Since pregnancy itself is a morbid condition that engenders shortened life span, increased risk of mortality, and physical as well as psychological comorbidities, I’m not sure that “suffered from amenorrhea” is a reasonable construction, although “suffered from fertility” may be.

Stress comes from different sources. Stress that represents perception of an unsafe, or lethal, environment should actually increase fertility rates, as in wartime, because increased population mortality rates need to be met with increased natality. In animal studies, high rates of population mortality correlate with increased rates of natality.

Stress that represents the psychological correlate of a female successfully self-actualizing in a challenging environment might actually be associated with greater sense of competence and security, and corresponding lowered impetus to produce offspring.

Lowered food intake (and associated low body mass) and high levels of exercise are generally correlates in the individual of low stress (because we use food to manage worry), physical fitness and expected longevity, signaling a decreased need for natality to meet mortality costs in a population.

Individuals tend to be protected from the costs and risks of reproduction to the extent that these can be reduced without jeopardizing population stability.

Evolutionarily speaking, that is.

That’s what the frack I’m talkin about.

While I find Ms. Traister’s knowledge and insights around popular culture increasingly to the point, I’m not at all convinced that her impressions of what may be driving Ms. Spears’ behaviors are exhaustive, as they seem to suggest that Ms. Spears is essentially incapable of agency and anger, ie. of saying “fuck you” to an audience and public which has, in effect, been chronically abusive.

Is it possible that, quite apart from either “cheerfully submitting” as a “victim” or as “addled” (interpretations which continue to pathologize her), Ms. Spears was, in fact, so much in control that evening (“Subsequent reports seem to indicate that Spears insisted . . .”) that what we are actually reacting to is our own discomfort at not being delivered what we expected, as we have grown accustomed?

Is it possible Ms. Spears is not quite who we think and want her to be, and that the annoyance and anger she elicited in us was intended, and was expressed unreflectively but succinctly by the NY Post’s observer who wrote with barely contained injury, It was ridiculous . . . The production people at MTV were freaking out . . . Nobody can tell Britney what to do anymore. No one can control her. She is a mess. ?

Stories with women gaining control, freely constructing themselves, and self-actualizing in ways that preserve their autonomy and self respect would be interesting and inspiring. I think of Julian in Children of Men, Nancy in Weeds, especially Ugly Betty.

But women degrading themselves as successful executives, lawyers, and news anchors because they can do no better than swallow whole the failed aspirations of men? Not so much.

if I could write “country-fried stink bomb”.

It’s not about breastfeeding. It’s about you - that is, your discomfort with your own sexuality.

That’s all.

Now grow up, or at least stop projecting your blocked development onto others.

We protectively use terms like “democracy”, “intelligence” and “educated” to perpetuate the comforting delusional structure that we are a culture of adults capable of deliberation, authentic agency, and choice. That structure keeps us comfortably stuck as the developmentally delayed children we are, driven by fears and impulses we don’t want to face and that keep us vulnerable to manipulation by demagogues, marketers and fear mongers.

Two hundred years of civics, democracy and American education have given us social and economic barbarism; empire; a very likeable, wily and antisocial child installed as national leader by thugs in black robes we construct as “Justices”; and impulsive, random mass murder in a foreign land backed by a large majority of the educated population.

Forget reading Harper’s, forget country, forget System. Better off with Camus, Perls or Reich.

It’s an inside job today.

Interesting concept, this Havrileskian intervention that would help the developmentally delayed learn empathy using TV dramas as a modality. No reason it couldn’t be effective with facilitation and structure. And who wouldn’t mind pulling down $100 a pop to sit through an episode of “The Bachelor” with a client? OK, Ms. H., let’s stop here. Look at Meaty’s reaction, his expression. Now respond empathically to him, suggest to him how he is feeling to have just been objectified. Good!

If the viewer is able to accurately describe to the character the character’s (not her) feelings, internalizes that, transfers the learning to natural environments, and is then motivated to begin behaving more adaptively (e.g. not objectifying) the Meatys in her life, that’s therapeutic.

If on the other hand, the viewer’s response is predominated by strong affect because Meaty’s objectification triggered her own retained injuries and losses - not so much – that’s more sympathy than empathy, is about the viewer rather than other, and is less likely to help us reach the noble goal to “feel empathy for strangers and make their battles our own”.

Brilliant. This is why we must insist that Ms. Havrilesky is the Albert Ellis of TV critics.

Ms. Pollitt seems possibly to understand that strength ultimately is about coming to terms with and integrating vulnerability, which is deeply linked to sexuality and to forms of social relatedness.

It is apparent that this is uncomfortable ground for males and females alike.

Bravo Ms. Traister for an insightful piece.