Up in Smoke

It is a compelling (and admittedly at times, tempting) image -- burning bras in the name of stamping out the patriarchy. Especially in 1968. But it never happened. (Fire codes prevented it. They may have been angry feminists, but they did believe in safety first.) But the myth of the bra-burner lives on. In our heads. In our lingerie closets. And last month, in a newspaper story on the history of the bra, brought to you by Maidenform.

From Women in Media and News:

On Sept. 27, you received an action alert from WIMN ("Tampa Tribune Needs History Lesson") about a recent Tampa Tribune article that rehashed the old myth that feminists burned bras in the 1960s, complete with a separate timeline
-- offered by bra-maker Maidenform -- that asserted that feminists encouraged 'bra-burning rallies.'" Asking if perhaps the Tribune had burned their history books, we offered you information about the history of the "feminist bra-burners" myth and an address for letters to the Tribune editors so that you could ask for a correction. (For the original alert, see
https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/wimn/2007-09/msg00000.html)

Today, we're pleased to report that the Tampa Tribune responded to your feedback with a follow-up piece by reporter Cloe Cabrera. Cabrera not only explained how the error made it into her original report but also interviewed feminist activists who could attest first-hand to the fact that bra-burning never happened at the event where the myth was born. Her piece, "No Bras Burned, But They Did Revolt" begins:

"It's a myth so pervasive, most of us believe it's true.

I know I did.

So when information about "feminist bra burning rallies" turned up in a timeline Maidenform provided for a Sept. 27 story on the history of the bra, I didn’t think twice about using it.

Bra-burning women's libbers have become an important part of 1960s lore. I've heard stories about them. I've read about them in books and magazines.

The problem is, things didn't go down quite the way those stories tell it.

That's not to say bra-burning never happened as a public protest anywhere during the turbulent '60s. But feminists didn't set their bras ablaze in the spectacular way that has become legend." (To read the full story, see
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/oct/09/ba-no-bras-burned-but-they-did-revo

lt/)

I Still Believe Anita

I can't believe that Justice Clarence Thomas is still re-living his confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court. But his book My Grandfather's Son supposedly rehashes all that. It's so nice to remember those hearings, the pubes on Coke cans. Long Dong Silver. The high-tech lynching. I remember listening to it over the endless five weeks in horror and fascination. Thomas seems to bear a major grudge at all this. Please. Bill Clinton withstood 10 kinds of nasty for eight years and is honored to have served the public.

Thomas seems to find no irony in his embrace of victimhood while scorning affirmative action programs (from which he benefited) for the very same reason. He's color blind, now that he's been to Yale and spits on his degree with his Yalie connections that got him where he is. He thinks Anita was nutty? This man is downright delusional.

I Like to Watch

When I was about six years old, my mother decided that I'd had enough TV in my life, broke off the antenna and banned it from the house.

Thus began my obsession with the tube.

At friends' houses, all I'd want to do is watch. But maybe because my TV addiction was interrupted at such a young, suggestible age, I don't remember ever feeling deprived, bored or pressed to fill hours. I read, a lot. I played music, rode my bike, did kid stuff. I didn't even watch TV in college. I remember how the halls cleared on the nights of LA Law (the favorite of government majors) and 30-Something (for the liberal arts crowd), but I never thought to join in.

Until I moved in with my husband, Larry. Larry had a big TV, and he got me into The Simpsons, the gateway drug to every other funny show.

Now I'm hooked. We have Tivo and what's got to be the best programming on TV in years. 30 Rock. Mad Men. The Unit. Heroes. Entourage. Weeds. Not to mention Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart on Comedy Central. The list goes on and on.

Judith Warner writes on her blog that she is considering cable TV, so as not to deprive her daughters of pop culture (or herself). Her daughters seem game and promise not to be "retards" if they start watching the expanded offerings of Disney and Nickelodeon.

I try to imagine my mom posing that question to my high school self. But she beat me to it.

A few years ago, my mom bought her own TV, and is now just as obsessed with shows as I am. (She prefers Sex and the City and The Closer, and more recently even subscribed to HBO so she could watch Tell Me You Love Me, which reviews claim to be practically porn. She claims it's about relationships).

TV never was as evil as my mom thought or as good as my friends thought. But after my TV-free childhood, it sure is fun being an adult.

Clinic Defense

The Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora, IL, barred from opening by pro-life protesters who sought a court injunction to keep the brand-new building closed, opened anyway today. They had done nothing wrong. But tell that to a city flooded with what Planned Parenthood described as one of the biggest magnets for anti-choice protesters since probably South Dakota's abortion ban was defeated. The clinic had violated no ordinances, had followed every city code and had been approved to open. But for a crazy few weeks, the city was overrun and then run by a bunch of anti-choice nut jobs. For once, the sane, reasonable course of action won out. Finally.

Fight or Die

First there's the happiness gap between men and women. Now a new study shows there's an anger gap, too. For women who kept their feelings to themselves during marital spats, were four times more likely to die than women who let it all out. The next study will have to be the stress gap, for women who aren't happy and aren't yelling at their husbands.

The Feminine Plastique

OK, so there is almost a psychotic obsession with youth culture, celebrity-style bodies and perfectly highlighted tresses. Maintenance, is how Nora Ephron put it in her latest book, I Feel Bad About My Neck.

But women (and definitely some men), it seems, are just feeling all around bad, and are signing up for plastic surgery in droves. Powering this trend that is way beyond Hollywood -- blame feminism, of course.

The industry has lifted a page from the feminism playbook and told women that taking care of themselves, and by that they mean totally changing themselves, is feminist.

That's the premise, anyway, of a piece in the latest issue of Ms. magazine. To read an excerpt, you can click here.

Can't Be Heard on Verizon

Did you catch the buzz over at Verizon today? Seems that someone over there decided that Naral shouldn't be able to text message its members who wanted to receive pro-choice action alerts. Why? Verizon told them some might find the messages "unsavory." Here's what's unsavory: Verizon practicing out-and-out corporate censorship. It only took a few hours after today's NYT front-page story to hit for the mega-mobile co. to reverse its position. They said it was a mistake, but this was no accident. They knew what they were doing: cow-towing to the conservatives they fund, to the tune of millions every year in campaign contributions. Well, even if they don't want Naral's voice heard, at least thousands of choice activists made sure Verizon could hear them now.

Bionic Woman 2007 Edition

Tonight I watched the premiere of Bionic Woman. She's so much more modern, they had to drop the "the" from the title.

Anyway, instead of a tennis pro, our hero tends bar at an always-crowded club at night while taking college classes -- and dating the teacher -- by day. Suffice to say her non-bionic self barely makes it past the opening credits, which, by the way, opened as a SWAT team runs over dead bodies. It is a gory, gory version of Bionic Woman. And violent too. Which means, I'm out. I'm not compelled. But it's clear I'm not the target audience. I'm too old and also, too female. Yup, badass bionic women are really more (male) video game than chick flick.

The Dusting Gap

Women can't catch a break. First the wage gap -- now the happiness gap. According to a bunch of studies tracking this sort of thing, as reported by The New York Times, women have gotten less happier -- a lot less happier -- since the 70s. Why? Chalk it up to dusting. Time was, in that elusive era of housewives, women claimed to be oh-so-happy. Happier, in fact, than men.

Fast-forward through the women's movement and women now make up a large part of the workforce, then come home and do all that other house-wifey stuff, too. Or not. And that makes women unhappy too. Take dusting. Women dust less than they did a couple of decades ago. Anyhow, this happiness theory goes something like this: women's happiness has gone down as our ambitions have gone up. Men, those lucky dogs, have figured out how to work less, never cared a fig about dusting, and therefore are happier than ever. (Dust-related allergies, on the other hand, may be on the rise.)

If this sounds like a bunch of dusty old ideas, you're probably right. What scientist in their right mind would even try to measure happiness? One who probably doesn't like to dust.

It's Official: Smith Is Hottest

Is it getting hot in here? Oh, it must be Smith College: The school made Newsweek's top-25 list as "hottest women's college." But don't take my word for it: see what Newsweek says:

Hottest Women's College
Smith College, Northampton, Mass.

With 2,800 students, Smith is the nation's largest women's college, and the first to start an engineering program. It is part of the Five Colleges consortium with nearby Mount Holyoke, Amherst, Hampshire and UMass Amherst. The facilities, particularly the cottage-style houses where students live in groups of 13 to 80, are so attractive that visitors originally preferring a coed college often change their minds. "Smith kind of won me over," says Katie Green, who thought she would go to a school with men. "When else in your life can you get the experience of being surrounded by smart, motivated young women who really care about what they're doing?"

Of course, it must be tough to concentrate with all that hotness. Lucky for Smith, these hot women also have brains.

Women Who Make Too Much
It's the same old story with a new tune. Successful women have a hard time catching or keeping a man. In the 80s, women had as much chance of getting married as being struck by lightening.
Remember? Now the New York Times tells us women in their late 20s make too much to get a mate. Men are too intimidated by their big salaries to pop the big question. Or even to make it to a second date. Apparently, educated women ages 21-30 are making more than their male counterparts for the first time ever. I don't know what happens at 30 -- do the men suddenly catch up?

Anyway, this seems at odds with what we know about men's and women's salaries -- that men make more on the dollar than women. And now that the Supreme Court has put a limit to when women can sue who find out they have been paid less than men with their same job, seems even more dubious.

But who wants to get so picky on a Style article? This is really an issue of etiquette -- who pays for the pricey dinner so no egos get hurt? These are the questions that will keep these high-paid women in low-rent relationships.

The Roar from Aurora

Here's what happens these days when you want to build a Planned Parenthood clinic in small-minded America. You hide your name and your purpose to get the proper permits in order to provide your service. You don't hide that you're a medical facility, just the specifics. And just as you're about to open your new modern clinic to provide legal medical services for women in Aurora, a fast-growing city outside of Chicago, the anti-choice forces wake up and show up en masse. The courts rule in favor of the mob rule, and a perfectly legitimate establishment is left blowing in the wind of radical-right politics.

These days, right-to-lifers are feeling emboldened, thanks to a Supreme Court that's got their back. But despite the persistent hard-liner protesters outside the clinic, a majority of Americans still back a woman's right to abortion.

Despite the legal manuevers and noisy protests, Planned Parenthood won't be run out of town that easily. They will stay and fight. To keep on top of the latest news from Aurora, you can check out their blog.

Is a Woman President Ready for America?

Among the sea of mostly white, male candidates, one stands out as different. Now, Hillary Clinton is not running as a woman. She's running as the establishment candidate. But sooner or later, it's gonna come out that she's actually female. The Daily Show's Samantha Bee set out to explore if America is ready for a woman president. Or vice versa. She even gives equal time to a Phyllis Schlafly memorial pundit and Kim Gandy, who doles out her opinion along with fashion advice while outlet shopping.

Is Cancer the New Sexy?

You know, the New York Times just has a way of perfectly annoying me on any topic. Take yesterday's spread below the fold on their latest in a series of articles on Six Killers. This one features a woman in her 30s who has the breast-cancer gene and then follows her through her decision to get a preventative mastectomy. She's cute, a doctor and has already had breast augmentation surgery for cosmetic reasons. And while it's good to cover women's health, and put women on the front page, the Times seems to have a nasty habit of choosing a mirror of its readers to profile its stories.

Yet another on the uneven care of cancer featured another young woman, this one married, wealthy and with a cute baby and amazing insurance who made the appalling statement that her friends and family would never let cost intrude on her care. How nice not to be saddled with such petty inconveniences as money troubles.

Point is, using sexy to sell cancer is, well, sick.

Last Gasp on Hillary

OK, so I'm a slow reader. But geez, at over 550 pages, Carl Bernstein's book on Hillary, A Woman in Charge, was quite the tome.

So just as Hillary's thinking has evolved from Goldwater Girl to campus radical to rad First Lady to conventional senator, so has mine. She had a political awakening at college and made a bold speech at college graduation putting her in Life magazine as a future leader. But most of her public leadership has been a disappointment. Health care? Vote to authorize war on Iraq? Who is Hillary? I feel no closer to understanding her than I started. The Bernstein book doesn't help a whole lot on analysis. Although he does call her current White House bid soulless. I guess that's my problem, too. Shouldn't this woman of substance have something a little more substantive to say, beyond the safe political pap?

But this conventional woman is doing something that defies tradition. She's giving us an opportunity to elect the first woman president. And that's pretty radical.

Educating Hillary

Yesterday the NY Times ran a huge story on Hillary Clinton's storied past. Practically lifted from Bernstein's book, the reporters focused on Hillary's political awakening, her whiplash shift from Goldwater girl to McCarthy woman.

But one place where she has never wavered: her belief even in college of the process of process. She was the moderate in radical times, but she is vilified for being a radical. She isn't. But even if she didn't subscribe to violent overthrow of the government, a la SNCC, she did wear the trappings of the troubled times. Even if you don't read the article, you've got to check out the photos of vintage Hillary, 1968.

My Hillary Homework

I'm partway through Carl Bernstein's book A Woman in Charge, and it's bringing me back to my college days. First, and by way of full embarrassing disclosure, when at Smith, I worked, very hard, to get Michael Dukakis elected. In Massachusetts. In Western Massachusetts. Needless to say, my work paid off and he won -- in his home state.

I remember a fellow campaign worker who had gone to the Democratic convention in Atlanta, talking all excitedly about, not Dukakis, but the guy who gave his nominating address. Someone I'd never heard of: Bill Clinton. Sure, he may have gotten attention for all the wrong reasons -- I had heard his speech ran an epic 45 minutes although Bernstein's book clocks it closer to 32. What Bernstein doesn't talk about, was that Clinton started something with that speech. He got noticed, not just for talking so long, but what he said -- about a new Democratic party.

But take a look back at the mirror of Bill Clinton's rising star alongside Hillary's. She had as much promise of a political career from college as he did. Bill's fatal flaw was a weakness for women. But Hillary's fatal flaw was a weakness for Bill. She fell for him, married him and followed him. She has made a lot of compromises along the way from her radical awakening at college. I only hope that if she does secure the party nomination, that she harkens back to those days. That's the Hillary I'd like to see as president.

Abortion a Human Right

In case you missed this, Amnesty International met and has changed its neutral position on abortion, now condoning it in cases of rape or incest. The organization has worked in many areas, like Darfur, where rape has been used as a weapon of war against women, so it would naturally follow. It's really time that abortion is seen as a human right, and acknowledged that way. For Amnesty International to take this stance in some ways is way behind the curve, but better late than not at all.

Women's Suffrage Rocks

Sunday marked the 87th anniversary of women's right to vote in the U.S. So, in honor of 87 years of telling it to the man with the ballot box, I've added a very cool voter registration tool to my blog. Because now that women have the right to vote, we have to rock the vote, which is exactly what Rock the Vote intends for us to do: single women, especially, haven't been voting in recent elections, and just think of all the things those women miss out on having a say on: after all, do you really want some old, white men telling you that abortion is illegal? I thought not. So check out this cool tool (powered by Working Assets), and pass along the word to everyone you know how easy it is to register. Point. Click. Print and mail. That's it. That's what women in 1920 were fighting for, so let's not let it go to waste.

NPR Flips for B-Side

This is totally great news for a radio show run on practically nothing but a whole lotta love: B-Side is now featured on the alt.npr podcast. Check us out and give a listen as we debut today on the NPR site. Stick with us, we're heading for great things.

Not Your Mother's Bionic Woman

Yes, in this scenario, I am the mom. Or would be, if I were a mom. This was the promo before The Simpsons Movie to get the youth intrigued with Bionic Woman redux. Same bionic woman, new generation. You remember The Bionic Woman, don't you? From the 70s, super-cheesy show about a woman, Jamie Sommers, reconstructed from a nice-girl tennis pro to a bad-ass crime fighter?

She was born of her times. A product of the women's movement and the success of Billie Jean King (let's just say not your father's tennis pro: she is one of the best tennis players ever, and the woman who defeated Bobby Riggs in 1973 in the "Battle of the Sexes match").

Well, NBC doesn't want you watching. They want the kids who weren't born when the first one came out. And those kids don't think technology is weird, it's just part of life.

So I guess I'm wondering (and maybe this is my old-school, feminist voice speaking here): what exactly was wrong with the original series? One thing's for sure, without the women's movement, Billie Jean and the original The Bionic Woman, there would be no Bionic Woman. Without "your mother's Bionic Woman," it would have just been, well, The Six Million Dollar Man.

Cancer Doc, Not Show

If there was a Chick Lit novel about a cutie with cancer, it would probably sound a lot like the ad promos around Crazy Sexy Cancer, a documentary -- not a reality show -- airing on TLC on Wednesday, August 29. I'm glad it's not a reality show -- who lives? who dies? who gets sick from chemo? Tune in! But I'm still wary of trying to promote cancer as something cute and sexy. Maybe this is how TLC likes to roll, and is not the fault of the doc. Well, that's what I thought until I checked out the Web site.

You can check it out to see what I mean.

What is the equivalent for other terminal diseases: Fun! Adorable! AIDS!

Maybe this is the way to tap into a young audience choosing to watch a show on cancer or What Not to Wear. And hey, we all have to fight the good cancer fight in the way we know how. But I am already so turned off by the promos of this by TLC I don't hold up too much hope for the doc itself.

Crazy, Sexy, Cancer

That's the name of a new reality show about some hotties with the diagnosis downer. I'm not kidding. I haven't watched it and don't know if I could possibly manage to (we already have bridezilla, nanny 911 and my sweet sixteen. What's next after this, my very special funeral? Watch this space, because after Six Feet Under, could it be far behind?)

In the New York Times "Modern Love" column today, is a piece about two exes who have survived their breakup and cancer. Cancer as competition. Cancer as romancer. Please.

When my sister was diagnosed with stage 4 stomach cancer back in 2002, it made me painfully aware that just by being young does not mean you're free from the disease of the old. But now between the disease of tell-all TV and the new normal of young, healthy people coming out with cancer (Lance Armstrong, anyone?) the disease is no longer relegated to the back closet and the wig shelf -- it's front and center, part of life.

While I have realized that cancer is truly commonplace these days (I've actually discussed the merits of chemo treatments with friends that would have previously been talking spa treatments), I can't accept ogling people struggling to survive. Whether they come across as noble, selfish or just plain boring, it's a cheap trick that makes entertainment out the very heavy toll of this disease.

Outrageous Abortion

Where does Judith Warner get off writing in The New York Times about late-term abortion like she knows something about it. Her graphic description in her op-ed today of dilation and extraction procedure, banned by the Supreme Court, was unnecessary and completely misses the point. Yes, abortions are gross. I mean, to hear tell, so is childbirth. And, come to think of it, most medical procedures, if described, are probably pretty damn disgusting, fetus or no fetus.

But neither the men on the Supreme Court who voted in an egregious way, nor pictures of aborted fetuses or any of Warner's rhetoric changes the fact that nobody, and especially not the government, should be dictating a woman's private medical decision.

Now, if we start having Supreme Court cases on vasectomies (after all, that's ending lots of potential life, is it not?) or whether some old geezer should get an RX for Viagra, then maybe the old guys on the Supreme Court would have a different point of view. But since women are still the only ones saddled with pregnancy, it is they who have to live with their decisions. Not Judith Warner, who is affronted with the Obstetrics and Gynecology trade journal that treats the Supreme Court decision with a "mocking tone." Well, how's this for an affront: a doctor who is criminalized for a medical procedure done in 1/2 of one percent of all abortion cases? A woman who must deal with an abortion of a wanted pregnancy due to a horrible birth defect, or forgo a procedure necessary for her health because a bunch of old guys said they didn't like it, it's gross. That's not gross. That's life.

The Manny Diaries

Look, if a woman can be president, a man can be a nanny, or, to put in in man terms, a manny. Apparently, the manny is the new nanny. And he's so very cool. At least, that's how the San Francisco Chronicle's lead story in Sunday's Style section made it look. Young bucks who want to make a buck who are good with kids. They're like one-on-one camp counselors. They play with your kids! They change diapers! They're like nannies, but funner.

Lucky for them, sounds like these moms don't expect their mannies to take out the garbage or cook or any of the other add-ons that other nannies might be saddled with. The trend was busted wide open with two works of fiction, The Manny, by Holly Peterson, and Plum Sykes' book ( of Bergdorf Blondes) The Debutante Divorcee. I have not read them and don't plan to (alas, no beach time this summer for me). But to read the descriptions of the novels, and Plum Sykes' breathless description of her real-life manny in Vogue (I was getting my hair done!) these mannies are nothing more than man-meat for their employers, a boy-toy who also babysits. At least, that's the fantasy.

And while we're on fantasy, The Nanny Diaries -- the movie of the book -- starring Scarlett Johanson is set to come out at the end of the summer. Never has being a nanny looked so good, even if the job was a nightmare as a semi-slave to a junior leaguer with nothing to do but get her hair done and order people around (I did read that one). Of course, the real open secret of nannies is that they're not just working in tony duplexes on the Upper East Side, but in one bedroom walk-ups in Park Slope and Prospect Heights. The truth is, having a nanny doesn't exactly set you apart these days (unless of course, one parent doesn't work and still has help.)

If mannies come in and help masculinize the business of watching babies, so be it. Maybe they'll take out the trash, too. Now there's a fantasy.

Sponge-Worthy

The contraceptive device that Seinfeld put on the map -- and immortalized in its demise -- has returned. In the episode, Elaine is horrified to hear that the sponge is being discontinued, so she buys a case and interviews potential lovers for their sponge-worthiness.

But now the sponge is back. Why that's great: because the more options, the better, even if they are always for the woman. What's bad: The sponge was never really known for being highly effective. I mean, it is called a sponge, after all. Doesn't exactly elicit huge confidence that sperm can't get through, does it? And, of course, it doesn't stave off STDs.

Still, choices are good. What next? Hey, maybe they'll bring back Seinfeld.

Make Chaste

There's a mini-trend spotted by the Education Life section of the New York Times today. Seems that some students at Ive League campuses (Harvard, Princeton, M.I.T.) have started up chastity clubs. Brings new meaning to abstinence-only education.

Aside from the fact that this idea sets women back a few hundred years, I take issue with the article that describes these campuses as liberal. Liberal compared to what? Some Christian college in the mid-West? Does anyone remember Harvard's last president being quoted as saying women weren't as good as men in math? And what about Princeton's eating clubs (mentioned in another story in the same section), which only started admitting women in 1991?

While feeling the need to bond over trite, moralistic pap and discussing mutual abstinence is misguided but relatively harmless, the idea that all of this is quietly veiled in religious zealotry that is bubbling up in campus life in mainstream collges is worrisome. Two of the campus societies are named for Elizabeth Anscombe, a Roman Catholic who, according to the Times "condemned contraception." Not sure, as the Princeton anti-sex club promises, that forswearing contraception helps with empowerment or dignity. Fewer choices are exactly the opposite of empowering, sex or no sex.

Still No Condom Ads on Fox or CBS

Check out my pitch to The Simpsons that combines both their love of pigs and subverting Fox on my post for Women in Media and News. Hey, it beats another story on Lindsay Lohan.

More Boobs from New York

So Ms. Magazine is getting in on Cleavage-Gate. They're asking people who want substance, not support stories, to write in to the Post and give them the what for. Turns out, Clinton hasn't just gotten flack for showing a little flesh. She's been hounded by the media in a pretty pervy way. Her hair style, her suits, her supposed Botoxed skin have all been points for pundits. Now, I have my problems with Hill. But let's face it: we'd all be better off if the media spent half as much energy focusing on policy statements as fashion statements.

You can speak your mind to the Post here.

The D from New York

It really does take a major media outlet like the Washington Post to state the obvious: women, they have breasts. But that's what readers who happened on their site got to learn today with an article on Hillary Clinton giving us a --very small -- peek at her endowment. Check out my post on the WorkingForChange blog.

Cowabunga, Dude

I admit it: I'm a fan of the Simpsons, the yellow TV-sitcom family who refuses to age or change. I've been counting down the days till The Simpsons movie opens at the end of the month. To get me in the mood, my local 7-11 is becoming a Quik-E Mart. (With signs like They're Not Called Don't Nuts. And squishees.) And I even have my own Simpons alter-ego -- courtesy of the Simpsonmaker. Take a look.



Cool, huh. Of course, I always considered Lisa Simpson a suitable representative, because let's face it, she does represent. She's the smart girl, the top of her class, the top of her town, really, the one who can be forgiven to occasionally Vassar-bash. Who was the first female-cartoon president, at least. It does drive me bananas that this irreverent, subversive show is on the most Orwellian of networks.

So I have a pitch for the show: Hey, Simpsons writers, since your network won't air the Trojan condom ad, why don't you run a cartoon condom ad on an upcoming episode. I won't even charge for the idea. Don't like it: eat my shorts.

Why Abstinence-Only Education Sucks and Blows

I really don't know why they bother. The Republican party -- the ones who sleep with prostitutes, children and other people's wives -- really blather on about abstinence-only education. They wouldn't dream of funding anything that had, um, science, involved.

No. They prefer the kind of "education" the way they take their "science," with neither, pleasantly divorced from fact. The New York Times today put a damn good story on its front page today all about lack-of-sex-ed classes in high school. Abstinence-only gets $17 million in funding in Texas alone. A class that does not discuss sex or contraception. To teenagers. So, what's happened despite this stupid waste-of-time class that probably most kids skip anyway? Well, teen pregnancy rates have been on the decrease, that is, going down, since 1991. Before abstinence-only education. Before Monica. While everyone hates to say it, I'll just go ahead and point out the obvious: contraception.

Because, when all else fails, a condom usually does the trick.

Fox and CBS Don't Have Protection

The drama continues for the Trojan condom ad spurned by the TV networks Fox and CBS. This time, according to the New York Times, it's the affiliate networks in cities like Pittsburgh and Seattle who want a say. In Pittsburgh, they're saying no. In Seattle, they're rolling out the welcome mat.

Maybe Trojan really knows what it's doing: the ad is getting plenty of play on YouTube, with 100,00 hits, and 400,000 hits to the Trojan ad's Web site. Planned Parenthood sent out 44,000 e-mails to the network chiefs in protest. Everybody seems to get that it makes no sense, as I've said before, for ads to run about Viagra, but not to run about condoms. We see plenty of sex on your networks, people. But here's the reality: next year 4 million people will get an STD, according to Planned Parenthood. But what exactly is it about this condom ad that has these two networks running the other way? I think it's the frank discussion of sex -- use a condom every time. It seems that fantasy is fine, and reality programming about salacious issues, also OK. But suggesting that you be safe while partaking in any of these activities. Well, that's just downright subversive.

Inconceivable

I just finished reading Peggy Orenstein's New York Times magazine story about the increasing use of donor eggs for infertile couples. And I know that I probably shouldn't do this, but I can't help it. I judge. Why? Maybe because I recoil at the idea of harvesting eggs from younger women so that older women can have babies out of their own bodies. Maybe because even in Orenstein's piece, the egg donors are pretty much nameless, faceless egg givers, irrelevant except for their behind-the-scenes role. The story wasn't about them, but about the agony the infertile woman goes through in going through an egg donation.

The infertility industry is a multi-billion-dollar business. If you're willing and able to plunk down $25-$35,000, you too can have some 20-something's eggs put into your 40-something body. I see ads to recruit egg donors in the BART train on my commute to work. To me, it's like we're in this strange, new world where an older woman is reduced to her uterus. And a younger woman is reduced to her young, healthy eggs. A few shots here, an AIDS test there, a Web site to scope out the young, mainly blond, (Ivy League and Jewish? even better) mainly high SAT-scoring Bettys, and you've got yourself an insta-family.

But just because modern medicine can give you this option, does not mean you should take it. Women over 40 can stall the inevitable aging process with botox, breast lifts and lipsuction. And now they can add to that list birthing babies. Orenstein's argument is that by keeping the egg donor detail under wraps only adds to the stigma of having an egg donor baby. Bust this out in the open, she says, and just make it one more option for couples who want kids. After all, she tried it, and she wrote a book about it.

But once again, the New York Times is showcasing an procedure that is not universal and is not without controversy. It is an option for couples who can afford it and aren't saddled with ethical dilemmas that science has created before philosophy has caught up. In this area, we're barren.

Manulary

What is up with all the man words these days? A male nanny is a manny. A man's sandals are mandals. And let's not forget the word that started it all, mimbo, a male bimbo. It's not like we were lacking in words for men. But I mean, what's next -- a male geisha could be a guysha. A man gynecologist, a mancologist. And a male manicurist, oh, wait, that's kind of taken care of.

It's not enough that professions or possessions associated as femme get de-girled to be more suitable for men. We've worked hard to de-gender words (waitron, anyone?) and now they've come back cute. Why? Because no man in a ghettoized female role wants to be stuck with the girls. He wants his own title, and maybe even a promotion and a raise.

Maybe the ultimate test will be if -- when -- the next president can change her title to Madame. Which makes her husband First Man. Let's see how manly that role can be.

Fox and CBS Still Abstaining

Remember the Trojan ad with the pigs in a bar? Well, no pigs are seeing air time on CBS and Fox networks, which still contend that a bunch of pigs wearing condoms to pick up chicks is not a public health message, but a pregnancy prevention message, therefore, does not fly with these holier-than-thou network execs. And yes, seems that they'll air the damn things when pigs fly. That would actually be fine, as long as they weren't wearing protection.

Planned Parenthood is asking us what the next step should be, since their letter-writing campaign seems to leave those at the top unmoved. You can suggest an idea here. My idea: giant billboards of condom ads across from network headquarters. What's yours?

Feel Like Dancin'
So I just got back from L.A. and let me tell you there is nothing like dancing with my fellow Smith alums to make me feel like it's 1989 again. It's the healing power of dancing, or maybe it was the wine, or maybe it was Justin Timberlake. (Say what you will about the guy, you cannot listen to his tunes without busting out.) So what if we're all on the high end of our 30s, one of us has a kid, one of us is divorced and all of us can't seem to let a few details like that get in our way of showing our moves. There is nothing like good friends, good music and lots and lots of dancing.

The Princess Diaries

I have a confession. I just bought the July issue of Vanity Fair, the one Bono guest edited. And the first article I read wasn't about Kenya, or orphans in Malawi. It was about Princess Diana, an excerpt from Tina Brown's new book, The Diana Chronicles, on a hardly new subject: the Princess of people's hearts.

At first the placement seemed odd and even in poor taste. But then I realized that the whole issue was chock-full of celebrity humanitarians -- and that entire category was essentially created by Diana herself. Without Diana, there could be no Angelina Jolie.

Sure, the chapter is full of juicy bits, like how Di was so mad about losing her H.R.H. title after the divorce from Prince Charles; how she leaned on her son Prince William more than a mother should. And how she used the press to hide and flaunt her lovers. But it also reminded me of the good she did: publicizing the horror of landmines, humanizing children with AIDS.

I'm not sure what the Diana Chronicles will do to pump up the rep of the princess; her life and death are hardly a secret. But the book is certainly doing wonders for the career of Tina Brown. Another win for the princess.

Remembering Carolla

There are lots of dates that stick in our brains: birthdays, anniversaries, national holidays. But the one I hate to acknowledge but can't ever forget is the night my sister died. It stays with me the way I can't shake a bad dream. Three years is a long time and not very long at all.

I ate a fortune cookie today that chided me: time heals all wounds. But it's not true. Grief and loss are non-linear. I wish it weren't so. But I can tell you from experience, it is.

My sister didn't want to be remembered as the one whose life was cut tragically short by cancer. If I can just get past losing her, I can pick up and help the world remember her the way she'd want it. Not starting at the end, but at the beginning.

Carolla, I'm trying.

State of Our Unions

It is so fitting that the Style section of the New York Times, the one on Sunday that features the Vows column and the paid wedding announcements, would also be tracking how well these marriages turn out. A front-page article trumpeted a Pew Research survey that the wedding bells are ringing far shorter than you may think. The length of your happy nuptials after all that wedding business is three quick years. The reason? Women's economic independence, for one. That's what the Times said, and I think they even meant it as a compliment. But it's not really. It means that women don't have to be married, so we split if things don't work out our way. We only stay if we're happy, see.

Another reason: women and men are actually not getting married, or getting married later. Or having kids out of wedlock.

My favorite wedding advice has always been: wait 10 years. It's what Larry and I did. And hey, our fifth anniversary is coming up, so my theory must be working.

That's No Woman. That's Hillary Clinton.
My alma mater -- Smith College -- boasted two first ladies as alum. We even had a T-shirt showing Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan that read: there must be a better way to get a Smithie in the White House.

Well, we don't have a Smithie yet. But we do have a Wellesley grad running for highest office. But, when faced with the cocktail conversation question, Hillary or Obama? I have to say I go with the Big O every time.

Ellen Goodman, the feminist columnist for The Boston Globe, addressed this at her keynote speech in March at the Women, Action and Media conference. She called Hillary's run for office a "de-gendered" candidacy, as she was running as the establishment candidate, not the woman candidate. In many ways, this is very good news for women. That we have someone who has the name, the experience and the money to get to the top of the heap is lightyears ahead of where women candidates have been in the past.

In other ways, this makes her less accessible. She's not one of the marginalized. She's one of them.

As I've said in other posts, Hillary Clinton is not someone who I'm behind. But that's right now, when the primaries haven't happened and others seem a little less blow dried and speak in a less canned way. I cringe when I hear Hillary Clinton trying to girl it up on an entertainment show -- please. This woman is about power and I can't take it when she starts gushing about somebody's shoes.

A piece on AlterNet today about the unrelenting criticism from liberals and feminists about Clinton is all about gender, and then sometimes not at all about gender. Take the CodePink antiwar group's obsession with Hillary and her vote to give Bush authorization to go to war:

Clinton's supporters also argue that women candidates are unfairly subjected to higher standards, especially by women themselves. It's why antiwar feminist organizations like CodePink are less likely to give her a pass for her Iraq vote than they would, say, John Edwards. Explaining the reasoning behind their "bird-dog Hillary" campaign to The Nation, founder Medea Benjamin wore her double standard on her sleeve: "You expect more of a woman."

Ouch. Well, as Clarence Thomas can show us, just being black doesn't mean you're going to support affirmative action. As Ann Coulter proves, being a successful woman doesn't make you a feminist, or a peace-nik. And being Hillary Clinton demonstrates what we should have known all along: that being an ambitious, mainstream candidate with a legacy doesn't mean she'll be a terrible president. It just might not mean she'll be great for women. The question is, can we feminists live with that.

Walk a Mile in These Shoes

I was on the hunt for the perfect pair of summer shoes, an elusive quest at that. But as I trolled through the many shoe Web sites, I noticed something adorning the shoes that caught my eye: a peace symbol. Now, I'm not one to judge another person's footwear. I thought it was cute, at first, on a pair of Michael Kors moccasins. But then I noticed them on a dressy high-heeled sandals from Donald J Pliner. So, what's up with this trend? Of course, peace symbols have been worn on clothing, sure, but as a sign of counter-culture rebellion. But this is high-end foot fashion. Is it simply a commodity, a continuing commercialization of a recognized logo? Or is it a way of the designers to slyly speak out against the war through women's footwear? You decide. These shoes are actually pretty cute.

The Big 3-5

Title IX is 35 years old -- you know, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination. Meaning athletic scholarships don't just go for the football players, and maybe some of those football players are women, anyway. Why is Title IX still important when there are more women than men in school these days? Exactly for that reason. Keeps things even. When I think of Title IX, I think of Bill Jean King, the star tennis player who challenged Bobby Riggs -- ranked number 1 in his day -- to a tennis match in a "Battle of the Sexes," and then beat the pants off him. Now we have Venus and Serena Williams. I think of the term "male chauvinist pig," which was really big to say 35 years ago. Now we say O'Reilly. Anniversaries are good for re-telling the good stories. Let's just make sure we keep telling them.

Interview with a Dame

More shameless promotion: check out my interview with the new site, BlogInterviewer. It's a cool new way to get to know your favorite blogs. You can rate my blog and leave a comment!

Flip to the B-Side

And now a shameless plug for the radio show, B-Side. First of all, check out the new site. And, if you haven't seen how easy it is to download or stream our shows, enjoy them with a click of the mouse. The Father's Day show, which at last count aired on three public radio stations across the country, is online now.

So a Pig Walks Into a Bar . . .

Tell me if you've heard this one. Trojan has a new ad campaign out -- "Evolve" -- that CBS and Fox refused to air. Why? Because the message is about pregnancy prevention, not disease prevention. Doesn't one result in the other?

The ad, which you can see here on YouTube opens to a scene of pigs in a bar trying to pick up babes (pun not intended) when one rejected pig swaggers up to the condom machine in the bathroom and is transformed into a hot guy who now gets the attention of the hot woman who had no time for pigs without protection.

So why is it OK for a Viagra ad to be about sex but not a condom ad, you might wonder? You might pose this question to CBS and Fox, who are making this a moral issue. Ads about sex? Shocking! Sadly, the condom industry lags far behind Viagra in sales. An ad selling condoms as a sexy product might just be the boost condoms need to, um, lift sales.

Nancy Drew, Where Are You?

I thought it was a nice coincidence that on my birthday the new Nancy Drew movie would be opening. Imagine, a character that had captured my imagination growing up, even though she was already ancient history (created in the 30s) would be discovered by a new group of fans. Her roadster. Her crime fighting, independent ways, so cool. So smart. So, cute.

Not this Nancy Drew. According to the reviews, she's been re-invented for the iPod age as a sort of time-machine misfit who has stepped out of the 50s suburbs into Hollywood, and even the cool Nancy Drew can barely survive the cynical millenials of today. Ick.

Kids, take it from your elder: skip the movie and read the books.

Feminist Smack Down

The author of Sisterhood Interrupted wants us to know why feminists fight. What I want to know is, what's wrong with fighting? I think feminism is made of fairly solid stuff, and can take it.

Evidently, the publishing industry agrees, churning out critiques like The Feminine Mistake and Sisterhood Interrupted. Well, this isn't an issue just with feminism. After all, you could argue that a lot of us got pretty comfortable during the Clinton years (Bill) with our status. Not that the gains were so amazing, and there was the whole ending of welfare as we knew it thing. But choice was safe. The Supreme Court wasn't so scary. And clearly, everyone relaxed just a little bit.

Here's how Deborah Siegel, the book's author, lays it out in an interview with Alternet on the idea behind "personal as political."

Siegel: The idea behind this truly brilliant slogan transformed the way Americans thought of the politics of private life. In the book I write about how these words launched a movement, then quickly morphed into a philosophy and a blueprint for action that meant different things depending on where you sat.

Today, we're smack dab in the middle of those conversations -- whether we realize it or not. But there's a new hitch. In the absence of a visible, organized, and powerful mass movement and in an era that's far more conservative and individualistic, younger women are less inclined to see our problems as shared.

The thing is, just like in all movements and especially on the left, women don't fall into lockstep, and it's ridiculous to expect that just because we're women, we have the same agenda. As Jessica Valenti said recently, feminism makes your life better. Feminism is the best self-help guide a woman could have. But somewhere after women's lib of my mother's generation and pigs like Rush Limbaugh, the ideals of feminism came under attack. But while the academics were sniping from inside, the power drain came from the outside.

Well, it's a convenient time to look back, if not in anger, then in understanding. After all, on the surface, many of us are doing pretty well, especially when compared to the 70s. Frankly, when I speak to women in my mother's generation, they look at me like I'm crazy. "It was hard" they say, of working, raising kids, running a household and the PTA, "but we did it." Point being, why do women of my generation complain so much? My mom pointed out to me that when she was my age, she was raising a 14 year old and a 10 year old, as a single mom, and working, too.

I'll be 38 on Friday, and am responsible for myself, my husband, a very needy cat and a large shoe collection. What is my problem? Do I really think that having a family is so untenable in this day and age that it's not worth trying?

The problem is, and this is the premise of my book on my Smith Class (Whatever Happened to the Feminine Mystique) is that the path in the sand left from the second wave of feminism is hard to follow. Each woman must make her own way. Who has time to join together in anger when we can watch the Sopranos do it so much better on TV?

Now, we have parental leave, paid. It is actually illegal to pay women less than men (but oh, don't get me started on that one, coz it sure got a lot harder to prove that women aren't paid equally) and women make up the majority of college students on campus. Do the math: in the next 20 years, women are going to be running most everything, whether men like it or not.

But here's the thing: if feminism really wants to re-charge, things are going to have to get a lot worse. And heck, with Bush in the White House we are getting there. But it's going to take more than a book.

Pro-choice? Not in the Movies.

There's a little trend in movie-making these days that the New York Times helpfully pointed out in this Sunday's Style section: abortion is a no-show in movie plots. Two movies, especially that deal with pregnancy skip the topic entirely: Waitress -- about a cute woman with a no-good husband who goes through with the pregnancy even though she's plotting to leave the guy -- and Knocked Up, about a woman who ends up pregnant after a signal encounter with -- from what I read in the reviews -- a comically unsuitable mate. Keeping the man is the quandary of this movie plot, not whether to terminate the pregnancy.

The last time I remember abortion being front and center in a movie was Dirty Dancing, and the woman almost dies as a result. And it's a side-plot that tangentially affects the heroine. No, the message definitely is: nice girls don't have abortions in the movies. The Style section piece points out that abortion is treated more realistically on the independent film scene, according to Geoffrey Gilmore, the director of the Sundance Film Festival,

as do other difficult themes like drug addiction, incest, even infanticide, most recently in “Stephanie Daley,” about a teenager accused of murdering her newborn.

Ouch. Abortion being equated to infanticide and incest? And yah, I get that if the topic of the movie is pregnancy, having an abortion ends the plot pretty fast. But it's a pretty sad thing when the so-called values of the religious right have so permeated our culture we can't even have abortion as a side note in a plot device.

Myth Makers

As I've documented on my blog many times, the myth that working moms are opting out is just that. Lisa Belkin -- who started the whole opt-out controversy with her New York Times magazine story on elite moms forsaking plum careers for motherhood, recently recanted this (in the New York Times style section, of all places) by saying that everyone was heading back to work. Neither picture was ever true.

Heather Boushey at AlterNet does a good job of taking us through why these media myths keep being recycled.

One reason is that even if it's not true, it feels true. It is hard to be both an employee and a mother. But the media often jumps on anecdotes or mini-trends to explain this away. The larger implication seems to be: feminism doesn't work. You wanted it all, you can't handle it all. Your mom vibes are stronger than your work vibes.

It's a strange message. After all, wouldn't we all -- men and women -- be better served if companies were flexible with our time, understanding of families' needs? Instead, the focus is on an individual -- and that way, no one will ever join together to demand that there be a general change in policy. It's better that way for the media, but it does moms and families a huge disservice, and for that matter, readers, too.

No Pies But Good Dish

If you missed Jessica Valenti on The Colbert Report last night shilling her book Full Frontal Feminism, let me tell you Jessica was in top form. She looked good and she spoke well. And turns out, I'm not the only one who thinks Stephen Colbert is the best tool in the feminist tool kit. Jessica presented him with a "feminists dig me" T-shirt at the start of the interview, made him promise she wouldn't make her bake, like he did when Gloria Steinem was on the show, and had Colbert waving Full Frontal Feminism at the camera with the command: Buy it.

But don't take my word for it: Watch for yourself.

Full Frontal Feminism

One more reason that Stephen Colbert is my most fave feminist: he actually has feminists on his show. Tonight Jessica Valenti, Feministing blogger and author of Full Frontal Feminism, is on his show.

Valenti is the it-girl of the now-feminist movement. She wants to bring feminism to Gen Y and beyond, to show how it's relevant for the next generation. So be sure to Tivo tonight's Colbert Report, right after The Daily Show to catch her and Stephen mixing it up. Or watch it live if you're a night-owl.

What are the Dems Thinking?

With the ridiculous war vote Congress recently passed, I am reminded that the Dems are if nothing more, politicians. But why push through war funding with no benchmarks for the war? Why does the war funding get a free pass? Really, maybe the IRS or the NEA should take over the war budget. The IRS has no problem with paperwork. And the federal education guidelines make kids take more tests than TB patients to track their status. Anyway, with a vote that goes against the majority of the country, the Dems seem to be acting like they have a constituent of one: President Bush. Here's Jen Sorensen's take.

Let Justice Be Heard

Check out my post on the WorkingForChange blog today on how Ruth Bader Ginsburg is getting her groove on over at the Supreme Court. She's not taking to the Alito-Roberts axis of evil silently. She's speaking out. It won't change the bad decisions the court is making that reverse decades of progress for women, but it may at least get the attention of Congress. A girl can hope.

The L Word

You've probably already heard that the FDA approved a new birth control pill (you gotta love the FDA -- women may not have that many great choices of birth control, but they have a gazillion different pills to choose from). This pill completely suppresses the menstrual cycle for as long as you take it. It's called, wait for it, Lybrel. And liberated from your period is as good as it gets.

Critics of this pill say the period shouldn't be marketed as an inconvenience. OK, but then, marketed as what, a beautiful thing, like in the film strips from health class tried to trick us into believing? I mean, really, what woman in her right mind would buy any kind of marketing telling her a period is great, cramps are lovely, blood is fun. Sure, there's a nice ritual to becoming a woman the first time you get it, but that thrill is gone really fast. And anyway, when you're on the pill, you're not really getting your period, even on the standard 21-day cycle with the 7-day flow. It's all fake to make you feel like you're getting it. But really, you're not. So why go through the pretending?

Women have known for years they can skip the sugar pills of any oral contraceptive and go straight to the next pack, creating their own Lybrel pill without the marketing or expense of a new pill.

And anyway, it's been acknowledged for some time that what isn't normal is getting your period every month, every year, for decades on end. Our ancestors did not get their periods as much as we do. So please, let us all be Lybrels, and embrace the L word.

Sex Work

If you had any doubt that the Supreme Court was setting out to redefine what's it like to be a woman in America, this latest case should settle that argument: yesterday, the court ruled to limit workers' right to sue for pay discrimination to 180 days. The New York Times quotes the National Women's Law Center on the ruling:

“The ruling is clearly a very important setback in the ability to eliminate discriminatory pay,” said Marcia Greenberger, a co-president of the National Women’s Law Center. “It puts people in a terrible bind.

“On one hand,” Ms. Greenberger continued, “it requires individuals to file a complaint within 180 days of being concerned that their pay may be discriminatory in nature. But having to file that quickly could be counterproductive because people might still be trying to make sure that there really is discrimination and because they still might be trying to work things out in a conciliatory way.”

I didn't think I could be more angry and depressed over a legal decision since the late-term abortion ruling. But whaddya know, I was wrong. It's great to know that with one case, the Supreme Court can reverse the enormous gains women workers have made over the last 40 years. Really, this is an impressive, monumental setback. Um, checks and balances anyone?

Here's a question: if a woman is Speaker of the House, and doesn't do anything about this egregious decision, does it at all matter? If the underwhelming way the Dems have acted on the war front is any indication, I fear for my rights at home.

The War Not at Home

Today I slept til 10 a.m. Ate breakfast. Got in the car with my husband and headed to Home Depot. The cashier chided us, "Don't work too hard today." I promised not to.

Today is Memorial Day, when we remember our war dead, but most of the country seems to have already forgotten about the war we are fighting, and losing, right now.

I hope the Dems we put into power to put a stop to the war won't roll over and play dead. We don't need to add to the 3,400 and growing list of sacrifices from this country. We're going to need another day.

Dems Abstain from Abstinence

Looks like commonsense has finally penetrated the Democratic Party. The Dems voted down money earmarked for abstinence only sex ed after a Congressional study, of all things, concluded that whaddya know, it doesn't stop teens from having sex.

Here's the skinny from Women's eNews:

Cheers

Democratic leaders plan to let $50 million drop from the Title V federal funding stream earmarked for abstinence-only education programs after a recent study released to Congress reported the programs did not dissuade teens from having sex. Congressional Quarterly reported May 15 that lawmakers, who say they would rather see funding focused toward comprehensive sex education that includes abstinence, will not reauthorize the funding when it expires on June 30.

"Abstinence-only seems to be a colossal failure," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which controls the earmark, adding that the deficit and the war were also factors.

Abstinence supporters said the move would only embolden their efforts to maintain abstinence-only education.

Architect of Peace?

While this whole Paul Wolfowitz scandal was going down -- guy meets girl, guy heads the World Bank, guy helps girl get better job at State Department while saying he's against corruption, guy resigns from bank after kerfuffle over corrupt actions for girl -- all I kept wondering was -- why he is always described as an architect?

You see, before Wolfowitz went over to banking, he was in the business of making war for Bush & co. Search Google for architect of war and it comes up nearly 5 million times. Since my husband is an architect of the building kind, I kind of take the abuse of the word personally.

But now that Wolfie is off the stage, maybe we'll go back to remembering that architects can build good things, too.

Belkin's Boo Boo

One more thought on Lisa Belkin's reversal on the opt-out "trend." Would it be too much to ask to acknowledge what she created by her story? The more I think about it, the more I'm peeved by her only passing reference to the major maelstrom she created by her story that was wrong, wrong, wrong. Now she's jumping into the conversation started back up by The Feminist Mistake. Too little, too late.

Lisa Belkin Opts In

The woman who launched a real media frenzy over a fake trend, opting out, has decided that there's a new trend: opting in. Oh, really. Lisa Belkin. Who wrote the New York Times magazine cover story back in 2003 that trumpeted that women were not leading the pack but instead packing lunch for their kids. The ones who she was quick to put in their place as non-working moms even if they said they weren't permanently staying out of the work force. Even when no numbers backed Belkin up.

So Belkin is back. But the media myth she created in the respected Times magazine is debunked in the silly Style section. Thanks, New York Times. I'm sure a lot of people will notice and take the placement really seriously. Right next to the piece on age-appropriate dressing and meeting Mr. Right in tennis camp.

The Mayor of Central Park


Did I ever tell you about the time I met the mayor of Central Park? That's right, the mayor. Of Central Park.

It wasn't the first time. Back w hen I lived in NYC in the 80s, it was a grittier time. A woman had been gang raped at the 102nd st. park transverse by a group of boys who said they were "wilding" -- and while who attacked her has since been disputed, a dense fog of fear fell over the park that year. I was a runner. I ran at night. In the summer, the park is closed to cars and the light doesn't fade till almost 9 p.m. Despite the ozone alerts, the threat of violent assault and the thick air, I ran daily through the park.

One day I noticed an older man with a white handle bar moustache and white hair, walking around the reservoir the wrong way. He waved. I didn't wave back. Then I saw him the next day. He waved. This time, I waved, too. No matter what time of day, or how often I ran, he was always there, a sort of safe harbor during a rough time for the park.

I moved away. I ran in San Francisco. But when I came back to see my mother, I would run to the reservoir. The reservoir run is as long as you want it to be. It's a 1.3 mile loop. In my younger years, I would run around the loop five or six times. Now I run around once or twice. The run is around the reservoir, counter clockwise on a dirt track. In rain, the track is soggy. In summer it's fast and dry. There are no dogs allowed, no strollers, no distractions from the pure act of running. Or walking.

It wasn't always like this. Alberto Arroyo started the runs around the reservoir. He was the first one. He used to be a boxer, years ago. He ran for exercise around the park. Supposedly, he ran with Jackie O and even Madonna.

For his service of making the park safe for running, he was given a medal and declared the Mayor of Central Park. He wears that medal around his neck; you can see it when he walks. If you want the full story, it's up on the east side of the reservoir, near the water fountains. The newspaper story, and a picture of Alberto Arroyo, getting his medal.

About a year ago I was back in NYC and went for a run in the afternoon. There was Alberto. I stopped him and shook his hand. "Where have you been?" he asked. I explained I now lived on the other coast. He smiled and kept on walking.

Bridal-Industrial Complex

If you are applying your cultural lens, as Rebecca Mead does for The New Yorker, and train it on the industry around weddings, and you write a book about it, what exactly does that make you?

I'm not really sure who Rebecca Mead's audience is for her book, One Perfect Day, the Selling of the American Wedding. Buyer beware? Cultural critique? All you have to do is walk to a newsstand to see an entire section devoted to wedding magazines to know that the selling of the wedding, not marriage, has become an institution itself. But so has the stuff around babies, tweens, Gen Y, cats, Hispanic 16-year-olds, I could go on. We are, after all, a logo nation. So I'm curious to know what Mead can say that hasn't already been said.

I'm skeptical that readers of Mead's book will be surprised to learn that when you plan your wedding there are -- you may want to sit down -- people who will try to sell you stuff. Heck, they may even try to rip you off.

I won't bore you with the details of my wedding. But you can always find ways to save -- and ways to spend. We went the morning of the wedding to the flower market and bought our buds wholesale. And got friends to arrange them. We bought cupcakes instead of wedding cake from a local bakery. We hired a really, really expensive band. And it was so worth it.

But if you step carefully, do your research and avoid the cheesy temptations of the wedding paraphernalia that will try to whip you into a spending frenzy (we turned down the "fable cable" limo, complete open bar and party favors), you should be OK. Even if you're not, you'll still end up married.

What Is the Thing?

To find out, you'll have to listen to this month's edition of B-Side, all about clues, mysteries and, well, things.

So sit yourself down with a nice cup of cocoa or whatever it is you drink when you sit by the Real Player to hear your stories, and enjoy.

It's Not a Hallmark Holiday

It's not all about flowers and cards. But don't tell my mom that. The original Mother's Day was apparently conceived as a call for peace back in 1870. Gee, how that message has gotten lost in translation.

What's cool is that there is an effort to bring the Mother's Day message back to its roots. You can see a video about it starring Felicity Huffman here.

Our Better Half

Harvard didn't just make history when it selected a woman to lead the institution. It now means that half of the Ivy League schools are now run by women. This is a nice little postscript to the scuff up started by ex-Harvard prez Lawrence Summers, who made the now infamous comment that gender differences may explain why women don't succeed in these fields as much as men. Obviously, this made the women at the conference, especially the science and math profs, hopping mad.

While having a woman running the show at Harvard or Brown or U. Penn certainly doesn't guarantee against pig-headed gaffes, it's a good bet that these leaders, who have experienced gender and race-based bias on their way to the top, know a thing or two more than Lawrence Summers about what it means to succeed as a woman.

Happy Birthday, Golda Meir!

Yes, should Hillary Clinton make to president of the United States, it would be a milestone. But she'd be following in some pretty nice shoes. Golda Meir's, for one, who became Prime Minister of Israel in 1969 -- and was the "iron lady" long before Margaret Thatcher.

Here is a Goldaism, which also makes me wonder: will we ever again see such wit in our leaders?

"Whether women are better than men I cannot say - but I can say they are certainly no worse."

- Golda Meir, 1898 - 1978

Words Can Hurt
When I was reading about the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the abortion ban, I was struck that Justice Kennedy used the term partial-birth abortion in his decision. Even though it's not a medical term, but was created by the anti-choice movement as a sort of touchstone. The term is graphic, horrific, and, it turns out, effective.

Cynthia Gorney, my professor at the UC Berkeley Journalism School, writes in The American Prospect about the decision and a history of the procedure, in a way that I did not see in the mainstream press. She has written about the politics of abortion for years. It's well worth a read.

Feminism: the Sequel

So there's a debate that's been exploding in recent days around differing views of the work-family balance. One camp says women are leaving the workforce to stay home with the kids. (Bad.) The other says this is an overblown media myth that focuses on an elite minority and scares women about the choices they're making. (Also bad.)

So, who's right?

Both sides have incredibly well respected researchers making their cases. There's the blame the women who don't work side: Linda Hirshman, a former researcher at Brandeis, and Leslie Bennetts, who just wrote The Feminine Mistake. And of course, Lisa Belkin, who wrote the NYT magazine piece about the "opt-out revolution" about women who choose to give up their professions and power. Taking the media myth argument are Claudia Goldin, a Harvard economist and E.J. Graff, a current researcher at Brandeis, along with Caryl Rivers.

As Rosie O'Donnell said to Meg Ryan in Sleepless in Seattle when disputing the media myth that more woman are likely to be struck by lightening than married over 40: It's not true, but it feels true.

Juggling work and family is hard. Tiring. Challenging. But does that mean women have decided to choose one over the other? For the majority of working moms, it isn't. Most are sticking it out. Even though the numbers are trending down, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor stats, there's no clear evidence that women will continue to leave the workforce to stay home with young kids. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

The few women I know who have traded the office for the nursery have done so to initially focus on raising young children, and are now working flexible, part-time hours. It's a workable solution. Finding good childcare and a good job that's understanding of families is really hard. Much harder, frankly, than it should be, four decades after feminism got us so many gains.

But to spend so much energy decrying women who stay home with children is not only a pretty much pointless exercise, it negates what we should be discussing, which is how working mothers are faring in the workplace, and how it can be made better.

John Edwards Hair Don't

Thanks, Jen Sorensen, for crunching the numbers on Edwards' hair cuts. Maybe I should call it hair-gate. If you want to know the real cost, click here.

Wage Matters

Adding to the challenge of balancing work and family: women still make less, much less, than men. Even right out of college.

According to women's enews:

The American Association of University Women, the Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, released a report today that finds that one year after college graduation, women make 80 percent of what their male counterparts earn. As women's age increases they fall further behind men. Ten years out of school, women earn 69 percent of what their male peers do.

Women with the same degrees, coming from the same college, still make out worse.

Working My Last Nerve

I am getting a little tired of being told about the mass exodus of working women from the workforce. Linda Hirshman's piece in the NY Times yesterday tells moms to get back to work.

Well, hello: the percentage may have slipped, but the majority of mothers are still very much at work. I will quote from the actual study:

In 2005, the participation rate of married mothers with preschoolers was 60 percent, about 4 percentage points lower than its peak in 1997 and 1998. Married mothers with children under a year old (infants) showed the most dramatic changes. After reaching a peak of 59.2 percent in 1997, the participation rate for married mothers of infants fell by about 6 percentage points to 53.3 percent in 2000 and has shown no clear trend since then. In comparison, the participation rate of married mothers of school-age children (aged 6 to 17) fell by just 2 percentage points, from 77 percent in 1997 to about 75 percent in 2005.

OK, I'm going to make some radical intuitive leaps. So bear with me.

1. In 1997 and 1998 we were experiencing a major economic expansion. Everyone was working more. I am willing to bet (and will do more research on this) that all these numbers were at a high during those boom years.

2. Women with infants are participating less in the workforce since 2000. Women with infants are also having children at a later age. I would like to overlay this stat with age groups. Since if women are slightly older with an infant, they're not exactly leaving the workforce since they've been in it for some time.

The report notes: "From 1997 to 2000, the participation rate of mothers aged 16-24 fell by 2 percentage points, and the rate of those aged 25-34 fell by 6 percentage points, while the rate of older mothers (aged 35-44) fell by 7 percentage points. "

3. Despite the trend down, the article notes there is "no clear trend" since then. That makes sense: mothers who are working are still in the majority.