Phenomenal Woman

Pretty women wonder where my secret lies.
I’m not cute or built to suit a fashion model‘s size
But when I start to tell them,
They think I’m telling lies.
I say,
It’s in the reach of my arms
The span of my hips,
The stride of my step,
The curl of my lips.
I’m a woman
Phenomenally.
Phenomenal woman,
That’s me.

I walk into a room
Just as cool as you please,
And to a man,
The fellows stand or
Fall down on their knees.
Then they swarm around me,
A hive of honey bees.
I say,
It’s the fire in my eyes,
And the flash of my teeth,
The swing in my waist,
And the joy in my feet.
I’m a woman
Phenomenally.
Phenomenal woman,
That’s me.

Men themselves have wondered
What they see in me.
They try so much
But they can’t touch
My inner mystery.
When I try to show them
They say they still can’t see.
I say,
It’s in the arch of my back,
The sun of my smile,
The ride of my breasts,
The grace of my style.
I’m a woman

Phenomenally.
Phenomenal woman,
That’s me.

Now you understand
Just why my head’s not bowed.
I don’t shout or jump about
Or have to talk real loud.
When you see me passing
It ought to make you proud.
I say,
It’s in the click of my heels,
The bend of my hair,
the palm of my hand,
The need of my care,
‘Cause I’m a woman
Phenomenally.
Phenomenal woman,
That’s me.

And, here’s Maya Angelou reciting her equally-amazing poem, “And Still I Rise:”

The ‘I Have a Dream’ Speech by Martin Luther King, Jr, in 1963

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we have come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.” But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “For Whites Only”. We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with a new meaning, “My country, ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim’s pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.”

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

On behalf of the International Medical Corps and Abraham Harrison, thank you so much for all of your support over the last four weeks to get the vote out to help get the International Medical Corps into the top-five of the Members Project and then for securing the $100,000 from American Express, to be used to feed hungry children worldwide. Here’s a thank you video blog entry from Paige Strackman, who was the PaigeS who submitted IMC in the first place under the title, Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children.

Here’s the official, final, press release you can read, directly from International Medical Corps:

International Medical Corps Wins $100,000 Grant from American Express to Save Malnourished Children

October 14, 2008, Los Angeles, Calif. –International Medical Corps (IMC) has been awarded $100,000 through the American Express Members Project. The grant will be used to treat malnourished children worldwide. IMC is one of five organizations to receive funding in the nationwide campaign where American Express Card members submit and vote for projects that are meant to bring people and organizations together for positive change.

The funding will be used to implement the project, ‘Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children.’ Submitted by American Express cardmember Paige Strackman, the project focuses on treating malnutrition through nutrient-rich, ready-to-eat food, which International Medical Corps provides to more than 35,000 children every month through a network of 215 supplementary and therapeutic feeding sites in some of the world’s most food-insecure environments, including Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Somalia. The project was selected by an elite panel out of 1,190 others and received more than 14,000 votes in the final round of competition.

“I submitted this project because, as a mother, I cannot ignore that five million children under five die every year due to malnutrition,” says Paige. “This funding will save thousands of malnourished children around the world who otherwise may not have been reached. I am so grateful to everyone who supported this project and helped make it a reality.”

While the project was submitted by one individual hoping to make a difference, it gathered public momentum. The project’s message was shared in the media from Los Angeles to New York, on nearly 200 blogs across the Internet, through thousands of emails and on social networking sites, including Facebook, My Space and Twitter.

The grant from American Express comes at an opportune time when rising food costs are driving millions deeper into poverty everyday while trying to afford basic staples. As a result, hunger and malnutrition kill more people each year than HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria combined.

“We are incredibly grateful to Paige for not only submitting the project, but also for fueling it with the passion to make it so successful,” says Rebecca Milner, Vice President of Institutional Advancement. “There are approximately 178 million children around the world who are malnourished and only 3 percent get treatment. This funding makes it possible for International Medical Corps to reach more of those children who desperately need our help.”

In Democratic Republic of Congo alone, International Medical Corps’ supplementary feeding centers admitted 3,500 new children in the past two months. At one center for severely malnourished children, IMC has a 35-bed capacity, but is accommodating 82. Another 30 children await treatment. This trend is symptomatic of the food insecurity affecting East Africa and much of the developing world. The World Food Program estimates that 15.7 million of those in need are in East Africa, and another 8.6 million are in Afghanistan.

With a mission that focuses on training, International Medical Corps works to empower individuals and communities, providing education on how to treat malnutrition, identify warnings signs, and intervene before malnutrition worsens. Health care workers and parents are educated on proper diet and hygiene, and communities are equipped to grow their own food and reduce their vulnerability to rising prices.

*The ‘Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children’ project can be viewed here: http://www.membersproject.com/project/view/OZH1P1
**Videos of children’s dramatic recoveries from malnutrition can be seen on International Medical Corps’ YouTube Channel: http://ca.youtube.com/user/IMCMembersProject

For more information visit our website at www.imcworldwide.org.

Also, thank you to every single blogger and social media maven who was so generous as to help us spread the word out and get as much attention as possible for both the Members Project as well as for International Medical Corps as well. You were all more than generous and all of us at IMC and AHLLC would love to thank you for being so generous and selfless.

• Help Feed Hungry Children via Danny Fisher.
• Help Save Kids via Three Sons and a Princess.
• Seeking $1.5 million to feed malnourished children via http://www.cabraham.com/node/693.
• International Medical Corps Matched With Top 25 American Express Members Project, via The Colombo Times News Blog.
• Altruism – For Whose Sake? via Jakartass.
• Cast a Vote, Help Save a Child via The Blog That Ate Manhattan Goes to Italy .
• Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via Here There and Everywhere.
• International Medical Corps Matched With Top 25 American Express Members Project Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via Samotalis.
• International Medical Corps responds to the food crisis with emergency nutrition programs, food relief aid, agricultural assistance, and training via Holly’s Fight to Stop Violence.
• Calling All American Express Card Members via All 4 My Gals.
• Russia using cluster bombs and humanitarian efforts for children… via Glass City Jungle.
• I’ve got this via E-Mail To Publish on this site, For the sake of children via The Triple Gem!.
• In This Election, The Winners are the Children via The Blog That Ate Manhattan.
• International Medical Corps via Christefideles.
• saving malnourished children via Lotusinthemud.
• Help Save the Lives of Malnourished Children With International Medical Corps via Myrtus.
• Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via Ontario.
• International Medical Corps via Sakshum…cultivating dreams.
• International Medical Corps Matched with Top-25 via Jumping Monkeys.
• Banner on Site via Nerds Eye View.
• Fabulicious Friday #26 via cookienotes.
• Sharing Saturday – AmEx and Int’l Medical Corps via My Life as a Hot Professional.
• Cause Everyone Needs to Eat via Grassroots Activism.
• International Medical Corps via Yoga and Judaism Center.
• Radyo Inteligentaindigena-09-20-2008 via Inteligentaindigena Novajoservo.
• Help IMC save the lives of malnourished children in Africa! via A Romanian in Africa.
• Fighting Deadly Malnutrition: This Time, A Morally Imperative Rescue via The Cogitamus Blog.
• Fighting Deadly Malnutrition: This Time, A Morally Imperative Rescue via litbrit .
• Do the right thing via Bloody Brilliant.
• Let None Go Hungry via Pipecleaner Dreams.
• Click to Help Malnourished Children! via A Red Thread Connection.
• Tweet via Bloggapalooza.
• Here’s Something Cool via Cool Mom Picks.
• A Different Vote: Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via Sexy Spanish Club in Buenos Aires.
• Saving Lives for Malnourished Children via Connorcolesmom.
• This won’t take a minute. via Miss Cellania.
• People Watching in Lipscani via Writers Bloc.
• A Good Deed via My Boyfriend is a twat.
• Corporate do-gooding: Vote for the best ideas that American Express is sifting through via Religion Blog: Dallas News.
• Please consider voting via Living in shkoder Albania.
• Banner via Andres V.
• Help Save the Lives of Malnourished Children via Progressive U.org.
• International Medical Corp via Jaden’s Journal.
• We Get Stuff via Winds of Change.
• International Medical Corps, Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via Art of the Possible Online.
• Banner via Postcards From Across the Pond.
• Another AmEx Submission… via Fat Doctor.
• Up to 5 million children a year die of malnutrition – with one mouse click, you can help via Shakesville.
• Help International Medical Corp Save Starving Child With Just One Click via William K. Wolfrum.
• International Medical Corps Needs Your Vote via The Rotten Word.
• Give ‘em a vote via Army of Mom.
• Int’l Child Relief NGO Needs Our Votes…1.5Million At Stake via The Democratic Daily.
• Members Project by AmEx is amazing. Vote to send their money to help children here. via Craphammer.
• Reaching Out in the Love of Christ via The Day of the Lord.
• Do you Hear the Cry? via Christs Redeeming Passion.
• Compassion that makes a Difference. via Passion that Redeems.
• The Greatest Gift is Love via About the Father’s Business.
• Making a Difference via Redeemed by the Passion of Christ.
• Be a Light that Makes a Difference via Life in Christ.
• Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via What’s a Delmer Look Like.
• banner via The Legless Blog.
• Contribution to a Noble Cause via Aa..Ha [Thinking Inside The Blog!].
• Help International Medical Corps Earn $1.5M via Turning Left.
• Help International Medical Corps Earn $1.5M via eNews Park Forest.
• They Need Your Vote … via Freaked Out Fathers.
• posted widget via Albtranslator.
• Please check this out via Braveheart Does the Maghreb.
• Saving the lives of malnourished children via Tongue and Cheek.
• American Express’ Members Project International Medical Corps via Sugar and Spice.
• International Medical Corps Matched With Top 25 American Express Members Project Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via Budget Nomad – US Ex – Pat on the Move.
• Vote for International MedicalCorps to Help Children in Need. via humorgrafe .
• Voting for International Medical Corps via Tall Skinny Kiwi.
• Revealing myself as a LOTR nerd via Journey Mama.
• Thank You for Blogging About International Medical Corps! via Chris Abraham Because the Medium is the Message.
• Dora, the sheep droppings explorer via The French Mountain Dweller.
• Int’l NGO Needs Our Help To Win $1.5 M For Starving Children via Daily Kos.
• Thank You Bloggers for Blogging about International Medical Corps via Memes.org.
• Thank You International Medical Corps Bloggers via Abraham Harrison.
• “Vote for International Medical Corps to Help Children in Need” via Ben Heine.
• Feeding Hungry Children via Kuru Lounge.
• Your click could mean $1.5 million for malnourished children around the world via Pirate Pappa.
• One Click to Save Lives via So a Blonde Walks Into a Review.
• Members Projects via OBVI.
• With One Click You Can Save Thousands Of Malnourished Children via Blogher.
• Help International Medical Corps Feed Hungry Children via Chrisfernando.net.
• Thursday, September 25, 2008 via Island In the Pacific.
• Your click could mean $1.5 million for malnourished children around the world. via Fresh Motivation.
• Click for $1.5 million – A win-win-win situation via Stet.
• Vote to make a difference via Onlinefundraisingblog.
• Something About Saving Lives? via NDAGHA.
• Click to Donate via More Than An Army Wife.
• Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via The Existential Lip.
• International Medical Corps via Backyard Missionary.
• International Medical Corps Matched with Top 25 American Express Members Project, ‘Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children’ via Bio-Medicine.
• Time is Running Out!!! via Pre School Mama.
• “The International Medical Corps: Please Consider This Good Cause” via Working With Word.
• Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via javajive.
• Things I should have avoided whilst pregnant via Whitterer on Autism.
• American Express Members Project: Join me in voting for the project, “Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children.” via Make College Pay Off.
• Interested in Saving a Child From Malnutrition? via Reservoir.
• Go Vote for the International Medical Corps via Christian Spirituality w/ Edges.
• Vote for the International Medical Corps! via Understanding The Psychology and Effects of Abandonment Issues.
• International Medical Corps via Stories on Malawi.
• The Least of These via Paravanes: Christian Meditations .
• Vote to help feed hungry kids! via Happy at HFC.
• Please support International Medical Corps and help feed hungry children via The Sreisaat Adventures in cambodia.
• Tela’s Finds via Working Moms Against Guilt.
• Save Lives with Your Vote via Servant of Chaos.
• FYI via Left of Centre.
• International Medical Corp via Desert Phoenix.
• sidebar via Pardon Me For Asking.
• One Day Left – the AMEX Members Project via A Mom a Blog and the Life In-Between.
• widget via Psychiatryforpublic.
• sidebar via Tamil Newsfeed.
• Help Save the Lives of Malnourished Children via Progressiveu.
• A Little Charity Is All It Takes. via Anchor Rising.
• When Snark Just Isn’t Enough via World-O-Crap.
• International Medical Corps via Portrait of a Writer.
• The Members Project via Earnest Parenting.
• Vote to Feed Hungry Children via Looney Bin 4 Sure.
• American Express Members Project via Big Blueberry Eyes.
• Vote Now!! Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via Lost Girl’s World.
• International Medical Corp Matched… via Chris Zenzine.
• We get letters via Skippy the Bush Kangaroo.
• Just a Note via Code Yellow Mom.
• International Medical Corps – Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via Awakening To Enlightenment.
• Save the Lives of Malnourished Children via Contented Woman.
• Beyond THE FUTURE: International Medical Corps via Beyond Understanding .
• Beyond THE FUTURE: International Medical Corps via Publishers Marketplace.
• Banner via Arwin Soelaksono .
• Vote to Help Feed a Hungry Child! via Three P’s in a Pod.
• I get mail — worthy causes via The Reaction.
• I get mail — worthy causes via Newshoggers.
• I get mail — worthy causes via The Impolitic .
• Vote to Help Hungry Children via Dad Talk.
• Social Media News Release via Nandigram United.
• IMC project: Saving the lives of malnourished children via Motherscribe.
• Nobody likes to go hungry – especially kiddos. via Jelly Mom.
• HELP FEED CHILDREN via Smart Christian.
• International Medical Corps via Mama Speaks.
• International Medical Corps–Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via This Mom.
• I don’t usually do this, but… via Non-Essential Equipment.
• Before I Forget (Again) via Drye Portents.
• Haiti Update via Gonna Make a Change.
• Vote to save hungry children! via Make it Happen.
• Please vote via All 4 My Gals.
• Att: American Express Card holders via Writers Bloc.
• Hey..Vote Again via ZenZine.
• Vote For These Guys and Save Some Children via Intuittech.
• Widget via The Disenchanted Forest.
• Vote for the International Medical Corps! via understanding the effects of unresolved abandonment issues.
• Help the International Medical Corps Feed Hungry Children via Danny Fisher.
• Help Save the Lives of Malnourished Children via Progressiveu.
• Saving the Lives of malnourished children via The French Mountain Dweller.
• Last chance to Save The Lives of Malnourished Children via Simple Green World.
• International Medical Corps’s Good Deeds Triumph!! via Three P’s in a Pod.
• Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children – NEWS FACTS via Ontario.
• $1.5 Million For Malnourished Children Around The World Possible – Your Vote In The American Express Members Project Could Help This Happen via Medical News Today.
• International Medical Corp Vote Now! via Holly’s Fight for Justice.
• International Medical Corp Vote Now! via Holly’s Fight to Stop Violence.
• International Medical Corp via Jakartass.
• widget via Andres V.
• widget via Que es El Testamento Del Paisa?.
• Part II Vote to Help Hungry Children via Dad Talk.
• Continue Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via What’s Delmer Look Like?.
• Sharing Saturday – Bloggers Rule! via My Life as a Hot Professional.
• Banner via Earnest Parenting.
• International Medical Corps needs your help via Sociolingo’s Africa.
• Food Charities via Grasshopper New Media Presents….
• That good deed that some of you did …. via My Boyfriend is a twat.
• Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via Paravanes: Christian Meditations .
• Giving back to Africa via Africa Safari Blog.
• Can Social Media Make the World A Better Place? via Digital Podcast.
• Vote to Feed Hungry Children via South Africa.
• Members Project Submissions Due 8/19 via The Drew Blog.
• Help International Medical Corps Save the Lives of Malnourished Children via International Medical Corps.
• Help International Medical Corps Save the Lives of Malnourished Children via Chris Abraham.
• Help International Medical Corps Save the Lives of Malnourished Children via Marketing Conversation.
• Help International Medical Corps Save the Lives of Malnourished Children via Chris Abraham: Because the Medium is the Message.
• Help International Medical Corps Save the Lives of Malnourished Children via Chris Abraham: Internet Analyst and Web Strategist.
• Vote AGAIN!!! for “Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children” via finding joy in Liberia .
• International Medical Corps needs your vote ! 4 days left “ via Ben Heine.
• International Medical Corps via Worldfoodvision.com.
• Calling All American Express Cardholders via Everything Finance.
• American Express Members Projects 08 via Ground.
• Its Easy to Make a Difference via Baer This In Mind.
• Hello guys! via Halo Scan.
• Help Feed Hungry Children! via Friends of the World Food Organization.
• International Medical Corps now in American Express Members Project Top 5, Vote Today via Yubanet.
• American Express Members Project Contest: Support the International Medical Corps via The Human Trafficking Project.

First off, if you haven’t voted yet, please vote. Secondly, as recently as Wednesday, September 24th, 2008, I posted a thank you for blogging about International Medical Corps as a thank you for all of the bloggers who were so generous as to blog about the current voting contest going on — 73 earned media posts — called the Members Project. International Medical Corps is being represented by the Member Project called Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children. Well, three days later, we have been lavished with another 30 earned media mentions, listed below:

• Thank You for Blogging About International Medical Corps! via Chris Abraham Because the Medium is the Message.
• Dora the sheep droppings explorer via The French Mountain Dweller.
• Int’l NGO Needs Our Help To Win $1.5 M For Starving Children via Daily Kos.
• Thank You Bloggers for Blogging about International Medical Corps via Memes.org.
• Thank You International Medical Corps Bloggers via Abraham Harrison.
• Vote for the International Medical Corps! via Ben Heine.
• Feeding Hungry Children via Kuru Lounge.
• Your click could mean $1.5 million for malnourished children around the world via Pirate Pappa.
• One Click to Save Lives via So a Blonde Walks Into a Review.
• Members Projects via OBVI.
• With One Click You Can Save Thousands Of Malnourished Children via Blogher.
• Help International Medical Corps Feed Hungry Children via Chrisfernando.net.
• Thursday September 25 2008 via Island In the Pacific.
• Your click could mean $1.5 million for malnourished children around the world. via Fresh Motivation.
• Click for $1.5 million – A win-win-win situation via Stet.
• Vote to make a difference via Onlinefundraisingblog.
• Something About Saving Lives? via NDAGHA.
• Click to Donate via More Than An Army Wife.
• Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via The Existential Lip.
• International Medical Corps via Backyard Missionary.
• International Medical Corps Matched with Top 25 American Express Members Project, ‘Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children’ via Bio-Medicine.
• Time is Running Out!!! via Pre School Mama.
• The International Medical Corps Please Consider This Good Cause via Working With Word.
• Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via javajive.
• Things I should have avoided whilst pregnant via Whitterer on Autism.
• American Express Members Project: Join me in voting for the project Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via Make College Pay Off.
• Interested in Saving a Child From Malnutrition? via Reservoir.
• Go Vote for the International Medical Corps via Christian Spirituality w/ Edges.
• Vote for the International Medical Corps! via Understanding The Psychology and Effects of Abandonment Issues.

Anyway, bloggers and everyone else who has supported, thank you very much from both the IMC and AHLLC!

If you want more information, please check out the informational page we made for the project — the SMNR — and you can learn a lot more and see all the various and sundry assets the organization has provided for this noble campaign.

Finally, please let me know if I missed your post in the Chris Abraham comment area — and if you want to post about the contest and the issue, please feel free and pop the URL into the Chris Abraham comment section and I will add you and thanks in advance!

I would have never guessed that Camille Paglia would be in awe of Sara Palin or perceive her as follows, “Conservative though she may be, I felt that Palin represented an explosion of a brand new style of muscular American feminism. At her startling debut on that day, she was combining male and female qualities in ways that I have never seen before. And she was somehow able to seem simultaneously reassuringly traditional and gung-ho futurist. In terms of redefining the persona for female authority and leadership, Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna channeled the dominatrix persona of high-glam Marlene Dietrich and rammed pro-sex, pro-beauty feminism down the throats of the prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment.” Whoa. (Via Salon.com)

Fresh blood for the vampire

Rip tide! Is the Obama campaign shooting out to sea like a paper boat?

It’s heavy weather for Obama fans, as momentum has suddenly shifted to John McCain — that hoary, barnacle-encrusted tub that many Democrats like me had thought was full of holes and swirling to its doom in the inky depths of Republican incoherence and fratricide. Gee whilikers, the McCain vampire just won’t die! Hit him with a hammer, and he explodes like a jellyfish into a hundred hungry pieces.

Oh, the sadomasochistic tedium of McCain’s imprisonment in Hanoi being told over and over and over again at the Republican convention. Do McCain’s credentials for the White House really consist only of that horrific ordeal? Americans owe every heroic, wounded veteran an incalculable debt of gratitude, but how do McCain’s sufferings in a tiny, squalid cell 40 years ago logically translate into presidential aptitude in the 21st century? Cast him a statue or slap his name on a ship, and let’s turn the damned page.We need a new generation of leadership with fresh ideas and an expansive, cosmopolitan vision — which is why I support Barack Obama and have contributed to his campaign. My baby-boom generation — typified by the narcissistic Clintons — peaked in the 1960s and is seriously past it. But McCain, born before Pearl Harbor, is even older than we are! Why would anyone believe that he holds the key to the future? And why would anyone swallow that preening passel of high-flown rhetoric about “country above all” coming from a seething, short-fused character whose rampant egotism, zigzagging principles, and currying of the gullible press were the distinguishing marks of his senatorial career?

Having said that, I must admit that McCain is currently eating Obama’s lunch. McCain’s weirdly disconnected persona (beady glowers flashing to frozen grins and back again) has started to look more testosterone-rich than Obama’s easy, lanky, reflective candor. What in the world possessed the Obama campaign to let their guy wander like a dazed lamb into a snake pit of religious inquisition like Rick Warren’s public forum last month at his Saddleback Church in California? That shambles of a performance — where a surprisingly unprepared Obama met the inevitable question about abortion with shockingly curt glibness — began his alarming slide.

As I said in my last column, I have become increasingly uneasy about Obama’s efforts to sound folksy and approachable by reflexively using inner-city African-American tones and locutions, which as a native of Hawaii he acquired relatively late in his development and which are painfully wrong for the target audience of rural working-class whites that he has been trying to reach. Obama on the road and even in major interviews has been droppin’ his g’s like there’s no tomorrow. It’s analogous to the way stodgy, portly Al Gore (evidently misadvised by the women in his family and their feminist pals) tried to zap himself up on the campaign trail into the happening buff dude that he was not. Both Gore and Obama would have been better advised to pursue a calm, steady, authoritative persona. Forget the jokes — be boring! That, alas, is what reads as masculine in the U.S.

The over-the-top publicity stunt of a mega-stadium for Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic convention two weeks ago was a huge risk that worried me sick — there were too many things that could go wrong, from bad weather to crowd control to technical glitches on the overblown set. But everything went swimmingly. Obama delivered the speech nearly flawlessly — though I was shocked and disappointed by how little there was about foreign policy, a major area where wavering voters have grave doubts about him. Nevertheless, it was an extraordinary event with an overlong but strangely contemplative and spiritually uplifting finale. The music, amid the needlessly extravagant fireworks, morphed into “Star Wars” — a New Age hymn to cosmic reconciliation and peace.

After that extravaganza, marking the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s epochal civil rights speech on the Washington Mall, I felt calmly confident that the Obama campaign was going to roll like a gorgeous juggernaut right over the puny, fossilized McCain. The next morning, it was as if the election were already over. No need to fret about American politics anymore this year. I had already turned with relief to other matters.

Pow! Wham! The Republicans unleashed a doozy — one of the most stunning surprises that I have ever witnessed in my adult life. By lunchtime, Obama’s triumph of the night before had been wiped right off the national radar screen. In a bold move I would never have thought him capable of, McCain introduced Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his pick for vice president. I had heard vaguely about Palin but had never heard her speak. I nearly fell out of my chair. It was like watching a boxing match or a quarter of hard-hitting football — or one of the great light-saber duels in “Star Wars.” (Here are the two Jedi, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Qui-Gon Jinn, going at it with Darth Maul in “The Phantom Menace.”) This woman turned out to be a tough, scrappy fighter with a mischievous sense of humor.

Conservative though she may be, I felt that Palin represented an explosion of a brand new style of muscular American feminism. At her startling debut on that day, she was combining male and female qualities in ways that I have never seen before. And she was somehow able to seem simultaneously reassuringly traditional and gung-ho futurist. In terms of redefining the persona for female authority and leadership, Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna channeled the dominatrix persona of high-glam Marlene Dietrich and rammed pro-sex, pro-beauty feminism down the throats of the prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment.

In the U.S., the ultimate glass ceiling has been fiendishly complicated for women by the unique peculiarity that our president must also serve as commander in chief of the armed forces. Women have risen to the top in other countries by securing the leadership of their parties and then being routinely promoted to prime minister when that party won at the polls. But a woman candidate for president of the U.S. must show a potential capacity for military affairs and decision-making. Our president also symbolically represents the entire history of the nation — a half-mystical role often filled elsewhere by a revered if politically powerless monarch.

As a dissident feminist, I have been arguing since my arrival on the scene nearly 20 years ago that young American women aspiring to political power should be studying military history rather than taking women’s studies courses, with their rote agenda of never-ending grievances. I have repeatedly said that the politician who came closest in my view to the persona of the first woman president was Sen. Dianne Feinstein, whose steady nerves in crisis were demonstrated when she came to national attention after the mayor and a gay supervisor were murdered in their City Hall offices in San Francisco. Hillary Clinton, with her schizophrenic alteration of personae, has never seemed presidential to me — and certainly not in her bland and overpraised farewell speech at the Democratic convention (which skittered from slow, pompous condescension to trademark stridency to unseemly haste).

Feinstein, with her deep knowledge of military matters, has true gravitas and knows how to shrewdly thrust and parry with pesky TV interviewers. But her style is reserved, discreet, mandarin. The gun-toting Sarah Palin is like Annie Oakley, a brash ambassador from America’s pioneer past. She immediately reminded me of the frontier women of the Western states, which first granted women the right to vote after the Civil War — long before the federal amendment guaranteeing universal woman suffrage was passed in 1919. Frontier women faced the same harsh challenges and had to tackle the same chores as men did — which is why men could regard them as equals, unlike the genteel, corseted ladies of the Eastern seaboard, which fought granting women the vote right to the bitter end.

Over the Labor Day weekend, with most of the big enchiladas of the major media on vacation, the vacuum was filled with a hallucinatory hurricane in the leftist blogosphere, which unleashed a grotesquely lurid series of allegations, fantasies, half-truths and outright lies about Palin. What a tacky low in American politics — which has already caused a backlash that could damage Obama’s campaign. When liberals come off as childish, raving loonies, the right wing gains. I am still waiting for substantive evidence that Sarah Palin is a dangerous extremist. I am perfectly willing to be convinced, but right now, she seems to be merely an optimistic pragmatist like Ronald Reagan, someone who pays lip service to religious piety without being in the least wedded to it. I don’t see her arrival as portending the end of civil liberties or life as we know it.

One reason I live in the leafy suburbs of Philadelphia and have never moved to New York or Washington is that, as a cultural analyst, I want to remain in touch with the mainstream of American life. I frequent fast-food restaurants, shop at the mall, and periodically visit Wal-Mart (its bird-seed section is nonpareil). Like Los Angeles and San Francisco, Manhattan and Washington occupy their own mental zones — nice to visit but not a place to stay if you value independent thought these days. Ambitious professionals in those cities, if they want to preserve their social networks, are very vulnerable to received opinion. At receptions and parties (which I hate), they’re sitting ducks. They have to go along to get along — poor dears!

It is certainly premature to predict how the Palin saga will go. I may not agree a jot with her about basic principles, but I have immensely enjoyed Palin’s boffo performances at her debut and at the Republican convention, where she astonishingly dealt with multiple technical malfunctions without missing a beat. A feminism that cannot admire the bravura under high pressure of the first woman governor of a frontier state isn’t worth a warm bucket of spit.

Perhaps Palin seemed perfectly normal to me because she resembles so many women I grew up around in the snow belt of upstate New York. For example, there were the robust and hearty farm women of Oxford, a charming village where my father taught high school when I was a child. We first lived in an apartment on the top floor of a farmhouse on a working dairy farm. Our landlady, who was as physically imposing as her husband, was an all-American version of the Italian immigrant women of my grandmother’s generation — agrarian powerhouses who could do anything and whose trumpetlike voices could pierce stone walls.

Here’s one episode. My father and his visiting brother, a dapper barber by trade, were standing outside having a smoke when a great noise came from the nearby barn. A calf had escaped. Our landlady yelled, “Stop her!” as the calf came careening at full speed toward my father and uncle, who both instinctively stepped back as the calf galloped through the mud between them. Irate, our landlady trudged past them to the upper pasture, cornered the calf, and carried that massive animal back to the barn in her arms. As she walked by my father and uncle, she exclaimed in amused disgust, “Men!”

Now that’s the Sarah Palin brand of can-do, no-excuses, moose-hunting feminism — a world away from the whining, sniping, wearily ironic mode of the establishment feminism represented by Gloria Steinem, a Hillary Clinton supporter whose shameless Democratic partisanship over the past four decades has severely limited American feminism and not allowed it to become the big tent it can and should be. Sarah Palin, if her reputation survives the punishing next two months, may be breaking down those barriers. Feminism, which should be about equal rights and equal opportunity, should not be a closed club requiring an ideological litmus test for membership.

Here’s another example of the physical fortitude and indomitable spirit that Palin as an Alaskan sportswoman seems to represent right now. Last year, Toronto’s Globe and Mail reprinted this remarkable obituary from 1905:

Abigail Becker Farmer and homemaker born in Frontenac County, Upper Canada, on March 14, 1830

A tall, handsome woman “who feared God greatly and the living or dead not at all,” she married a widower with six children and settled in a trapper’s cabin on Long Point, Lake Erie. On Nov. 23, 1854, with her husband away, she single-handedly rescued the crew of the schooner Conductor of Buffalo, which had run aground in a storm. The crew had clung to the frozen rigging all night, not daring to enter the raging surf. In the early morning, she waded chin-high into the water (she could not swim) and helped seven men reach shore. She was awarded medals for heroism and received $350 collected by the people of Buffalo, plus a handwritten letter from Queen Victoria that was accompanied by £50, all of which went toward buying a farm. She lost her husband to a storm, raised 17 children alone and died at Walsingham Centre, Ont.

Frontier women were far bolder and hardier than today’s pampered, petulant bourgeois feminists, always looking to blame their complaints about life on someone else.

But what of Palin’s pro-life stand? Creationism taught in schools? Book banning? Gay conversions? The Iraq war as God’s plan? Zionism as a prelude to the apocalypse? We’ll see how these big issues shake out. Right now, I don’t believe much of what I read or hear about Palin in the media. To automatically assume that she is a religious fanatic who has embraced the most extreme ideas of her local church is exactly the kind of careless reasoning that has been unjustly applied to Barack Obama, whom the right wing is still trying to tar with the fulminating anti-American sermons of his longtime preacher, Jeremiah Wright.

The witch-trial hysteria of the past two incendiary weeks unfortunately reveals a disturbing trend in the Democratic Party, which has worsened over the past decade. Democrats are quick to attack the religiosity of Republicans, but Democratic ideology itself seems to have become a secular substitute religion. Since when did Democrats become so judgmental and intolerant? Conservatives are demonized, with the universe polarized into a Manichaean battle of us versus them, good versus evil. Democrats are clinging to pat group opinions as if they were inflexible moral absolutes. The party is in peril if it cannot observe and listen and adapt to changing social circumstances.

Let’s take the issue of abortion rights, of which I am a firm supporter. As an atheist and libertarian, I believe that government must stay completely out of the sphere of personal choice. Every individual has an absolute right to control his or her body. (Hence I favor the legalization of drugs, though I do not take them.) Nevertheless, I have criticized the way that abortion became the obsessive idée fixe of the post-1960s women’s movement — leading to feminists’ McCarthyite tactics in pitting Anita Hill with her flimsy charges against conservative Clarence Thomas (admittedly not the most qualified candidate possible) during his nomination hearings for the Supreme Court. Similarly, Bill Clinton’s support for abortion rights gave him a free pass among leading feminists for his serial exploitation of women — an abusive pattern that would scream misogyny to any neutral observer.

But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, “Sexual Personae,”) has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature’s fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.

Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman’s body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman’s entrance into society and citizenship.

On the other hand, I support the death penalty for atrocious crimes (such as rape-murder or the murder of children). I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?

What I am getting at here is that not until the Democratic Party stringently reexamines its own implicit assumptions and rhetorical formulas will it be able to deal effectively with the enduring and now escalating challenge from the pro-life right wing. Because pro-choice Democrats have been arguing from cold expedience, they have thus far been unable to make an effective ethical case for the right to abortion.

The gigantic, instantaneous coast-to-coast rage directed at Sarah Palin when she was identified as pro-life was, I submit, a psychological response by loyal liberals who on some level do not want to open themselves to deep questioning about abortion and its human consequences. I have written about the eerie silence that fell over campus audiences in the early 1990s when I raised this issue on my book tours. At such moments, everyone in the hall seemed to feel the uneasy conscience of feminism. Naomi Wolf later bravely tried to address this same subject but seems to have given up in the face of the resistance she encountered.

If Sarah Palin tries to intrude her conservative Christian values into secular government, then she must be opposed and stopped. But she has every right to express her views and to argue for society’s acceptance of the high principle of the sanctity of human life. If McCain wins the White House and then drops dead, a President Palin would have the power to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court, but she could not control their rulings.

It is nonsensical and counterproductive for Democrats to imagine that pro-life values can be defeated by maliciously destroying their proponents. And it is equally foolish to expect that feminism must for all time be inextricably wed to the pro-choice agenda. There is plenty of room in modern thought for a pro-life feminism — one in fact that would have far more appeal to third-world cultures where motherhood is still honored and where the Western model of the hard-driving, self-absorbed career woman is less admired.

But the one fundamental precept that Democrats must stand for is independent thought and speech. When they become baying bloodhounds of rigid dogma, Democrats have committed political suicide.

Camille Paglia’s column appears on the second Wednesday of each month. Every third column is devoted to reader letters. Please send questions for her next letters column to this mailbox. Your name and town will be published unless you request anonymity.

Thank you to all of the bloggers who have blogged about the Fresh Air Fund on their blogs over the last couple weeks!  Please explore the posts below:

• Fresh Air Fund Needs Host Families posted by Jane at Above Average Jane
• Help Give A Kid A Break This Summer (US readers) posted by Lindsay at Activity Village Blog
• Blog Business, and, Announcing a Big Birthday Bash Blogging Break posted by Alissa at Life’s Little Adventures
• Fresh Air posted by Frank Almeida at Sugar & Spice
• Fresh Air Fund posted by Baggage at Baggage
• Help Low Income Kids have a great summer. posted by Michael Green at Bikeblog
• Asking Bloggers to Blog posted by Ron McDaniel at Buzzodle
• Support the Fresh Air fund posted by Clay Newton at Integrating Good
• Fresh Air Fund Needs Your Help posted by someone at Blonde Mom Blog
• Fresh Air Fund In Need of Host Families posted by Dawn at So a Blonde Walks Into a Review
• Fresh Air Fund Needs Host Families posted by Toby at Diva Marketing Blog
• Help These Children – In any way you can, please. posted by Steven at Bored Dad’s Roar
• The Fresh Air Fund: an appeal for host families posted by Ruth at Brand Strategy
• A Major Digression posted by Teresa at Brooklyn Backstretch
• The Fresh Air Fund – call for host families posted by Camy Tang at Camy’s Loft
• (Hot) Thursday Thoughts posted by Dan at Cerulean Sanctum
• Help Children from Disadvantaged Communities Find Host Families for a Summer Program posted by Danny Fisher at Danny Fisher
• I Need 200 Families Willing to Host a Child in August posted by Chris Abraham at Chris Abraham
• Boing Boing Shout Out to the Fresh Air Fund posted by Chris Abraham at Chris Abraham
• Charity needs host families posted by Eric at Christifideles
• A Midsummer Start for Ceviches at Brooklyn Fields posted by Emily S. Rueb at The New York Times
• Dream Big, Little Girl posted by Liza at Cool Mom Picks
• A breath of Fresh Air posted by Christine at Mama’s Musings
• The Fresh Air Fund posted by someone at Did You Ever Notice?
• The Fresh Air Fund posted by Doug Rice at Ho Chi Minh City, Bangkok, and beyond
• City Mice posted by Mike Dresser at The Dresser Cooperative
• Do Something Good This Summer! posted by Shelah Davis at Ec’s Margaritaville
• Fresh Air Fund Needs Your Help Helping City Kids posted by Faithful Progressive at Faithful Progressive
• Give low-income city kids a chance to experience rural reality. posted by someone at Glamour Strip Poker : Streep Online Games Poker
• Slideshow posted by someone at In Search Of Fatherhood(R)
• Give low-income city kids a chance to experience rural reality. posted by Xeni Jardin at Best of the Green Web
• Jesp In Tanzania posted by “Jesper Guhle Mogensen
• ” at Give a Kid a Break
• Heart Crossings posted by someone at Fresh Air Fund
• The Fresh Air Fund posted by someone at Hellesbelles Misconceptions on Life
• Inner City Kids Get Some Fresh Air! posted by Leesa Garcia at News From France
• Where Does Milk Come From? posted by someone at Jakartass
• Fresh Air: the SM news release done right! posted by Lee Hopkins at Better Communication Results
• Our Fresh Air Fund Experience posted by someone at The Weekly Muse from Love 2B Homeschoolers
• Happy campers—not. posted by Bill Green at Make the Logo Bigger
• Fresh Air Fund Appeal on Boing Boing posted by Chris Abraham at Marketing Conversation
• Fresh Air Fund Needs Your Help posted by someone at Fresh Air Fund Needs Your Help by Mom blog
• Give a Kid Some Fresh Air! posted by “Heidi Hess Saxton” at Mommy Monsters Inc.
• Give a Kid Some Fresh Air! posted by “Heidi Hess Saxton” at Mommy Monsters Inc.
• Can you host a city kid? posted by someone at Mom said nobody cares…
• The Fresh Air Fund posted by Susthama at “Beyond the Clouds”
• Fresh Air: the SM news release done right! posted by Wilson at Advisable
• Remember summer vacations as a kid? posted by Sue Cramer at Praise and Coffee
• The Fresh Air Fund program posted by someone at Jesus and Dark Chocolate
• Fresh Air posted by Rick McKinley at Scituatedrev
• Please help a City child. posted by Claude Scales at Self-Absorbed Boomer
• Help Some Kids – Be A Fresh Air Host! posted by Phillip J Rhoades at Semjaza
• Helping Children posted by Sharon at Keeper of the Home
• Can You Help a Child Next Month? posted by Karen Hossink at Surviving Motherhood
• Help Find Hosts For Fresh Air Fund Kids posted by Karl at Public Service/Community Announcements – at Tcritic The Daily T-Shirt Fasion and Design blog
• The Fresh Air Fund posted by Julie at Teacherjulie.com
• A breath of Fresh Air posted by Pieter de Waal at The 3rd Cord
• The Fresh Air Fund posted by Court Stroud at The Existential Lip
• Community – Fresh Air Funds Need Your Help posted by Ben at The Father Life
• Fresh Air for Life posted by Sharon at reservoir
• Fresh Air Fund posted by Lee Oden at LeeOdden
• Fresh Air Fund posted by Sean Howard at
• Fresh Air Fund posted by Ben at Thefatherlife
• PSA for the FAF posted by Rachel at Velveteen Rabbi
• Sunflowers, Marigolds, and Fresh Air posted by Rachel Carter at VermontVibes
• Sunflowers, Marigolds, and Fresh Air posted by Rachel Carter at VermontVibes
• 5 Minutes Around the Blogosphere – Week posted by Erica Stall at 5 Minutes for the Mom
• Fresh Air posted by Frank at Sugar & Spice
• Fresh Air Fund Needs You posted by someone at BaristaNet
• Beyond Words posted by Kathy at Fresh Air Fund Needs Your Help Helping City Kids
• Offer them some fresh air posted by Gabrielle at Bloody Brilliant
• Give low-income city kids a chance to experience rural reality. posted by Xeni Jardin at Boing Boing
• Fresh Air posted by Crista Acosta at Crista Acosta
• Hit The Books (Surviving Your Child’s Summer Vacation For Pennies A Day) posted by Chag at Cynical Dad
• The Fresh Air Fund posted by Dave at Daves Bargain
• Fresh Air Fund posted by Ben at The Father Life
• Fresh Air Fund Needs Host Families posted by Toby at Find Tech Blogs
• From Fresh Air Fund posted by Peter at Freaked Out Fathers
• Fresh Air Program posted by Amy at In Pursuit of Prov. 31
• The Fresh Air Fund posted by Jeff at Jeff Bar’s Blog
• The Fresh Air Fund Needs Your Help posted by Megan at Jumping Monkey’s
• Every Kid Deserves a Summer Vacation posted by Kenneth Walsh at Kennth In the 212
• The Fresh Air Fund posted by Doug at Marketing Tech Blog
• Urgent: A Quick Note From the Fresh Air Fund posted by Matthew at Matthewktabor
• Adopt a Kid… For a Week posted by Rebecca at Fish Bowl Ny
• Fresh Air For Urban Kids posted by someone at Meta-Dad
• Links for 2008-07-14 posted by Douglas K at New With Me
• Help a child have a great summer camp experience – Fresh Air Fund posted by Kate Trgovac at My Name is Kate
• 200 Inner City Kids need a Vacation Home in August: Give the Fresh Air Fund a Hand posted by Leconcierge at Now Public
• The Fresh Air Fund posted by Willy Franzen at One Day One Internship
• The Fresh Air Fund posted by someone at Craphammer
• Fresh Air Fund Needs 200 More Families Willing to Host a Child in August posted by someone at Pr News Now
• Fresh Air Fund Needs 200 More Families Willing to Host a Child in August posted by someone at Pr Web
• Fresh Air Fund posted by Julia at Red Book
• Fresh Air Fund seeking hosts for disadvantaged kids in the Northeast in August posted by Ross at Rossputin.com
• 200 Inner City Kids need a Vacation Home in August: Give the Fresh Air Fund a Hand posted by Serge at Serge the Concierge
• Can You Help Give Kids Some Fresh Air? posted by Gavin at Servant of Chaos
• Camp Day! posted by Aja T. Marsh at Stem + Leaf
• The Fresh Air Fund Could Use Your Help posted by John Wall at Ronin Marketeer
• Fresh Air program gives vacation for NYC kids posted by someone at Boedus Travel Blog – Web Digest of Travel Resources
• Fresh Air Fund posted by someone at
• Do you have a spare bed? posted by Gunner at This Is Smyrna, TN
• the FRESHAIR fund posted by someone at Parenting Cares
• Fresh Air For Urban Kids posted by David at Metadad Fatherhood Evolving
• Is there room in your family for one more this August? posted by Domenico Bettilnelli jr. at Bettnett.com
• Give a kid the gift of fresh air posted by someone at Marketing Conversation
• Fresh Air Fund posted by Bobbi/Brian at Revolution of Love.com Blog

All of these posts have been collected since we started the campaign on July 16th!

I must say that my firm, Abraham Harrison, and I are much obliged!  I must also add that so are the folks over at the Fresh Air Fund. We at Abraham Harrison are super-happy to have this opportunity to work with the Fresh Air Fund in their time of need. If you want to learn more about our appeal, please check out the informational page over at freshair.smnr.us, We have over 200 children scheduled for Fresh Air trips this summer and need your help to host or find hosts!

CC Chapman blogged about the Life Changing Box, my mysterious client’s client, and I love being able to tease CC about it! And, like I always say, loose lips sink ships! (I know something you don’t know! Ha ha!)

Life Changing Box

June 17th 2008

I got a note from a friend pointing me to LifeChangingBox.com . No details. No hints. Just the URL to go and check it out. Since I knew this person I figured why not.

I spent some time putting words into it and seeing what it did. I don’t want to spoil the surprise but go ahead and give it a try. When you give it a word that the box likes it reacts positively to it. I’m still haven’t figured out if there are any key words that will make it go really nuts or not and what the end goal of the site is, but it is a fun for a nice break. One warning though is that the site loads with sounds so don’t have your speakers to loud. You can turn it off in the upper right hand corner.

What I have determined is that it is tied to a Facebook application as well where you can win prizes by holding the box. I had the box for a while, but didn’t win anything. As you can see below, you can go in every day and “touch” boxes that other people are holding in the hopes that when the box changes holders you’ll get it next. Sort of like an inverted, twisted game of duck duck goose if you ask me.

Word on the street is that this is tied to a television company, but I’m not getting any real answers from anyone I ask so I’m not sure. I did see a TV in one of the promo shots as a prize so who knows.

If you try it out and find anything cool that makes the box do things let me know. If you win a prize I REALLY want to know because I am curious to see what sorts of things it gives out.

Not sure this is “life changing” but it is certainly fun to play with.

Well, CC, you’re just gonna have to wait for it! Won’t be long now!

I adore Abigail Jones just because she’s Abigail Jones but also because of her mind, her politics, her ethics, her writing, and for her sense of humor. I have written about Abigail before in the form of Restless Virgins and Abigail Jones and Abigail Jones’ Newest Fan is Josielle for “Restless Virgins”. I don’t know if you have heard about the Children’s Book, “My Beautiful Mommy,” but it is pretty appalling.

A new children’s book, “My Beautiful Mommy,” helps parents tell their young kids why mommy, who just came home from the hospital in bandages, will now have a new nose and a thinner waist. Whether it’s your next-door-neighbor, her daughter, or Heidi Montag, plastic surgery has become business as usual.

Well, I am not the only person who is completely appalled — so is the lovely Abigail Jones, who wrote this scathing op-ed for the International Herald Tribune, my personal newspaper of choice in Berlin, Germany, titled The Mother of Perfection:

A new children’s book, “My Beautiful Mommy,” helps parents tell their young kids why mommy, who just came home from the hospital in bandages, will now have a new nose and a thinner waist. Whether it’s your next-door-neighbor, her daughter, or Heidi Montag, plastic surgery has become business as usual. But it wasn’t always this way.

Back in Victorian America, women embraced the ideal of natural beauty, associating makeup with the artificial faces of prostitutes and showgirls. In the 1910s, when the flapper was the measure of femininity, Vogue signaled a significant shift, urging readers to (discreetly) use lipstick and rouge to enhance their beauty. Decades later, Clairol’s legendary 1956 ad campaign – “Does she or doesn’t she? Hair color so natural, only her hairdresser knows for sure” – publicized another turn; women in the Eisenhower years were hiding the gray, enhancing the red, and becoming blonde, but they still wanted it to remain a private matter. Unnatural changes to one’s physical appearance were meant to be a secret – unless you were Marilyn Monroe.

Today, however, blonde highlights have become as typical as red nails. There’s the “mommy makeover.” From blogs to Facebook to reality TV, private life is more public than ever. Given the obsession with appearance and perfection, beauty has gone public, too, and plastic surgery is the latest frontier. Such physical changes are practically impossible to disguise, but the point is that many women don’t want to hide them at all.

Ashley Tisdale got a nose job. So did Ashlee Simpson. There’s Joan Rivers’s face, Tara Reid’s stomach, and Pamela Anderson’s chest, all of which we’ve seen plastered across the pages of gossip magazines, the photographs magnified and analyzed for inconsistencies or modifications.

Most celebrities don’t end up like modern-day Frankensteins Jocelyn Wildenstein and Michael Jackson, yet this pursuit for eternal youth is real. Plastic surgery, however, is hardly just a Hollywood pastime.

Women all over the United States are altering body parts in search of physical perfection. By now, everyone knows what a “mommy makeover” is (in case you missed it: liposuction, tummy tuck, and breast lift, with or without breast implants).

Yet aiming to regain one’s pre-pregnancy body is only part of the story. Women turn to a range of surgical and nonsurgical procedures to help turn back time, and, last year, they constituted 91 percent of all cosmetic surgery patients.

How many of these women have children? It’s a critical question, because aside from the emotional effects plastic surgery can have on patients, how does a mother’s plastic surgery affect her kids?

Teenagers are growing up in a society where you can buy what you weren’t born with. After a brief recovery, you, too, can have a button nose and slim waist or lips like Angelina Jolie. MTV’s “I Want A Famous Face” exposed teens’ obsessions with beauty in possibly the worst of the plastic-surgery-meets-reality-TV glut.

The show, which aired in 2004, featured young people getting surgery to make them look like their favorite Hollywood stars. Amidst pop culture’s quest for extreme beauty, who do girls look up to? Their moms, the very women who now pay thousands of dollars to look just like their daughters.

Though “mother” has always been heralded as the heart of the family, the attractive – and gracefully aging – matriarch, the rules are changing. Some women will do anything to stop the clock. Whatever happened to the idea that it’s the daughter’s turn? Today, the mentality has flipped: It’s mom’s turn, too. But women’s efforts at preserving their youthful appearances often put them in competition with their children (hello Dina Lohan and Kris Kardashian).

The publication of “My Beautiful Mommy” shows that plastic surgery belongs on that laundry list of issues (drugs, sex, alcohol) for parents to discuss at the dinner table. Many mothers will continue to get plastic surgery, so as long as they care for their relationships with their kids, maybe that’s enough. After all, is it worse when mothers strive to perfect themselves or when they strive to perfect their daughters?

My mom hooked me up with the amazing Women in Art video compilation. Thanks, mom! Gorgeous women, all. Here’s Women in Film. Even though the gorgeous women in this film — and the women in art, too — are all unique, their features and their proportions are not. Their lips are all full, their eyes are all wide-set, their cheekbones are all striking. They have mostly the same “beauty ideal” and there is no doubt in it. I mean, it is shocking, really.

I am a feminist. I studied postmodern feminist theory at Uni and felt confident that the progress and passion behind feminism offered by deconstructionism — the cultural and linguistic tools a women would need to redefine her story and her self — would result in a female self-empowerment much more substantial than the hyper-sexual self-objectification of Manolo Blahnik feminism. I am not the only one asking the question, “What Ever Happened to Feminism?” Check out Body Politic by Ingrid Sischy from the T Style Magazine (yes, I read it).

“Body Politic
By INGRID SISCHY
Published: February 25, 2007Last fall I was stopped in my tracks as I walked into a show in Milan during the collections, and a male friend, who’d just witnessed the same debacle that I had, raised his eyebrows and asked, “What happened to feminism???? It’s a question that is being asked repeatedly these days, and for good reason. The only word for the fashion collection we’d just seen was “bimbo??? — clothes put out on the runway without irony, without quotation marks, without any raison d’être other than saving money on material. Over the course of the next two weeks I gave myself a little assignment. I’d watch the runways in Milan and Paris and check off those clothes that signified a throwback to the long past of objectifying women. And on the other hand I’d put a little star down when the designer seemed to be wanting to take us into the future with a view of women that reflected self-possession.

Good thing I still like swings. Of course there were exceptions, designers who were true to the present, but by and large it was backward and forward and backward and forward. Then there were the designers who left earth entirely and showed a universe of female droids and cyborgs. These were the ones who, intentionally or not, illuminated the big challenge facing women’s fashion, best described by tweaking the famous tag line from “Star Trek???: women’s fashion, the final frontier . . . to boldly go where no one has gone before.

That’s easier said than done. As Miuccia Prada said to me, “The problem with new ideas about feminism is that there has been so little public discussion of the subject.??? Well, that’s changing, big time — if not in fashion at least in the art world, which has historically been the first place where a new perspective begins. In fact, after it seemed as though the subject of feminism had been put on simmer, the art world is cooking with gas again, not just for a new generation of feminist artists but in retrospect too. The year started out with a symposium at the Museum of Modern Art, once such a perfect target for feminist critics, who felt it was stuck in the Stone Age as far as the representation of women goes. Now there are bicoastal extravaganzas planned for this spring: the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles will stage “WACK! Art and the Feminist Revolution??? from March 4 to July 16, and the Brooklyn Museum opens “Global Feminisms??? on March 23. The show celebrates a new center for feminist art, anchored by the permanent installation of Judy Chicago’s famous “The Dinner Party.??? How these exhibitions will loop back to fashion and the creative/commercial balancing act that designers have to do is anybody’s guess, but bets are that there will be a trickle-down effect, as there often is.

What’s interesting is that if one goes through the iconic works of the first, second and third waves of feminist writers, there is so little that actually addresses fashion. Rereading Simone de Beauvoir, Kate Millet, Shulamith Firestone, Germaine Greer, Lucy Lippard, Linda Nochlin and so many others, I was struck by the dearth of attention to this subject, which after all has everything to do with how identity is constructed for the outside world. There’s no lack of thinking when it comes to inner life, working life, creative life and public life, but when fashion comes up, the attitude tends to be knee-jerk and programmatic. Take Greer’s climactic moment at the end of “The Female Eunuch,??? where she creates a sort of bill of rights, inciting women to: “. . . refuse hobbles and deformity and take possession of your body and glory in its power, accepting its own laws of loveliness.??? In fact some of the most powerful, liberated women I know choose to hobble around in the craziest skyscraper shoes. “The higher the heel,??? they say, “the better I feel.???

But the other part of Greer’s declaration — that women have the right to control their own bodies — is as resonant today as it was when she wrote it nearly 40 years ago. One can see that drama being played out in the fashion arena right now, with the debate over skinny models brought to a head by the deaths last fall of two South American catwalkers from complications of anorexia. The hysteria that resulted led to a spectacle of ignorance, hypocrisy and bureaucracy. If the issue weren’t so serious, some of the solutions proposed by bureaucrats — like models being weighed in like boxers or jockeys — would be funny. But unfortunately they don’t just infringe on everything that we are supposed to hold dear in the department of human liberties, they also display so little understanding of the disease they are trying to combat that it is frightening. So is the tendency to lump together girls who are naturally skinny with those who are sick, two very different realities. Hey, as someone who likes her fries, I’m all for bringing back a Rubenesque shape as the height of fashion, but the fact is that perceptions of beauty cannot, and will not, be dictated by laws. That’s where consciousness comes in. At the center of it all, for anorexics, but also for each of us, lies the issue of control, or as Barbara Kruger wrote in one of her most unforgettable artworks: “Your body is a battleground.??? Hopefully you win.”

Manolo Blahnik Feminism: The Right to Choo’s

I call the new feminism Manolo Blahnik Feminism, which is a super-sexual, super-sexy, and super-confusing form of self-empowerment. Ariel Levy calls it “raunch culture” and I believe that it is going to blow up in American women’s faces.

I believe very strongly that there are too many dangerous contradiction in the new feminism, in the new American woman.

I attended a panel on gender differences in the new feminism and my question to the panel was, “I understand how empowering strappy stilettos, butt jeans, bare bellies, and camisole tops are for the modern woman. It is all about taking back the sex, taking back the gaze, reclaiming the control of what is cute, what is hot, what is sexy, it about taking back control, reclaiming feelings of pride in the body, pride in the shape and tan earned from an active, outdoorsy life. That’s all fine and good. Unfortunately, we men never got the memo. I never got the memo.”

In fact, I feel sort of like a fox in a hen house. Why? Well, all of my old-world, unenlightened, seduction techniques work now better than ever! In fact, the truth is, I am really too nice for the Manolo Blahnik k feminist.

The Manolo Blahnik feminist wants to be taken, wants to find a real man, wants to take risks and have a great time; she pursues a doctrine of devil may care.

Well, no matter what the Manolo Blahnik Feminist thinks she wants and no matter what she thinks she’s doing, she is actually walking into a very dangerous trap.

We men are not responding to this self-empowerment with amazement and respect, we’re responding to it by licking our lips, by taking advantage, by rubbing our hands together, and by trying not to jinx this out of being. We are pretty well convinced that what is happening won’t last: the Manolo Blahnik feminist fancies herself the aggressor, the buyer, the pursuer, the seducer. And we men are what she is after.

All we see is, “man that girl is fine — I’d like some of that.”

As men in such a seller’s market, we don’t have to choose. We can date another willing girl every night. We can push sex much faster than we ever could believe. The three-date rule? Ha! That’s the official rule, but now the first date counts from the night we first met. Oral sex on the first date has sort of become de rigueur — if you want a second date.

Instead of getting control, the Manolo Blahnik Feminist has relinquished control to us men.

And even worse, this is a very dangerous game. We men are bigger, stronger, and not all of us are so nice. I personally have a lot of experience with women who are survivors — survivors not just of dating or their 20s, but survivors of sexual abuse and rape.

I have loved them, I have befriended them, and I worked through relationships with women who have survived sexual abuse and rape.

Its always an ugly story and the world is never the same. We just have not received the memo. This kind of exciting, naughty, passionate, irresponsible, reckless indulgence in “raunch culture” is going to result in one hell of a cultural hangover.

Many women will be unable to recover from this self-indulgence with any semblance of faith, trust, hope, or intactness.

And many men, too.

When it comes right down to it, who would have any of the right stuff to even have faith in marriage, the family, and children after indulging in such self-destructive, self-loathing chaos?

Not I.

I am not sure if modern women have it very good. Not nearly as good as would be expected. I attended college at a high point for feminism an academia, when a woman would still identify with being a feminist.

Not any more.

Not Liberating, After All
How did feminists end up in bed with Hugh Hefner?

BY WENDY SHALIT
Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Ariel Levy attended Wesleyan University in the 1990s, and she doesn’t feel the better for it. It was a place where “group sex, to say nothing of casual sex, was de rigueur.” It was a place where they had “coed showers, on principle.” When Ms. Levy suggested to a department head that it would be nice to have at least one course in the traditional literary canon, she was dismissed with icy contempt. Yet elsewhere on campus a professor of the humanities taught a course on pornography featuring, um, detailed textual analysis.

It was all supposed to be so liberating. But it wasn’t, as Ms. Levy argues forcefully in “Female Chauvinist Pigs.” It was merely the academic groundwork for what she calls “raunch culture,” now so ubiquitous that we take it for granted. Young women wear shirts emblazoned with “Porn Star” across the chest. Teen stores sell “Cat in the Hat” thong underwear. Parents treat their daughters’ friends to “cardio striptease” classes for birthday parties. This is liberation?

Ms. Levy is baffled. “Why,” she wondered, “is laboring to look like Pamela Anderson empowering?” Why did female Olympic athletes pose for Playboy before the summer 2004 Games? Why did Katie Couric feel the need to point to her cleavage and gush “these are actually real!” when she guest-hosted “The Tonight Show” a couple of years ago?

Some sort of pervasive pressure, apparently, requires “everyone who is sexually liberated . . . to be imitating strippers and porn stars.” Ms. Levy describes the perfect distillation of this impulse–a social group called CAKE that hosts steamy, hooking-up parties in New York and London. CAKE makes big bucks advertising “feminism in action”–it claims to be the place where “sexual equality and feminism finally meet”–but its events are indistinguishable from those held at the Playboy Mansion.

The surface logic of such conduct is fairly simple, notes Ms. Levy. “Women had come so far,” or so the thinking went, that “we no longer needed to worry about objectification or misogyny.” If male chauvinist pigs “regarded women as pieces of meat, we would outdo them and be Female Chauvinist Pigs: women who make sex objects of other women and of ourselves.”

Well, Ms. Levy is having none of it, and she is not the only one. Even Erica Jong seems to feel that something has gone wrong. Known for popularizing the idea that a woman may want consequence-free sex, Ms. Jong today declares: “Being able to have an orgasm with a man you don’t love . . . that is not liberation.” It isn’t? Someone should tell this to Annie, a blue-eyed 29-year-old who admits to Ms. Levy that she “used to get so hurt” after a night of sex that didn’t yield an emotional bond. Now she has gotten over it, or tried to: “I’m like a guy,” she brags.

How did this happen? Why did feminism sell its soul to the sexual-liberation movement in the first place? After all, the original feminists were fighting to be taken seriously. Hugh Hefner, by contrast, said that his ideal girl “resembles a bunny . . . vivacious, jumping–sexy.” There seems to be a contradiction here.

Ms. Levy’s answer is that, after a brief and failed fight against pornography, feminism joined forces with Hef & Co. to fight for abortion rights. This is a plausible explanation, as far as it goes. Abortion has indeed assumed a primary importance in both feminist “rights” thinking and in the whole culture of soft-core libertinism: Mr. Hefner is a big fan of abortion, for obvious reasons.

But something else may be going on. Feminism grounded itself, in its early days, in the idea that there were no differences between the sexes. A girl wanting to keep her virginity was bad, for sexual reticence amounted to asserting a separate standard, a Victorian one at that. To Hef, modesty was a “hang-up,” and to the feminists it was a “patriarchal construct.” Ms. Levy believes that feminism was on the right track but then veered off-course: “What has moved into feminism’s place . . . is an almost opposite style, attitude, and set of principles.”

But maybe feminism’s foundations were weak from the start. Everyone in Ms. Levy’s book–whether it’s middle-class girls who feel anxiety about appearing “hot” or grown women who confess to Ms. Levy that “accumulating sex for its own sake . . . is not that sexual”–shows that a woman’s experience of sex and love is very different from that of an adolescent boy or a man. Indeed, the more a woman imitates a man, the clearer these differences become.

Paris Hilton tells Rolling Stone: “My boyfriends always tell me I’m not sexual. Sexy, but not sexual.” (Ms. Levy reports that on one of the infamous videotapes she takes a cellphone call during intercourse.) Plainly, the sexual revolution has not brought fulfillment for women. Even its mascots experience boredom, and for the civilians there is distress and heartache.

It may be that, like Ms. Levy, a lot of feminists now regret getting in bed with Mr. Hefner. Yet if you mention the word “modesty” within 20 feet of them their heads spin around like Linda Blair in “The Exorcist.” This is where they get stuck. Only if feminism can embrace the more traditional ways that men and women have courted throughout the ages can it have anything practical to offer young women. To the extent that feminists dismiss as worthless anything that is perceived as “backtracking,” they only help to perpetuate the “raunch culture”–even as they deplore its effects.

Take a beach scene that Ms. Levy recounts, when the male “friends” of two girls pressure them to take off their suits. Soon surrounded by a circle of 40 screaming men, the girls say “no way!” but eventually give in and spank each other to appease the crowd.

Such a girl requires, in addition to perhaps Mace, a compelling alternative to the Female Chauvinist Pig. Otherwise she may well give in to social pressure–not to mention professorial nonsense–and then wonder what’s wrong with her when she is not happy with the pig in her bed or the pig she has become.

Ms. Shalit is author of “A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue.” You can buy “Female Chauvinist Pigs” from the OpinionJournal bookstore.

September 20, 2005

Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/national/20women.html?ex=1127966400&en=3f7348e314a603ee&ei=5070&emc=eta1

By LOUISE STORY

Cynthia Liu is precisely the kind of high achiever Yale wants: smart (1510 SAT), disciplined (4.0 grade point average), competitive (finalist in Texas oratory competition), musical (pianist), athletic (runner) and altruistic (hospital volunteer). And at the start of her sophomore year at Yale, Ms. Liu is full of ambition, planning to go to law school.

So will she join the long tradition of famous Ivy League graduates? Not likely. By the time she is 30, this accomplished 19-year-old expects to be a stay-at-home mom.

“My mother’s always told me you can’t be the best career woman and the best mother at the same time,” Ms. Liu said matter-of-factly. “You always have to choose one over the other.”

At Yale and other top colleges, women are being groomed to take their place in an ever more diverse professional elite. It is almost taken for granted that, just as they make up half the students at these institutions, they will move into leadership roles on an equal basis with their male classmates.

There is just one problem with this scenario: many of these women say that is not what they want.

Many women at the nation’s most elite colleges say they have already decided that they will put aside their careers in favor of raising children. Though some of these students are not planning to have children and some hope to have a family and work full time, many others, like Ms. Liu, say they will happily play a traditional female role, with motherhood their main commitment.

Much attention has been focused on career women who leave the work force to rear children. What seems to be changing is that while many women in college two or three decades ago expected to have full-time careers, their daughters, while still in college, say they have already decided to suspend or end their careers when they have children.

“At the height of the women’s movement and shortly thereafter, women were much more firm in their expectation that they could somehow combine full-time work with child rearing,” said Cynthia E. Russett, a professor of American history who has taught at Yale since 1967. “The women today are, in effect, turning realistic.”

Dr. Russett is among more than a dozen faculty members and administrators at the most exclusive institutions who have been on campus for decades and who said in interviews that they had noticed the changing attitude.

Many students say staying home is not a shocking idea among their friends. Shannon Flynn, an 18-year-old from Guilford, Conn., who is a freshman at Harvard, says many of her girlfriends do not want to work full time.

“Most probably do feel like me, maybe even tending toward wanting to not work at all,” said Ms. Flynn, who plans to work part time after having children, though she is torn because she has worked so hard in school.

“Men really aren’t put in that position,” she said.

Uzezi Abugo, a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania who hopes to become a lawyer, says she, too, wants to be home with her children at least until they are in school.

“I’ve seen the difference between kids who did have their mother stay at home and kids who didn’t, and it’s kind of like an obvious difference when you look at it,” said Ms. Abugo, whose mother, a nurse, stayed home until Ms. Abugo was in first grade.

While the changing attitudes are difficult to quantify, the shift emerges repeatedly in interviews with Ivy League students, including 138 freshman and senior females at Yale who replied to e-mail questions sent to members of two residential colleges over the last school year.

The interviews found that 85 of the students, or roughly 60 percent, said that when they had children, they planned to cut back on work or stop working entirely. About half of those women said they planned to work part time, and about half wanted to stop work for at least a few years.

Two of the women interviewed said they expected their husbands to stay home with the children while they pursued their careers. Two others said either they or their husbands would stay home, depending on whose career was furthest along.

The women said that pursuing a rigorous college education was worth the time and money because it would help position them to work in meaningful part-time jobs when their children are young or to attain good jobs when their children leave home.

In recent years, elite colleges have emphasized the important roles they expect their alumni – both men and women – to play in society.

For example, earlier this month, Shirley M. Tilghman, the president of Princeton University, welcomed new freshmen, saying: “The goal of a Princeton education is to prepare young men and women to take up positions of leadership in the 21st century. Of course, the word ‘leadership’ conjures up images of presidents and C.E.O.’s, but I want to stress that my idea of a leader is much broader than that.”

She listed education, medicine and engineering as other areas where students could become leaders.

In an e-mail response to a question, Dr. Tilghman added: “There is nothing inconsistent with being a leader and a stay-at-home parent. Some women (and a handful of men) whom I have known who have done this have had a powerful impact on their communities.”

Yet the likelihood that so many young women plan to opt out of high-powered careers presents a conundrum.

“It really does raise this question for all of us and for the country: when we work so hard to open academics and other opportunities for women, what kind of return do we expect to get for that?” said Marlyn McGrath Lewis, director of undergraduate admissions at Harvard, who served as dean for coeducation in the late 1970′s and early 1980′s.

It is a complicated issue and one that most schools have not addressed. The women they are counting on to lead society are likely to marry men who will make enough money to give them a real choice about whether to be full-time mothers, unlike those women who must work out of economic necessity.

It is less than clear what universities should, or could, do about it. For one, a person’s expectations at age 18 are less than perfect predictors of their life choices 10 years later. And in any case, admissions officers are not likely to ask applicants whether they plan to become stay-at-home moms.

University officials said that success meant different things to different people and that universities were trying to broaden students’ minds, not simply prepare them for jobs.

“What does concern me,” said Peter Salovey, the dean of Yale College, “is that so few students seem to be able to think outside the box; so few students seem to be able to imagine a life for themselves that isn’t constructed along traditional gender roles.”

There is, of course, nothing new about women being more likely than men to stay home to rear children.

According to a 2000 survey of Yale alumni from the classes of 1979, 1984, 1989 and 1994, conducted by the Yale Office of Institutional Research, more men from each of those classes than women said that work was their primary activity – a gap that was small among alumni in their 20′s but widened as women moved into their prime child-rearing years. Among the alumni surveyed who had reached their 40′s, only 56 percent of the women still worked, compared with 90 percent of the men.

A 2005 study of comparable Yale alumni classes found that the pattern had not changed. Among the alumni who had reached their early 40′s, just over half said work was their primary activity, compared with 90 percent of the men. Among the women who had reached their late 40′s, some said they had returned to work, but the percentage of women working was still far behind the percentage of men.

A 2001 survey of Harvard Business School graduates found that 31 percent of the women from the classes of 1981, 1985 and 1991 who answered the survey worked only part time or on contract, and another 31 percent did not work at all, levels strikingly similar to the percentages of the Yale students interviewed who predicted they would stay at home or work part time in their 30′s and 40′s.

What seems new is that while many of their mothers expected to have hard-charging careers, then scaled back their professional plans only after having children, the women of this generation expect their careers to take second place to child rearing.

“It never occurred to me,” Rebecca W. Bushnell, dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, said about working versus raising children. “Thirty years ago when I was heading out, I guess I was just taking it one step at a time.”

Dr. Bushnell said young women today, in contrast, are thinking and talking about part-time or flexible work options for when they have children. “People have a heightened awareness of trying to get the right balance between work and family.”

Sarah Currie, a senior at Harvard, said many of the men in her American Family class last fall approved of women’s plans to stay home with their children.

“A lot of the guys were like, ‘I think that’s really great,’ ” Ms. Currie said. “One of the guys was like, ‘I think that’s sexy.’ Staying at home with your children isn’t as polarizing of an issue as I envision it is for women who are in their 30′s now.”

For most of the young women who responded to e-mail questions, a major factor shaping their attitudes seemed to be their experience with their own mothers, about three out of five of whom did not work at all, took several years off or worked only part time.

“My stepmom’s very proud of my choice because it makes her feel more valuable,” said Kellie Zesch, a Texan who graduated from the University of North Carolina two years ago and who said that once she had children, she intended to stay home for at least five years and then consider working part time. “It justified it to her, that I don’t look down on her for not having a career.”

Similarly, students who are committed to full-time careers, without breaks, also cited their mothers as influences. Laura Sullivan, a sophomore at Yale who wants to be a lawyer, called her mother’s choice to work full time the “greatest gift.”

“She showed me what it meant to be an amazing mother and maintain a career,” Ms. Sullivan said.

Some of these women’s mothers, who said they did not think about these issues so early in their lives, said they were surprised to hear that their college-age daughters had already formed their plans.

Emily Lechner, one of Ms. Liu’s roommates, hopes to stay home a few years, then work part time as a lawyer once her children are in school.

Her mother, Carol, who once thought she would have a full-time career but gave it up when her children were born, was pleasantly surprised to hear that. “I do have this bias that the parents can do it best,” she said. “I see a lot of women in their 30′s who have full-time nannies, and I just question if their kids are getting the best.”

For many feminists, it may come as a shock to hear how unbothered many young women at the nation’s top schools are by the strictures of traditional roles.

“They are still thinking of this as a private issue; they’re accepting it,” said Laura Wexler, a professor of American studies and women’s and gender studies at Yale. “Women have been given full-time working career opportunities and encouragement with no social changes to support it.

“I really believed 25 years ago,” Dr. Wexler added, “that this would be solved by now.”

Angie Ku, another of Ms. Liu’s roommates who had a stay-at-home mom, talks nonchalantly about attending law or business school, having perhaps a 10-year career and then staying home with her children.

“Parents have such an influence on their children,” Ms. Ku said. “I want to have that influence. Me!”

She said she did not mind if that limited her career potential.

“I’ll have a career until I have two kids,” she said. “It doesn’t necessarily matter how far you get. It’s kind of like the experience: I have tried what I wanted to do.”

Ms. Ku added that she did not think it was a problem that women usually do most of the work raising kids.

“I accept things how they are,” she said. “I don’t mind the status quo. I don’t see why I have to go against it.”

After all, she added, those roles got her where she is.

“It worked so well for me,” she said, “and I don’t see in my life why it wouldn’t work.”

Thanks to Carrie for sending me this article.

My dear friend commented on this part of the article, “And when it comes right down to it, who would have any of the right stuff to even have faith in marriage, the family, and children after indulging in such self-destructive, self-loathing chaos?”

Her response was, “….Therein lies the pitfall…. Once you start tasting of that forbidden apple, the garden of romance can all too easily dissapear! This, i think, is why many parents of our generation divorced — lack of faith in love is a direct result of the “free love” movement. Someone needs to warn the young!!! They need to be made aware of the booby-traps. Otherwise we are all just walking around with broken flowers, feeling numb to the pain we don’t even realize we are entitled to have.”

Regina Spektor entry on Wikipedia

Regina Spektor (born February 18, 1980) is a Soviet-born American singer-songwriter and pianist. Her music is associated with the anti-folk scene centered on New York City’s East Village.

Early life
Spektor was born in Moscow, Russia, Soviet Union to a musical family. Her father, a photographer, was also an amateur violinist, and her mother was a music professor in a Russian conservatoire; she now teaches at a public elementary school in Mount Vernon, New York.

Spektor studied classical piano from the age of six, and was also exposed to the music of rock and roll bands such as The Beatles, Queen, and The Moody Blues by her father, who obtained such recordings in Eastern Europe and traded cassettes with friends in the Soviet Union. The family left the Soviet Union in 1989, when Regina was nine, during the period of Perestroika when Jewish citizens were permitted to emigrate. The seriousness of her piano studies led her parents to consider not leaving Russia, but they finally decided to emigrate, for religious and political reasons.

Travelling first to Austria and then Italy, the family settled in the Bronx, New York, and eventually moved to Fair Lawn, New Jersey, where she finished the last three years of her high school career. Spektor has stated that she was originally interested only in classical music, but later became interested in hip hop, rock, and punk.

Beginnings as a songwriter
In New York, Spektor gained a firm grounding in classical music from her piano teacher, Sonia Vargas, a professor at the Manhattan School of Music. Spektor studied with Vargas—whom Spektor’s father had met through violinist Samuel Marder, Vargas’s husband—until she was 17.

Although she had always made up songs around the house, Spektor first became interested in songwriting during a visit to Israel with the Nesiya Institute in her teenage years. Attracting attention from the other children on the trip for the songs she made up while hiking, she realized she had an aptitude for songwriting. Following this trip, she was first exposed to the work of Joni Mitchell, Ani DiFranco, and other singer-songwriters, which gave her the idea that she could create her own songs. She began writing her first a cappella songs around age 16, and wrote her first songs for voice and piano when she was nearly 18.

Spektor completed the four-year studio composition program of the Conservatory of Music at Purchase College in Purchase, New York within three years, graduating with honors in 2001. She worked briefly at a butterfly farm in Luck, Wisconsin. She gradually achieved recognition through performances in the anti-folk scene in downtown New York City, most importantly at the East Village’s Sidewalk Cafe. During this period, she sold her self-produced CDs 11:11 (2001) and Songs (2002) at such performances.

Style
Spektor’s songs rely on a mixture of styles and techniques, often starting with a piano riff but ending with moans, nonsense words, warblings, and other noises. Spektor has said that she has created 700 songs, but that she rarely writes any of them down. Spektor’s songs are not usually autobiographical, but rather are based on scenarios and characters drawn from her imagination. Her songs show influences from folk, Jewish, Russian, hip hop, jazz, and classical music. Spektor has said that she works hard to ensure that each of her songs has its own musical style, rather than trying to develop a distinctive style for her music as a whole.

Spektor possesses a broad vocal range and uses the full extent of it. She also explores a variety of different and somewhat unorthodox vocal techniques, such as verses composed entirely of buzzing noises made with the lips, beatbox-style flourishes in the middle of ballads, or the use of a drum stick to tap rhythms on the body of the piano or chair. Part of her style also results from the exaggeration of certain aspects of vocalization, most notably the glottal stop, which is prominent the single “Fidelity”. She also uses a strong New York accent on some words, which she has said is due to her love of New York and its culture.

Her lyrics are equally eclectic, often taking the form of abstract narratives or first-person character studies, similar to short stories or vignettes put to song. Spektor usually sings in English, though she sometimes includes a few words or verses of Latin, Russian, French, and other languages in her songs. Spektor’s music is further set apart from mainstream folk music by its frequent literary references, such as to F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway in “Poor Little Rich Boy”, The Little Prince in “Baobabs”, Virginia Woolf and Margaret Atwood in “Paris”, Ezra Pound and William Shakespeare in “Pound of Flesh”, Boris Pasternak in “Après Moi”, and Oedipus the King in “Oedipus”. Recurring themes and topics in Spektor’s lyrics include love, death, religion (particularly Biblical and Christian references), city life (particularly New York references), and certain key phrases have been known to recur in different songs by Spektor, such as references to gravediggers, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the name “Mary Ann.”

In Spektor’s early albums, many of her tracks had a very dry vocal production, with very little reverb or delay added. However, Spektor’s more recent albums, particularly Begin to Hope, have put more emphasis into song production and have relied more on traditional pop and rock instruments.

Performances
Since roughly January 2005, Spektor has performed on a bright red Baldwin baby grand piano. She opened for The Strokes in 2003, on her first North American tour. Subsequently, she appeared on Late Night with Conan O’Brien twice, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno twice, Jimmy Kimmel Live, and Last Call with Carson Daly twice. She has toured the United States and Europe. Although she generally only performs original material, she performed her first covers in 2005, of songs by Leonard Cohen and Madonna for the 2nd Annual Jewish Music & Heritage Festival at the 92nd Street Y in New York City.

While with The Strokes on their 2003–2004 Room on Fire tour, Spektor performed “Modern Girls & Old Fashion Men” alongside the band.

In 2006, Spektor embarked on a successful headlining tour of the United States and Europe, selling out numerous clubs and theaters.

Media coverage
Beginning in 2005, Spektor’s music has been used in various television programs and commercials. In late 2005 “Us” (from Soviet Kitsch) was used in a commercial as part of the What Do You Want To Watch? series for the United Kingdom’s Sky Television. The advert features a clip from a documentary on skateboarder Danny Way. In the summer of 2006, a clip from “Us” was used for the teaser website for Microsoft’s Zune project at ComingZune.com, as well as for a promotional campaign for MtvU. “Somedays” was used in a 2005 episode of CSI: NY and “Samson” was used in a 2006 episode of the same series. “On the Radio” was used in an episode of ABC’s popular Grey’s Anatomy. “Field Below” was used in a 2006 episode titled “The Last Word” of CBS’s Criminal Minds. “Fidelity” was also used in a recent episode of “Grey’s Anatomy” titled “Sometimes a Fantasy”, in an episode of Veronica Mars titled “Friday Night Sleights”, and in an episode of “Brothers & Sisters” titled “Sexual Politics”. “Better” is currently being used in a commercial for XM Satellite Radio. Spektor also sang the title song “Little Boxes” of Showtime’s television series Weeds in the 2006 episode “Mile Deep and a Foot Wide” and her “Ghost of Corporate Future” was used both at the beginning and end of the episode.

Regina Spektor gained much media attention in 2006 when her video for “Fidelity” was viewed over 200,000 times in two days on the YouTube website. On SIRIUS Radio’s Left of Center channel, her single “Fidelity” was voted by listeners as the #1 song of 2006.

In Australia particularly, Spektor’s music has rapidly gained popularity in mainstream culture primarily due to Begin To Hope being played on the nation-wide radio station Triple J, where it eventually became a feature album. Prior to Begin To Hope, Regina Spektor had only a small following in Australia in comparison to the US and Europe.

Discography
Most of Spektor’s early albums have been released exclusively in the United States. Her compilation, Mary Ann Meets the Gravediggers and Other Short Stories, has been released worldwide.

Albums
2001 – 11:11 (Regina Spektor)
2002 – Songs (Regina Spektor)
2004 – Soviet Kitsch (Sire/London/Rhino)
2005 – Mary Ann Meets the Gravediggers and Other Short Stories (Transgressive)
2006 – Begin to Hope (Sire) US sales 160,720

Singles and EPs
2003 – Reptilia b/w Modern Girls & Old Fashion Men by The Strokes (Rough Trade)
2004 – Your Honor / The Flowers (Shoplifter)
2005 – Live at Bull Moose EP (Sire)
2005 – Carbon Monoxide (Transgressive)
2006 – Us (Transgressive)
2006 – On the Radio (Sire) UK #60
2006 – Fidelity (Sire) US #84*

Compilations
2006 – Mary Ann Meets the Gravediggers and Other Short Stories (Transgressive)

REGINA SPEKTOR
Begin To Hope (SIRE)

A mere five years ago, Regina Spektor was hypnotizing small crowds at hole-in-the-wall venues on New York ‘s Lower East Side . After playing hundreds of shows in and around NYC, Spektor became the talk of the burgeoning music scene. Though she was selling many copies of CDs she had recorded and produced with friends ( 11:11 and Songs), it was her next album, “Soviet Kitsch,??? that would become her calling card. Originally released as a CDR and handed out at shows, Spektor signed with Sire Records who re-released “Soviet Kitsch??? in 2003. While touring nationally and abroad in support of “Soviet Kitsch,??? Spektor began as an opening act but by year’s end was the main attraction. Going from 200-capacity venues to selling out 1,300 capacity-venues like New York ‘s Irving Plaza and London ‘s Shephard Bush Empire, this Russian-born chanteuse’s songs have gone from being burned in her bedroom to receiving a worldwide fanfare. Though in love with playing shows to her rapidly growing audience, Spektor had written hundreds of songs since “Soviet Kitsch??? and was eager to get back into the studio.

Abandoning her usual method of production and opting for a new experience, Spektor holed herself up at New York Noise Studios in NYC’s Meatpacking District with seasoned producer David Kahne (Paul McCartney). Spending two months during the summer of 2005 working on her fourth release (this new album is also considered her major label debut), Spektor had the opportunity to experiment “until a little Frankenstein was born.” Taking two months to record was a huge amount of time by Spektor’s standards, since she had recorded her “Songs??? record in 1 day and “Soviet Kitsch??? in 10. “To work like this had been a dream of mine, but I thought it would be years before it happened. I definitely tried to put every aspect of myself into it. We played with wires and sounds, set the lab on fire a bunch of times, laughed and started again.???

“Before I even started I knew I was going to experiment with things I’ve only thought about, like beats and drums,” explains Spektor, a multi-instrumentalist. “I really wanted to play with electronic instruments and bigger arrangements. Still, on this record, there are some songs where it’s really sparse. You don’t want to arrange just for the sake of arranging. I had to be careful so the music wouldn’t be more fun to make than to listen to.”

Judging from the final product, we’d say mission accomplished. On “Begin To Hope??? Spektor took the lyrical vignettes and sparse instrumentation she crafted for “Soviet Kitsch??? and pushed herself more in every direction—both lyrically and musically. From the staccato strings plucking the opening chords to the album’s first song, “Fidelity,??? to the blues-infused homage to Billie Holiday “Lady,??? Spektor isn’t able to pinpoint the exact inspiration behind her musical musings.

“You don’t ever know the true lineage of your songs,??? reveals Spektor. “Maybe I’m becoming less of a narrator and more of a character these days. I was always used to observing and writing third-person narrative stories about things I was seeing. Then, as time went on, I started placing myself in these scenes, more like an actor.???

“I don’t fully understand the fascination of people wanting to know the ‘real’ you after listening to your songs” says Spektor, who is still extremely careful when it comes to sharing her personal life with the public. “I understand the fascination of people to want to know you,??? admits Spektor but “ People always want to know which part of the song really happened, they want to know some sort of a “Truth.” For some reason they can see the same actor acting in 17 different movies, using 17 different hair colors, using fake props, changing their voice, changing their accent, being evil or being the victim, and they are okay with that. They understand that it’s just a movie, they understand that it’s an art. But with music they forget. Music, somehow, is life.”

Always willing to damn convention for the sake of creativity, Spektor is one of those rare talents who manage to outrun the trends and force the rest of the world to keep up. “The more I experience in this world, the more questions I seem to have about where this life is leading,??? reveals Spektor . Begin To Hope might still mark the beginning of her career, but Regina Spektor has been carving out her place in music history since she sang her first note.

Built like a woman should be!

Katharine Hope McPhee (born March 25, 1984) is an American singer who is a finalist on the fifth season of American Idol.

Early career

Born in Sherman Oaks, California, McPhee has been singing since the age of two. Her mother, Peisha Burch McPhee, a vocal coach and accomplished cabaret singer, recognized a talent for music in her daughter and started training her. McPhee graduated in the class of 2002 from Notre Dame High School after which she attended The Boston Conservatory for three semesters with a concentration in musical theater. She left because she met a manager who wanted her to try out for parts during the television pilot season in Los Angeles. She did a pilot and an independent film.[1] At the Cabrillo Music Theater in Thousand Oaks, California, she performed the title role in a musical theatre production of Annie Get Your Gun. In June 2005 she played Anna Muir in The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, a musical by Scott DeTurk and Bill Francoeur, based on the book by R.A. Dick, at NoHo Arts Center in California.

Trivia

* McPhee lists Whitney Houston and Brian McKnight as her favorite artists.
* McPhee has a sister named Adriana, who is one year older.
* McPhee is left handed.
* McPhee is 5’7″ (170 cm).
* McPhee was rumored to be a Scientologist. In the past, McPhee had attended and completed two individual courses in Scientology.[2] However, according to an May 12, 2006 interview on Los Angeles radio station KROQ 106.7, McPhee stated she “dabbled in Scientology” because of a former love interest but is not a Scientologist; according to her, she was “quickly out the door.”[3]
* McPhee has a dog named Lily.
* McPhee has a goddaughter who was born during McPhee’s run in Hollywood.

During her initial audition for American Idol in San Francisco, she sang “God Bless the Child.” Judge Randy Jackson said she was the best voice he had heard so far that season, judge Paula Abdul praised her looks, and judge Simon Cowell said she was amazing and “current.” McPhee’s mother had gone with her to the audition, and Cowell made a comment about the possibility that the elder McPhee was a stage mother.

In the final cut-down show for the Top 24, McPhee was the first to be put through and, in excitement, kissed all three judges on the lips. She cried both when she passed her initial audition and when she made it into the Top 24.

In the first round of the semi-finals, she sang Barbra Streisand’s version of Buddy Johnson’s “Since I Fell for You,” again earning high praises as Cowell said that out of the four “very, very good vocalists” of the night, she was the best.

During the week leading to the third round of the semi-finals, where McPhee sang Aretha Franklin’s “Think,” she was rumored to be quitting due to pregnancy. However, during the performance show on March 7, 2006, she denied this accusation, later attributing it to a poor choice of clothing. Host Ryan Seacrest, with tongue-in-cheek, asked about her and fellow Idol contestant Kevin Covais.

During the week preceding the top 3 show, McPhee visited her former high school for her hometown celebration.[4]

On the May 23, 2006, edition of NBC’s Today Show, Katie Couric mentioned news reports saying that Katharine’s greatest assets are her looks and strong fan base, while her greatest liability is the fact that her performances suffer when she is under pressure.

Performances

Semi-finals

* February 21, 2006 – “Since I Fell for You,” Barbra Streisand version.
o Cowell said that she was the best singer of the night.
* February 28, 2006 – “All in Love Is Fair,” Stevie Wonder
o The judges stated that they thought this performance fell victim to poor song choice, but Abdul thought that she was “still a star.”
* March 7, 2006 – “Think,” Aretha Franklin
o The judges stated that they loved this performance because she “had fun with it.”

Finals

* March 14, 2006 – “Until You Come Back to Me,” Stevie Wonder
o The theme was Stevie Wonder, and the judges stated that they loved this performance. Jackson said that the McPhee he “met during the auditions” was back. Cowell compared her gaining of momentum to Kelly Clarkson in the show’s first season.
* March 21, 2006 – “Come Rain or Come Shine,” Ella Fitzgerald
o The theme was 1950′s, and once again the judges were very impressed. Jackson noted that it wasn’t her best vocal performance, but it was still great. Abdul agreed wholeheartedly. Cowell noted that it was the performance that made her a star.
* March 28, 2006 – “The Voice Within,” Christina Aguilera – (Bottom 3)
o The theme was songs of the 21st century. Jackson thought she should have changed the performance up to make it her own. Abdul said she wouldn’t change a thing. Cowell said it was the best that night so far, and almost as good as Aguilera. During the results show, however, McPhee was placed in the bottom three, and Cowell stated that upon viewing the playback, she wasn’t nearly as good as he thought.
* April 4, 2006 – “Bringing Out The Elvis,” Faith Hill
o The theme for the night was country. McPhee was the eighth of nine performers that night. Jackson said: “Kind of bluesy country, yeah? I like it. You sang it very nice, very nice. Good job, dawg, good job.” Abdul said: “That is your style; that’s your niche. You look sexy, hot. You’re cool.” Cowell, looking a bit bewildered, said: “I don’t know what to say anymore; I really don’t. That song was just so peculiar.” At this point McPhee spoke up and said: “Simon, you just don’t like country music. It’s okay. Just say it,” with which Cowell agreed, saying: “You’re right, I don’t, I don’t. I hate it.”
* April 11, 2006 – “Who Wants to Live Forever,” Queen
o The theme was songs by Queen, and McPhee performed fifth out of eight contestants. The judges’ reactions were as follows: Jackson said: “This is your element, I mean a little Broadway, big song, kind of big voice. It was a little pitchy in spots, and I thought at some points it was a little big for you, but you did a good job, I think, all in all.” Abdul said: “You made the right decision to just stand there and be glorious, with your glorious voice. I mean it’s a song that big singers like Celine Dion and Barbra Streisand take on; and you, Katharine McPhee, can handle it, and you did a great job.” Cowell said: “Katharine, I mean that was almost the moment. You know, I agree with Randy [Jackson], I think there were some tuning problems at parts. I think you owe a big kiss to the director and the lighting director there, because they made you look amazing — I mean really good. But overall I think it was probably one of the strongest tonight. Yeah. Very good.” McPhee then responded, “Thank you, I know, I do. Thank you, guys,??? in response to Cowell’s comment about owing the directors a kiss, as she turned and thanked them.
* April 18, 2006 – “Someone to Watch Over Me,” George Gershwin
o The theme was “The Great American Songbook” by Rod Stewart. McPhee performed last that night. Jackson said that McPhee was in her “element.” Abdul believed that she picked the perfect song and told her that it was like watching her for the very first time, and that she had fallen in love with her all over again. Cowell said that she made the others look like “good amateurs.” He told her she was the best of the night, and that she was elegant and sang like a returning pro. Rod Stewart himself told her that he believed she was born to sing the Standards, and that he couldn’t think of anything else to say about her, other than the fact that she was brilliant.
* April 25, 2006 – “I Have Nothing,” Whitney Houston – (Top 2)
o The theme was “Greatest Love Songs.” Jackson said that it was a good song choice but it was too big for her. Abdul said she was stunning but believed it was too pitchy. Cowell said that by coming out and singing that song she was saying she is as good as Whitney Houston. Seacrest jokingly remarked that McPhee would get votes from anybody with the volume turned down. The following night, Cowell took back his statement, saying that when he watched it back, it was a good performance. Jackson also apologized by saying that he had been a little bit “too harsh.” McPhee was among the top two vote getters on elimination night along with fellow contestant Chris Daughtry.
* May 2, 2006 – “Against All Odds (Take a Look at Me Now)”, Phil Collins; “Black Horse and the Cherry Tree,” KT Tunstall
o The theme for the night was for them to pick a song from the same year they were born, and a song from this week’s Billboard charts. For “Against All Odds,” Jackson thought her performance may have been in the wrong key for Katharine’s voice, but it was OK. Abdul said it wasn’t her favorite song choice for her. Cowell said that in parts the song was a mess, and that it ran away from her. They all thought she looked stunning in her dress. For “Black Horse and the Cherry Tree,” Jackson liked seeing the old McPhee back. Abdul loved the intimacy and the choreography. Cowell said the song choice was great for her and it really showed her personality. He liked how her toes matched her top.
* May 9, 2006 – “Hound Dog/All Shook Up” and “Can’t Help Falling in Love”, Elvis Presley – (Bottom 2)
o The theme was Elvis Presley. For “Hound Dog/All Shook Up”, Jackson asked if she forgot the lyrics but Abdul said she handled it well and that the performance was “really fun”. Cowell said it was a “desperate manic audition” and that the song was also “shrieky” and for him, he just thought that it “wasn’t a great performance”. For “Can’t Help Falling in Love,” she received mixed reviews, as well as Abdul commenting that she preferred “Katharine having fun” and Simon noting the song as being “pitchy.” On May 10, 2006, McPhee was in the bottom two with Chris Daughtry. Daughtry was eliminated from the competition.
* May 16, 2006
o Clive Davis chose R. Kelly’s “I Believe I Can Fly” for McPhee. Jackson thought she did well, but the song choice was bad and she wasn’t “that singer.” Abdul, after some pause and inspiration from an audience member, said that McPhee was incredible, and that she looked fabulous. Cowell enjoyed the performance.
o Cowell chose “Over the Rainbow” (originally made famous by Judy Garland) for McPhee. Jackson was blown away, calling her “a hot one,” and declaring that she had the best song of the season. Abdul was also impressed, saying that song was her “element.” Cowell said that he was very happy for Katharine and, putting the fact that he chose the song aside, he thought it was the best performance of the competition to date. He also added that it was brilliant.
o McPhee chose Ella Fitzgerald’s “I Ain’t Got Nothin’ But the Blues” for her final song. Jackson said it was good, but not to the extent of her second song. Abdul agreed, once again saying that McPhee’s second song was her “element.” Cowell said it was okay, and he wished America had seen her second song last instead. McPhee made it to the final two, along with Taylor Hicks.
* May 23, 2006
o McPhee’s first song was Black Horse and the Cherry Tree from the Final 5. Randy Jackson said it was better than the first time. Paula Abdul said that Katharine was brilliant. Simon Cowell said it was good, but not big enough for this event.
o McPhee’s second song was Somewhere Over the Rainbow from the Final 3. Jackson said it was amazing and hot. Abdul said it was great. Cowell said it was her best performance of the season.
o McPhee’s third song was an original single called My Destiny written by singer/songwriter Hanne Sorvaag. Jackson said McPhee looked and sounded amazing, but she was better than the song. Abdul agreed that Katharine sounded amazing. Cowell said that this song made her go from “brilliant” to only “quite good”, but her second song was where she truly shined.

Pretty women wonder where my secret lies.
I’m not cute or built to suit a fashion model’s size
But when I start to tell them,
They think I’m telling lies.
I say,
It’s in the reach of my arms
The span of my hips,
The stride of my step,
The curl of my lips.
I’m a woman
Phenomenally.
Phenomenal woman,
That’s me.

I walk into a room
Just as cool as you please,
And to a man,
The fellows stand or
Fall down on their knees.
Then they swarm around me,
A hive of honey bees.
I say,
It’s the fire in my eyes,
And the flash of my teeth,
The swing in my waist,
And the joy in my feet.
I’m a woman
Phenomenally.
Phenomenal woman,
That’s me.

Men themselves have wondered
What they see in me.
They try so much
But they can’t touch
My inner mystery.
When I try to show them
They say they still can’t see.
I say,
It’s in the arch of my back,
The sun of my smile,
The ride of my breasts,
The grace of my style.
I’m a woman

Phenomenally.
Phenomenal woman,
That’s me.

Now you understand
Just why my head’s not bowed.
I don’t shout or jump about
Or have to talk real loud.
When you see me passing
It ought to make you proud.
I say,
It’s in the click of my heels,
The bend of my hair,
the palm of my hand,
The need of my care,
‘Cause I’m a woman
Phenomenally.
Phenomenal woman,
That’s me.

The awful mess going down in Durham with Duke brought to the forefront of my mind the essay I wrote, Manolo Blahnik Feminism: The Right to Choos. Inspired by CJR Daily

Of Duke, and Princeton, and Jocks, and Sluts by Liz Cox Barrett

“With nearly a month to go before the Duke lacrosse players accused of rape have a hearing in court on May 15 — how many cable TV talking head hours between now and then? — we’re confident that bad reporting on the case will not be in short supply.

To date, however, this piece by ABC News’ Adrienne Mand Lewin gets our vote for most regrettable. It is the sort of story that might provoke a good guffaw, were one reading The Onion (indeed, it reads like an Onion story, though perhaps with less thorough reporting).

But on ABC News? Not so funny.

Everything about this piece is iffy, starting with its raison d’être.

Lewin’s lede: “They’re on every college campus where sports teams succeed: groupies who want to date athletes — or at least have sex with them.” And? Is this news?

In paragraph nine, Lewin more or less confesses that, no, it is not news, but that she is using the Duke situation to pretend that it is. “It’s certainly nothing new that college students have sex or that athletes are popular. But in light of the rape allegations at Duke University and the cancellation of the men’s lacrosse team’s season there — while a separate issue — players’ behavior and the impact it can have on a team are now at the forefront of many college students’ minds.”

But what is actually “at the forefront” of the minds of the six college students Lewin interviewed for her article (three of who would provide only their first names) is not “players’ behavior and the impact it can have on a team” but rather the behavior of those sex-crazed jock groupies we met in Lewin’s lede.

Lewin writes: “At Princeton University, where the men’s lacrosse team is regularly ranked as one of the best in the nation” — and, we’d add, where Lewin apparently started and ended her reporting on what’s on “college students’ minds” — these jock groupies are known as “laxtitutes or “lacrosstitutes.” (Eat your heart out, Onion writers! Either that, or start recruiting from Princeton). Distracted by these “laxtitutes,” Lewin spends most of her article focusing on their behavior rather than on “players’ behavior and the impact it can have on a team,” as initially promised.

So how do “laxtitutes” behave? Writes Lewin: “Candi Arner, a Princeton freshman, said her friends knew three girls who between them had slept with nine players on the team.” You know, sort of like how Simone in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” knew that Ferris was sick because her “best friend’s sister’s boyfriend’s brother’s girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who’s going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night.”

This, as Salon’s Rebecca Traister has noted, is “journalism hearsay.”

It’s going to be a long 27 days.”

Manolo Blahnik Feminism: The Right to Choo’s

I call the new feminism Manolo Blahnik Feminism, which is a super-sexual, super-sexy, and super-confusing form of self-empowerment. Ariel Levy calls it “raunch culture” and I believe that it is going to blow up in American women’s faces.

I believe very strongly that there are too many dangerous contradiction in the new feminism, in the new American woman.

I attended a panel on gender differences in the new feminism and my question to the panel was, “I understand how empowering strappy stilettos, butt jeans, bare bellies, and camisole tops are for the modern woman. It is all about taking back the sex, taking back the gaze, reclaiming the control of what is cute, what is hot, what is sexy, it about taking back control, reclaiming feelings of pride in the body, pride in the shape and tan earned from an active, outdoorsy life. That’s all fine and good. Unfortunately, we men never got the memo. I never got the memo.”

In fact, I feel sort of like a fox in a henhouse. Why? Well, all of my old-world, unenlightened, seduction techniques work now better than ever! In fact, the truth is, I am really too nice for the Manolo Blahnik k feminist.

The Manolo Blahnik feminist wants to be taken, wants to find a real man, wants to take risks and have a great time; she pursues a doctrine of devil may care.

Well, no matter what the Manolo Blahnik Feminist thinks she wants and no matter what she thinks she’s doing, she is actually walking into a very dangerous trap.

We men are not responding to this self-empowerment with amazement and respect, we’re responding to it by licking our lips, by taking advantage, by rubbing our hands together, and by trying not to jinx this out of being. We are pretty well convinced that what is happening won’t last: the Manolo Blahnik feminist fancies herself the aggressor, the buyer, the pursuer, the seducer. And we men are what she is after.

All we see is, “man that girl is fine — I’d like some of that.”

As men in such a seller’s market, we don’t have to choose. We can date another willing girl every night. We can push sex much faster than we ever could believe. The three-date rule? Ha! That’s the official rule, but now the first date counts from the night we first met. Oral sex on the first date has sort of become de rigueur — if you want a second date.

Instead of getting control, the Manolo Blahnik Feminist has relinquished control to us men.

And even worse, this is a very dangerous game. We men are bigger, stronger, and not all of us are so nice. I personally have a lot of experience with women who are survivors — survivors not just of dating or their 20s, but survivors of sexual abuse and rape.

I have loved them, I have befriended them, and I worked through relationships with women who have survived sexual abuse and rape.

Its always an ugly story and the world is never the same. We just have not received the memo. This kind of exciting, naughty, passionate, irresponsible, reckless indulgence in “raunch culture” is going to result in one hell of a cultural hangover.

Many women will be unable to recover from this self-indulgence with any semblance of faith, trust, hope, or intactness.

And many men, too.

When it comes right down to it, who would have any of the right stuff to even have faith in marriage, the family, and children after indulging in such self-destructive, self-loathing chaos?

Not I.

I am not sure if modern women have it very good. Not nearly as good as would be expected. I attended college at a high point for feminism an academia, when a woman would still identify with being a feminist.

Not any more.

I call the new feminism Manolo Blahnik Feminism, which is a super-sexual, super-sexy, and super-confusing form of self-empowerment. Ariel Levy calls it “raunch culture” and I believe that it is going to blow up in American women’s faces.

I believe very strongly that there are too many dangerous contradictions in the new feminism, in the new American woman. And, what is to become of the more traditional American woman of Faith? And more importantly, what will become of us, the more traditional, American men of Faith?

I attended a panel on gender differences in the new feminism and my question to the panel was,

“I understand how empowering strappy stilettos, butt jeans, bare bellies, and camisole tops are for the modern woman. It is all about taking back the sex, taking back the gaze, reclaiming the control of what is cute, what is hot, what is sexy, it about taking back control, reclaiming feelings of pride in the body, pride in the shape and tan earned from an active, outdoorsy life. That’s all fine and good. Unfortunately, we men never got the memo. I never got the memo.”

In fact, I feel sort of like a fox in a henhouse. Why? Well, all of my old-world, unenlightened, seduction techniques work now better than ever! In fact, the truth is, I am really too nice for the Manolo Blahnik Feminist. In my recent dating life, I have been drawing the line in the dating sand too conservatively for many of my dates. The Manolo Blahnik Feminist wants to be taken, wants to find a real man, wants to take risks and have a great time; she pursues a doctrine of devil may care and she wants her man to be worthy of pursuit.

Well, no matter what the Manolo Blahnik Feminist thinks she wants and no matter what she thinks she’s doing, she is actually walking into a very dangerous trap. It is dangerous because it assumes that we men are good, generous, and stable men. Men who may be able to party, to drink, and to indulge in very passionate, very realistic sex-play while still maintaining a level of respect, of fair treatment, and composure that can guarantee that when no means no, no means no. That is a lot of responsibility to unload onto anyway, no less an unknown entity, a casual date, a new friend.

We men are not responding to this self-empowerment with amazement and respect, we’re responding to it by licking our lips, by taking advantage, by rubbing our hands together, and by trying not to jinx this out of being. We don’t want any responsibility either, it seems. We don’t want to feel like it is our responsibility to mind our Ps and Qs when we’re being pursued ourselves. We no longer have the muzzle on and we have shaken off the choke chain, and we men in general are not a save environment for this kind of soul-searching, this kind of self-empowerment. There, I said it: we men are not a safe environment for raunch culture. And we are taking advantage because we are pretty well convinced that what is happening won’t last: the Manolo Blahnik feminist fancies herself the aggressor, the buyer, the pursuer, the seducer. And we men are what she is after. All we see is, “man that girl is fine – I’d like some of that.”

What is our responsibility as men and women of Faith? What is my responsibility as a man of Faith? I know that many of my female friends are desperate, lonely, and discouraged by this seller’s market. I know that I am war-weary and deeply fatigued by this constant over stimulation, both visually and situationally. What can I expect from my relationships? How to I keep to the tiller and steer my ship straight and true? In my life, I have to not only consider the more pedestrian issued of sexually-transmitted diseases and pregnancy, but my principles, my conscience, my morals, my values, and ultimately my soul!

And it isn’t easy. As men in such a seller’s market, we don’t have to choose. If things don’t work out to our liking, we can just date another willing girl every night. We can push sex much faster than we ever could believe – than I could ever believe. The three-date rule now starts not on the first date but from the drunken night we first met at a bar. Oral sex on the first date has become de rigueur – that is, if you want a second date.

Instead of getting control, the Manolo Blahnik Feminist has relinquished control to us men. To men, women become fungible assets and women of faith become invisible, blending into the wallpaper. Not because they’re ugly – they’re beautiful – but because in a world of of bellies, of thighs, of knees, hip-huggers, butt jeans, padded bras and camisole tops, anything but the bling is effectively invisible.

And even worse, this is a very dangerous game. This kind of exciting, naughty, passionate, irresponsible, reckless indulgence in “raunch culture” is going to result in one hell of a cultural hangover.

Many women will be unable to recover from this self-indulgence with any semblance of faith, trust, hope, or intactness. And many men, too, will be unable to choose just one woman, be able to really and truly commit to marriage.

When it comes right down to it, what modern man or woman could be expected to have the right stuff to have faith in marriage, the family, and children after indulging in such self-destructive, self-loathing chaos?

Not I. And all of this is taken out of the context of faith. This is all from the point of view of people, relationships, self-empowerment, feminism, and sex – all very humanistic concerns. As a man of faith, I have to admit that all of this is very discouraging to me and all the men I know like me. But even I have to admit, I have become desensitized, I have become desperate, and I am sorely over-stimulated myself.

I am not sure if modern women have it very good. Not nearly as good as would be expected. I attended college at a high point for feminism an academia, when a woman would still identify with being a feminist.

Not any more.

(Ed Note: This article is a rework and extension of Manolo Blahnik Feminism: The Right to Choo’s)

I call the new feminism Manolo Blahnik Feminism, which is a super-sexual, super-sexy, and super-confusing form of self-empowerment. Ariel Levy calls it “raunch culture” and I believe that it is going to blow up in American women’s faces.

I believe very strongly that there are too many dangerous contradiction in the new feminism, in the new American woman.

I attended a panel on gender differences in the new feminism and my question to the panel was,

“I understand how empowering strappy stilettos, butt jeans, bare bellies, and camisole tops are for the modern woman. It is all about taking back the sex, taking back the gaze, reclaiming the control of what is cute, what is hot, what is sexy, it about taking back control, reclaiming feelings of pride in the body, pride in the shape and tan earned from an active, outdoorsy life. That’s all fine and good. Unfortunately, we men never got the memo. I never got the memo.”

In fact, I feel sort of like a fox in a hen house. Why? Well, all of my old-world, unenlightened, seduction techniques work now better than ever! In fact, the truth is, I am really too nice for the Manolo Blahnik feminist.

The Manolo Blahnik feminist wants to be taken, wants to find a real man, wants to take risks and have a great time; she pursues a doctrine of devil may care.

Well, no matter what the Manolo Blahnik Feminist thinks she wants and no matter what she thinks she’s doing, she is actually walking into a very dangerous trap.

We men are not responding to this self-empowerment with amazement and respect, we’re responding to it by licking our lips, by taking advantage, by rubbing our hands together, and by trying not to jinx this out of being. We are pretty well convinced that what is happening won’t last: the Manolo Blahnik feminist fancies herself the aggressor, the buyer, the pursuer, the seducer. And we men are what she is after.

All we see is, “man that girl is fine — I’d like some of that.”

As men in such a seller’s market, we don’t have to choose. We can date another willing girl every night. We can push sex much faster than we ever could believe. The three-date rule? Ha! That’s the official rule, but now the first date counts from the night we first met. Oral sex on the first date has sort of become de rigueur — if you want a second date.

Instead of getting control, the Manolo Blahnik Feminist has relinquished control to us men.

And even worse, this is a very dangerous game. We men are bigger, stronger, and not all of us are so nice. I personally have a lot of experience with women who are survivors — survivors not just of dating or their 20s, but survivors of sexual abuse and rape.

I have loved them, I have befriended them, and I worked through relationships with women who have survived sexual abuse and rape.

Its always an ugly story and the world is never the same. We just have not received the memo. This kind of exciting, naughty, passionate, irresponsible, reckless indulgence in “raunch culture” is going to result in one hell of a cultural hangover.

Many women will be unable to recover from this self-indulgence with any semblance of faith, trust, hope, or intactness.

And many men, too.

When it comes right down to it, who would have any of the right stuff to even have faith in marriage, the family, and children after indulging in such self-destructive, self-loathing chaos?

Not I.

I am not sure if modern women have it very good. Not nearly as good as would be expected. I attended college at a high point for feminism an academia, when a woman would still identify with being a feminist.

Not any more.

Not Liberating, After All
How did feminists end up in bed with Hugh Hefner?

BY WENDY SHALIT
Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Ariel Levy attended Wesleyan University in the 1990s, and she doesn’t feel the better for it. It was a place where “group sex, to say nothing of casual sex, was de rigueur.” It was a place where they had “coed showers, on principle.” When Ms. Levy suggested to a department head that it would be nice to have at least one course in the traditional literary canon, she was dismissed with icy contempt. Yet elsewhere on campus a professor of the humanities taught a course on pornography featuring, um, detailed textual analysis.

It was all supposed to be so liberating. But it wasn’t, as Ms. Levy argues forcefully in “Female Chauvinist Pigs.” It was merely the academic groundwork for what she calls “raunch culture,” now so ubiquitous that we take it for granted. Young women wear shirts emblazoned with “Porn Star” across the chest. Teen stores sell “Cat in the Hat” thong underwear. Parents treat their daughters’ friends to “cardio striptease” classes for birthday parties. This is liberation?

Ms. Levy is baffled. “Why,” she wondered, “is laboring to look like Pamela Anderson empowering?” Why did female Olympic athletes pose for Playboy before the summer 2004 Games? Why did Katie Couric feel the need to point to her cleavage and gush “these are actually real!” when she guest-hosted “The Tonight Show” a couple of years ago?

Some sort of pervasive pressure, apparently, requires “everyone who is sexually liberated . . . to be imitating strippers and porn stars.” Ms. Levy describes the perfect distillation of this impulse–a social group called CAKE that hosts steamy, hooking-up parties in New York and London. CAKE makes big bucks advertising “feminism in action”–it claims to be the place where “sexual equality and feminism finally meet”–but its events are indistinguishable from those held at the Playboy Mansion.

The surface logic of such conduct is fairly simple, notes Ms. Levy. “Women had come so far,” or so the thinking went, that “we no longer needed to worry about objectification or misogyny.” If male chauvinist pigs “regarded women as pieces of meat, we would outdo them and be Female Chauvinist Pigs: women who make sex objects of other women and of ourselves.”

Well, Ms. Levy is having none of it, and she is not the only one. Even Erica Jong seems to feel that something has gone wrong. Known for popularizing the idea that a woman may want consequence-free sex, Ms. Jong today declares: “Being able to have an orgasm with a man you don’t love . . . that is not liberation.” It isn’t? Someone should tell this to Annie, a blue-eyed 29-year-old who admits to Ms. Levy that she “used to get so hurt” after a night of sex that didn’t yield an emotional bond. Now she has gotten over it, or tried to: “I’m like a guy,” she brags.

How did this happen? Why did feminism sell its soul to the sexual-liberation movement in the first place? After all, the original feminists were fighting to be taken seriously. Hugh Hefner, by contrast, said that his ideal girl “resembles a bunny . . . vivacious, jumping–sexy.” There seems to be a contradiction here.

Ms. Levy’s answer is that, after a brief and failed fight against pornography, feminism joined forces with Hef & Co. to fight for abortion rights. This is a plausible explanation, as far as it goes. Abortion has indeed assumed a primary importance in both feminist “rights” thinking and in the whole culture of soft-core libertinism: Mr. Hefner is a big fan of abortion, for obvious reasons.

But something else may be going on. Feminism grounded itself, in its early days, in the idea that there were no differences between the sexes. A girl wanting to keep her virginity was bad, for sexual reticence amounted to asserting a separate standard, a Victorian one at that. To Hef, modesty was a “hang-up,” and to the feminists it was a “patriarchal construct.” Ms. Levy believes that feminism was on the right track but then veered off-course: “What has moved into feminism’s place . . . is an almost opposite style, attitude, and set of principles.”

But maybe feminism’s foundations were weak from the start. Everyone in Ms. Levy’s book–whether it’s middle-class girls who feel anxiety about appearing “hot” or grown women who confess to Ms. Levy that “accumulating sex for its own sake . . . is not that sexual”–shows that a woman’s experience of sex and love is very different from that of an adolescent boy or a man. Indeed, the more a woman imitates a man, the clearer these differences become.

Paris Hilton tells Rolling Stone: “My boyfriends always tell me I’m not sexual. Sexy, but not sexual.” (Ms. Levy reports that on one of the infamous videotapes she takes a cellphone call during intercourse.) Plainly, the sexual revolution has not brought fulfillment for women. Even its mascots experience boredom, and for the civilians there is distress and heartache.

It may be that, like Ms. Levy, a lot of feminists now regret getting in bed with Mr. Hefner. Yet if you mention the word “modesty” within 20 feet of them their heads spin around like Linda Blair in “The Exorcist.” This is where they get stuck. Only if feminism can embrace the more traditional ways that men and women have courted throughout the ages can it have anything practical to offer young women. To the extent that feminists dismiss as worthless anything that is perceived as “backtracking,” they only help to perpetuate the “raunch culture”–even as they deplore its effects.

Take a beach scene that Ms. Levy recounts, when the male “friends” of two girls pressure them to take off their suits. Soon surrounded by a circle of 40 screaming men, the girls say “no way!” but eventually give in and spank each other to appease the crowd.

Such a girl requires, in addition to perhaps Mace, a compelling alternative to the Female Chauvinist Pig. Otherwise she may well give in to social pressure–not to mention professorial nonsense–and then wonder what’s wrong with her when she is not happy with the pig in her bed or the pig she has become.

Ms. Shalit is author of “A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue.” You can buy “Female Chauvinist Pigs” from the OpinionJournal bookstore.

September 20, 2005

Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/national/20women.html?ex=1127966400&en=3f7348e314a603ee&ei=5070&emc=eta1

By LOUISE STORY

Cynthia Liu is precisely the kind of high achiever Yale wants: smart (1510 SAT), disciplined (4.0 grade point average), competitive (finalist in Texas oratory competition), musical (pianist), athletic (runner) and altruistic (hospital volunteer). And at the start of her sophomore year at Yale, Ms. Liu is full of ambition, planning to go to law school.

So will she join the long tradition of famous Ivy League graduates? Not likely. By the time she is 30, this accomplished 19-year-old expects to be a stay-at-home mom.

“My mother’s always told me you can’t be the best career woman and the best mother at the same time,” Ms. Liu said matter-of-factly. “You always have to choose one over the other.”

At Yale and other top colleges, women are being groomed to take their place in an ever more diverse professional elite. It is almost taken for granted that, just as they make up half the students at these institutions, they will move into leadership roles on an equal basis with their male classmates.

There is just one problem with this scenario: many of these women say that is not what they want.

Many women at the nation’s most elite colleges say they have already decided that they will put aside their careers in favor of raising children. Though some of these students are not planning to have children and some hope to have a family and work full time, many others, like Ms. Liu, say they will happily play a traditional female role, with motherhood their main commitment.

Much attention has been focused on career women who leave the work force to rear children. What seems to be changing is that while many women in college two or three decades ago expected to have full-time careers, their daughters, while still in college, say they have already decided to suspend or end their careers when they have children.

“At the height of the women’s movement and shortly thereafter, women were much more firm in their expectation that they could somehow combine full-time work with child rearing,” said Cynthia E. Russett, a professor of American history who has taught at Yale since 1967. “The women today are, in effect, turning realistic.”

Dr. Russett is among more than a dozen faculty members and administrators at the most exclusive institutions who have been on campus for decades and who said in interviews that they had noticed the changing attitude.

Many students say staying home is not a shocking idea among their friends. Shannon Flynn, an 18-year-old from Guilford, Conn., who is a freshman at Harvard, says many of her girlfriends do not want to work full time.

“Most probably do feel like me, maybe even tending toward wanting to not work at all,” said Ms. Flynn, who plans to work part time after having children, though she is torn because she has worked so hard in school.

“Men really aren’t put in that position,” she said.

Uzezi Abugo, a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania who hopes to become a lawyer, says she, too, wants to be home with her children at least until they are in school.

“I’ve seen the difference between kids who did have their mother stay at home and kids who didn’t, and it’s kind of like an obvious difference when you look at it,” said Ms. Abugo, whose mother, a nurse, stayed home until Ms. Abugo was in first grade.

While the changing attitudes are difficult to quantify, the shift emerges repeatedly in interviews with Ivy League students, including 138 freshman and senior females at Yale who replied to e-mail questions sent to members of two residential colleges over the last school year.

The interviews found that 85 of the students, or roughly 60 percent, said that when they had children, they planned to cut back on work or stop working entirely. About half of those women said they planned to work part time, and about half wanted to stop work for at least a few years.

Two of the women interviewed said they expected their husbands to stay home with the children while they pursued their careers. Two others said either they or their husbands would stay home, depending on whose career was furthest along.

The women said that pursuing a rigorous college education was worth the time and money because it would help position them to work in meaningful part-time jobs when their children are young or to attain good jobs when their children leave home.

In recent years, elite colleges have emphasized the important roles they expect their alumni – both men and women – to play in society.

For example, earlier this month, Shirley M. Tilghman, the president of Princeton University, welcomed new freshmen, saying: “The goal of a Princeton education is to prepare young men and women to take up positions of leadership in the 21st century. Of course, the word ‘leadership’ conjures up images of presidents and C.E.O.’s, but I want to stress that my idea of a leader is much broader than that.”

She listed education, medicine and engineering as other areas where students could become leaders.

In an e-mail response to a question, Dr. Tilghman added: “There is nothing inconsistent with being a leader and a stay-at-home parent. Some women (and a handful of men) whom I have known who have done this have had a powerful impact on their communities.”

Yet the likelihood that so many young women plan to opt out of high-powered careers presents a conundrum.

“It really does raise this question for all of us and for the country: when we work so hard to open academics and other opportunities for women, what kind of return do we expect to get for that?” said Marlyn McGrath Lewis, director of undergraduate admissions at Harvard, who served as dean for coeducation in the late 1970′s and early 1980′s.

It is a complicated issue and one that most schools have not addressed. The women they are counting on to lead society are likely to marry men who will make enough money to give them a real choice about whether to be full-time mothers, unlike those women who must work out of economic necessity.

It is less than clear what universities should, or could, do about it. For one, a person’s expectations at age 18 are less than perfect predictors of their life choices 10 years later. And in any case, admissions officers are not likely to ask applicants whether they plan to become stay-at-home moms.

University officials said that success meant different things to different people and that universities were trying to broaden students’ minds, not simply prepare them for jobs.

“What does concern me,” said Peter Salovey, the dean of Yale College, “is that so few students seem to be able to think outside the box; so few students seem to be able to imagine a life for themselves that isn’t constructed along traditional gender roles.”

There is, of course, nothing new about women being more likely than men to stay home to rear children.

According to a 2000 survey of Yale alumni from the classes of 1979, 1984, 1989 and 1994, conducted by the Yale Office of Institutional Research, more men from each of those classes than women said that work was their primary activity – a gap that was small among alumni in their 20′s but widened as women moved into their prime child-rearing years. Among the alumni surveyed who had reached their 40′s, only 56 percent of the women still worked, compared with 90 percent of the men.

A 2005 study of comparable Yale alumni classes found that the pattern had not changed. Among the alumni who had reached their early 40′s, just over half said work was their primary activity, compared with 90 percent of the men. Among the women who had reached their late 40′s, some said they had returned to work, but the percentage of women working was still far behind the percentage of men.

A 2001 survey of Harvard Business School graduates found that 31 percent of the women from the classes of 1981, 1985 and 1991 who answered the survey worked only part time or on contract, and another 31 percent did not work at all, levels strikingly similar to the percentages of the Yale students interviewed who predicted they would stay at home or work part time in their 30′s and 40′s.

What seems new is that while many of their mothers expected to have hard-charging careers, then scaled back their professional plans only after having children, the women of this generation expect their careers to take second place to child rearing.

“It never occurred to me,” Rebecca W. Bushnell, dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, said about working versus raising children. “Thirty years ago when I was heading out, I guess I was just taking it one step at a time.”

Dr. Bushnell said young women today, in contrast, are thinking and talking about part-time or flexible work options for when they have children. “People have a heightened awareness of trying to get the right balance between work and family.”

Sarah Currie, a senior at Harvard, said many of the men in her American Family class last fall approved of women’s plans to stay home with their children.

“A lot of the guys were like, ‘I think that’s really great,’ ” Ms. Currie said. “One of the guys was like, ‘I think that’s sexy.’ Staying at home with your children isn’t as polarizing of an issue as I envision it is for women who are in their 30′s now.”

For most of the young women who responded to e-mail questions, a major factor shaping their attitudes seemed to be their experience with their own mothers, about three out of five of whom did not work at all, took several years off or worked only part time.

“My stepmom’s very proud of my choice because it makes her feel more valuable,” said Kellie Zesch, a Texan who graduated from the University of North Carolina two years ago and who said that once she had children, she intended to stay home for at least five years and then consider working part time. “It justified it to her, that I don’t look down on her for not having a career.”

Similarly, students who are committed to full-time careers, without breaks, also cited their mothers as influences. Laura Sullivan, a sophomore at Yale who wants to be a lawyer, called her mother’s choice to work full time the “greatest gift.”

“She showed me what it meant to be an amazing mother and maintain a career,” Ms. Sullivan said.

Some of these women’s mothers, who said they did not think about these issues so early in their lives, said they were surprised to hear that their college-age daughters had already formed their plans.

Emily Lechner, one of Ms. Liu’s roommates, hopes to stay home a few years, then work part time as a lawyer once her children are in school.

Her mother, Carol, who once thought she would have a full-time career but gave it up when her children were born, was pleasantly surprised to hear that. “I do have this bias that the parents can do it best,” she said. “I see a lot of women in their 30′s who have full-time nannies, and I just question if their kids are getting the best.”

For many feminists, it may come as a shock to hear how unbothered many young women at the nation’s top schools are by the strictures of traditional roles.

“They are still thinking of this as a private issue; they’re accepting it,” said Laura Wexler, a professor of American studies and women’s and gender studies at Yale. “Women have been given full-time working career opportunities and encouragement with no social changes to support it.

“I really believed 25 years ago,” Dr. Wexler added, “that this would be solved by now.”

Angie Ku, another of Ms. Liu’s roommates who had a stay-at-home mom, talks nonchalantly about attending law or business school, having perhaps a 10-year career and then staying home with her children.

“Parents have such an influence on their children,” Ms. Ku said. “I want to have that influence. Me!”

She said she did not mind if that limited her career potential.

“I’ll have a career until I have two kids,” she said. “It doesn’t necessarily matter how far you get. It’s kind of like the experience: I have tried what I wanted to do.”

Ms. Ku added that she did not think it was a problem that women usually do most of the work raising kids.

“I accept things how they are,” she said. “I don’t mind the status quo. I don’t see why I have to go against it.”

After all, she added, those roles got her where she is.

“It worked so well for me,” she said, “and I don’t see in my life why it wouldn’t work.”

Thanks to Carrie for sending me this article.

---

My dear friend commented on this part of the article, “And when it comes right down to it, who would have any of the right stuff to even have faith in marriage, the family, and children after indulging in such self-destructive, self-loathing chaos?”Her response was, “….Therein lies the pitfall…. Once you start tasting of that forbidden apple, the garden of romance can all too easily dissapear! This, i think, is why many parents of our generation divorced — lack of faith in love is a direct result of the “free love” movement. Someone needs to warn the young!!! They need to be made aware of the booby-traps. Otherwise we are all just walking around with broken flowers, feeling numb to the pain we don’t even realize we are entitled to have.”