Salon: Broadsheet

Loved to bytes

Tracy Clark-Flory — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:12:00 PST

What's a man to do when he meets the woman of his dreams -- and she just happens to be make-believe? Why, he proposes to her anyway. Last weekend, a man who goes by the screenname Sal9000 married Nene Anegasaki, his virtual girlfriend in a real-life ceremony presided over by a priest and broadcast live online. (I can only imagine how the priest concluded the ceremony: I now pronounce you husband and video game -- you may kiss the bride's pixels?) The happy couple met in the Nintendo DS game Love Plus, an interactive courting challenge that I previously wrote about because Japanese girlfriends and wives were reportedly complaining about the grip these made-up girlfriends had on their men. Now, the game has inspired what Lisa Katayama of Boing Boing calls "the first public wedding ceremony to ever take place between man and video game." Technically, the union isn't legally binding (although rumors do abound on gamer Web sites that the couple actually eloped to Guam, where marriage laws are apparently much, much more relaxed).

In the spirit of Thanksgiving, I present you with video proof that there are people out there even more peculiar than your own kooky relatives. I for one am thankful that there won't be a place setting for a video game character at my family feast.

Sure, it's violent, but can you dance to it?

Kate Harding — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:26:00 PST

I've long had a theory that, to whatever extent my generation of heterosexual women is messed up about men -- and if the self-help industry has taught us anything, it's that we are! -- a substantial portion of our messed upness can probably be traced back to the "Footloose" soundtrack. The two big hits by women on that album (not counting Ann Wilson's half of "Almost Paradise") were Bonnie Tyler's "Holdin' out for a Hero" -- about settling for nothing less than a ridiculously idealized man (literally, "He's gotta be larger than life") -- and Deniece Williams' "Let's Hear It for the Boy," about how awesome it is to date an inarticulate, slovenly, broke, tin-eared loser ("Let's give the boy a hand!"). When I think about the countless hours my friends and I spent developing awkward dance routines to those conflicting messages in the days before puberty struck, I think it's not so hard to understand why many of us went on to spend our twenties alternating between dating worthless jerks and being hypercritical of perfectly decent guys (who are distinct, I hasten to add, from Nice Guys). "Footloose" is to blame! You heard it here first.

However tongue-in-cheek my theory is, it came out of my genuine surprise upon hearing "Let's Hear It for the Boy" as a grown-up. For the first time, it hit me that the song is not necessarily a sweet paean to a lovable doof; it could as easily be read as the story of a woman with no self-esteem who will rationalize any crap behavior from her boyfriend with "But he loves me!" -- despite the almost total lack of evidence to support that conclusion. When I was 9, I wasn't aware of any women who did that, but by my early twenties, I knew enough of them that Williams pleading "You gotta understaaaaand" took on a whole new meaning. What I didn't know was how long and rich the history of women singing pop songs in defense of not just lousy, but downright abusive, partners is.

Deborah Finding, a scholar at the London School of Economics, has written a dissertation called "Give Me Myself Again -- Sexual Violence Narratives in Popular Music." The title comes from a song by feminist favorite Tori Amos, but Finding's work also includes charming little ditties like The Crystals' 1962 "He Hit Me (And it Felt like a Kiss)." Chris Arnot at The Guardian describes the lyrics: "'If he didn't care for me,' warbled one of the most popular American 'girl groups' of the day, 'I could have never made him mad. But he hit me and I was glad.'" Oof. (That one was produced by Phil Spector, no less.)

"I knew that I wanted to do a PhD that would contribute something to the overall understanding of the way sexual and domestic violence was represented in our wider culture and how that influenced the way people think about the issues personally and politically," Finding told The Guardian. And although the 1980s and early '90s saw a lot of pop songs that raised awareness about domestic and sexual violence -- in addition to Amos' work, she mentions contributions by Tracy Chapman, Suzanne Vega, Alanis Morissette and Sheryl Crowe -- "We've gone full circle in the post-feminist era." Finding points to Florence and the Machines' 2008 single "Kiss with a Fist" -- the lyrics of which inform us that such a kiss is "better than none" -- a catchy, bouncy song that presents mutual violence as no big thing ("You hit me once/I hit you back/You gave a kick/I gave a slap"). Is this what female "empowerment" looks like in the twenty-first century? Being abusive right back to an abuser?

And then, of course, there are the songs by men. Arnot asks Finding about "'gangsta' rap and hip-hop, and their alleged encouragement of aggressively misogynistic attitudes," but she notes that that's hardly the beginning and the end of popular music that demeans women -- and the reasons why it's often the first genre to leap to mind deserve closer examination. "It worries me that there's usually a racist element to these discussions," she says. "Black artists are condemned, while white bands like the Rolling Stones and the Stranglers get away with deeply unpleasant lyrics." In any case, Finding "was more interested in analysing the way that women were narrating their own experience of sexual violence or how they imagined other women's experience."

Reclaiming the worst narratives from men doesn't hurt, either. Over at Jezebel, Latoya Peterson points out that Amos subverted the breathtaking misogyny of Eminem's "'97 Bonnie and Clyde" -- in which a man takes his daughter on the road after murdering her mother -- by covering it in her ethereal, distinctly feminine voice. It's not for nothing that Finding calls Amos "the patron saint of sexual violence."

Finding has spent a lot of time travelling to gigs in the US and the UK with Amos's fans and carrying out online surveys into how they respond to her music. "I expected 50 or so responses to my questions," she says, "but received over 2,000. Some 98% of the respondents said that they used her music as a means of emotional support."

Songs like Amos' "Me and a Gun," in which she candidly recounts her own rape, can help survivors feel less alone and more comfortable opening up about their experiences. Writes Peterson, "Finding's work is amazing because it illuminates the role of narrative in healing from assault or abuse by speaking these stories into existence." But popular narratives can also serve to normalize and/or trivialize abuse. According to Wikipedia, Florence of Florence and the Machine has explained on her Myspace page that "'Kiss with a Fist' is NOT a song about domestic violence. It is about two people pushing each other to psychological extremes because they love each other." All that hitting/slapping/plate-breaking stuff is just metaphorical, apparently. Except, the song is based on a couple she knew "who were so cool, but so visceral and so intense. The guy never hit the girl, but I saw her lamp him a couple of times, and she'd always give as good as she got. But it wasn't really physical violence, it was more about the fact that their animal passion for each other was the thing that was attractive for them. It was how joyful destruction can be, and how alluring it is to be in a relationship so fiery."

Uh, since when does "lamp" as a verb mean something other than physical violence? Does it just not count when a woman does it to a man? And has it occurred to Florence -- or the band's fans, reading that explanation -- that domestic violence often goes unseen by people close to the victims? Or that emotional abuse often leads to physical abuse? Or that there's a big difference between a pleasantly spicy relationship and "pushing each other to psychological extremes"? Despite the singer's disclaimer, Finding says rightly that the song equates "violence with passion in a way that sounds depressingly familiar." It sounds a lot like it did in 1962, in fact. I'm not saying women need to hold out for unrealistic heroes, but it would be nice if we'd come a little farther than that by now.

A kiss too gay for morning TV

Tracy Clark-Flory — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:40:00 PST

When CBS' "The Early Show" played a clip Wednesday morning of Adam Lambert's controversial performance at the American Music Awards, I gasped and clutched my (imaginary) pearls. It wasn't his "erotic" moves, as the segment put it, that shocked -- no, no, it was the fact that the network blurred out the rocker's kiss with a male band member. It's understandable that the show censored footage of Lambert repeatedly shoving a dancer's face in his crotch -- but a kiss, really? CBS left little room to debate whether or not this was the result of a homophobic double-standard: Just ten seconds earlier, the network had played a clip of the infamous Britney-Madonna kiss from the 2003 MTV Video Music Awards -- completely uncensored.

This was all part of a lead-in to the "The Early Show's" interview with Lambert, in which anchor Maggie Rodriguez implored him to think about "the children" and desperately tried to get him to apologize to his "child fans." Thankfully, Lambert got a chance to talk about the double-standard behind the uproar: "If it had been a female pop performer, I don't think there nearly would have been as much of an outrage." When Rodriguez asked whether it was an issue of being male or being gay, he replied: "Both. I think it's a double-whammy." Then she came back with: "But, but, I don't think people have said specifically that they were upset about the fact that you're gay or that you're kissing a guy." Right, people have generally been savvier with their prejudice -- unlike CBS.

You know what? My sensibilities have been deeply offended by this "Early Show" segment -- when do I get my apology from Rodriguez and and CBS?

Demi Moore's W debacle

Mary Elizabeth Williams — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:26:00 PST

Dear fashion magazines: In your ongoing efforts to turn human women into freaky robots, may we suggest you learn to cover your tracks a little better?

We all did a little "WTF?" when Demi Moore appeared on the cover of W this month with what looked like a Photoshop disaster of an enthusiastically shaved-off hip, as Jezebel originally reported. Mrs. Kutcher fired back on Twitter that the image was all her, posting her own version of the photo and saying, "Here is the original image people my hips were not touched don't let these people bullshit you!" adding that "I love the pic and can only say I wish I had good lighting like that following me around all day!! Haha."

But now, it gets even better. Keen-eyed fashionistas have noted the remarkable, some might say unfuckingcanny, resemblance between the cover image of the 47-year-old Ms. Moore and 26-year-old Anja Rubik's recent spin on the runway in the same Balmain swimsuit and wrap. The body, the pose, the position of the arms – they're all oddly similar.

Maybe it's just what they call in publishing a "coinkydink." In the story that coincides with the cover image, Kevin West says that, "One might say she looks her age, although hers is an undeniably striking version of middle age." "Striking," in this case, is apparently code for "exactly like a model 21 years her junior."

The sad part, aside from the apparent lame-ass whopper of the whole thing, is that Moore, a stunning, talented actress and producer in her own right, claims in the story that she likes that people are "getting to see who I am." We're seeing somebody all right. But we're not convinced that someone is Moore.

Man bites girl at "New Moon"

Kate Harding — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:26:00 PST

I've already mentioned my concern about the messages the "Twilight" series sends to young girls -- i.e., that "true love" involves things like ignoring a man's history of extreme violence and warnings that he wants to hurt you in particular; accepting his frequent insults as expressions of concern for your well-being; and finding it romantic when he breaks into your bedroom to watch you sleep, among other things -- but I confess I'd never given any thought to the messages it might be sending to grown men. Like that teenaged girls would like you to bite them.

That's the message one Michigan guy took from it, anyway. At a Friday showing of "New Moon," he sat directly in front of Erin Westrate and her friends, and throughout the film, she says, he would occasionally "lean back and make a sexual comment that was very unnecessary and not needed." (Point of clarification: There is no such thing as a necessary sexual comment between a grown man and teenage girls.) On the way out of the movie, "he grabbed [Westrate] by the back of the hair and pulled her down and bit her on the neck." Whether you're a high school student or a professional writer, I'm pretty sure the only appropriate response to that is, OMGWTF?

The bite didn't break Westrate's skin, but not surprisingly, the dude freaked her right out -- and that wasn't even the end of it. The man also followed her to the parking lot and watched her get in her car to drive away. In an interview with her local ABC affiliate (video below), Westrate said, "He was just, like, smiling at me -- it was so creepy, it wasn't even funny. That's not right. I know that's not right."

Police are now looking for the creep, who faces assault charges.

Google's Michelle Obama fail

Mary Elizabeth Williams — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:26:00 PST

We thought Google was yanking us a few weeks ago when our search for "bad fathering" turned up some memorable results. (Fortunately, those results have since changed.)

But our minds really got blown when we heard about what happens when you do an image search for Michelle Obama.

Go ahead and try it. We'll wait.

Yes, the first image that pops up is of the first lady's face morphed with that of a monkey. Stay classy, Google!

The company's go-to excuse for the image – and anything else that might offend you – is on their explanation page: "We assure you that the views expressed by such sites are not in any way endorsed by Google. Search engines are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the Internet. A site's ranking in Google's search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query."

Meanwhile, when you go to the Google Blogger hosted 0hot-girls blog, where the image orginally appeared, you get a message from October 21 that reads in very English-as-second-language, "I am very sorry for this article, and that this is the program automatically issued a document from the article. Do not the subject of race and politics make the discussion too radical and sincere hope that the world is very peaceful."

The monkey picture of Mrs. Obama is no longer there – the entry under her name is just a collection of seemingly random recent clips and photos. That appears to be par for the course for the site itself, which is full of trending YouTube clips and pictures of cars and celebrities. That's right, it's just a useless bot blog. Perhaps the fact that the 0hot-girls blog has ads to "Save Today on Jail Calls" and for the "JCBling Girls Club" gives some indication of their target demographic.

So there you have it. It's not Google's fault if a racist image of Michelle Obama turns up in an image search. It's not even the fault of the blog that ran it – after all, it's not much of a flesh and blood endeavor itself. It is however, as one among the hundreds of recent commentors aptly summed up, "just a ploy to get more hits for the site. And unfortunately, it's working."

Yet despite the near total lack of accountability for the whole rather sorry affair, the way that single image – one that at some point was created by a person -- has ignited attention, outrage, and a fair measure of racist attaboys has little to do with algorithms or optimization. What do you get when you combine random technology with a picture of an animal? An entirely human response.

There's something about Mark

Tracy Clark-Flory — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:40:00 PST

The photo depicts Sen. Mary Landrieu with a wad of semen in her hair. A Photoshop whiz clearly took the accidental spunk-hawk Cameron Diaz sported in the 1998 rom-com "There's Something About Mary" and seamlessly added it to a photograph of the Louisiana senator. (Get it? They're both named Mary! Plus: Splooge on a woman's head? Comedy gold.) I would shrug off this photo-editing disaster as yet more evidence that the Internet is forever stuck in a pubertal phase, but -- dude -- the picture was published on Time.com. As in, Time magazine.

Time. Mag. Azine.

On November 19, the image was posted to The Page blog, which is written by Mark Halperin, and ran with the caption: "Senator Landrieu's latest position on proceeding on health care debate here." The link brings you to another page -- although still on The Page -- with a throw-away quote from Landrieu's spokesperson about having "no time-line on when she will make and announce her decision on the motion to proceed. " First off: Needlessly linking to another page on your own blog with a one-sentence quote that you easily could have included in the initial post is a surefire way to piss off readers (and ensure they will never again click on your links). Second: Astute readers will note that the quote and the photograph are entirely unrelated.

At some point, the URL for the post at issue began registering a "page not found" message. So did a post that Halperin published the following day featuring side-by-side photos of Landrieu and Diaz, minus the bodily fluids. (Way to class things up.) A cached version of the missing pages -- both of which include "theres-something-about-mary" in the URL -- can be found here and here. Also, on Saturday, The Page announced that the senator would "vote in favor of bringing health bill to the floor for debate" along with the headline, "Landrieu Says Yes," and that post is no longer showing up. I called and e-mailed Time late Tuesday to ask the when, why and how of the missing posts but a press representative declined to comment.

As Media Matters points out, this only adds to "a broader, sexist right-wing narrative that the U.S. Senator from Louisiana is, as Glenn Beck put it yesterday, 'a high-class prostitute' engaged in 'hookin'' -- all because she lobbied Senate leadership for expanded Medicaid funding for Louisiana in the Senate health care bill in what was characterized by the media as an exchange for her 'yea' vote to proceed with floor debate on the bill." Naturally, Rush Limbaugh also joined in, calling her "the most expensive prostitute in the history of prostitution."

So, fellas, you've already illustrated her with ejaculate in her hair and called her a prostitute -- what's next? I shudder to think.

Fess up, faux women's clinics!

Tracy Clark-Flory — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:25:00 PST

Under legislation approved Monday night by Baltimore's city council, crisis pregnancy centers that do not offer referrals for abortion or birth control would be required to post signs saying as much. It seems like such a reasonable plea for transparency! After all, these types of centers are infamous for engaging in religiously- and politically-motivated deception of pregnant women -- and yet, if the city's mayor signs the measure, it will be the very first law of its kind in the U.S.

Time and again, we've written about how crisis pregnancy centers masquerade as legitimate healthcare facilities and target young, poor and minority women by offering free pregnancy tests and counseling. In reality, these centers, which are often staffed by unqualified volunteers, provide medical misinformation as a means of coercing women into going through with a pregnancy and, in some cases, to give the baby up for adoption (to a good Christian family, natch). Some clinics have been found to delay pregnancy test results so they can first subject patients to graphic anti-abortion imagery and propaganda.

This measure is bolstered by more than crisis pregnancy centers' well-established reputation nationwide: Last year, the NARAL Pro-Choice Fund sent staff members into 11 Maryland centers in particular to pose as potential patients and reported that "every CPC visited provided misleading or, in some cases completely false, information" about abortion and birth control." For good measure, the clinics also threw in "emotionally manipulative counseling" (for example, one worker told an investigator, "You need to come meet your baby before deciding what to do"). Worse yet, many clinics "purposefully schedule sonogram appointments two-three weeks after the initial appointment to ensure that there will be a heartbeat and that the pregnancy is larger than a grain of rice." (If you're short on outrage today, I highly recommend reading the report in its entirety.)

What makes these centers so pernicious is that they calculatedly project "an aura of medical authority," as the NARAL report puts it, when in reality they are largely "amateur-run." This measure aims to chip away at that facade. Frankly, the legislation could go much farther and actually require them to cop to the totality of their dishonesty -- these clinics should be happy they're getting off so easy.

The anti-abortion protest that wasn't

Kate Harding — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:01:00 PST

What if you threw a protest and nobody came? Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry did just that in Fort Wayne, Indiana, the first stop on a planned 13-city tour in which Terry intends to inform people that the senate healthcare reform bill "will essentially fund abortions." According to the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel, "A few reporters and photographers, Terry and two passersby were the whole rally. Terry's target, U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh and Bayh's entire staff inside the E. Ross Adair Federal Building, were no-shows." "

I'm really not qualified to speculate about what goes on in the minds of anti-choice protesters, but here are a few possible reasons why folks didn't show up for Terry's rally:

1) He's full of crap. As Tracy Clark-Flory wrote in Broadsheet last week, "The key details of the Senate bill are as follows: Both public and private plans are allowed to offer abortion coverage. It empowers consumers to use government subsidies to purchase insurance that covers abortion, but requires that their premiums (and not federal funds) pay for the actual procedures. The Health and Human Services Secretary is charged with evaluating plans to ensure that taxpayers do not pay for abortions."

2) "Taxpayers shouldn't have to fund things they find morally repugnant" is always a weak argument, but it's especially weak right now. I mean, I could give you a list of a dozen things I'm appalled to fund indirectly with my taxes, but these days, do I really need to enumerate any beyond "war" and "other war"? Oh, hell, let's throw in executions, too. Because if you really want anyone to take your "taxes shouldn't fund murder" complaint seriously, we've got a whole lot of dead autonomous human beings to account for at both the federal and state levels before we even begin discussing fetal personhood.

3) Most disturbingly, he's threatening violence, and not even trying to be subtle about it.

"If the U.S. Senate passes this bill and they try and force Americans to pay for child-killing by abortion, they are sowing the seeds of violence in this country," Terry said from the sidewalk in front of the Federal Building. "We fought a war over slavery, we fought a war over a tea tax. What do people think will happen if they try to force us to pay for murder?"

Um, those most fiercely opposed to murder will start... murdering? Even more than they already have? That sure seems to be what you're saying, there, buddy. And despite a revolting amount of support for the monsters who assassinate abortion providers, most mainstream anti-choicers are not on board with that. At least, not openly.

But please, Randall Terry, do carry on with your campaign to raise awareness about made-up issues. We at Broadsheet wish you every bit as much success as you've already had.

Mammogram advice? Meh

Tracy Clark-Flory — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:57:00 PST

Women have a simple plan for responding to the unpopular new guidelines on breast cancer screenings: ignore them. A Gallup poll shows that 76 percent of women disagree with the recommendation that women hold off on mammograms until age 50, and a whopping 84 percent of those between age 35 and 49 intend to reject the advice entirely. Women are going to get their mammograms when they damn well please.

The telephone poll of 1,136 women suggests that the objection to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's guidelines arises from a mistrust of the panel's motivations. Seventy-six percent of women believe the decision was based on cost, not science. That's no surprise considering that the results were released amid a contentious debate about healthcare reform and that the recommendations have been poorly communicated to the public. As Cristine Russell writes in the Atlantic, the panel's intent may have been to deliver the message "that individualized, informed decision making should replace blanket guidelines for universal, routine mammography screening of women in their 40s" -- but it failed spectacularly on that front.

No matter your personal take on the new mammogram guidelines, one thing is certain: There is a critical lack of information on the topic. The Gallup poll found that 40 percent of women believe that a 40-year-old woman has a 20 to 50 percent chance of developing cancer over the next decade, when her actual risk is only 1.4 percent. Clearly, we need to strike a better balance between effective awareness-raising -- like pink ribbon campaigns -- and communicating nuanced medical fact.

Today in science: Lady Gaga's left nipple

Kate Harding — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:25:00 PST

On the issue of whether Lady Gaga's left boob was visible for a nanosecond during her performance on Leno last night, Rachel Sklar at Mediaite concludes, "After careful review here's my unscientific analysis: Yes." Oh, Rachel, don't sell yourself short. Yours is the most astoundingly scientific analysis of a possible celebrity nip slip I ever did see. Consider: "At 3:26, a backup dancer lifted her (by the crotch no less!) and then, switching her position 90 degrees and lowering her, staggered just a touch. Gaga did not miss a beat but as he lowered her, she quickly adjusted her left breast and continued the song." Also, after she finished performing, Gaga "froze in place, with her microphone arm hugged tightly to her side. When Leno came over to greet her she extended the arm -- and that is when I am 99% positive the faintest, quickest glimpse of aureola [sic] was visible."

If all that isn't persuasive enough, a fuzzy screenshot of the moment is included so the Internet can weigh in on the question of the hour: Shadow or nipple? Says Sklar, "My last-night TV rewind told me nipple, but here's why I will argue for it based on a small, unclear still: Note the difference in how one side of the jumpsuit is cut to the other side. The 'V' of the decolletage is not symmetrical." Lawyered! Also, seriously?

I'm still not convinced there was visible nip, nor am I convinced I should care. If you'd like to investigate for yourself, Mediaite has clips. Personally, now I just want to watch the "Bad Romance" video all day instead of working. Perhaps you'd care to join me.

Glamour girls can't jump

Tracy Clark-Flory — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:45:00 PST

The words flash on screen: "The height of intensity." Next to the dramatic text is a photo of a young woman in a gown sitting in a limousine; she hugs a basketball like she might her non-existent date. Later, the screen announces: "A passion for commitment." We're shown a shot of another beautiful young lady wearing precious pearl earrings and a shoulder-baring dress, while staring directly into the camera with her smoky eyes. Such are the assets of Florida State University's women's basketball team, according to its spiffy new Web site.

The video introduction does show us several snapshots of the girls with sweat pouring down their faces and posing in their jerseys -- scenarios that are actually relevant to the game -- but the glamour shots are garnering controversy. Each player has a bio paired with a photo of her in a shiny dress lounging in or against a limo. One group shot captures the whole team inside the luxury vehicle, their uncomfortable grinning faces reflected in the metallic ceiling. As a university press release explains, the intended message of the site is: "Women athletes are powerful and beautiful" -- assuming they're gussied up like princesses. There's nothing subversive about the site. It's not like they're shown playing a game in their gowns, makeup smeared by sweat and dresses torn to tatters at their feet, or absurdly attempting to pass a ball between their legs while wearing a floofy floor-length skirt. This isn't a critical commentary on the sad limitations of beauty ideals, it's a desperate attempt to conform to them.

I suspect this isn't merely an attempt at sexing up female athletes in order to improve the team's visibility. Carnal Nation points to "Training Rules," a new documentary about homophobia in women's collegiate sports. The film focuses on the story of Rene Portland, the Penn State University women's basketball coach who was accused of repeatedly discriminating against players she suspected to be a lesbians. Female basketball players have long had to fight against the stereotype that they're gay and, after watching the preview for "Training Rules," it's hard not to wonder whether this straight-gals-going-to-the-prom photo-shoot is evidence that it's still the case.

What makes a woman?

Tracy Clark-Flory — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:15:00 PST

No one knows the definitive difference between men and women. That may sound like the dubious thesis of a women's studies 101 essay, the result of feminist philosophy carried to its ultimate political extreme, but it's plainly true. For proof, you need only read Ariel Levy's sprawling article in this week's New Yorker about Caster Semenya. Not only does it offer the richest telling yet of the scandal surrounding the 18-year-old runner by grounding it in the history of sports and racism, and the culture of the 18-year-old's hometown in South Africa -- it also puts it in the absurd and unscientific context of sex testing.

We can all easily sketch out the differences between the sexes: Women have breasts, ovaries, a uterus and a vagina; men have testicles and a penis -- end of story, right? For most folks, it is, but then there are the exceptions: A person can be born with one testicle and one ovary, or with a penis, uterus and ovaries. Someone with XY chromosomes can have both a vagina and undescended testes because of a condition that blocks their bodies from responding to testosterone. You can have two X chromosomes, one of which is merged with a region of the Y chromosome. And, and, and ...

I could easily go on, if you had a couple of hours. As Alice Dreger, author of “Hermaphrodites and the Medical Invention of Sex,” tells Levy, "People always press me: 'Isn't there one marker we can use?' No. We couldn't then and we can't now, and science is making it more difficult and not less, because it ends up showing us how much blending there is and how many nuances, and it becomes impossible to point to one thing, or even a set of things, and say that’s what it means to be male."

The International Association of Athletic Federations, which is investigating Semenya's sex -- still! -- "does not define the criteria that its group of experts must use to reach their determination," Levy reports. Dreger, a professor at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine, refers to it as the unscientific "I know it when I see it" approach. Worse still, the organization allows for any athlete to undergo testing if someone, anyone raises a stink about his or her sex. In Semenya's case, all it took was a speculative blog post and the gender hounds were unleashed. The good news is that IAAF is holding a conference at the start of the new year to review its policy -- but it's hard to be too optimistic about the outcome considering that they're asking the wrong question to begin with.

Levy, however, asks the right question: "If sex is not precisely definable, how else might sports be organized?" She considers a couple of different solutions to this foundation-shaking query: There is the possibility of categorizing athletes "by size, as they are in wrestling and boxing" (downside: "women would usually lose to men") or "skill level" (downside: "the strongest elite female athletes would [almost always] compete against the weakest elite male athletes"). A more drastic scientific approach would be "to divide athletes biochemically" since testosterone has an enormous impact on athletic performance. In that case, "the division would be determined not by gender but by actual physical advantages that gender supposedly, yet unreliably, supplies," she concludes.

Of course, international athletic competition isn't about fairness and equality; ultimately, someone is supposed to win. "Different bodies have physical attributes, even abnormalities, that may provide a distinct advantage in one sport or another," she argues. For example: The many N.B.A. players with a condition that causes growth hormones to go into overdrive and the double-jointed Michael Phelps with his primate-like arms and legs. If the speculation about Semenya's biology is true, why is her particular abnormality worth policing? The IAAF attempts to control for potential physical advantages by dividing athletes by sex, as opposed to any other criterion because it's the easiest shorthand we have -- in sports and generally in navigating day-to-day life -- but this case shows just how incredibly fallible it can be. Unfortunately, Semenya is suffering now because it's so much easier to point the finger at her than it is to call into question the way we've organized sports -- and, as Levy puts it, "the way we've organized our entire world."

Another feminist defense of "Twilight"

Kate Harding — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:52:00 PST

On Friday, I speculated there might be a feminist reason to defend the "Twilight" phenomenon (though not necessarily the content of the books or movies): If nothing else, its popularity could teach Hollywood that female audiences matter. In that respect (and several others), "Twilight Saga: New Moon" is off to an even better start than anticipated. According to Entertainment Weekly's Adam B. Vary, the movie shattered a bunch of opening weekend records -- with an 80 percent female audience. Says Vary, "movie theaters have not seen this much business since 'The Dark Knight' thundered into cineplexes in July 2008, and it bears repeating that all those dollar signs this weekend came by far from the purses, pocketbooks, and wallets of women."

All right, I'll officially say that's a good thing. And now Sady Doyle, occasional Broadsheet contributor and blogmistress of the fabulously named Tiger Beatdown, has gone and given me yet another feminist angle on "Twilight" to consider. ("Twilight" is officially the new Sarah Palin: I hate everything it stands for, but since so much of the reaction to it is sexist, I keep feeling compelled to defend it. Sigh.)

Doyle admits to a fondness for Robert Pattinson, who plays vampire Edward Cullen in the series, although she does not admit it's partly because he's hot. Other than that, she covers the reasons why I, too, am fond of the surprisingly candid and self-aware young star -- "Robert Pattinson talks shit about the projects he is in. Robert Pattinson is honest about the fact that he is not the best actor" -- with a bonus articulation of something I'd never considered: "And Robert Pattinson's main source of employment is facilitating his own objectification, which he does, but also complains about all the time. Robert Pattinson is... Megan Fox, basically!

That Fox/Pattz comparison is so apt, Sady's not even the only ladyblogger in my Google reader who made it today. And the difference in our reaction to each of those actors' being subjected to an audience's lustful gaze says a lot about who's meant to be looked at and who's meant to be listened to in this culture. "People outside the superfan matrix don't tend to have strong feelings about The Pattz," she writes, "but they do tend to get all squirmy and giggly and uncomfortable with the way that so many women relate to his filmed image (for example, by screen-printing it on their underpants) and/or his person." All that raw, ridiculous, pointless lust is just so unseemly. And when The Pattz speaks in interviews about how strange and oppressive it is to be the object of a million fangirl fantasies, or how awful his character is ("the more I read the script, the more I hated this guy"), those of us outside the superfan matrix like him more for it. That poor guy! He can't go anywhere! People expect him to be something he's not, just because he's good-looking and plays such a one-dimensional character, desperate people can project whatever they want onto him. Isn't that sad? But that whiny, stupid Fox girl, on the other hand -- where does she get off complaining about getting paid to look hot? "We have no problem with objectifying Megan Fox," says Doyle. "We just have a problem with everything she says, and specifically the things she says wherein she takes issue with being objectified. We just hate her."

Much like we hate those women buying Edward Cullen underpants (among other products) and making Robert Pattinson's life difficult. "Because those women are acting in a way that is typically reserved for men. And they're treating Pattinson like a girl." The objectification of women in pop culture, writes Doyle, is both so common as to go unnoticed and inevitably "tacky as all hell, aesthetically."

[A]nd so criticizing it, in an aesthetic way, seems pointless. Congratulations, you went looking for art in a product intended to provide boners and came up empty. Surprise! But when girls do the exact same thing -- when they prove themselves capable of the exact same sort of objectification, and the exact same goofiness or tackiness or unrealistic fantasy in the name of getting off -- well, it freaks people out. It's weird. Why are they acting like this? Don't they know that Robert Pattinson is a person? Why are they treating him like a big chunk of meat? Why doesn't Edward Cullen act like a real guy would? Etcetera!

Let me be clear: I think those are all perfectly reasonable questions. It's just that I think they're perfectly reasonable questions to ask about the objectification of Megan Fox, and every other Action Movie Girlfriend in history, as well. Treating a man just as poorly as women have long been treated in films made for young male audiences is not the kind of gender equality that gives me hope for the future. But thinking critically about why folks become so offended when they see that happening might, in fact, lead to a bit of progress. Why is it so unsettling to see a young male actor dehumanized, but not his female counterpart? Why do we sympathize with a man saying it's hard to be nothing but a pretty face, but vilify a woman who says it? Whether or not you can answer those questions, if you can at least spot the difference, you are obliged to do one of two things. In Doyle's words: "Be less weirded out by the fact that ladies are getting all freaky about Robert Pattinson. Or be MORE weirded out by the dudes getting all het up about various lady movie stars."

For now, I'd recommend both. Ultimately, I'd love to see more movies made for all audiences that go beyond a cheap appeal to our basest fantasies; recognizing and resisting objectification of anyone in pop culture is a goal dear to my heart. But it would also be nice if, in the meantime, people recognized that women and teenaged girls have our own base fantasies, and quit acting like it's headline news that we have real human libidos, which are sometimes activated by pretty young things who stand around doing very little in blockbuster movies. Just as surely as "New Moon" has proven that catering to a female audience can be as lucrative as catering to young men, it's proven that one-dimensional sex objects can sell to lady audiences as well. So, while it may not get beyond one obnoxious stereotype of female desire -- violent, overprotective dudes get us hot! -- at least it busts the myth that there's no such thing.

Adam Lambert kisses a guy! Gasp!

Kate Harding — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:24:00 PST

"I bet you thought that I was soft and sweet," goes Adam Lambert's new song, which he debuted at the American Music Awards Sunday night. But you were wrong! "There was groping, dragging and bondage outfits," said the L.A. Times Pop & Hiss blog of the American Idol runner-up's performance. Better yet: Emo boys kissing. And of course, Lambert dancing provocatively as he sang, "I'm about to turn up the heat/I'm here for your entertainment."

If you're like me, you're thinking, "What's not to love?" But if you're like some Pop & Hiss readers, apparently, you're thinking, "What about the children?!"

Within minutes of the American Music Awards coming to an end, irate viewers had begun writing in. Reader Kathie Kunish declared that the telecast should have been rated 'PG-14,' and user 'penny' noted that she had to cover the eyes of her 10-year-old daughter. Reader Richard Bowen agreed, posting on Pop & Hiss, 'I know he wants to break out and show the world his dangerous side, but why alienate an entire population of kids to do it?'

Um, because that's part of showing your dangerous side? Who says, "I want my image to be hotter and edgier, but still completely appropriate for a tween audience"? Not Adam Lambert, bless him. "I'm just trying to have a good time onstage," he told Pop & Hiss. "It's a sexy song. It's 2009, it's time to take more risks. It's about entertainment. People want to be surprised. It's too bad that people are so scared."

And of course, what goes unspoken is what people are scared of: The gay. If it were just about a sexually suggestive performance on a prime time awards show, there would be no news; as Lambert points out, female performers like Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera and Madonna "have been risqué for years." But when it's a man groping both men and women onstage, and throwing in a same-sex smooch, we must protect the children! "Honestly," says Lambert, "there's a huge double standard."

Compare Lambert's performance last night with Britney's rendition of "I'm a Slave 4 U" at the 2001 Video Music Awards and see if you don't agree.

New health advice hurting women?

Tracy Clark-Flory — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:50:00 PST

Immediately after reading about the new cervical cancer screening guidelines, which recommend delaying pap smears and having them less often, a friend sent me an e-mail reading: "I mean, should this month's headlines be summed up as, 'New medical guidelines recommend that women get a lot less healthcare than they used to?'" Indeed, this advice comes on the heels of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's controversial new guidelines that bump the suggested age for mammograms up to 50. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which issued the new pap smear guidelines, says the proximity of both news items is strictly coincidental and that its new position has been in development for quite some time.

Some skepticism on women's part about these relaxed standards makes sense after years of repeatedly being pinned with pink ribbons, lectured about the importance of yearly paps and hit over the head with pamphlets about the lifesaving HPV vaccine. That's especially true for those of us who know women -- some in their 20s and 30s -- with breast or cervical cancer. As my friend wrote, it feels a bit like the overarching message is: "Chill out, chicks! It's just cancer!" Yeah, and it'll just kill you!

That these new guidelines come amid a contentious healthcare debate has also raised paranoia that this is part of an effort to lower healthcare costs -- at the expense of women's health. The impossible-to-avoid Sarah Palin took to Facebook late Thursday to air her worries about this shift in the wisdom about pap smears: "There are many questions unanswered for me, but one which immediately comes to mind is whether costs have anything to do with these recommendations," she wrote. "The current health care debate elicits great concern because of its introduction of socialized medicine in America and the inevitable rationed care." Many other Republicans have jumped on the "rationing" bandwagon as well. (Yeah, now they care about women's healthcare!) Judy Norsigian, executive director of the Boston Women's Health Book Collective (aka Our Bodies Ourselves), told me that "we have a discourse at the moment that is dominated by right-wing rhetoric that the Democrats are all about denying healthcare services."

The truth is that Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of health and human services, insists that the breast cancer screening guidelines will not change "what services are covered by the federal government." (Also, insurance companies claim they won't change mammogram coverage and, as David Dayen points out on FireDogLake, "the procedure is mandated at [age 40] in 49 of the 50 states.") The Obama administration has yet to address the new standards for cervical cancer screening -- but medical opinion on the benefits and risks of pap smears is far less contentious than when it comes to the mammogram debate (which has been going on for decades).

Cindy Pearson, executive director of the National Women's Health Network, an independent consumer-advocacy group, told me that the suggested pap smear routine "is not at all about cost-cutting," but instead "improving women's health." Most women's bodies are able to fight off the virus that causes cervical cancer -- but, when a doctor does detect infection through a test for the virus or the appearance of "disturbed cells" on the surface of the cervix, they typically provide treatment that very well might be unnecessary. This isn't just an issue of experiencing bothersome "cramping, discomfort and missing some work" after having the abnormal cells removed, she says -- "what's actually happening is it's weakening the cervix in some women so that they can't support a pregnancy full-term."

My question for her was why doctors haven't instead adjusted their response to the discovery of the virus' presence -- was it in the interest of avoiding malpractice suits? She explained that the medical community operates under the mantra of "if you see it, you treat it." Essentially, the new cervical cancer screening guidelines reduce the likelihood of a doctor seeing it, so as to avoid their treating something likely to clear up on it's own. "Sometimes there are cases when you say, 'Watch and wait,'" she says, "but almost no one does it."

It just goes to show that you have to be your own advocate when it comes to navigating the healthcare system. As Mary Elizabeth Williams wrote earlier this week about the new mammogram standards, "What’s optional for one woman may be the difference between life and death for another." She also added that "blanket guidelines are just that -- they're fine for covering the many, and they are not laws we have to follow." A woman and her doctor still have to take into account her individual history and particular risk factors. That has always been the case and continues to be so. As Norsigian from Our Bodies Ourselves said: "You give women the scientific evidence and let them make their own choices."

Fatherhood isn't in the genes

Tracy Clark-Flory — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:30:00 PST

A man is supposed to take care of his children. If he gets a woman pregnant, he's expected to step up and take responsibility. But what if that man discovers that the child he thought was his own -- the kid he read to, cuddled and tucked in at night -- is another man's? Then who is responsible for the kid -- the biological father or the nurturing adoptive dad? That is the quandary increasingly being raised by DNA tests. As Ruth Padawer writes in a fascinating cover story for the upcoming New York Times Magazine, the rise of paternity tests -- bought on the cheap online or at local drug stores -- have revealed "just how murky society’s notions of fatherhood actually are."

Mike L., the lead subject in Padawer's piece, found evidence of his wife's affair with a coworker and decided to have L., his 5-year-old daughter, take a DNA test. The results arrived in the mail: He was not the father. "I ran upstairs, locked myself in the bathroom and cried and dry-heaved for 45 minutes. I felt like my guts were being ripped out," he says. Mike separated from his wife, Stephanie, and began paying her child support because, he says, she claimed Rob, L.'s bio-dad, had refused. Things continued on this way for several years, until he got news that Stephanie would be marrying Rob, and that was too much to bear. He asked a Pennsylvania court to relieve him of parental responsibility, but a judge ruled that Mike was the legal father, not Rob.

Padawer explains, "Once a man has been deemed a father, either because of marriage or because he has acknowledged paternity (by agreeing to be on the birth certificate, say, or paying child support), most state courts say he cannot then abandon that child -- no matter what a DNA test subsequently reveals," she continues. "In Pennsylvania and many other states, the only way a non-biological father can rebut his legal status as father is if he can prove he was tricked into the role -- a showing of fraud -- and can demonstrate that upon learning the truth, he immediately stopped acting as the child’s father." In Mike's case, the judge ruled that he was the legal father because he stuck around even after the DNA test -- in other words, because of love, not fraud.

"I pay child support to a biologically intact family," Mike says. "How ridiculous is that?" Pretty ridiculous when you consider that Rob gets to live with L. and play the role of papa; and Mike only gets to see her on the weekend. As vexing as this case is, though, we hardly want courts to devalue the unbreakable bond that can develop even in relationships without genetic ties. At some point, DNA can become rather irrelevant. The truth is that Mike's utter adoration of L. jumps off the page; he is a doting, indulgent father. L., now 11 years old, still sees him as her daddy and he wants it to remain that way -- he just doesn't want to pay child support to the woman who cruelly cuckolded and defrauded him. As far as the law is concerned, though, he can't have it both ways. There are many different ideas for how to best address the issue -- from limiting paternity challenges to the first two years of the child's life to widespread DNA testing at birth (I picture Maury Povitch being wheeled from delivery room to delivery room: "You are not the father! You are the father!") -- but all are imperfect.

Paternal uncertainty is one of the many biological inequalities of reproduction (see also: pushing a human being out of your vagina) and, as evolutionary psychologists tell it, getting stuck raising some other schmo's kid is a hard-wired male nightmare. But if you had any doubt that we humans are more than our base evolutionary imperatives, this article should convince you: For all his rightful resentment, men like Mike show that family is thicker than blood.

Could "New Moon" be a feminist triumph?

Kate Harding — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:10:00 PST

OMG, you guys, it's here! "New Moon" opens today! In fact, it started with midnight screenings last night, over a thousand of which sold out via just one service, Fandango, according to the L.A. Times. Entertainment Weekly reports that Fandango has also sold out thousands more showings of the film -- "the most the company has ever sold prior to a film's release date" -- and that "AMC and MovieTickets.com report the same information. Both the movie chain and the online ticket buying service have said the film has broken records set by "Harry Potter" and "Lord of the Rings." ("New Moon" even nabbed the No. 1 spot on MovieTickets.com's list of top 10 advance ticket sellers of all time, breaking a nearly 5-year-old record set by "Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.")

In fact, the advance sales have been so overwhelming that MovieTickets.com and Summit Entertainment, the studio behind the film, stopped reporting sales data earlier this week, for fear of losing customers who assume there's no point in even trying to get into a showing of "New Moon" this weekend. Says NYT ArtsBeat blog, "It could dent the opening-weekend gross if consumers mistakenly think that no tickets are available. At a certain point, average moviegoers might skip the multiplex altogether if they think 'Twilight' hoopla has grown too insane."

I hate to break it to nervous studio execs, but that ship has sailed. "Twilight" hoopla has been bonkers for years, and the "New Moon"-specific hoopla is really only noteworthy for being even more so. The L.A. Times article notes that "more than a week before its release, the film sold more than four times as many tickets as the original 'Twilight' at MovieTickets.com at the same point in the sales cycle." And it's not just teenage girls driving the frenzy; MovieTickets.com's latest data said 27 percent of the buyers were women between 25 and 34 -- the slightly embarrassed but no less addicted demographic Sarah Hepola reported on for Salon earlier this week.

Another 35 percent are women under 25, though, and altogether, 87 percent of advance ticket holders are female. That's no surprise, but a majority-female audience breaking sales records left and right certainly is. "Let's just think about that," wrote Melissa Silverstein at her blog Women & Hollywood last week. "A franchise fueled by girls and women has the potential of beating the machines for the box office record. This movie could potentially be 'guy proof' meaning they won't need guys to see it for it to kick some box office butt. Whereas the other franchises NEED women to make their numbers."

Having seen the first movie and read the first two books before officially determining that neither the lols nor the thought of blogging furiously about the wildly popular series' gender messages held my interest enough to continue, I never imagined I'd find a reason to see the "Twilight" phenomenon as a potential triumph for women. In the books, at least -- far more than in the first movie -- heroine Bella is spineless and infantilized, while dreamboat vamp Edward is stalky and emotionally abusive. The thought of the effect those characterizations might have on young girls who see it as a depiction of "true love" pained me. But Silverstein makes a great point: What about the effect the "Twilight" saga's success might have on Hollywood's confidence in female-oriented films?

"New Moon finally give us an apple to apples comparison with other types of fan-driven films," she told me in an e-mail. "The biggest films in Hollywood are the ones that come out of comic books, toys and books. Starting last year with 'Sex and the City,' 'Mamma Mia' (and both those can be dismissed because the targeted audience was older), but now with the two 'Twilight' films, it shows that female filmgoers can be as rabid in their fandom as male." The question is, will the powers that be recognize young women as a robust market that's been largely ignored and condescended to, or will they write it off as a limited phenomenon? "Studios should look at this as a golden opportunity and not a fluke!" writes Silverstein. But tapping into the passions of young female audiences means "working to try and uncover things that are bubbling in fandom and even trying to come up with exciting ideas to engage the audience," not just waiting around for the next runaway bestseller.

It might also mean sticking with what works, especially when it's a female director who's demonstrated a knack for understanding teenage girls. Unfortunately, Catherine Hardwicke, director of "Twilight," was replaced by Chris Weitz for the second installment, despite the first film's having grossed $383.6 million worldwide -- and the series seems to have suffered for it artistically, if not financially. Salon's Stephanie Zacharek enjoyed Hardwicke's movie as an "unapologetic, unembarrassed foray into teen-heartthrob territory, hitting the sweet spot where pop culture, teenage curiosity about sex, and vampire lore meet," but says Weitz's "offers few of the juicy, go-for-broke romantic pleasures of its predecessor."

Zacharek's not alone in her disappointment. Granted, popular teen-oriented franchises hardly need critical acclaim to succeed, and the first film only earned 49 percent positive reviews at Rotten Tomatoes -- but contrast that with the 30 percent rating "New Moon" has. Positive word of mouth may be no more than the icing on the cake for such a big movie, but it's nevertheless likely to be absent this time, even though Weitz had far more money and momentum going into the project. Says Silverstein, who saw an advance screening, "I think they really miscalculated in not keeping Hardwicke. The budget for this film was $50 million up from I believe $39 for the first one and one of the things that the studio and Hardwicke were fighting about was budget. She really seems to know how to tap into the teen spirit and that was missed here. She just knows how to elicit emotions from young people. It's her thing, and that's what worked best in the first movie and worst in this movie."

So even if the studios do learn something about the power of female audiences from the "Twilight" saga, they seem to have ignored any lessons the first film offered about the capabilities of a female director. Nevertheless, Silverstein is optimistic about "New Moon's" potential to improve women's lot in Hollywood across the board -- as long as executives recognize its tremendous appeal as more than a fluke. "Hopefully, this success will infiltrate the minds of Hollywood number crunchers and seek out products for the female audience," she says. "If people start thinking and making more movies that star women and are women driven, it can only help women at all levels of the business."

Conservative men love rape metaphors

Mary Elizabeth Williams — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:21:00 PST

I'm not in the camp with those who believe that using the word "rape" as a metaphor is always verboten. After all, when we say "screwed," we're using it largely to describe something unpleasant happening to someone unwilling. And if we from time to time use over-the-top terminology of slaughter or ass-kicking when no real earth is being scorched, I can allow that sometimes a person's sense of violation can be couched in terms of sexual violence. But that doesn't mean I have quite the same fondness for the term that others do.

On Wednesday, "Modern Family's" Sofia Vergara prompted nervous titters on "The View" when she dropped an off-the-cuff joke about being "raped" at 13 to explain the existence of her teenage son. She didn't clarify for Whoopi whether it was rape or "rape rape."

But stand back and learn from the masters, "View" ladies, because you've got nothing on conservative commentators. And lock up your women and your borders, because as Media Matters for America demonstrates, Limbaugh, Beck and Steele know that Obama and his progressive agenda are coming to forcibly penetrate the flag. If that's possible.

Mental rape! Pocketbook rape! Government-sanctioned rape! Values rape! Private sector rape! Statue of Liberty rape! Behold and prepare for the liberal rapeocalypse.

Transgender Day of Remembrance

Kate Harding — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:21:00 PST

Today is the eleventh annual Transgender Day of Remembrance, which is set aside to memorialize people who have been killed because of anti-transgender hatred and prejudice. According to TDOR's website, "Although not every person represented during the Day of Remembrance self-identified as transgender -- that is, as a transsexual, crossdresser, or otherwise gender-variant -- each was a victim of violence based on bias against transgender people." That includes, for instance, a human rights worker, Cynthia Nicole, believed to have been killed for her work on behalf of transgender people, and Michael Hunt, murdered with his trans lover, Taysia Elzy. But the majority of victims are trans people who are members of other oppressed groups as well. Blogger Queen Emily at Questioning Transphobia, who has "misgivings about TDOR, about how productive it is, about appropriation," writes:

Who is being mourned is the most important question of all. 160 estimated deaths of trans people, and the vast majority in Central and South America (75% according to Transgender Europe). So it seems to me that to unite all trans people under one banner ignores the specifics of death -- sex (the majority are trans women), race (Latina and black), class and occupation (sex work) are as important factors as transness.

A look at the list of those who have died since the 2008 day of remembrance -- which can be found at the TDOR website or in the video below -- makes that clear, along with a couple of other things. Like the number of victims of anti-transgender hatred whose names are unknown, and how extraordinarily brutal their deaths often are. According to the Human Rights Campaign, such crimes "tend to be particularly violent." Just last week in Puerto Rico, 19-year-old Jorge Steven Lopez Mercado was decapitated, dismembered and burned by a man who thought the gay teen was a woman when he picked him up for sex, and became enraged upon learning that he was wrong. Jos at Feministing points out that we don't know how the victim self-identified, but "Lopez Mercado's murder reflects those of too many others killed when presenting a gender other than that assigned to them at birth. Some may not have identified as trans but all were killed because of hatred directed towards those who break the strict rules of the compulsory gender binary. They were killed because they did not conform to what someone else thought their gender should be."

In an interview on the GLAAD blog, trans man and activist Ethan St. Pierre, whose transgender aunt Deborah Forte was murdered in 1995, says, "Transgender Day of Remembrance is a day when we come together to remember those that we've lost, but it also reminds us of how unsafe we are and how we are targets of violence -- and that nobody is really safe from it. If you're a trans person, especially if you're an unemployed trans person out on the street, there's a really good chance you're going to lose your life. It reminds me how unsafe we are. And it reminds me how much work we have to do to educate people so that it doesn't keep happening."

Welcome to abortion's middle ground

Tracy Clark-Flory — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:01:00 PST

Ah, compromise! There's nothing like an extreme assault on women's reproductive rights to make you truly appreciate moderation. On Wednesday night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced the proposed Senate healthcare bill, which trades the House's stringent Stupak-Pitts language in favor of a limited ban on federal funding of abortions. Essentially, the bill applies the restrictions found in the Hyde amendment to the healthcare bill. Stupak supporters may claim their amendment accomplishes the same thing -- but, as we've repeatedly written in Broadsheet, it goes much farther.

The key details of the Senate bill are as follows: Both public and private plans are allowed to offer abortion coverage. It empowers consumers to use government subsidies to purchase insurance that covers abortion, but requires that their premiums (and not federal funds) pay for the actual procedures. The Health and Human Services Secretary is charged with evaluating plans to ensure that taxpayers do not pay for abortions. And, while the bill requires at least one plan in each state to cover abortion, it also includes a conscience clause stating that healthcare providers cannot "be discriminated against because of a willingness or an unwillingness ... to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions."

It's a true compromise bill. Meaning, it seems, that now both sides have something to be unhappy about. Doug Johnson, the National Right to Life Committee's legislative director, issued the following statement last night: "Reid has sought to please the militant minority that demands funding of abortion through federal programs, even though substantial majorities of Americans believe that abortion should be excluded from government-funded and government-sponsored health programs." Along similar lines, anti-choice Sen. Ben Nelson told The Hill: "I think you need to have it eminently clear that no dollars that are federal tax dollars, directly or indirectly, are used to pay for abortions and it needs to be totally clear." Presumably, "eminently clear" means Stupak-Pitts.

On the other side of the divide, a press release from NARAL Pro-Choice America said President Nancy Keenan is "encouraged that the Senate bill does not include the extreme new anti-choice restrictions adopted by the U.S. House" but notes that "the legislation includes a compromise that continues existing laws that unfairly single out abortion care, including a ban on federal funding." Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, was more supportive of the bill: "It is absolutely critical that the compromise language in the Senate bill prevail in any health reform legislation," she said in a statement. Lest you think she's perfectly happy with the new bill, Northup added, "Women have compromised their needs substantially to pass the bill, and Senator Reid's merged bill contains even more stringent segregation of funds and other requirements to ensure that no federal money will pay for abortion services. Enough is enough, and there can be no further weakening of protections for women and their healthcare needs." Now that's a choice -- ehem -- note to end on.

Update: More pro-choice organizations have weighed in on the Senate bill. Consistent with the comments above, Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, just issued the following statement:

The Senate bill ensures that no federal funds will pay for abortion, which is in keeping with the 33-year consensus based on the passage of the Hyde amendment in 1976. While we don’t agree with Hyde or approve of the fact that the Senate bill singles out abortion from all other medical procedures, we believe that the Senate bill respects the Hyde consensus, while allowing women with private health insurance the choice of plan, coverage, and providers.

Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, however, took a more aggressive stance. "The Senate version of the health care bill, released last night, purports to be less harsh, but make no mistake: the anti-abortion provisions of this bill are harmful to women. What's worse, we know there will be an attempt to amend the Senate bill to go all the way with a provision mirroring the House's Stupak-Pitts Amendment," she said in a statement. "Anti-abortion measures have no place in health care reform!"

Breast cancer guidelines could harm black women

Kate Harding — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:20:00 PST

On Wednesday, Broadsheet's Mary Elizabeth Williams laid out some good reasons to be skeptical of The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's new guidelines for breast cancer screening, which suggest mammograms every two years for women 50-74, as opposed to every year for women over 40. Although "the report does make a persuasive case that not all cancers are life-threatening, and that 'over detection' and 'over treatment' pose their own -- often considerable -- health risks," Williams says, "What's optional for one woman may be the difference between life and death for another." And sometimes, says Ashton Lattimore at NewsOne, race will be the factor that determines which woman is which. "Perhaps even more than others, one group has particular cause to be wary [of the new guidelines]: Black women."

Black women, writes Lattimore, "have the highest breast cancer death rate of any race, are at increased risk for developing the diseases at younger ages, and are disproportionately prone to an extremely aggressive form of breast cancer" known as "triple negative," which can move fast enough to progress beyond stage 1 in between annual screenings, let alone biannual ones. Additionally, African-American women "already receive fewer mammograms than white women," are more likely to be diagnosed at later stages and less likely to receive the appropriate follow-up care. Moreover, "the U.S. Department of Health reports that Black women ages 35 to 44 have a breast cancer death rate more than twice that of white women in the same age group."

According to Marisa Weiss, M.D., director of Breast Radiation Oncology and director of Breast Health Outreach at Pennsylvania's Lankenau Hospital, delaying screening until age 50 and extending the length of time between mammograms "could have a devastating effect on African-American women." Alexine Clement Jackson, writing in Essence, agrees. "As a breast cancer survivor myself, and chairman of the [Susan G. Komen for the Cure] Board of Directors, I urge all women, but especially African-American women under 50, to pay attention to their breast health."

Fortunately, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius has stated that Medicare will continue to cover breast cancer screening according to the old guidelines, and she "would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action." (That makes one of us.) The New York Times reports that in a statement, Sebelius "stressed that the task force 'is an outside independent panel of doctors and scientists who make recommendations' and who neither 'set federal policy' nor 'determine what services are covered by the federal government.'" That's good. What would be even better is if doctors and scientists -- and the journalists who report on their findings -- kept in mind that public health recommendations for women need to take more than just white women into account.

Caster Semenya a golden girl once more

Kate Harding — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:20:00 PST

Sport and Recreation South Africa has released a statement saying that Caster Semenya -- the 18-year-old runner who took gold in the 800-meter World Championships last August, only to be subjected to gender testing and public speculation about her eligibility to compete as a woman -- will be allowed to keep her medal, title and prize money because she "has been found to be innocent of any wrong."

Furthermore, the statement says results of the International Association of Athletics Federations' gender testing on Semenya will not be made public, because it's nobody's damned business. "The implications of the scientific findings on Caster's health and life going forward will be analysed by Caster and she will make her own decision on her future. Whatever she decides, ours is to respect her decision."

Although rumors that the IAAF had found Semenya to be biologically intersex emerged in September -- leading to intrusive, insensitive and plain ignorant headlines ("She's a man -- and a woman!") around the world -- as recently as Wednesday, the IAAF said officially that "medical testing of the athlete is still to be completed." Other than that, the organization has no comment. So the fact is, we have no facts about what the IAAF may or may not have found. And as the SRSA statement reminds us, we have no right to them, either.

The SRSA would have liked to hear something more from the IAAF -- something like, "Sorry we bungled this horribly and caused Semenya untold distress" -- but without evidence that someone inside the IAAF leaked confidential test results, the South African organization is ready to let it go.

We have asked the IAAF to apologise at the way the whole Caster Semenya saga was dealt with. Their response is: "It is deeply regrettable that information of a confidential nature entered the public domain." The IAAF is adamant that the public discourse did not originate with them. We also cannot prove the contrary. It is our considered view that this chapter of blame apportioning must now be closed.

One might hope all this will put an end to the worldwide disregard for Semenya's privacy, but of course it won't. Mary Vallis of Canada's National Post responds to the latest news by lamenting that "after weeks of waiting, sports fans will not be getting the answers they are looking for." Aw, poor sports fans! How will they ever go on without knowing a stranger's medical test results? And certainly, Semenya's being allowed to keep her medal should by no means reassure sports fans that she earned it or anything. "But does she deserve that medal? Without answers, people are never going to stop talking," Vallis warns. Is it just me, or is the existence of gossipy jerks not actually a good reason to release a young woman's confidential medical information?

Maybe Vallis is right that people will never stop talking. But maybe we can be better than that. The SRSA statement ends with thanks to the law firm that "stepped forward pro bono when the need to protect the rights and dignity of our golden girl arose," and to "South Africans (old and young, black or white) who showed solidarity and support for our daughter." In other words, thanks to those who have kept in mind that regardless of whether she's biologically a woman, Semenya is first and foremost a human being -- a very young human being who's endured an extraordinarily public and relentless invasion of her privacy. Maybe if we all tried a little harder to remember that, we wouldn't feel the need for more answers.

No women will get abortion coverage

Tracy Clark-Flory — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:55:00 PST

I started the week biting my nails thinking about how the logic behind Stupak-Pitts could be more broadly applied. A Politico report about how Americans get $250 billion a year in tax breaks to buy employer-based plans, many of which offer abortion coverage, is to blame. I picked up the phone and called some of the amendment's supporting Congress members and anti-choice organizations to ask whether they might target such plans. Of course, my phone calls got me nowhere -- why would they reveal their long-term strategy to me? -- but, no matter. Now I realize my question was naive to begin with, because according to new analysis by George Washington University, it's possible the amendment itself could essentially bring about the same result.

Based on how the insurance industry "adjusts its products over time to conform to the regulatory environment in which it operates," the report concludes that Stupak-Pitts would "have an industry-wide effect." In short, it wouldn't just impact plans purchased through the new health insurance exchange. The most dramatic of those wide-reaching changes is that it will eliminate "coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women." That's no typo -- they truly mean all women (in the United States). The analysis explains:

The health benefit services industry, like any large producer of goods and services functioning in a national economy, depends on standardization and norms. If certain types of products are excluded in certain large markets, over time the market as a whole for the product can be expected to shift, as manufacturers move to accommodate their product to reflect the regulated design.

Insurance coverage of contraception offers a choice example of how this works:

Prior to the enactment of state contraception coverage mandates, most health plans did not provide the benefit. As state laws regulating the inclusion of contraceptives have become more prevalent, the broader health benefit services market has been affected. National health benefit services companies report today that they routinely include contraceptive coverage in their plans in all markets, not only those directly affected by state law.

As I mentioned earlier, those of you covered by employer-based plans should also take heed -- we aren't just talking about plans sold in the new exchange: "As the proportion of women of childbearing age covered by an abortion-related treatment exclusion grows, companies offering coverage products in the employer-sponsored market ultimately may elect to simply remove the procedures from their products so that they can be sold in all markets." The report also predicts that "health plan administrators will err on the side of coverage denial" when "interpreting and applying the exclusion." Why? Because of course "the legal risks associated with coverage determination are all on the side of incorrectly awarding coverage, not erroneously denying it." Ah, great.

Finally, there is the issue of those already much-maligned "riders." "It is essential that the supplemental coverage be administered in conjunction with basic coverage," the report says -- but, of course, Stupak-Pitts' requirement of strictly separate cash flow channels prevents this from actually happening. In other words, "the terms and impact of the Amendment will work to defeat the development of a supplemental coverage market for medically indicated abortions."

So goes a week in my post-Stupak life: I start off with one nail-nibbling concern and just a couple of days later I have many, many more.

Women play "rough," too

Tracy Clark-Flory — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:44:00 PST

Sure, Elizabeth Lambert regrets punching, kicking and hair-pulling her way to YouTube infamy. The suspended University of New Mexico soccer player is also seeking psychological help and refuses to make excuses for lashing out on the field -- but that doesn't mean she's going to let slide the media's sexism in its coverage of her dirty game. In Wednesday's New York Times, she shows she still has some fight left in her:

I definitely feel because I am a female it did bring about a lot more attention than if a male were to do it. It’s more expected for men to go out there and be rough. The female, we’re still looked at as, Oh, we kick the ball around and score a goal. But it’s not. We train very hard to reach the highest level we can get to.

The nature of the media coverage, if not the extent of it, was certainly dictated by her sex. That's understandable -- after all, we aren't as accustomed to seeing violent outbursts from women. The bigger issue, though, is that we aren't as accustomed to seeing female athletes. Remember, the only reason for the uproar is that a compilation video of her belligerence was posted online -- not because the world was actually tuned in to the game. Ironically, it might be that when we start taking female athletes seriously -- as Lambert suggests -- we won't be as shocked when they act like poor sports.

Candy Crowley's greatest accomplishment

Kate Harding — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:19:00 PST

A female celebrity has lost weight, and the Internet is burning up with speculation as to how and why she did it. And this is ... a surprise? It is to L.A. Times columnist James Rainey, at least when the celebrity in question is CNN political correspondent Candy Crowley. Sniffs Rainey, "A career of sophisticated political observation, graceful writing and determined fairness earns you this: speculation about your metabolism and guesses about your turns under the surgeon's knife. Such is the wonder of our ever-freer public discourse."

Naturally, I agree with Rainey's point that the intense focus on Crowley's weight is bullshit. I just can't help boggling at his apparent failure to see it coming, or his perception that this is a new development in public discourse. Is it really a big secret that any woman in the public eye who loses weight is inevitably placed under the journalistic microscope (both tabloid and legit) -- whether because everyone wants to know how she did it or because everyone wants to chide her for getting too thin, and crack "eat a sandwich" jokes in the same breath as they armchair-diagnose her with a serious eating disorder? If there was any doubt that people go bananas for weight-loss stories, I think it was put to rest on the day of the Fort Hood shootings, when the Web site of Crowley's venerable employer kept an article titled "Newborn inspires mom to lose 71 pounds" in the most prominent cover spot all afternoon and evening. And as for the attention paid to celebrity weight loss in particular, a newly thin Nia Vardalos wrote on Anderson Cooper's 360 blog last summer, "In the last year, I got to star in a movie, wrote and directed my next one, and adopted a three year old from American Foster Care. But guess what I'm asked ... how did I lose the weight?" Exactly. Also, perhaps Rainey has heard of Oprah Winfrey?

But Candy Crowley is a distinguished political commentator, not an actress or Internet-famous mom or lady lifestyle guru! Surely, someone of her stature shouldn't be hounded by such frivolous gossip? Well, yeah. It sucks how no woman in the public eye, not even one who's primarily known for her brains, is immune to relentless scrutiny of her appearance. (Perhaps Rainey has heard of Hillary Clinton?) The media's obsessive and deeply sexist focus on prominent women's looks is enough of a no-brainer that Joan Walsh and Sarah Palin are on the same page about it, for crying out loud. So really, I want to offer Rainey a cookie for writing a pretty good article about just that (and -- of course -- about how Crowley lost the weight), but come on!

To be fair, even Crowley herself claims to be surprised. "It's stunning to me that something I consider so separate and apart from what I do for a living has taken up so much space in some people's thoughts," she told Rainey. "I am a hard-news journalist. That is what I do." To those of us who occasionally consume soft journalism, though, it's no surprise that a serious job offers zero protection against appearance policing. Dude, how embarrassed were Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel when they showed up to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Berlin Wall coming down in practically the same outfit? Fashion faux-pas!

Rainey notes that "Crowley can count herself in a select company of women -- Andrea Mitchell and Lesley Stahl are also in the club -- whose news careers on national TV continue to flourish into middle age. The truism has changed but only a little: Newsmen get more 'distinguished' with age, while their female peers rush to dye their hair or find a safe haven in academia." Good on him for both noticing and saying that (not to mention getting in a dig at CNN for overlooking Crowley as a replacement for Lou Dobbs). But if he's really surprised that a highly respected, 60-year-old hard journalist would be subject to a shallow and demeaning public analysis of her looks, he's not paying nearly enough attention -- to how powerful middle-aged women or 20-something starlets are treated by both old and new media. If you own a vagina, your looks will always be part of the conversation, if not the whole thing. And if you've lost weight, any other accomplishments automatically pale in comparison. That's not the result of "our ever-freer public discourse" but of a culture that prizes women for conventional beauty above all else. And that ain't nothing new.

Hold off on that mammogram?

Mary Elizabeth Williams — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:19:00 PST

On a beautiful June Saturday last year, my friend, neighbor and comrade in motherhood Martha died of breast cancer at age 45. Summer dissolved into fall, and when our community returned in September, I noticed another friend, her head swaddled in a scarf, in the schoolyard. She was in her mid-40s, and in the midst of chemo for breast cancer. (And thankfully, she’s currently doing great.)

But my friends aren’t the only reason that I’m skeptical of the new U.S. Department of Health and Human Services guidelines that have raised the suggested age to start getting mammograms to 50. The recommendations, which went off like a bombshell earlier this week, not only up the screening age by a full decade, they go on to suggest mammograms only every two years for women 50-74, and to discourage self-exams, which have never been conclusively linked to mortality prevention.

Why the sudden change? The report, the department’s first in seven years, notes the high prevalence of false positives for mammograms, “which can cause anxiety and lead to additional imaging studies and invasive procedures (such as biopsy or ﬁne-needle aspiration).” Frankly, given the choice between “anxiety” or not living to see my children grow up, I’d go for the first one. But the report does make a persuasive case that not all cancers are life-threatening, and that “over detection” and “over treatment” pose their own -- often considerable -- health risks. And at the heart of the new guidelines, which are similar to those from the World Health Organization, is the sobering fact that detection is not the same as curing anything.

The American Cancer Society promptly shot back that it’s sticking by its recommended guidelines to start mammograms at age 40, noting that “Our experts make this recommendation having reviewed virtually all the same data reviewed by the USPSTF, but also additional data that the USPSTF did not consider.” The American College of Radiology went even further, saying that the “cost-cutting” recommendations “will result in countless unnecessary breast cancer deaths each year.” Noting the steep decline in breast cancer rates in the last three decades, the ACR said that “At least forty percent of the patient years of life saved by mammographic screening are of women aged forty-49.” And Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who detected who own breast cancer via self exam at age 41, lambasted the guidelines as “totally inappropriate.”

Yet there’s plenty in the new guidelines worth considering. The radiation from regular mammography poses a health risk of its own. And loathsome as the American College of Radiology may find the phrase “cost-cutting,” the truth is that mammograms are expensive. Want a potentially better healthcare system for everybody? Then we need to reconsider what’s necessary and what’s optional.

But what’s optional for one woman may be the difference between life and death for another. The U.S. National Institute of Health itself estimates that a woman aged 30-39 has a 1 in 233 chance of being diagnosed with breast cancer. For women 40-49, those odds leap to 1 in 69.

A birthday isn’t an automatic excuse for anything other than cake. I didn’t run out and get me a big old burst of breast-centric radiation the day I turned 40 (I must have been getting one of those abortions of which we feminists are so very fond), any more than I’m going to shrug my shoulders and figure I can worry about cancer when I hit the magic half-century mark.

I’m a healthy woman under the age of 50. There’s no history of breast cancer in my family. And I wouldn’t mind blowing off those cold, painful dates with the machines that squeezed me so hard I cried at my last appointment.

But not so fast. I grew up in New Jersey, which has one of the highest breast cancer rates in the country. I started menstruating young. I smoked. I had my first child in my mid-30s. All of which are risk factors. And, as I’ve learned from the mammograms I did start at age 41, I have dense breast tissue, which means that not only do I run an elevated chance of developing breast cancer, it could be harder to detect if I do get it.

I’m no believer in the word “routine,” whether applied to getting a procedure or skipping it. Healthcare is about active self-advocacy and not being shy about speaking up. Every woman with an opinion about breast cancer has to figure out her own risks -- and share them with her doctors. I’m not my age. I’m not my breasts. I’m not the 10:15 appointment being hustled out the door before the 10:20 appointment. Blanket guidelines are just that -- they're fine for covering the many, and they are not laws we have to follow. They don’t mean much to my little neighbor who lost her mother the day after she finished kindergarten. And they’re no substitute for the individual care the rest of us who plan on making it to 50 need and deserve.

New low for humanity: Jaycee Dugard porn

Kate Harding — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:19:00 PST

Quote of the Day: "We want to capture how sad this story is, but also how interesting. We're trying to figure out a way to do that so it's not exploitative." --Adult filmmaker Shane Ryan on the movie he plans to make about the Jaycee Dugard story.

Now, I suppose it's possible that a film titled Abducted Girl: An American Sex Slave, and made by a guy responsible for films like Warning!!! Pedophile Released and Amateur Porn Star Killer -- not to mention star of such classics as Caged Lesbos A-Go-Go and Vaginal Holocaust (tagline: "Rape, Revenge, Hicks, Vampires and a Man-Eating Vagina!") -- will treat the subject matter with respect and sensitivity. But I'm thinking it's not likely. I'm thinking, in fact, that this is the very definition of "exploitative." And I'm thinking that Shane Ryan might just be the very definition of douchebag. But neither of those words paints the full picture, because what I really think about it is: There are no words.

Dugard family spokesperson Nancy Seltzer had a few, though: "exploitive, hurtful and breathtakingly unkind." I guess that's a start.

Barbie, eat a sandwich

Mary Elizabeth Williams — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:19:00 PST

They're a critically acclaimed trio of teenaged Brooklyn girls who sing punk rock anthems to baby animals. And in their new video, Care Bears on Fire have a few choice words for America's favorite fashion icon, Barbie.

As the girls chase her down through the pages of a fashion magazine, they hector the ubersvelte doll queen who's "got no brains, but she's got style" to "eat a sandwich, give it a try!" It's a carbs and cheese-friendly message to women -- and women to be -- everywhere that's strong, funny, and most of all, it rocks.

Sarah Palin, safe sex advocate?

Tracy Clark-Flory — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:13:00 PST

Sarah Palin's media blitz this week has mostly reacquainted us with the same ol' hockey mom we got to know during the 2008 presidential campaign. But "Good Morning America's" preview Tuesday of the ex-governor's interview with "20/20" delivered a real surprise -- and I'm not talking about the fact that she said "bullcrap" to Barbara Walters' face. When asked about her response to finding out that her 17-year-old daughter was pregnant, she answered: "There was that feeling of 'Bristol, why? Didn't you know there are things you could do to prevent this -- or not do it at all?'"

[Silence]

Come again? I thought: Did Palin really just promote the use of contraceptives -- ahead of abstinence, no less? Why yes, yes she did. What's more, Walters followed up by asking whether she had taught Bristol about abstinence or birth control. "Yeah and, you know, it was just that assumption that, well, pfft, good, I'm glad you're not doing it, Bristol," she said, "because it's a very dangerous thing to be doing at age 17 -- you could get pregnant or worse." (We're left to guess at what she means by "worse.") Walters, determined to run this play into the end zone, continued: "You're not against birth control?" And you know what the Thrilla from Wasilla did? She rolled her eyes and said: "Nooo, not at all!"

A similarly mind-boggling thing took place on Monday during Palin's appearance on "Oprah." When Bristol's pregnancy was brought up, Palin explained that her daughter's "only public mission is to remind her sisters and other girls, her peers, that there are consequences to unprotected sex." This from the same woman who framed her teenage daughter's accidental pregnancy as a lesson in the importance of abstinence (as opposed to a teaching moment about safe sex, comprehensive sex education or the availability of contraceptives). In response, a friend wrote to me in an e-mail: "DID SHE JUST SAY 'UNPROTECTED SEX'? LIKE, SHE BELIEVES IN PROTECTED SEX?" Well, Palin did continue on to say that Bristol's message is, "'Girls, wait, your entire future will change if you become pregnant.'" Still, taken as a whole, the message was shockingly rational: Wait to have sex -- but if you don't, use protection.

Perhaps it's unfair to be so surprised. After all, we already knew that Palin takes a less extreme position on the issue of sex education than some of her conservative compadres: She supports abstinence education, but not abstinence-only legislation. But it's been hard to forget the way she burst into Bristol's interview with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren -- after her daughter called abstinence "not at all realistic" -- to defend the "ideal" of abstinence and argue that when it fails you just gotta "make the most" of it and "get beyond" it. Then there was the amazingly tone-deaf statement delivered by her spokesperson in response to Levi Johnston's claim that he didn't always use protection with her daughter: "Bristol’s focus will remain on raising Tripp, completing her education, and advocating abstinence." In such a worldview, Bristol didn't fail to use protection, she failed to abstain from sex. And, as promised, Bristol became an "abstinence ambassador" and hit the talk show circuit to promote the very thing she had not so long ago called unrealistic.

Make no mistake, Palin isn't changing her position on abstinence, but, rhetorically, she is allowing some gray to seep into her black-and-white rhetoric -- and we could all use more of that when talking about teen sex.