Tuesday evening roundup and ramble

I've been thinking about Camille Paglia's unfortunate column since I linked to it last week. So many things with which to take issue, but I'll take just one:

Furthermore, thanks to a bourgeois white culture that values efficient bodies over voluptuous ones, American actresses have desexualized themselves, confusing sterile athleticism with female power. Their current Pilates-honed look is taut and tense — a boy’s thin limbs and narrow hips combined with amplified breasts. Contrast that with Latino and African-American taste, which runs toward the healthy silhouette of the bootylicious Beyoncé.

Sterile athleticism? WTF? What bothers me most about this--and it should be the implication that femininity is inherently weak--is the idea that we can prescribe the body type women should aspire to--that even CP can consider herself the arbiter of what is and isn't sexy--instead of letting women be themselves. Women come in all body types, and it does us no good for the gender studies police to declare that we should look one way over another. Have you seen the really annoying comments about Crystal Renn's slim look? So what if she's naturally shed some pounds or was photographed in a slimming outfit? She's not the poster child for big-is-beautiful. Okay--maybe she is--but she doesn't have to be--she doesn't owe anybody that. You can't mandate that she stay voluptuous any more than you mandate that someone stay or get thin. Shut the f* up. And meanwhile, let beautiful curvy women stay curvy.

This Hax-moderated discussion--on whether single people "have issues"--is a goldmine. There's so much to say, and most of the comments have actually said a lot of it, and well. Let's take one thought: who doesn't have issues? Single people hardly have a monopoly on issues.
And one person's "issue" is another's quirk. I'm sure RM thought (thinks) I have issues because I believe in boundaries.

Clearly--just look at the inane commentary surrounding the last two nominees to the Supreme Court--there's still suspicion about single women especially. See also Maureen Dowd's brilliant columns on said commentary.

I was also thinking about the "marry him/settle for mr. good enough" issue this weekend. I take particular offense to one of the underlying implications: that the supposed aspects of women's appeal (physical attractiveness) diminish over time, while men's (money) appreciate. Really? In this day and age when so many women are primary breadwinners and generally out-earn men? And, seriously--when I run into men I haven't seen in a while, I often think, "wow, he's not aged well." It doesn't matter, but it matters within the realm of this absurd paradigm. Lori G. might be right: most people who criticize her book haven't read it. But she's made her own bed by opting for a controversial title and subtitle and seeking out controversy.