I think because Barbies then were really for playing with - between my sister and I we had the full set of both versions of Barbie and the Rockers - and we had a great time making them sing along to the cassette tape that was included with the Barbie (see subject, I can't believe I remember those horrible lyrics more than 20 years later). We also held our own concerts and made up our own songs, and had crazy inter-band rivalries and intrigues that would put Melrose Place to shame. Anyway, a doll version of a real person isn't really to play with; its for people like us that remember these women to collect and put on a shelf, and remember when we wanted to be like them.

As a refreshing antidote to the horrible treatment of women in most crime fiction, I will second the readers recommendation of the Russell series from Laurie R. King. A young, intelligent, female, half-Jewish theologian with a degree from Oxford in 1921, apprentice then assistant (and wife) to Sherlock Holmes, and funny, real, very feminist investigator. I've loved those books since I was 17, and they showed me what women, even in the 1920s, can and should strive for. Excellent reads, all.

One of the best deconstructions of the Twilight phenomena, from a snarkly affectionate point of view, is by blogger/writer Cleolinda Jones. Her review of Twilight, to me at least, hits the nail on the head of the popularity of "Twilight:"

Quote:1) "Vampire" is a metaphor for "teenage boy": I know that it's women who are supposed to be the mysterious sex--"What do women want?" and all that--but I personally found boys to be just as enigmatic when I was a teenager. I mean, yes, boys want sex. But it's not as easy as that--okay, you're a teenage girl, you give in, now you're the school slut, or the thrill is gone and he moves on because you're both, you know, teenagers and probably not ready yet. The real question on a girl's mind is, "What, other than sex, is he thinking about? What, other than sex, do I have to offer someone I'm crazy about?" And if you're a teenage girl with low self-esteem, the answer you're going to come up with to that second question is going to be, "I don't have anything, because I'm not pretty or special or worthy, so if I don't want to immediately put out, I have nothing, and I have no chance." The obvious answer being "sex" actually makes it harder, because you've got that looming in front of you, and maybe a kind of despair--are you going to have to give in if you want a boy to like you? What if you aren't ready? What if you're scared?

Enter Edward Cullen and his bizarro moodswings. Edward is everything that is confusing about the opposite sex writ large; I find it particularly telling that his first encounter with Bella makes her think that he hates her. The entire buildup to their first kiss is this love/hate push-pull of trying to figure out what he's thinking, and it turns out the whole time he was trying to figure out what she was thinking. So, having established that all along they were both crazy about each other the whole time (and wouldn't it be nice if that was really the key to the mystery of the sexes?), Edward and Bella then settle down to wrestle with their various "hungers." But Edward struggles manfully with both his hungers and hers--he's always the one to pull away when either he or Bella goes too far. Consider, also, that young girls tend to gravitate towards "safe," often semi-androgynous celebrities at this age (cough*Hanson*cough) because they're less threatening to a girl's developing sexuality. Sex is possible, and a forbidden thrill to contemplate, but it's not a danger: you're safe with Edward, because he loves you just that much, and he's never going to pressure you because he wants to protect you from himself. /quote

And that's just one of her theories. She also reviewed the rest of the books and the movie, and believe me, it's worth reading them all.

http://cleolinda.livejournal.com/602881.html

...and made the case that maybe women calling themselves cougars, or becuase the term is now more mainstream, means that it's now a bit more positive.

He said no. Not to guys, anyway. He thought that there will always be a deurogatory association in a man's mind with calling a woman a cougar, along the lines of a woman who is desperate to prove to themselves that they're still beautiful or desirable or young because they can get a young hot guy.

I don't know. I hate the term, personally, because it seems it's applied to any woman over 35 who, as you said, shows a bit of skin or merely doesn't dress in elastic waist pants and a sweatshirt.

I think you're correct in the number of women diagnosed, but there are many women who have such mild symptoms it goes undianosed their entire lives. And, since it may not affect them that much, that may not be a big deal. The estimate I had heard is up to 30% may have it and not know, or ever know. I think that's a bit high, but that's what you get from having your friend tell you what they researched and found out once she figured out what she had.

But I certainly accept your correction and the spirit in which it was offered. Thanks.