The-F-Word.org

It’s Friday (!) and in case the mid-afternoon slump strikes, here’s a couple videos to slack off to.

A new PBS documentary follows four girls as they grapple with body image issues, unhealthy and confusing media images and the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse.  “A Girl’s Life” is hosted by Rachel Simmons, the author of the New York Times bestsellers Odd Girl Out: The Hidden Culture of Aggression in Girls, and The Curse of the Good Girl: Raising Authentic Girls with Courage and Confidence.  An educator and coach, Rachel also blogs about dating, relationships and other issues at TeenVogue. Click here for more info on the project.

—————————————————————————–

How to be the perfect wife, mother, career woman and super hot sex babe? Just buy more stuff! Sarah Haskins zeroes in on consumerist messages aimed at women in 2009.

When I was younger, our parents would have us fill out our Santa wish lists weeks before Christmas.  As the sole bookworm in the family, I, of course, always requested a long list of books — Oliver Twist in the third-grade, Shakespeare at the age of 9 and later, in my teen years, Stephen King.  My list must have not made it to the North Pole because instead I got things like a makeup brush kit or a t-shirt screenprinted with a picture of a black labrador.  One of the joys of marrying a man who used to do all his Christmas shopping at Walgreens on Christmas Eve is that now all I do is fill out my Amazon wishlist and know that most, if not all, will be wrapped and waiting under the tree.  I’ve already devoured the two fiction books I received — Stephen King’s new book, Under the Dome and The Strain, coauthored by Chuck Hogan and Guillermo del Toro — and am now ready to dig into my non-fiction gifts.  In no particular order…

• Sherrie Inness, Secret Ingredients: Race, Class and Gender at the Dinner Table

• Sander L. Gilman, Fat: A Cultural History of Obesity

• Jessica Weiner, A Very Hungry Girl: How I Filled Up on Life… And How You Can, Too!

• Stewart Lee Allen, In the Devil’s Garden: A Sinful History of Forbidden Food

So, what’s on your reading list?  Any recommendations for the rest of us?

You may remember guest-blogger Kara (a.k.a. Filmi Girl) from her great post on the whittling waistlines of Bollywood actresses.  Now she’s back with a guest post on the body image struggles inherent in the popular Twilight series, specifically Bella’s desire to rid herself of her human body and the disturbing descriptions of physical sensations and appetite.  I’ve read a lot of feminist critiques on the Twilight series, mostly concerning the books’ not-so-subtle messages of abstinence and the unbalanced relationship dynamic between the main characters, but Filmi Girl’s is a new take I haven’t yet seen before.  It is, to say the least, food for thought.

Filmi Girl writes:

Imagine you’re reading a story about a girl starting over a new high school. As she enters the cafeteria, her eyes are drawn towards a certain group of kids – all physical perfection and effortless cool.

“They weren’t talking, and they weren’t eating, though they each had a tray of untouched food in front of them…As I watched, the small girl rose with her tray – unopened soda, unbitten apple – and walked away with a quick, graceful lope that belonged on a runway.” (Twilight, p. 18-19)

To me, this doesn’t say ‘vampire’ as much as ‘pro-ana.’

While I don’t think that Stephenie Meyer, author of The Twilight Saga, was deliberately encouraging young women make an unopened soda and unbitten apple their lunch of choice, the scene is an early indicator of the twisted relationship with appetite that runs through the whole series. There are plenty of disturbing facets to The Twilight Saga, from Edward’s abusive behavior towards Bella and the imprinting which seems more like child grooming, that have been looked at in depth but I haven’t seen much on appetite – or rather, Bella’s desire to rid herself of her appetites.

For those gentle readers unfamiliar with the tragic tale of Bella Swan, resident of Forks, Washington, let me give you a crash course. Bella, age 17, moves to Forks, Washington at the beginning of Twilight. At her new high school, she meets and develops a crush on a mysterious student – a student who finds being around her intolerable and yet won’t leave her alone: (the pale Adonis) Edward Cullen. In a fit of self-loathing, Edward reveals his true self to her. He takes off his shirt in a patch of sunlight, his chest sparkling with the glittery skin of a Meyer-verse vampire. But while Edward is a predator, built to feed on the human race, he has adopted a lifestyle referred to as “vegetarianism.” Edward only eats non-human animals and compares the experience to a human living on tofu, keeping their hunger at bay but never being fully satisfied (this is Meyer’s take on vegetarianism, not mine). Bella gradually moves into his world, getting to know his “family” of like-minded vampires (the Cullens), until one day she catches the attention of a particularly vicious vampire named James who is moving through the Cullen territory and decides to make a meal of her. Bella flees to Phoenix under the protection of Cullens but despite their best efforts, is still captured by James. Edward and his family rescue her and kill James but not before James has a chance to deliver a giant bite to her arm, that will kill her. Edward bravely sucks out the vampire “venom,” knowing that he will kill her if he cannot stop himself in time. He does. Bella lives and returns to Forks, still infatuated with Edward.

In the second book, New Moon, Edward leaves Bella – telling her that he no longer loves her – and Bella works her way into a deep depression. She emerges from it with the help of her good friend Jacob Black, a Quileute Indian boy who lives on the local reservation. Jacob and Bella develop a genuine friendship, although it’s hinted that Jacob feels something more, but are interrupted from furthering their relationship by Edward, who under the false assumption that Bella has died, is going to kill himself by provoking the Volturi, a sect of vampire nobles – the vampire drama queen equivalent of “suicide by cop.” Bella, still feeling the pull of obsession towards Edward, goes to stop him. Edward is saved and reveals that he had left Bella for her own good and that he never stopped loving her. Bella forgives him and returns to Forks with Edward. Jacob isn’t so quick to forget and vows that he will not let her throw her life away. Eclipse, the third book, follows the love triangle and Bella’s desperate attempts to become a vampire, which at times sound chillingly like preparations for suicide. At the end of Eclipse, Bella discovers she loves both men – but Edward more and ends with Bella still human but engaged to be married to him.

Perhaps it takes someone who has struggled with her own appetites to view Bella’s quest for vampire-hood (if that is the correct term) in quite this way. Vampire stories have traditionally mined crevices of human desire that are not socially acceptable, substituting blood lust for passions unnamed, such as homosexual desire (Carmilla, 1872) or, more recently, general teenage restlessness and ennui (The Lost Boys, 1987). But the Meyer-verse vampires Bella is infatuated with actively battle their own unacceptable hungers – living off of non-human animals instead of allowing themselves to be physically satisfied. The life of a Cullen is filled with self-deprivation. As Edward himself says, “I can’t be sure, of course, but I’d compare it to living on tofu and soy milk; we call ourselves vegetarians, our own little inside joke. It doesn’t completely satiate the hunger – or rather thirst. But it keeps us strong enough to resist. Most of the time.” (Twilight, p. 188)

Leaving aside Meyer’s views on vegetarianism, we are clearly meant to find Edward’s heroic resistance to his own physiology to be admirable. It is never suggested that the Cullens could eat donated human blood, either from willing victims or from the hospital. Human blood is a forbidden food. And Edward’s morbid pull towards Bella seems, at times, less like romance and more like a dieter eyeballing a particularly delicious slice of cake. He gets a perverse satisfaction from abstaining. “‘Just because I’m resisting the wine doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate the bouquet,’ he whispered. ‘You have a very floral smell, like lavender… or freesia,’ he noted. ‘It’s mouthwatering.’” (Twilight, p. 306)

And Edward’s thirst appears to be his only physical desire. All evidence in The Twilight Saga points to Edward being a 100+ year old virgin. Bella is the one pushing their sexual relationship and Edward keeps her from pushing too far. In Eclipse, Edward does initiate some sexual touching with Bella but it is only as prelude to his marriage proposal and he gets more aroused by the sight of Bella wearing his engagement ring (although Bella feels it weighing heavily on her hand) than by Bella herself. Edward is master of his physical desires – more superego than vampire.

Bella is constantly comparing herself to Edward and finding herself lacking. She is uncomfortable in her own body, a feeling extremely familiar to this former 17-year old girl. It’s made more painful to the reader because everything is written from Bella’s point-of-view. In the first book, especially, the reader is treated to endless descriptions of Edward’s physical beauty contrasted with Bella’s self-loathing descriptions of her own clumsiness or her plainness or her fragile human body. Edward is described as a statue of Adonis come to life – cold and hard to the touch, but physically perfect. Bella wants nothing more than to be just like him. She is already asking to be turned into a vampire by the end of Twilight and Eclipse has her begging and pleading with Edward to perform the deed.

Through the course of the three books, Bella tries and tries to rid herself of her human desires. She rarely eats. Although she cooks dinner for her father, she doesn’t take any enjoyment in it – it’s a duty and one she dispatches with little thought. In one memorable scene, to me at least, her father takes her out for a celebratory dinner and not only is Bella ungrateful for the gesture, she doesn’t actually eat her food. She waits until her father isn’t looking and then tucks bits of her hamburger into her napkin. Perhaps she is unconsciously echoing Edward, who spends his time at the school cafeteria doing exactly the same thing. She is not yet a vampire but is already abstaining from food and physical pleasure.

Bella’s sexual desires are another thing she is made to feel ashamed of. While the supposed erotic chastity is a big selling point, I never saw it. Instead a mutual desire to take things slow, Edward withholds his physical affections. He explains to Bella that he might devour her if he allowed himself to go too far but that doesn’t stop Edward from chastising Bella for wanting to explore her sexual drive. In one particularly vile scene in Eclipse, Edward snuggles up to her on a giant bed only to pull away when she begins to reciprocate he tells her, “I was just trying to illustrate the benefits of the bed you don’t seem to like. Don’t get carried away.” The benefits of the bed being only available after marriage, which she does not want.

This shaming of Bella just makes New Moon, in which the character of Jacob Black takes the forefront in the narrative, more frustrating, as the book shows the reader what Bella would be like free from the influence of Edward. The chapters of New Moon are filled with food and physical pleasures. Bella eats muffins and enjoys an outdoor spaghetti party. Bella holds hands with Jacob and accepts warm and friendly bear hugs. She goes hiking with Jacob and walks. Edward would literally carry her when they went places. Under the calming influence of Jacob, Bella begins interacting with her school friends and the pages of New Moon show a Bella much more sympathetic and human than in any other book in the series. The tragedy of The Twilight Saga is that the promise of this Bella, who grows up and accepts herself, is thrown away as soon as Edward enters back into the picture.

The final scenes of Eclipse show Bella having a vision of her happy, human life with Jacob. She turns it down in favor of a life of constraint and prohibition with Edward. Bella will never be full again.

Even I was kind of shocked by Newsweek’s cover this week of Sarah Palin — not for the image used, which on first glance seemed both puzzling and irrelevant, but for the blatantly biased headline of “How do you solve a problem like Sarah?  She’s bad news for the GOP — and for everybody else, too.“* But as it turns out, it’s the cover image used that’s getting the most press.

Originally published in the August 2009 issue of Runners World, the photo features the moose-hunting , aerial-wolf-shooting former Alaska governor and supermom in short runner’s shorts and leaning on an American flag.  It was part of a multi-photograph slideshow that accompanied an article about Palin and her passion for running titled, “I’m A Runner.”  Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham said that the photo choice was simply the “most interesting image available” and that the mag applies “the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female” thus adhering to a “gender-neutral standard.”

This isn’t the first time Newsweek has taken heat for their choice of Palin images. Perfectly coiffed, and flawless conservative Fox anchors cried sexism last year because Newsweek didn’t airbrush Jane Sixpack beyond recognition on a cover photo.  In a Facebook post, Palin took issue with Newsweek appropriating a photo from an article about health and fitness to promote an analytical piece on her as a political figure:

The choice of photo for the cover of this week’s Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this “news” magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner’s World magazine one-page profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness — a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention — even if out of context.

Palin’s conservative supporters have predictably rallied behind her, but the image is drawing mixed reactions from pundits.  CBN commentator David Brady called the cover “a new low” for the “biased” magazine, adding that Newsweek has a history of portraying liberal women as “heroes for the next generation,” while portraying conservative women like Palin as “nuts and dopey.”  Documentary photographer Nina Berman meanwhile hailed the cover as “brilliant” and “shrewd,” adding:

The Newsweek cover is a shrewd strategic maneuver to demean Palin without having to take responsibility for it. I think it’s brilliant. They take an inelegantly, even laughably propped photo where Palin is an obvious participant as opposed to being a manipulated subject, and recontextualize it to show how far out she is willing to travel on the road of self promotion. They beat her at her own game and in the process shield themselves from what would have been the inevitable criticism if they had dolled her up themselves and posed her the same way.

Given the cover, the accompanying Newsweek articles — here and here — are surprisingly impartial and both defends and accuses Palin on her merits while making the argument that history is not on Palin’s side in terms of even a qualified populist nominee winning the White House.  And Newsweek’s right: Palin is a major cause for concern.  She promotes questionable, ill-informed and inaccurate positions on national and international policy and as Newsweek’s Christopher Hitchens notes, believes that the end of days and Second Coming will come in her lifetime — which could be entirely possible if elected to a position in which her finger rests on the big red button.  I find it ridiculous how Palin consistently dismisses “the media” as if we are all just one large, homogeneous entity out to get her, yet as much as I dislike siding with someone so diametrically opposed to me on virtually every issue across the political spectrum, I do believe that Newsweek used the image deliberately in order to marginalize her.  While there are a whole slew of reasons to be concerned about Palin’s broad national appeal among conservatives, none have anything to do with how she looks in runner’s shorts.

But that isn’t why Newsweek used this image.

The Daily Beast founder Tina Brown rightfully argues that Palin should have known that, “If you don’t want the moment captured on film, don’t show up in sporty hot pants for a photo shoot.”  But it’s more than that.  This pin-up-style image may have been inappropriate for an analysis piece on Palin, but it wasn’t appropriate in its original context, either.  While there’s nothing scandalous about showing some skin — even the First Lady has appeared in shorts about the same length as Palin’s –  this image is deliberately styled not to show off Sarah Palin the runner, but Sarah Palin the sexy governor.  Newsweek is simply holding the image up to the world as an answer to its own rhetorical question of why Palin is bad for the GOP.  An image may speak a thousand words, but this one asks only:  Why would anyone take this woman seriously?

* The headline refers to this song, about a nun going rogue.

Reader Michal (who goes by the screen name “cggirl” here) picked up on my oh, so subtle childless-by-choice vibes here and wrote to tell me about an awesome project she’s working on called “Motherhood Shmotherhood,” which examines “women deciding whether, and when, to have kids, and the pressures they face from their families, peers, and society at large.”  The project consists of a one-hour documentary — view the site and trailer here — and a blog that features webisodes and contributions from others similarly undecided on motherhood.  The question of motherhood is a decision most, if not all, women encounter at some point in their lives and the outcome is often a deeply personal one influenced by social, cultural, ethnic, religious, political and biological factors and circumstances.  Michal so graciously agreed to guest blog about her personal struggles on motherhood and invites you to also weigh in on your own experiences in the decision to be or not to be a mother.

Michal writes:

I always thought I would have kids. I figured I’d have a nice career too, but in the end, I thought kids would be so important that not only would I have them, I’d also put them first in my life, and sacrifice my career to be able to be at home with them a lot of the time.

If you’d asked me when I was twenty, I would’ve said I’d probably have a kid in my late twenties, surely by the time I was 30 at the latest. I also would’ve said there is no point in getting married unless it’s to have kids.

Now I find myself at age 31, married, and no closer to actually having a child. When my husband and I got married, it felt like something really meaningful in its own right. This was a way to show each other and the world that we are each other’s family, something more than just “boyfriend/girlfriend”. And it didn’t feel like it had to have anything to do with having kids. Two people already ARE a family.

I’ve discussed this with my husband, and neither of us is ready for parenthood right now. We both know that women have more of a biological limit, so I will probably end up being the one to say “now or never”, but I can’t say that until I’m sure in my own heart what I want.)

In terms of my own wants/dreams, I’m not sure what to think. Shouldn’t I feel some sort of yearning yet? Sometimes I feel it a little bit. But for the most part, the idea of childbirth scares the crap out of me, and the idea of actually raising a child and losing my freedom? Even scarier. However, when I think to myself that I will never have a child, it makes me very very sad. I always thought I would be a good parent. And I do think I have that thing, maybe it’s a biological thing, of wanting to pass on my genes or some self-centered thing like that. I do think it’s selfish but I also think it’s natural for many of us to feel it… I just don’t feel like I could do it now.

It doesn’t make things any easier that EVERYONE asks about it, strangers even. I’m Jewish, Israeli actually, and I think we have a culture of everybody being in everybody’s business, and a strong social influence that the main purpose of a woman in life – much moreso than men by the way – is to have a baby. Having a family is EVERYthing, and being child-free by choice is virtually unheard of. This is so stressful, because it’s hard enough figuring out what you want without all this pressure. I don’t want to have kids just because I was conditioned to want that, and I don’t want to NOT have them just to spite all those people that try to push the idea on me.

I do find myself trying to rethink my image of motherhood. My own mom did not have a career, and the entire burden of raising us fell on her. I don’t think that was such a happy arrangement; at least, it wouldn’t be a good arrangement for me, even if it was the best thing for my parents (which you’d have to ask them about). And I wonder if my early thinking that I should do the same came from some sort of subconscious desire to justify her choices, or even not to feel like it was my fault, or something… I don’t know. And on the other hand, my rather depressing view of motherhood is also based on that idea – of all the burden falling on the mother and her not having her own career. But now I see that it doesn’t matter what my mom did. She is a different person, and her relationship with my dad was a different relationship than mine with my husband, so naturally we can and will have a different arrangement.

Sometimes I think that maybe I AM selfish like they say… I’ve heard it said that people who don’t have kids are selfish. And I disagree – many of them are selfless people who do amazing things for others (not to mention benefiting the environment by not procreating!) and I know many parents who are quite selfish (not mine, thank goodness). As I mentioned, there is something selfish about procreating anyway (shouldn’t we all be adopting? and/or having at most one child so as not to overpopulate the planet?) – so I disagree that people who choose to be child-free by choice are selfish. But for me, specifically, maybe it is true. I don’t feel like putting someone else ahead of me all the time. Then again, also selfishly, I don’t want to miss out on something so special like motherhood.

I’m also always told that once you have the child, you love them and don’t regret it. But I don’t know. I think there are parents that don’t love their kids, or don’t love them enough. And I think there are parents who do love their kids but still regret their decision. Those cases of regret – they have the same paradox of, say, a teenage mom – she might love her child and still advise anyone AGAINST getting pregnant so young, or even taking a pregnancy to term at that age. I think there are parents who are adults and have kids because that’s what’s expected, or maybe because they think it will help their relationship, and end up regretting it and the child gets hurt too. And I think there are plenty of relationships that get ruined because of having children. (I’m grateful that my own parents love me a lot, and that they are happy they had kids and the kids did not, as far as I know, ruin their relationship. But I don’t think everyone is as lucky as me on all these fronts, as I have seen in other families. My parents will probably think I’m weird if I decide not to have a kid, because to them it seems such a natural thing to want…)

So I’m still entirely undecided… I think the thing is – I don’t want to give up on the idea of parenthood, and I certainly don’t want it to mess up things with my husband who is my best friend in the world and the love of my life. So I want to be ready for it before it’s too late, and, in turn, I want him to be ready for it right about the same time. How to actually get there, I have no idea.

Sarah Haskins weighs in on the gag-worthy advertising tactics of home security systems, which capitalize on damsel-in-distress fearmongering — or as Sarah calls them, “rape fables.” Notice how all the victims featured are white, thin and attractive as are all the friendly security call center “hunks” who come to her rescues. Gag.

Amethyst22 wrote a very poignant wondering-out-loud kind of post this week on Feministing’s community blog that I thought would make for good conversation here.  She writes:

I’m a feminist.

I believe women are all beautiful no matter what their size shape or color.

But I can’t believe I’m beautiful.

I am an activist for women’s reproductive rights. I’m so proud of what I do and don’t care if others oppose my beliefs.

Why am I desperate for my parents to approve what I do? They never will. I’m ashamed to even talk to them about my activism–I fear their response.

I hate how women think they have to be thin to be beautiful.

But sometimes I don’t eat.

And sometimes I can’t stop eating, it’s like a drug and I am ashamed of myself.

I think the women in advertisements have been photoshopped to “perfection” and it’s sad that’s what we expect women to look like.

But sometimes I wish did look like them.

I’m a strong, beautiful, intelligent woman.

I don’t always believe it.

Am I a feminist?

I’ve identified as a feminist since the age of 12 and yet these are some of the same contradictions I struggled (and to a lesser degree, still do) with during my eating disorder.  I’m sure there are others out there who’ve also wrestled with these same kinds of inner conflicts.  Tell us about them and how you’ve managed (or not managed) to resolve them…

If watching TV truly kills brain cells, I committed a neural holocaust during the presidential primary and election.  If I wasn’t obsessively refreshing FiveThirtyEight for the latest state forecasts, I was glued to MSNBC or CNN’s television coverage of all things political.  During my brief affair with David Gergen, Anderson Cooper and Rachel Maddow, I also became a great fan of Candy Crowley, CNN’s award-winning senior political correspondent.  Crowley, 60, virtually lived out of a suitcase while covering Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House and then both conventions, every debate and other stops along the campaign trail.  Her commentary and coverage was consistently smart, thorough and as unbiased as a journalist can hope to be.  And I’m not her only admirer  — there’s even a Facebook group devoted to her by the name, “Candy Crowley is quite possibly the smartest, most articulate woman ever.”

CNN tapped many smart and competent women in their election coverage, but the hoary Crowley stood out to me not only for her decades of experience, but also for her sassy style and the fact that she rocked it as the station’s lone plus-size pundit.  So, imagine my surprise when anchor Heidi Collins this morning introduced the gaunt-faced, hollow-eyed, much thinner and older looking correspondent as the same indomitable Candy Crowley.  The photo on the left is from February of last year and the image on the right is from this election night clip (fast forward to minute 1:52) from last week.

The internet buzz is speculating that Crowley had weight loss surgery, but neither Crowley or CNN have addressed the issue much less confirmed it — and they shouldn’t have to.  Crowley’s profile photo from this 2003 story shows her as significantly thinner and in an undated interview with Rachael Ray, she indicated that she eats a healthy vegetarian! diet, so perhaps the fuller-figured Crowley we saw last fall was but a temporary result of her nomadic lifestyle while covering the election.  In any case, I hope that Crowley’s weight loss has been achieved healthily and and that it wasn’t undertaken out of professional pressure to conform to those draconian standards usually thrust on women in the national spotlight. There are enough hungry women on television without adding Crowley to that list.

Posting will probably be lighter than usual in the next few weeks.  I’ve taken on some freelance web design jobs again in an attempt to help pay down our $5,700 vet bill from Grayson’s surgeries.  I also ended up deciding to foster Nigel, the chocolate point Himalayan who’s been traumatized by demon children and will need lots of love and attention in order to recover.  You can’t see his beautiful blue eyes in this pic, but you can see how absolutely gorgeous he is.

To top it off, both Brandon and I seem to be coming down with something.  He insists that his sore throat and stuffiness are just allergies, but I rarely suffer from them and I have the same congestion.  So, consider this an open post to discuss anything on your mind or offer links to related news or sites.  Here’s a few headlines to check out.

• PsychCentral has introduced the new blog Weightless authored by new blogger Margarita Tartakovsky.  According to Tartakovsky, “Weightless is about well-being, not weight; about fostering body image, regardless of your size. It’s about exposing women’s magazines, other mediums and so-called experts, when they’re touting unhealthy tips and promoting restrictive standards.  The goal of Weightless is to help women develop a better body image and work toward accepting themselves as they are, while being healthy and happy (fad diets and skinny-mini standards prohibited!); and to become sharp consumers, who can pick apart a commercial or magazine article and know which advice is helpful or harmful.”

• Lynn Harris at Salon.com examines purging disorder, a “new” disorder discussed in an article in this month’s Archives of General Psychiatry.

• Courtney Martin, author of Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters, is one of 10 finalists for the Washington Post’s “America’s Next Great Pundit” contest.  Check out Courtney’s column here.  The contest ends today at 3 p.m., so hurry up and vote!

Our family is throwing a baby shower for my brother and sister-in-law on Sunday and my mom keeps calling me with yet another mind-numbingly infantilizing game she’s found with names like “guess that baby food,” “the poopy diaper game” or (god forbid) “pin the binky on the baby.”  I haven’t been to many baby showers, but my “I’m not a feminist!” mother has schooled me in the fine art of such nauseating estrogen fests.  Apparently the men — assuming there are any — will retire to the basement whereupon they will commence drinking beer, playing pool, talking smack and watching the Bengals lose on my brother’s 60-inch flat screen HDTV while the women will gush over hegemonic genderizing gifts and play ridiculous shower games all in the guise of some universally shared matriarchal longing.

I despise football, but it’s enough to make even me a fan.

So, dear readers, please lend your help in saving me from baby shower hell this weekend.  Does anyone have any feminist-friendly baby shower games or activities to suggest?  Know of any ways to keep the alkaline estrogen on the down low and methods to encourage the guys to emerge from the man cave?  And in regards to the larger picture, are all-women baby showers empowering or do they just reinforce traditional gender roles?