Links Roundup

Like Woody’s Roundup, see, except I get to be Jessie.

Well, this is an interesting take on the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope that has plagued womankind (buy me a beer and I will tell you the stories) since…actually I don’t know when this started. Prize for whoever who can find the earliest instance of the MPDG in print, film, or mythology.


Yes yes yes

What. Is this.

I really think there should be a line of liquor called Feminine Spirits. Having some on hand would certainly help me deal this kind of thing better.

Against the literary.

This essay comes close to nailing what I have been inarticulately fumbling to express to my cultured friends for ages.

One of the reasons I distrust garden-variety self-styled progressives is that so many of them have been so unwilling to call Obama out on this.

This is so wrong.

Seriously?? You interview one of the most accomplished media personalities ever to grace NPR, and you ask her

a) Whether she wanted children

b) Whether she’s a lesbian

and c) How she feels about people wanting to screw her.

You stay classy, Andrew Goldman.

I’m not sure “swagger” and the hyper-aggressive pursuit of profits are good traits in anyone, man or woman–but as long as our current economic structure rewards these behaviors, it’s really frustrating that ladies aren’t allowed to exhibit them. Businesswomen, take note.

Fairy tales!

I wish Amy Poehler would give me advice.

This is a BIG DEAL. Oh yes, it is. Just you wait.

If you are anything like me, you were a little dismayed to hear that Catwoman would be played by someone who’s career high, I firmly maintain, is still The Princess Diaries. “Why?” you asked. “Why would they pick someone who exudes all the charged, smoldering danger of a bunny rabbit? Have we forgotten the sad travesty that was Becoming Jane? Were all your other femme fatales busy? Did Penelope Cruz have a lunch date that day?” Well, I was wrong, and so are you. Anne Hathaway is, against all odds, fantastic. She nails the role and steals the show, and never has eating my words been more enjoyable.

Of course, that does not excuse this.


Bracketing the total ruination this movie seems poised to wreak on the novel, Keira Knightley? I get it. She’s everyone’s go-to period piece actress, looks great in a corset, etc. But Anna is supposed to be this gorgeous, warm, full-bodied creature of passion and tenderness, not some starveling waif obsessed with the sharp angles own jawline.  Kate Winslet should be playing this role. Ugh.

And, of course, RIP Sally Ride.



My Introduction to New York Finance Types

“So, after how many dates would you consider it ok to kiss someone?”

“You’re still thinking about this wrong. It’s not a question of checking boxes, and it’s not up for bargaining. Only giving freely.”

“Oh, so you’re saying that physical affection is a non-tradable, non-liquefiable asset.”


“Uhhh, yeah. Something like that.”




Update: Tangentially related but interesting, Andrew Sullivan on dating in big cities.

I try to tell people the right doesn’t hate women….

But sometimes there is only so much you can do.

“A major, underlying problem with VAWA is that the bill lacks appropriate focus.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identified approximately 30 causes of domestic violence. From this, we know the factors that lead to violence in the home.  Those factors are a complete mismatch with the provisions of VAWA. Domestic violence is a problem that stems from problems in relationships, psychological or social maladjustment, anger, alcoholism, and substance abuse.  VAWA is all about restraining orders, arrests, prosecution, batterer intervention programs, fostering false allegations, re-educating judges in feminist ideology and biases, and law enforcement training that have been shown to increase, rather than decrease violence.  The vast VAWA bureaucracy is a full-employment entity for feminist lawyers and social workers and a boondoggle for feminist organizations who assume that all men are prone to violence and that any accusation a woman makes is fully truthful without question – any skeptic is labeled “anti-women.” ‘

From the website of “Concerned Women for America,” which I am not going to dignify by linking to.

Yes,  what a silly bill that focuses on arrests, prosecution, batterer intervention programs–you know, actually getting women out of danger–when it could instead help the poor socially maladjusted abusers deal with their anger issues. Those malicious feminists–actually taking the claims of victims seriously, when we all know those bitches are just out to persecute the sainted bourgeoisie male.  Next you’ll be telling me that rape isn’t preventable by wearing a longer skirt.

Luckily, we now have a toothless  house version of the Violence Against Women Act, and can sleep soundly knowing that undocumented women won’t be leeching up the protections only real upstanding American women would be entitled to, were women actually entitled to protection from domestic abuse.

Seriously though–tell me you want to coerce my Church into choosing between her responsibilities to social justice and sexual ethics, and I will knock you into next week and spend your lunch money on a new rosary. (Can you tell how much I care about civil political discourse?) As to the rest, however, I’m becoming increasingly unsympathetic to conservative insistence that the war on women is entirely a feminist invention.

There is, of course, the very real possibility that everyone has just been  listening to this song way, way too much

Oh Get Real

Someone wants to know “Where are the normal Christians?”

“As a practicing Catholic, I have lived my entire adult life being skeptical, questioning and critical of the backward policies of my institution, and the horrific crimes committed by its members and perpetuated by its authorities. These days, I figure most people associate my religion with child molesters and Rick Santorum. But I have stuck with my faith – albeit a very different one than the traditional image of some papal ring-kissing, birth control-hating freak that tends to get more attention — because the values I learned directly from a Christian upbringing are the values I still try to apply to my life every day. And if you, as either a conservative Christian or a staunch nonbeliever, think that’s easy, it isn’t. It’s a struggle. But it’s an often wonderful struggle.”

Well move on over, Perpetua, there’s a new martyr in town.

Has it ever entered this woman’s hyper-enlightened brain that some of those papal-ring kissing, birth-control hating freaks that she is sooo unlike (but still, charitably, forbearingly, graciously engages in “politcal discourse”) might have articulated and coherent ideas behind their whackjob lifestyles and political postitions? Is she aware at all of the cringeing, sneering, sucking-up to power and respectability implicit in the phrase ” papal-ring kissing, birth-control hating freaks?”

No, of course not. Because she really isn’t interested in being a rebel. She just wants to be normal. She just wants to be liked. Listen, lady: if you’re going sell your soul and publicly jeer at your co-religionists for not thinking exactly like you and your friends, come out of it as something more interesting than a walking, talking, self-congratulating cliche.

Not that you’d be interested in talking to me, but I’ll be hanging out with this guy.

The New Criterion vs. Sluts, Pt. II

A few less trigger-y notes:

I do think it’s a bit presumptuous for James Bowman to tell me what nice girls are and aren’t. But then I arrived at this line, and I had to laugh and keep reading:
“What set the self-proclaimed but (one supposes) ironic sluts off in their perambulations was the hideous gaffe of a Toronto policeman […]”

I mean, perambulating sluts. It’s funny.


“The struggle to turn “slut” from dysphemism to euphemism thus seems doomed to the same realms of unreality inhabited by a right to act like a slut without being perceived as a slut. After all, women can hardly hope to “reclaim” the word for good rather than evil so long as they themselves continue to find it so deeply offensive […]

On the one hand, the protestors wanted to celebrate the behavior, and, on the other, to damn the language traditionally used to describe it. […]”

I think this is a bit of a misunderstanding. The slutwalkers weren’t trying to “damn” the word, they were trying to turn it into a neutral: “Yes, I’m a slut. I’m also blonde. Chicagoan. Female. Being a slut is neither positive nor negative, and thus should not be an invitation to molestation.”

It seems that the marchers and their sympathizers thought that the best way to relieve the term of its historically negative connotation was to run it all the way to the other end of the field — from “sluts are awful!” to “sluts are awesome!” They assumed, I suppose, that the two would eventually cancel out and the term would fall into the middle — “sluts are…eh.”

Good thought, but I’m not sure that’s how meaning works.


“Either way, the feminist line appears to be that any woman’s sexual behavior, so long as it is self-chosen, is OK as a corollary to the right to privacy, but also that it should be immune from negative comment from those holding a different point of view, even when she herself makes it public. Freedom of speech, like freedom of religion (as noted in this space last month), must take a back seat to the putative freedom of women from any judgment that might be passed by others, particularly on their sexual behavior.

Doesn’t such an expectation belong to just as much of a fantasy world as the slutwalkers’ belief that acting as sluts will either discourage others from thinking of them as sluts or encourage them to start believing that sluttishness is a good thing—or perhaps both?”

Even if someone is acting as sluttishly as the lowest scullery maid, they should have the “freedom” not to be raped. Resolved.

But where is the line prior to that? Am I allowed to hold negative views of someone else’s behavior or presentation, or is that too much of a slippery slope? Is it that I can have my own standards but just shouldn’t do or say anything with them? If so, what’s the point?

Presumably, the idea behind the “right to privacy” is that what I do is none of your business since it has no effect on you; thus, you should leave me alone and let me do what I want without poking your nose in and looking down it at me.

None of us live in a vacuum, though, and we never have. (Although some would say that we’re closer or further apart then we ever have been, which is a topic for some later post…) So in some way this right to privacy is unfounded. Or is it? In what areas is it valid?

This isn’t a new question, but I’m always interested in new answers.