The New York Times ran an essay by Janice Min, the former editor of US Weekly called, “Can A Mom Get A Break?” It’s in Sunday’s paper but online now.
"So from this land of all-things-ersatz, from breasts to reality TV, has arisen another irresistible illusion: the Momshell (mother-as-bombshell). And she makes no allowances for my maternal paunch."
She goes on about Momshells and non-Momshells, People naming Beyoncé its most beautiful human being after she had a baby (I’m not sure why that’s so bad since they have the stupid list in the first place and she is, arguably, not terrible looking), the changing depiction of mothers on television, the bullying of Jessica Simpson and Bryce Dallas Howard for not losing baby weight fast enough, the sexualization of TIME’s “Mom Enough” cover woman, and Hilary Duff’s Twitter feed. Since it’s not my story, you’ll have to click over to the New York Times to read it. But here’s the essay’s teachable moment:
“But in the same way that women can have it all, the notion that instantly stick-thin figures after birth are normal is untrue. Sometimes, in my sleep-deprived nights, I ponder our ideal of this near-emaciated, sexy and well-dressed Frankenmom we’ve created and wonder how to undo her. Even just a little bit. Not only for the pressure to let up on me, and you, but also perhaps so my little baby girl can one day love her own children, too, without hating her body at the same time,” writes Min, the editor in chief of US Weekly from 2003 to 2009. 
Come on! How disingenuous! Min takes a tiny, tiny bit of blame in the essay, “I am partly to blame for my own physical netherworld. As the editor of Us Weekly, covering the Suris and Shilohs of Hollywood for six years, I delivered what the young female audience wanted: cute moms and babies” but just barely. She does that because otherwise it would be the biggest, fattest pregnant elephant in the room. And, see how she’s kinda blaming her editorial decisions on her readers? 
Min remains one of the most powerful people in media. She has been since the beginning of the millennium. She left US Weekly and is the current editorial director of Hollywood Reporter. Take a little more ownership if you ran US Weekly in various editorial roles for almost a decade and now have the nerve to pen an opinion piece for the New York Times on the ”celebrity climate” where “from bump to paunch, pudgy moms can’t get a break” (as the New York Times describes the piece in its summary). 
Her essay reads like a thousand others that I’ve read on a thousand mommy blogs about this subject. But the difference is that Min was a key architect of celebrity-tabloid culture. If she really wants to write about this for the paper of record (on a Sunday!), I’m sorry but I’d like to ask her to dig a little deeper. If she really wants things to change, I’d like to ask Min how it should be done and what her role is going to be? 
She made her bed. Sorry she doesn’t like lying in it. 

The New York Times ran an essay by Janice Min, the former editor of US Weekly called, “Can A Mom Get A Break?” It’s in Sunday’s paper but online now.

"So from this land of all-things-ersatz, from breasts to reality TV, has arisen another irresistible illusion: the Momshell (mother-as-bombshell). And she makes no allowances for my maternal paunch."

She goes on about Momshells and non-Momshells, People naming Beyoncé its most beautiful human being after she had a baby (I’m not sure why that’s so bad since they have the stupid list in the first place and she is, arguably, not terrible looking), the changing depiction of mothers on television, the bullying of Jessica Simpson and Bryce Dallas Howard for not losing baby weight fast enough, the sexualization of TIME’s “Mom Enough” cover woman, and Hilary Duff’s Twitter feed. Since it’s not my story, you’ll have to click over to the New York Times to read it. But here’s the essay’s teachable moment:

But in the same way that women can have it all, the notion that instantly stick-thin figures after birth are normal is untrue. Sometimes, in my sleep-deprived nights, I ponder our ideal of this near-emaciated, sexy and well-dressed Frankenmom we’ve created and wonder how to undo her. Even just a little bit. Not only for the pressure to let up on me, and you, but also perhaps so my little baby girl can one day love her own children, too, without hating her body at the same time,” writes Min, the editor in chief of US Weekly from 2003 to 2009. 

Come on! How disingenuous! Min takes a tiny, tiny bit of blame in the essay, “I am partly to blame for my own physical netherworld. As the editor of Us Weekly, covering the Suris and Shilohs of Hollywood for six years, I delivered what the young female audience wanted: cute moms and babies” but just barely. She does that because otherwise it would be the biggest, fattest pregnant elephant in the room. And, see how she’s kinda blaming her editorial decisions on her readers? 

Min remains one of the most powerful people in media. She has been since the beginning of the millennium. She left US Weekly and is the current editorial director of Hollywood Reporter. Take a little more ownership if you ran US Weekly in various editorial roles for almost a decade and now have the nerve to pen an opinion piece for the New York Times on the ”celebrity climate” where “from bump to paunch, pudgy moms can’t get a break” (as the New York Times describes the piece in its summary). 

Her essay reads like a thousand others that I’ve read on a thousand mommy blogs about this subject. But the difference is that Min was a key architect of celebrity-tabloid culture. If she really wants to write about this for the paper of record (on a Sunday!), I’m sorry but I’d like to ask her to dig a little deeper. If she really wants things to change, I’d like to ask Min how it should be done and what her role is going to be? 

She made her bed. Sorry she doesn’t like lying in it. 

My problem with Charlie Sheen has nothing to do with his struggles with addiction. Nothing.
My problem with Charlie Sheen is his well-documented history of violence against women. And, my problem is also with FX (home of his shitty-looking new sitcom) Rolling Stone (he’s on the cover), New York Times (a ginormous profile of him runs this weekend), MTV (he just appeared at its slick, shiny Movie Awards) and all of the other outlets that are hopping on the Sheen comeback train. Or want to hop on if he’ll grace them with an interview or a funny line about his tiger blood.
Do you know how Rolling Stone is promoting its cover story? Here’s the first line: “Charlie Sheen looks back on his rocky past while plotting the next phase of his career.” Rocky past? Is that what beating your wives is called these days?
That’s how the Rolling Stone story begins. Here’s another story for you. It’s a little more than a year old. It’s from the March 5, 2011 edition of the Los Angeles Times: "Charlie Sheen’s estranged wife said this week that the TV star vowed to decapitate her and send her severed head to her mother." 
There are other past articles. But, when you read about Sheen this weekend, my guess is that you won’t read much about them. So, I’ll just take a moment to point out that he’s pleaded no contest twice on charges of domestic violence. There have been other charges that never went anywhere because his girlfriends/wives wouldn’t testify.
Instead, you’ll read euphemisms about the star’s past. You’re going to hear a lot about his “rocky past” and “train wreck” ways.
The headline for the New York Times profile is “Repentant? No Way, Man.”
Well, I don’t think he is the only one who should be sorry.

My problem with Charlie Sheen has nothing to do with his struggles with addiction. Nothing.

My problem with Charlie Sheen is his well-documented history of violence against women. And, my problem is also with FX (home of his shitty-looking new sitcom) Rolling Stone (he’s on the cover), New York Times (a ginormous profile of him runs this weekend), MTV (he just appeared at its slick, shiny Movie Awards) and all of the other outlets that are hopping on the Sheen comeback train. Or want to hop on if he’ll grace them with an interview or a funny line about his tiger blood.

Do you know how Rolling Stone is promoting its cover story? Here’s the first line: “Charlie Sheen looks back on his rocky past while plotting the next phase of his career.” Rocky past? Is that what beating your wives is called these days?

That’s how the Rolling Stone story begins. Here’s another story for you. It’s a little more than a year old. It’s from the March 5, 2011 edition of the Los Angeles Times: "Charlie Sheen’s estranged wife said this week that the TV star vowed to decapitate her and send her severed head to her mother." 

There are other past articles. But, when you read about Sheen this weekend, my guess is that you won’t read much about them. So, I’ll just take a moment to point out that he’s pleaded no contest twice on charges of domestic violence. There have been other charges that never went anywhere because his girlfriends/wives wouldn’t testify.

Instead, you’ll read euphemisms about the star’s past. You’re going to hear a lot about his “rocky past” and “train wreck” ways.

The headline for the New York Times profile is “Repentant? No Way, Man.”

Well, I don’t think he is the only one who should be sorry.

Why is this such a big deal?
So, the guy may have wanted an “open marriage.” When my husband and I got married ten years ago, I told him I wanted to have an open marriage.
He said, “You do?!”
And I said, “Sure.”
He asked, “Really?!!!  An open marriage?!!! You and me?!!! An open marriage!!!”
I told him yes. I was sure. And what I meant, obviously, was that I wanted a marriage where we could tell each other anything.
That’s what an open marriage is, right? There’s no other meaning, is there? Because if there is, then I’m in deep s—t.

Why is this such a big deal?

So, the guy may have wanted an “open marriage.” When my husband and I got married ten years ago, I told him I wanted to have an open marriage.

He said, “You do?!”

And I said, “Sure.”

He asked, “Really?!!!  An open marriage?!!! You and me?!!! An open marriage!!!”

I told him yes. I was sure. And what I meant, obviously, was that I wanted a marriage where we could tell each other anything.

That’s what an open marriage is, right? There’s no other meaning, is there? Because if there is, then I’m in deep s—t.

Physicists Anxiously Await New Data on ‘God Particle’

From the December 11th New York Times. High noon is approaching for the biggest manhunt in the history of physics. At 8 a.m. Eastern time on Tuesday morning, scientists from CERN, the European Center for Nuclear Research, are scheduled to give a progress report on the search for the Higgs boson — infamously known as the “God particle” — whose discovery would vindicate the modern theory of how elementary particles get mass.

(I will, obviously, be live blogging the event on Tuesday morning. If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them. I will also be answering questions about seasons two through four of “Saved By The Bell.”)


So, there was this article in the New York Times about how more and more “professionals” are using emoticons in their emails… and how it’s annoying the stuffing out of some [grumpy, in my opinion] people.
My thoughts:
1) The trend piece is about five to ten years late.
2) A journalist/activist/radio personality interviewed said she will “de-friend” anyone on Facebook if they use a “little smiley-frowny face.” And she won’t give them any second chances. : (
Anyone who is THAT against the use of emoticons should probably not use the word “de-friend” as a verb when interviewed by the New York Times. 
3) There was a complaint from ”the parent coordinator in an elementary school in Manhattan who spends much of her days answering and responding to e-mails of the (largely professional) body of parents.” For her, “the whole subject touches a raw nerve.”
Want to know what touched a raw nerve for me? The description of the school as being made up of a “(largely professional) body of parents.” Maybe it’s because I’m a stay at home mom? Maybe it’s because I felt like it was code for saying “upper class”? Maybe I’m just grumpy myself today. 
What do you think? Perhaps I’m overreacting? I’d love your opinion. ; )

So, there was this article in the New York Times about how more and more “professionals” are using emoticons in their emails… and how it’s annoying the stuffing out of some [grumpy, in my opinion] people.

My thoughts:

1) The trend piece is about five to ten years late.

2) A journalist/activist/radio personality interviewed said she will “de-friend” anyone on Facebook if they use a “little smiley-frowny face.” And she won’t give them any second chances. : (

Anyone who is THAT against the use of emoticons should probably not use the word “de-friend” as a verb when interviewed by the New York Times. 

3) There was a complaint from ”the parent coordinator in an elementary school in Manhattan who spends much of her days answering and responding to e-mails of the (largely professional) body of parents.” For her, “the whole subject touches a raw nerve.”

Want to know what touched a raw nerve for me? The description of the school as being made up of a “(largely professional) body of parents.” Maybe it’s because I’m a stay at home mom? Maybe it’s because I felt like it was code for saying “upper class”? Maybe I’m just grumpy myself today.

What do you think? Perhaps I’m overreacting? I’d love your opinion. ; )