Monday, August 16, 2004

What's wrong with Jessica Cutler?

Washington Post article:
Blog Interrupted (
When Jessica Cutler put her dirty secrets on the Web, she lost her job, signed a book deal, posed for Playboy -- and raised a ton of questions about where America is headed
By April Witt
Sunday, August 15, 2004; Page W12

Well, my answer is nothing. Or probably a bunch of things if she is unhappy with herself, or with her life or whatever. But, since when happiness was the measure of what is wrong with people? Or, since when people know how to define happiness and define it in a single, specific, only which way?

She, actually, seemed to be quite happy in the life she was having. And, so seemed to be the married senator that was dating her, and he seemed to be happy probably in his both worlds: the one in which he was a powerful man with a Channel dressed wife, and the one in which he was having sex with another woman, probably prettier, certainly younger than his wife. So, why do we turn against Jessica? And the “we” should be interpreted as a written mannerism, because I can't find a single reason on my heart, or mind to be against her.

Then, I question myself: Do I want my daughters to be doing this? And I find myself having a difficult answer to it. What's what I don't like on Jessica's situation? I don't like the lies. And I don't like the fact that having sex was her only access to power, or to what has now become a pseudo-career as a writer – although maybe she is actually good at writing, and I'm prejudging her –. And why does that bothers me? It bothers me because at the end of the day, again we women are changing our pussies for access... And I thought we were past that long time ago!

When they say, “now women look at sex very much like men do: in a casual, unattached, unemotional way,” I have a problem seeing it like that – don't get me wrong, not seeing sex like that, but seeing the similarities between men and women on it. Because certainly, Jessica was resorting to sex to gain things she did not have, and men were providing those things in exchange for sex... So men DID have those things. Is it as common to find women senators having sex with young interns in need of cash, or a career?

And then moralists are saying that Jessica is to blame for muddying the waters of women's careers because “now” everybody in Washington would assume that for women to move on/up they need to move well in bed. Well, it seems that was already the common belief and that MEN, specially those in power, and even most other women already were convinced of that.

Why we are not as tough with all the men that were involved in this thing? Why men still are not feeling as bad for being unfaithful or for lay younger and needy women, and why society does not condemn them as much?

And then, the societal question: why, if all this is soooo bad, is Jessica getting rich out of it? Why there is a Media frenzy about it, with the guarantee of big money for everyone? Why was Sex and the City so famous if, the only episode that I caught once in a hotel room – brief note: we don't have cable at home – had a blonde lady going out with a rich French man in his way to Brazil that after the first and only night together left her $1,000 on an envelope? Needless to say that blonde was a writer, and had a substance abuse problem that she termed “expensive footwear,” that had her on the verge of bankruptcy.

So, Jessica is a bad, worse, and even worst thing ever, but the best rated TV series portrays people just like her getting ahead using all the means available, counting sex among those. That sounds to me like advocating abstinence to kids and keeping all the TV, movies, and else focus entirely on sex.

This society has a serious issue with trying to keep things unrelated to each other: that's why the newspapers are divided into Politics, International, Economic News, Cultural News, etc.. to reinforce people's ideas of separation between the issues, when, in reality, there is only one world and everything goes together and affects everything else. But it is comforting to enjoy Sex and the City as “just” a TV series, and criticize Jessica for making it all too real for our taste. Yeah, it's like when we bomb one city and try to control arm crime in another, or when we are sorry for Columbine, the very same day we have just mistakenly bombed a school bus in Kosovo.

Wednesday, August 11, 2004

No, no lid on your double latte.

Referring to a Washington Post opinion piece by Roxanne Roberts.
Ms. Roberts,
I guess when you wrote this piece, you took in consideration the fact that nursing
has become an uphill battle for women and that the reaction -which you consider
overreaction- of many women to new limitations on it comes out of the battle to
make nursing acceptable again as the natural, and actually best alternative for
Since you are in the communications business you know the power of this kinds of
messages -actually, you are using your own power to ridicule those who have no means
to make their voices heard as much, and who actually have to "stage" -that
was your word, right?- things to get attention.
Do you know in how many instances breastfeeding has been prohibited? The lack of
a latte probably won't kill anyone, but women have to do great many things, at many
different hours with their babies attached to them, so I guess you will say that
it is ok to nurse in the waiting hall of the school office while registering an
older sister, but is wrong to do it at a coffeehouse, right? Why? Or what you are
actually saying is that women should stay home and nurse, if they want, but if they
want to have a nice hour with other moms at Starbucks they should not breastfeed
their kids, something like letting the 5 months old know how the schedule plays
Your piece is also ignorant of some medical facts: yes, breast pumps exist, but
they are not fun to use, and there is always the danger of a baby refusing breastfeeding
after being introduced to the bottle, plus what's the point of staying home with
a baby if you will bottle-feed him/her?; second, women DO need that break at a coffeehouse,
without the added stress of a hungry baby crying out -have you heard of postpartum
depression?-; third, have you heard of the concept of "on demand breastfeeding?"
believe me, it does not include a "wait till I finish my latte, sweet girl."
And, then comes the hypocrisy of staging a fight against breastfeeding in public,
while accepting commercials full of nudity at any hour, or accepting the usage of
the woman body for commercials of anything from toothpaste to computer monitors...
Or did you have a piece criticizing that and I missed it?