It's amazing to me that we do this: turn on members of our own interest groups and accuse them of not being sufficiently "one of us." Barack Obama's not black enough, Hillary Clinton's not woman enough, John Edwards isn't man enough, and now, apparently, Danica McKellar, who has frankly accomplished more in her 20-odd years than most people will in their whole lives, is not... I don't know... feminist enough, I guess.

You see, getting a Ph.D in math, having your name on a new theorem while still a grad student, all while being a successful actress - those things mean nothing if you dare to try to reach out to young girls who may have yet to take their first Women's Studies seminar. The only question that matters is, are you toeing the line? Are you ideologically pure? Because if not, we're just not sure we can trust you. You're suspiciously beautiful, and you do wear nice clothes, after all - and what self-respecting, empowered career woman would do something like that?

Utter crap. This blog is getting weaker by the day.

Thanks for the conversation with Ted Lange. The final question, however, is worded in a confusing way which obfuscates (and perhaps aids Mr. Lange in further obfuscating) the situation regarding Red Octane, Guitar Hero, Harmonix and Rock Band.

On the first two GH games, Harmonix was the developer and Red Octane the publisher; in other words, Harmonix made the game and Red Octane marketed and distributed it. Subsequently, Harmonix was bought by MTV Games and Red Octane was bought by uber-publisher Activision.

As is too common in the games industry, ownership of the IP went with the publisher; this is the price for most developers of getting a publisher to cover the lion's share of game development costs, which can be considerable and beyond many developers' means. (Another common price is the inevitable tendency of publishers to take credit for the games their developers are most responsible for making.) Thus GH: The 80s and GH3 are being made by another developer in the Activision stable, NOT by Harmonix, the developer responsible for the brilliant first two games.

Further, Rock Band IS being made by Harmonix - the concept is basically Guitar Hero for a whole band full of instruments - and thus is, in an important sense, the true successor to the first two Guitar Hero games. For Lange not to acknowledge this, to imply Rock Band is merely a knock-off of GH, smacks of disingenuity; of course, he has a material interest in confusing consumers on this point.

It's unfortunate that David Marchese didn't challenge Lange's implication, but important nonetheless to make sure people understand the truth. Guitar Hero: The 80s and GH3 may end up being great - here's hoping they are - but they're being made by different people than those who made the first two, beloved games in the franchise. Harmonix's Rock Band isn't just a "competitor" to GH, but rather the true next step in its evolution.

I'm shocked - shocked! - to discover the court that (Bush) voters installed Bush to put into place is moving to do what he said he'd want them to. All due respect to Ms. Harris, there's nothing "stunning" about this assault. Tragically, Roe's days are numbered. Let's see if all those young women who think feminism is hopelessly retro like having their freedom of choice yanked away. Sad but inevitable.

You certainly have put your finger on what seems to be the justification for the Paris/Lindsay/Britney apologia, which is "Hey, they're just making their own sexual choices - we're in favor of that!" I'm in favor of that, too; thet can run around screwing all the actors/models/heirs/whatevers they want as far as I'm concerned. I certainly would, if I were them. But that's a qualitatively different thing than making a videotape of yourself doing it, then releasing it and feigning shock and indignation while you, as Paris was reported just today as doing, smirk with the man you did it with over how much money the two of you made off the deal. I'm not arguing with P/L/B's right to do any of these things; I'm arguing with our celebrating their naked greed and pathetic judgment.

And I am unconvinced by those who protest that P/L/B pay more for their peccadilloes than those who behave similarly but are less famous. These women courted their fame; it is clearly their most prized possession. They are adults; if parental ambition might have been the original impetus for their lives' directions (except for Paris's, of course), that excuse has long since lost its potency. Infantilization, too, is properly seen as a violation of the principles of feminism; somebody, at some point, needs to take responsibility for their own choices.

I couldn't agree more that including Linda Hirshman on the "cringe" list suggests bizarre confusion on the part of the list authors; at the very least their criteria, whatever they may be, are rendered incomprehensible. But I am starting to be seriously creeped out by Broadsheet's recurring function as apologist for Paris, Lindsay and Britney. If you're going to call out other writers for intellectual inconsistency in the definition of feminism, as you should, it makes no sense to then rush to defend these three young women, at least two of whom are themselves on record as having no respect for feminists or feminism. Not content to disrespect the struggles of those who made their own lives possible, these three would have other young women who idolize them disdain similarly the movement and even the word itself. Why does Broadsheet support them in this hypocrisy?

<<lack of substance is a problem

but it isn't caused by too much sex.>>

No, indeed. I certainly didn't suggest otherwise.