again putting ideology first and attempting to roll back health care protections for women and families. The fact that the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] was never consulted in the drafting of this rule further illustrates that this is purely a political ploy. This HHS rule will threaten patients’ rights, stand in the way of health care professionals, and restrict access to critical health care services for those who need them most. Senator Murray and I are standing up once again to the administration against this rule and will continue to fight for women’s reproductive rights. President Bush is making a last-minute attempt to undermine women’s health care, but our legislation will stop this rule and ensure that women can continue to get needed health care.

Secretary of awesome

Sarah Hepola, Rebecca Traister — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:07:00 PST

There is a long and undoubtedly fraught road ahead, around the world and within the new administration. But, for just a second, we'd like to focus for a minute on exactly what a mind-blowing, conversation-changing, fuse-blowing, frustrating and gratifying year it's been for voters, for Democrats, for women and for Clinton and her supporters. While there may be lots and lots (and lots and lots) of critiques of Hillary Clinton's appointment as secretary of state, and of Clinton's acceptance of it, we here at Broadsheet would like to give a mighty tip of our collective hat and raise a glass to the notion of coming together. Here's to you, Barack Obama, and to Sen. Clinton: Cheers, lady!

[And a giant grin spreads over the faces of the Broadsheet staff.]

One of the painful things about this thrilling election was the way that long-excluded groups, suddenly granted a chance for a seat at the presidential table, had to battle each other for it, often bitterly. Very little could make us happier, or this country healthier, than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton working hand-in-hand to move us forward, toward a future where people who want to work together, rather than against each other, might not have to compete for whatever crumbs are thrown at them.

Below, enjoy an overwrought but nifty piece of propaganda that became one of our favorite video tributes to the wacky ride that was the Hillary Clinton presidential candidacy, as well as a useful compendium of some of the more startling moments of the past few years. Behold the force of nature -- and the forces that have worked against -- the United States of America's future secretary of awesome.

Vhat vomen vant

Kate Harding — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:22:00 PST

I admit I'm probably the wrong person to ask about why vampires are so appealing to women, mostly because my first answer would be, "They are?" I haven't read the "Twilight" series and am in no rush to see the movie version that opens today. I've never read an Anne Rice novel. I did watch Buffy religiously, but I was never that interested in broody vamp Angel; true to my real-life preference for human nerds, I was hot for Giles and Xander. So there's a strong possibility that, as with so many other things, I just don't get it.

Still, I can't help noticing that all of the reasons this New York Daily News article gives for women's fascination with vampires (a foregone conclusion here) match up with a lot of old, tired theories about What Women Want. We're drawn to bad boys and rebels. We want to nurture vulnerable men, which vampires are because they live "on the fringe of society," according to film professor Joanne Detore-Nakamura. (Apparently, immortality and a thirst for blood don't disqualify one from the "vulnerable" category, so long as one is sufficiently outcast and emo about it.) Harry Medved, head of publicity for Fandango and noted expert on the female psyche, except only half of that is true, says of "Twilight's" star vamp Edward Cullen, "Here is a vampire who looks like a Greek god, he's insanely good looking, forever young and all he wants to do is read your thoughts and spend time with you. When is the last time most men told their wife he wishes he could read her thoughts?" Um, raise your hand if you're completely creeped out by the thought of your spouse reading your thoughts. And that's not the best part. Says Medved, "They have an intensity and a desperate need to be close to other humans that is appealing. It's exciting because you just never know when a vampire is going to lose control and have to bite you." Oh, man. Tell me this is not going where I think it's going.

But it is. Kristen Romney, an archaeologist and science advisor for a men's lifestyle site, spells it out: "Vampires have become a replacement for sex. A vampire is such a powerful figure who sneaks into bed with a woman at night and, though he doesn't ravage her, promises her eternal life." Ah, it's ye olde rape fantasie, but without the pesky rape! Just, you know, a guy who doesn't actually live in your house sneaking into bed with you in the middle of the night because he would really, really like to suck your blood. That's totally hot and not at all fucked up.

I'm still not convinced that women are drawn to fictional vampires in numbers that warrant making sweeping generalizations about female desire. Vampire lore has been popular among all human beings for centuries, and if there's something especially attractive to women about the most recent iterations, it could just be that many of them are written by women and/or put the focus on complex female characters. Sure, some women may be attracted to bad boys or basket cases or, um, strangers who climb into their beds at night, but I'm guessing there are a lot more of us who just want to see good stories about women with actual personalities who actually do stuff. I am not, however, holding my breath for Hollywood to catch on.

U.K.: All johns potential rapists

Tracy Clark-Flory — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:40:00 PST

The U.K. government proposed new laws Wednesday that would make it a crime, potentially rape, to pay for sex with a woman who is trafficked or under the control of a pimp or drug dealer. There's one crucial detail, though: Ignorance of coercive circumstances would not be considered a valid defense. The measures are meant to instill fear into all johns and creates an ever-present risk of being convicted as a rapist for buying sex, even when the exchange appears to be consensual. This move is no surprise considering Britain's earlier ad campaign with the same message: "Walk in a punter. Walk out a rapist."

Under current laws in England and Wales, the purchase of sex is not criminalized, but brothels and activities associated with prostitution, including public solicitation and persistent kerb-crawling, are outlawed. Many opponents argue that the new measures effectively outlaw the purchase of sex altogether. After all, no matter how free-willed a sex worker may seem, can a john know beyond any doubt that she isn't trafficked, coerced, under a pimp's control or selling her body to pay her drug dealer? The new laws could also criminalize men who visit women who voluntarily work for a brothel owner.

As always, I have to return to the fact that criminalizing johns often puts prostitutes at greater risk -- they have less time to vet customers and negotiate safe sex, and are forced underground. An editorial in the Independent argues that these measures would have the same effect: "They will be tempted to ply their trade in more secluded areas, to travel further from their homes and colleagues. The effect will be to help push the trade ... out of the sight of the authorities." Cari Mitchell, spokeswoman for the English Collective of Prostitutes, told CNN: "It's going to really make it more difficult for men to use the sex industry, and it's going to mean that women are going to have to take more risks in order to earn the same money."

Sex and power in the age of Obama

Judy Berman — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:47:00 PST

"Girls around here don't have abortions." That's what a health teacher in New Jersey -- a state that allows comprehensive sex education -- told Michelle Fine, distinguished professor of psychology at the City University of New York, when she tried to broach the subject with a class of high-school seniors.

Fine's unsettling anecdote opened an evening of discussion about sexual rights in America -- especially those of women and queers -- both as they are now and as they might be once Barack Obama takes office. Amid the flurry of post-election chatter about the economy, the Iraq war and our first black president, there has been a great deal of talk about the future of the LGBT rights movement in the wake of the passage of Proposition 8, as well as some initial speculation about what Obama's presidency and a Democratic majority in Congress will mean for women.

Monday evening's event, held at the CUNY Graduate Center in Manhattan, was billed "Power and Sex: America's War on Sexual Rights." Fine moderated the panel discussion, which included the Nation stalwart Katha Pollitt; Faye Wattleton, director of the Center for the Advancement of Women and former president of Planned Parenthood; Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women; Dagmar Herzog, professor of history at the Graduate Center and author of "Sex in Crisis: The New Sexual Revolution and the Future of American Politics"; and Rosalind Petchesky, distinguished professor of political science at CUNY and Hunter College and co-author of "Sexuality, Health and Human Rights." Though the event's title sounded like a real downer -- participants wringing their hands over the various wrongs committed by our government -- the impending Obama administration inspired some cautiously optimistic discussion.

"I feel pretty good looking towards the future," said Pollitt, recounting pro-choice victories in Colorado, South Dakota and California. She made the point that, while most Americans may believe abortion is immoral in most cases, when they enter the voting booth, they often realize "the difference between what they think is moral and what they think the law should be." Pollitt also predicted that Obama will force notoriously circumspect anti-choice organizations to either work with the government in promoting birth control or publicly admit that they don't support it. Wattleton added further context to the abortion discussion, reminding us that women have been "the focus of power politics for over three decades" and that we can't rely solely on our newly elected president to fix problems with such a long history.

Petchesky spoke on the perhaps more complicated state of LGBT rights. Though, as Petchesky mentioned, all four state-level measures prohibiting same-sex marriage and adoption passed, decisions like Lawrence v. Texas and the election of a liberal president may push the country toward progress. Petchesky cautioned us against what Judith Butler calls "uncritical exuberance" and dismissed the notion that the battle for LGBT rights can be reduced to "the religious right versus all us good guys." She added that she still has problems with the same-sex marriage movement's heteronormative goals and exclusion of trans people, asexuals and "non-conforming households."

But for my money (although, actually, it was a free event), Lynn Paltrow and Dagmar Herzog were the most exciting speakers of the night. While underscoring the importance of Pollitt and Wattleton's remarks, Paltrow emphasized that "reproductive rights" also means the rights of pregnant women. The panel's most impassioned and energetic member, she made a connection between women who have abortions and are demonized as "baby killers" and expectant mothers who are forced against their will to undergo C sections, arrested for succumbing to drug addictions and generally disempowered to make decisions about their own, pregnant bodies.

Herzog was the only speaker to take up Fine's challenge, at the beginning of the evening, to talk about the way "the language of desire" appears (or, in many cases, remains absent from) American conversations about sex and power. Our society, said Herzog, "is titillating and repressive at the same time." She pointed out how damaging it can be for us to lump together conversations about date rape with conversations about promiscuity, conflate voluntary sex work with sex trafficking, and confuse homosexuality with child abuse. "The religious right succeeded in secularizing," Herzog said, going on to explore the ways in which these groups have appropriated the language of physical and mental health, promising that remaining abstinent until marriage will result in "spectacular marital orgasms" (aka "soulgasms") and capitalizing on our fears about "the death of postmarital desire." Her recommendations for the new, Democratic regime were clear. Most Americans have sex outside of marriage, she reminded us. With that in mind, progressive politicians need to "get more comfortable saying that sex is OK."

There did seem to be something vital missing from the event, however: young women. All five speakers and the moderator represented the baby boomer generation. And while I understand the people who lead organizations and hold distinguished professorships tend to be older, I'm disappointed that CUNY didn't look for a young lawyer, journalist, activist or graduate student doing provocative, new research on LGBT or women's issues to fill out the panel.

To me, the evening seemed a perfect illustration of the intergenerational conflict that pitted second-wave moms against their third-wave daughters on the question of whether good feminists could support Obama over Clinton in the Democratic primary. By refusing to allow identity politics to dictate our candidate of choice, younger women brought feminist politics into the 21st century. Can we really talk about what the next eight years will bring for women's and queer sexual rights without including voices from the generation that first supported Obama?

When Fine opened the floor to questions, it made sense to me that the two 20-something women who stepped up to the microphone wanted to talk about issues of specific interest to our generation. One asked about the global gag rule and international women's rights, while the other wanted Herzog to elaborate on how we should respond to conservative groups' appropriation of the desire dialectic. As a generation of feminists, while we continue to worry about (but, yes, sometimes take for granted) abortion rights and advocate for same-sex marriage, we also want to expand the movement to include women around the world. And though we're just as passionate as ever about sexual freedom and equality, we want to talk about sexual pleasure, too.

I would never want to deny that young women owe a great deal to second-wave feminists. But the ladies who helped usher in the age of Obama deserve a seat at the table, too.

Dudes try "dating Darwinism"

Tracy Clark-Flory — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:45:00 PST

After Kay S. Hymowitz wrote an article about the alleged throngs of single young males "lingering in a hormonal limbo between adolescence and adulthood, shunning marriage and children, and whiling away their leisure hours with South Park reruns," she received a vitriolic response from some such young dudes. In response, she proposes a theory in City Journal for what is causing all that anger: "The dating and mating scene is in chaos" thanks to women's liberation.

Young men, she argues, are exposed to a series of "miscues, cross-purposes, and half-conscious, contradictory female expectations that are alternately proudly egalitarian and coyly traditional." They don't want you to open the door, but they do want you to pay for dinner; they want chivalry one moment and evolved egalitarianism the next. Young women just can't make up their minds about what they want from a man, Hymowitz writes: She "may be hoping for a hookup, but she may also be looking for a husband, a co-parent, a sperm donor, a relationship, a threesome, or a temporary place to live … In fact, young men face a bewildering multiplicity of female expectations and desire."

Then there's the fact that "men face a situation -- and I’m not exaggerating here -- new to human history," writes Hymowitz. "Never before have men wooed women who are, at least theoretically, their equals -- socially, professionally, and sexually." Retro dating manuals have been rendered obsolete, and feminism has failed to provide men with a guidebook for navigating courtship. So, "as middle-class men and women are putting off marriage well into their twenties and thirties as they pursue Ph.D.s, J.D.s, or their first $50,000 salaries," they are left with several years, perhaps even a decade or more, of this "heartbreak and humiliation."

As a result, she says, guys are resorting to "Darwinist dating" or, to put it another way, survival of the asshole-iest. It's appears to be a modern reimagining of that myth of the caveman clubbing a female over the head and dragging her back to the cave, and explains the "the litany of stories you hear from women about the troglodytes in their midst."

The pickup artist scene is one approach to "Darwinist dating" (or, more accurately, Darwinist screwing). While there is something to these theories of seduction, just as there is something to teaching someone basic social skills or training him or her to become a better public speaker, it's all about artifice. They are taught to suppress the nice guy by putting on the armor of the asshole -- but how fulfilling is that, ultimately? The essential message is: Toss out your feelings and don't be yourself -- act the part of your better self or, preferably, someone else entirely.

Nothing in the seduction community seems to prepare a guy to find himself, grow genuine and warranted confidence, or start a real, emotionally rewarding and lasting relationship. As Hymowitz ultimately points out, to my great relief, the problem with this approach is that it's "an uncompromising biological determinism that makes no room for human cultivation." Not to mention, "dating Darwinism" suggests that all young men want is to successfully spread their seed -- but something tells me that if they have to defensively put on the tough guy act in the first place, that isn't at all the case.

Every time I read articles about this alleged Menaissance (a rebirth of medieval-style masculinity, in case you aren't hip to the obnoxious buzzword) a few words come to mind: anxiety, insecurity, confusion and anger. But, get this, young women are feeling all those things, too. Those "miscues, cross-purposes, and half-conscious, contradictory female expectations"? They don't come from a place of total illumination and enlightenment on the dating front -- they are often a confused response to" miscues, cross-purposes, and half-conscious, contradictory" cultural expectations, whether they come directly from men in their life or the world at large. And men certainly aren't just reacting to women, but to similar contradictory cultural messages directed toward them.

Let's not make this a war between the sexes. As girls overturn traditional gender roles, boys are forced to do the same, leaving both sexes in scary, unscripted territory. This has, indeed, come as a result of feminist advancements -- but feminist advancements within a culture that is not yet egalitarian. I think many young women are still in search of an empowered and authentic sexual identity -- a way to be active participants in our sexual culture. Given that they are doing this within a culture than defines sexual power in male terms, is it any surprise that they -- as well as young men -- perform contradictions and make mistakes along the way?

Does my "Fountainhead" turn you on, baby?

Abby Margulies — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:44:00 PST

It's hard to be rational in this chaotic world we live in -- especially if you want to actually date people. Ayn Rand fans have found a solution: the Atlasphere, an online dating site for Objectivists, "where admirers of Ayn Rand's novels from around the world can meet easily and affordably -- 365 days a year -- to network, find shared interests, and perhaps, through our online dating service, even fall in love." Broadsheet's Lynn Harris has written about this site on Salon before, but a recent New York Magazine article redirected it to our attention, and in our harsh economic climate, maybe an Ayn Rand dating site is exactly what we need.

Obviously, I immediately created a profile so that I could see who these people are. I was forced to "characterize my spiritual life" and list my favorite works of art -- aside from those of Ayn Rand, of course. But after all that work, it turns out you don't get much more information about anyone than a name and an age, unless you pay $9.95 a month. And let's face it, I don't actually believe in "rational self-interest" or the "pursuit of happiness," per se. Plus I'm broke. Luckily I did collect a pretty choice sampling of profile quotes, though. Highlights from their article include:

From thustotyrants:

"You should contact me if you are a skinny woman. If your words are a meaningful progression of concepts rather than a series of vocalizations induced by your spinal cord for the purpose of complementing my tone of voice…"

From Zak:

"I am rational, integrated, and efficacious. So far, I’ve never met a person who lives up to the standard I hold for myself (except online)."

From dpvabc:

"My name is Daniel. I consider myself to be a born-again egoist and I have dedicated the rest of my life to self-improvement. People see me as a socially inept loner because I tend to avoid superficial conversation but actually I love talking to people who like to think (the problem being I don’t know very many)."

Admittedly, it's not the most attractive sampling of young objectivists looking for love, and surely there is some really great guy out there that loves long walks on the beach accompanied by lengthy discussions of laissez-faire capitalism and the central role of reason in perceiving reality. These quotes are just significantly more interesting. Undoubtedly, strictly dating objectivists could get tricky, as compromising your own happiness to make your partner happy would seem to be totally off-limits, and, as we all know, relationships are all about compromise, compromise, compromise. If reason is your driving force, what happens to the rules of dating? Are those silly guiding principles just thrown out the window? And, at the end of the first date, who pays? If your highest moral purpose is attaining rational self-interest, how do you justify splurging on dinner for a dining partner that was objectively boring.

Should Michelle Obama's booty be off-limits?

Sarah Hepola — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:17:00 PST

On Tuesday, Salon ran a story by columnist and Essence contributing writer Erin Aubry Kaplan called "First Lady Got Back." In the story, Kaplan expresses her liberation at seeing a black woman of power and beauty -- with what pop culture has come to refer to as a "boo-tay," one of the greatest signifiers of African-American womanhood there is -- in the White House. The piece generated, well, a bit of controversy.

"This is demeaning, vacuous tripe that doesn't even work as satire," wrote herrblue2, one of 400 and counting posters in the letters section. Meanwhile, on Open Salon, blogger TeenDoc wrote, in response to another offended Open Salon blogger, "I am shaking my head as I read the kerfuffle raised by outraged majority women over an article that clearly meant something different to this sista."

As the editor on Kaplan's piece (and the editor of Broadsheet, incidentally), I believe the story is a celebration and a love letter -- an eloquent one, at that -- a reminder that Barack Obama is not the only member of the soon-to-be first family who has transformed the way Americans feel about themselves, a reminder that Michelle Obama is nothing less than a stunning example of womanhood. Additionally, as I worked on the piece with Erin, she convinced me that it reflected an important conversation going on in a certain sector of the black community.

But where I see a story about sexual freedom and racial pride, many others -- many others I admire and respect, by the way -- see something hateful and sexist. Off-bounds. Just plain wrong. Broadsheet has received several (angry) e-mails asking why we had stayed silent on the issue. "Joan Walsh must have all you ladies bound and gagged in a broom closet," read one that came in this morning, going on to decry the egregious sexism of the piece.

I wanted to hear what other Broadsheet writers and frequent contributors thought. The responses of those who cared to (and had time to) e-mail me their take on the story are posted below.

Kate Harding: I hadn't even seen the story before I started reading critiques of it at blogs like Racialicious and Michelle Obama Watch, so I was predisposed to be bothered by it -- and I am. However, I'm not sure I would have been bothered by it all on my own, without having seen how much it hurt black feminist writers I really admire.

There are a few reasons for that: the blinders of white privilege, of course, plus my fondness for Salon and inclination to give pretty much everyone who writes for it and is not named Camille Paglia the benefit of the doubt. But the one I actually had to think hard to recognize was this: On some level, I feel an unearned intimacy with the Obamas, fueled by the way they've been presented and have presented themselves. I would like to have a beer with Michelle and Barack. I'd like to take Malia and Sasha to the movies and out for ice cream. I want to play with the dog they don't have yet. So a discussion of Michelle's ass didn't automatically strike me as wildly inappropriate (except insofar as I always hate the focus on prominent women's bodies), in part because I have this impression of her as someone I would totally hang out with. And the women I hang out with talk about our asses.

Problem is, I have no business feeling like that. I can understand why I feel this way -- I've been reading about, hearing about and watching the Obamas daily for two years. I'm a Chicagoan, and we all feel a connection to our hometown guy and his family. Whatever respect I had for the office of the president in and of itself has been shattered by Bush. But for me, this controversy is an excellent and necessary reminder that the Obamas are neither my peers nor garden-variety celebrities. Among other things, they're now tasked with proving to the world that Americans really do want to be represented by serious, thoughtful people -- so a little extra decorum is indeed called for here. Bottom line (ha!), no one should be publicly discussing the future first lady's ass, even to praise it. But some of us needed a kick in the ass to realize that.

Mary Elizabeth Williams: No matter how much we may put our hands over our eyes and ears and be all la la la, we only notice race and gender when it's convenient, the physical is political. And maybe it's my own Caucasian intellectual density at work here, but it seems a little simplistic for any of us to assume that race is just about color. Is it OK to celebrate that an African-American family is moving into the White House, but not OK to suggest the first lady-to-be has a particular African-American body type? Does it diminish her work and her stature to seek identification in her physique? Would the conversation be less controversial if it were about her hair? Is it automatically wrong to even talk about such things?

We are corporeal. And the world does form a lot of its opinions of us based on our skin and our size and our sex. We struggle with our self-image and the images projected upon us. We live in a world of blond gossip girls and supermodels and we -- and our kids -- are barraged every day with reasons to loathe ourselves. Ignoring Michelle Obama's ass won't make it go away and it won't cure racism or sexism in our time. We are our brains. We are also our bodies. Even the parts of them we sit upon.

Tracy Clark-Flory: I don't think the fact that Michelle Obama is an incredibly accomplished and fierce intellectual force should render discussions of her appearance off-limits. There's an important conversation to be had about the Obamas and mainstream representations of black beauty and power -- and Kaplan's response is real and valid. But, while I don't disagree with the piece existing, I find it pretty unfortunate that, in this case, it was reduced to big butts. There's a much deeper discussion to be had about Michelle's importance for black women -- even on a superficial level.

Vincent Rossmeier: So we can talk about Barack's abs, but we can't talk about Michelle's rump? I understand there's a historical racial dimension here that complicates the issue, but the amount of energy and anger this article has generated seems misdirected. Who did it actually hurt? Aren't there more important issues to get up-in-arms about? This wasn't a piece of vitriol. It was an opinion piece written in a lively, comic style. It started a discussion. So why the anger? If we're going to devote mammoth amounts of time and attention to the appearances of our political leaders (and I'm not advocating that, by any means, but we do), then we can't just say the first lady's butt is off-limits. I heard no such outrage about the numerous attacks leveled at Michelle's election victory dress, which to me seemed much more catty.

Amy Benfer: I have to admit, I'm somewhat mystified by the amount of controversy generated by this piece. As a former editor at Salon, I edited many pieces by Erin, and I was a huge admirer of her work before I even came to the magazine. Her piece on Jennifer Lopez's butt was an example of one of the reasons I wanted to work for Salon in the first place. It was funny, smart and culturally relevant. No one seems to disagree that there is plenty to say about the various cultural and racial meanings that have been attached to the booty throughout African-American history. I can't help wondering if some of the discomfort with this piece comes specifically from some of the attitudes Erin discusses in the piece, as if even mentioning a woman's butt moves her from "dignified black woman" to "ho." Whatever the source, I found this a loving, liberating, kindhearted take on a woman that Erin clearly admires.

Thomas Rogers: I liked the idea behind the article. I have my reservations about certain aspects of its execution, but I think that a discussion of Michelle Obama's curves can -- in terms of their cultural impact -- be justified. The easiest argument to be made against Kaplan's article is that it is sexist to devote that much attention to a portion of a woman's anatomy, especially a woman as accomplished as Michelle Obama. We aren't, after all, spending much time discussing the cultural impact of her husband's rear end.

But to make that point is to ignore the fact that his body, like any man's, isn't imbued with the cultural baggage that women's bodies are. The size and shape of women's bodies remain a constant topic of discussion in American culture for a variety of reasons -- because they are used to advertise everything from perfume to real estate, because of our history of institutionalized sexism, and because they are, to a much greater extent than men's bodies, vulnerable to value judgement.

If popular culture is a place where Americans work out issues of race, gender and sexuality -- and, at this point, it's silly to claim that the Obamas aren't part of our popular culture -- it's inevitable, as Kaplan found, that discussions around Michelle Obama's body will pop up in forums, blogs and so forth. I believe that there is space within Salon to engage with the subject in an intelligent and culturally savvy way.

Do I think that Kaplan pulled it off? Not entirely. I realize she's written extensively about race and body image for years [Ed. note: Kaplan's story "The Butt," published in 1997 in LA Weekly, can be read on her Web site], I would have liked to have been given more context (about her gendered responses to previous first ladies, for example). More important, I wish she had brought more self-consciousness and self-awareness to the topic. But perhaps the visceral response to Kaplan's piece has spurred a discussion that may, in the long run, be more telling than the article itself.

Author Erin Aubry Kaplan will be on "The Kevin Ross Show" tonight at 7 p.m. PST to discuss the article.

A real-life video game heroine

Tracy Clark-Flory — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:30:00 PST

It's no secret that the vast array of female video game heroines are designed for the straight male set. OK, so I've occasionally fantasized about being turned into the tomb-raiding, gun-toting Lara Croft. But were she designed for me, she would get a proper-fitting sports bra to prevent all that painful jiggling, or she wouldn't have that burdensome frontal load to begin with, and she'd lose the porny moans she makes every time she does anything requiring minor physical exertion. She would be less a sex kitten than a ferocious lioness -- a construction that's awfully hard to find in video games.

But I recently stumbled across something even better: a real-life video game heroine for girls. Mary Flanagan is the director of the TiltFactor Laboratory, a feminist-minded operation that creates games for social change, and Dartmouth College's new Digital Humanities Chair Professor. In her games, you travel back in time to meet famous female role models or make a character dance by learning computer programming. After being tipped off to her fascinating work, Broadsheet called Flanagan to chat about innovative game design.

How exactly do you create an activist video game?

Right now we're making a diversity game set underwater -- or in the sky, we're not quite sure -- [starring] creatures that become stronger and more interesting the more diverse they are, and with the more diverse company they keep. So you can create these themes that perhaps shift how players think of large-scale human issues without necessarily addressing a very clear social issue. The social issue can actually be embedded in the structure of the game instead.

That's one of the theories that we're testing out. What if we're really conscious of different types of social or human themes as we're making these limited sets of actions that form the basis of the game? Can that actually in and of itself produce some kind of larger consciousness or awareness?

Can you talk a bit about the games you've designed specifically for girls?

I made the first adventure game for girls called "The Adventures of Josie True." That was an online Flash adventure game done in the late '90s, with Josie True, an Asian American character, as its center focus. She ends up on these time-raveling missions with her teacher, Ms. Trombone, an African-American scientist who meets other women in history, like Marie Curie and Bessie Coleman.

A more recent game that I developed, called "Peeps," teaches girls programming. We did a study with 90 school kids over a short period of time and found that, while they didn't learn all that much programming, the girls' willingness to try went up, along with their self-confidence and [sense of] self-efficacy.

Why do you think that was?

Well, I think it has something to do with my design approach, frankly. Too often, game designs are made to be cryptic -- they follow conventions of popular games. My approach is to reward people for what they might know, and for trying new things. And to give girls content that they might actually like, and give boys content that they might find that they like -- I mean, boys' games are often fairly limited as well. Our overall social problem here is that boys think that girls' games aren't great and girls are more or less bullied into playing boys' games.

Why are so few women involved in the creation of games?

There's a kind of [male] techno culture that goes along with this stuff. For example, when I was working in the game industry in the '90s, a company down the road allowed guys to have porn hanging in their offices.

The interesting myth right now is that -- at a time when women are using the most technology ever, when most women use their iPod and social networks -- there's this perception that gender is all taken care of. But we have clear markers that it's not, that women are not the authors of these tools that they are using. So, my ultimate question is: What if they were? Would the priorities of these systems change? Would we make more interesting technologies?

What might we start to see if there were more women involved in the creation of games?

One of the things we don't really do well with games yet, are things like real social relationships. What are these people doing to each other, are they happy or not, what can we do to help them get along? "The Sims" is one of those, but there are plenty of ways to have games about social relationships, empathy, communication and different kinds of competition -- maybe it's a competition in creativity and not in high score.

You've applied Judith Butler's theory of gender as performance to gaming. Can you talk a bit about that?

I worked in a research lab in Taiwan where all of the guys played girls so that they could watch their boobs jiggle, and I thought: Wow, this performance of gender is a trying on of sorts, but it's a voyeuristic trying on.

In this hilarious game called "Parasite Eve," you play a female cop wearing an evening gown and 5-inch stiletto heels, because you had to go to the opera, when a monster flies out and tries to kill everyone. You're supposed to chase the monster and kill it with your little lame gun, and as you're walking around you hear the ping-ping-ping [of the heels.] I thought that was kind of interesting in a Judith Butler way -- it is culturally locating the majority of male players within these female limitations. But the other side is that, you know, "I like to watch these girls and control all the moves she can make."

Dude, Granny used all the hot water!

Amy Benfer — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:17:00 PST

Watching the market meltdown this fall, I began to envy my parents. Previously, things had looked pretty bad for them: My father’s company, where he had worked for two decades, spent the last five years of his career threatening to lay him off (and therefore reduce his pension). But last August, they made it: Dad hit 65, having paid off the house and the car, and settled into retirement. And by September, their two-person, fixed-income household looked way more secure than my own (two mid-career professionals, one college kid with a coffee shop job). Already, my boyfriend and I are joking about which set of parents we’ll move in with first when things really go to shit.

Apparently, for many people across the country, that joke isn’t funny anymore. This week, we dug up three different features on families who have responded to tough times by putting an extra generation -- or two -- under one roof. The L.A. Times found a 35-year-old married couple who moved back with the wife’s mother, ostensibly to help Mom make the mortgage, only to end up in debt to her a few months later when both of them lost their jobs. Another parent ended up housing two of her adult children and their children when both of them had to rent out their own houses in order to make their mortgage payments.

While the Times doesn’t yet have figures about adult children moving in with their parents, the trend of parents moving in with their adult children is real, according to the Christian Science Monitor, which cites Census figures indicating that the number of parents 65 and older living with their adult children has grown by 62 percent between 2000 and 2007, while the number of parents under 65 who did so has grown by 75. All things being equal -- enough space for all; more or less equitable incomes -- a few extra adults in the house can mean more people to bring in the money and share the cooking, cleaning and childcare. But when things fall apart, warns Allen Hager, president of Right at Home in Omaha, Neb., it’s often the women of the house that get the brunt of it: “Women are taking on [most] of the household, child-rearing, and senior care."

Case in point is Shelley Abreu’s first-person essay in Babble, which bristles with resentment at her burden of having to support herself, her children and her elderly mother, after her father died leaving some debt and few assets. Abreu and her husband bought her mom’s house, built an addition, and moved in. "With three children ages four, two and four weeks, a ninety-five pound golden retriever, my husband, myself, and my sixty-one-year-old mother, things certainly feel cramped," she writes. Instead of saving for her kids’ education or even paying for dancing lessons, she is, essentially, paying for her mother’s retirement. "It's sacrifices like these that make me feel occasionally resentful, not only of my mom, but of my father for leaving us in this mess," she writes. "But I do value what this experience has taught me: to be more responsible than my own parents were." That is, if she has any cash left to manage in a responsible manner.

In the 19th century such arrangements were common, historian Stephanie Coontz tells the L.A. Times, until psychologists argued that living with the in-laws could make people go a little crazy. But she does see some advantages. "Grandparents can be more grand-parental and develop closer family ties, and having more people in a house can sometimes be a buffer for overly intense marital relations or parent-child relations," Coontz says. "To the extent that we are stuck with this happening, it does give us a way to rediscover aspects of family life we've been ignoring for the last 80 to 100 years."