A French appeals court went against the wealth of worldwide cultural evidence to the contrary and ruled on Monday that -- you might want to sit down -- virginity is not an "essential quality" of a woman. What? A woman amounts to more than her hymen? Her sexual past does not define her as good or evil, pure or defiled? I can only imagine what historically recognized truth the courts will strike down next!

My self-righteous sarcasm aside, the ruling could be significant for the legal rights of women, particularly Muslims, in France. It reverses a lower court decision to annul the French Muslim couple's marriage after the humiliated husband was unable to present a bloodied bed sheet to the collected guests on their wedding night. That is hardly proof of her "impurity" -- hymens tear during all sorts of wholesome, non-sexual activities, and sometimes remain intact even after sex -- but, if the popularity of hymenoplasties among European Muslims is any indication, it still matters. Regardless, the woman later admitted to having lied about her virginity, and her husband felt the deception warranted an annulment (rendering the marriage invalid) instead of a divorce.

In France, only a couple dozen annulments are granted a year, and only in cases where a spouse misrepresents an "essential quality" of their identity or character, according to the Globe and Mail. For example, an annulment might be granted if a husband lies about a criminal record, or a wife conceals a past marriage. Previously, lying about one's virginity had never been considered grounds for an annulment. The lower court judge, however, found that, as far as her husband's cultural beliefs are concerned, the bride had misrepresented an essential part of her character. Indeed, she admitted to knowing that he would not have married her, had he known about her sexual past.

But many women's rights activists argued that the lower court ruling would have set a dangerous precedent, potentially legitimizing virginity as a legal pre-condition to marriage. Of course, virginity cannot be proven, so for an annulment to take place on those grounds, a woman would have to admit to having had premarital sex -- or would she? Might the ruling essentially mandate hymenoplasties -- legally, rather than just culturally -- within certain French communities? And where might the state draw the line when it comes to personal definitions of the "essential qualities" of personhood? As one activist suggested, might a judge rule that, within certain cultures, genital mutilation is so central to a woman's character that lying about it renders a marriage invalid?

For those reasons, I celebrate the appeals court's ruling (and, dear lord, hope the couple initiates a divorce). You do have to wonder, though, how this high-profile case might influence the rising rate of hymenoplasties among European Muslims.

Back in May, I interviewed journalist Nan Mooney about her latest book "(Not) Keeping Up with Our Parents: The Decline of the Professional Middle Class," which explores how stagnant wages and the rising cost of health care, education and retirement have driven middle-class Americans into financial insecurity. Over on Babble, Mooney's been telling her personal story about what it's like to be a single mother in her late 30s living in her parents' basement apartment in Seattle with her son, Leo.

"In part I'm proud to invest him with non-materialistic values. But at times I feel guilty too."

In her latest essay, Mooney's reflects on her son growing up toy-thrifty in an ExerSaucer world:  "In part I'm proud to invest him with non-materialistic values," she writes. "But at times I feel guilty too. I'm not entirely convinced that never having a slate of developmental toys, a library full of books or a fancy birthday party won't actually hurt him in some way. What if in my efforts to pare down, I neglect to provide Leo with some crucial item that really would make him a happier, more successful, more well-rounded kid?"

Check it out here.

It's been quite a year for Guns 'N Roses fans and proponents of same-sex marriage alike. For both groups, there's been joy, pain and, most of all, anticipation. And now, they have something -- or, rather, someone -- else in common: Slash. The former GNR guitar player, who now shreds for Velvet Revolver, has just released a video (posted below) in which he and wife Perla Hudson announce their support for gay marriage in the wake of California's devastating decision on Proposition 8. As Slash plays the "Star-Spangled Banner," Hudson addresses the camera, telling us, "I married my sweetheart. You should be able to marry yours, too. Say no to hate and yes to equal rights. Keep up the fight."

Like everything anyone involved in GNR has ever done, it's steeped in '90s trash, from Slash's perennial enormous hat-and-even bigger-hair combo to Hudson's cooing, rocker-chick voice. But that's kind of why I love it. As much as I adored Tim Gunn's No on 8 ad, I assume that most people who are into Tim are also already hip to gay rights. Slash and Hudson's video, however, might just open a few minds.

The first woman to get pregnant after receiving an ovary transplant from her twin sister gave birth last week (to a healthy girl) and scientists announced that a variation on that very procedure might preserve the fertility of women who require ovary-ravaging cancer treatments. But, in this clip for Current TV, I talk about the prediction that it will be most popular as a lifestyle choice.

A postscript (because one can only fit so many words into a minute-long video): Of course, generally, the more reproductive choices available to women, the better. I just find it grim to think that, instead of social solutions, we have to rely on uncertain medical fixes to address the often conflicted choice between a career and a family.

I hope everyone caught the Obamas on "60 Minutes" last night. It was a pinch-yourself interview with both the president-elect and his wife, during which it seemed far too good to be true that two such smart, relatable, incisive and direct people are just a few months away from taking up residence on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Below were some of my very favorite moments of the interview as well as clips so that you can watch (or rewatch). I will say off the bat that there was one regrettable, 1956-style moment at the very tail end of the sit-down, during which interviewer Steve Kroft asked Obama about his feelings on a national championship for college football, and as our next president leaned forward to discuss the topic with his interviewer, he glanced over at his wife and said, "Excuse me for a second," and she waved it off with "Don't mind me." Because girls don't like football. Or something.

But that quibble aside, here were some of the extraordinary, progressive, remarkable things said in the rest of the nearly hour-long conversation.

»Continued

You know you're late to blogging about a new wave of consumer outrage when the corporation in question has already apologized by the time you post about it. Nevertheless, have you heard about the Motrin thing? Marketers for the pain reliever recently released a promotional video online in hopes that it would go viral, which it did -- for all the wrong reasons.

The ad, aimed at new mothers, starts off with the words, "Wearing your baby seems to be in fashion," and right there, I'm like, "Uh-oh." I get where they were going with that -- you see a hell of a lot more baby slings today than you did 10 years ago -- but holy cow, what were they thinking, casting a parenting decision as a fashion trend? Unless it was "Let's see how many angry e-mails we can get by Monday," that was an epic fail, as the kids say. The video goes downhill from there, saying that baby slings "put a ton of strain on your back, your neck, your shoulders" (that's why you need Motrin), but it's worth it because "it totally makes [you] look like an official mom." Oh, sweet Jesus, are you kidding me? I'm not even a mother, and I know that if you've wrapped the sling correctly, it shouldn't cause pain (theoretically, anyway). Furthermore, it's been my observation that baby-wearing mothers are far less concerned with "looking like an official mom" than getting the kid from point A to point B safely and conveniently; I've never heard one fret that she might be mistaken for the nanny if she uses a stroller.

So the Internet -- in particular a bunch of moms on Twitter -- flipped out over the weekend, and by this morning, Kathy Widmer, V.P. of Marketing for McNeil Consumer Healthcare, had apologized both on the Motrin Web site and in a statement sent to Forbes. Motrin is pulling the ad everywhere possible, though a print version is already on newsstands in some magazines. I'm really impressed by that move, both because the company legitimately screwed up and because taking a prompt, decisive action to stem the online furor shows that the Motrin folks understand how important it is to be responsive to consumer feedback in the Internet age. I didn't even get a chance to write my, "Wow, what a bunch of jerks!" post before Widmer had apologized in a distinctly non-jerky way. Well played, Ms. Widmer.

I'm still not thrilled, though, with Motrin's whole "we feel your lady pain" campaign, which includes bus shelter ads that lament the physical effects of wearing high heels, carrying purses and lifting strollers. I'm no bodybuilder, but I can actually wrangle a baby and a handbag at the same time without reaching for painkillers, and if a pair of shoes puts me in so much pain I need drugs, I give them to Goodwill. Women experience a whole lot of aches and pains that don't have anything to do with us being weaklings or too frivolous to quit doing stuff that hurts, and I'd become a Motrin customer for life if they came up with a clever ad that actually reflected that. Something like, "Worn-out gender stereotypes making your temples throb? We feel your pain!"

I hadn't thought much about the recent demise of Playgirl magazine until a New York Times obituary -- in the Sunday Styles section -- gave me reason to grieve. Apparently, Playgirl launched in 1973 as a "feminist response to Playboy and Penthouse." Somehow that historic moment was overshadowed in my women's studies textbooks by that year's wee little court ruling on reproductive rights. But it is good to now know that, as many celebrated their right to choose, some also rejoiced at their right to sexy pictorials of men with feathered locks, handlebar mustaches and hair busting cleavage-like from plunging necklines.

In the years that followed, the magazine featured Burt Reynolds in a Santa hat and Christmas PJs, cover model Alan Thicke alongside a reference to his -- nudge, nudge -- "growing pains" and Jean-Claude Van Damme in a stretch purple unitard. Woo, feminism?

»Continued

Dear Helen Mirren, please stop talking about rape. Please.

Not three months after the GQ interview in which Mirren referred to date rape as "one of the many subtle parts of the men/women relationship that has to be negotiated and worked out between them," she's inspired another worldwide chorus of WTFs with remarks about female jurors on rape cases being "sexually jealous" of the victims. In yesterday's Sunday Times (UK), she's quoted as saying:

"In a rape case the courts in defence of a man would select as many women as they could for the jury, because women go against women. Whether in a deep-seated animalistic way, going back billions of years, or from a sense of tribal jealousy or just antagonism, I don't know. But other women on a rape case would say she was asking for it. The only reason I can think of is that they're sexually jealous."

And this comes on the heels of her talking about female journalists "who are mean-spirited and nasty because you are another woman and want to make you feel crap" -- which, ironically, comes on the heels of her saying, "In my heart of hearts I love women more than I love men." Wait, what? You think women are wonderful -- except for the part where they're nasty, competitive bitches who will look at a rape victim and say she was asking for it out of "sexual jealousy?" I just ... what?

In my heart of hearts, I want to love Helen Mirren. I want to love any woman who is almost universally regarded as a mad force to be reckoned with -- intellectually, professionally and red bikinially -- in her 60s. And to be fair, Chrissy Iley, the Times interviewer, seems seriously hung up on Mirren's sexuality and might well have pushed the "women are catty" line of discussion, given that she clearly agrees with it. ("[S]he's right. On the whole, women don't like other women, because women are competitive with each other," Iley writes, as if this is established scientific fact, and not one of the top 10 all-time negative female stereotypes.) But please, Dame Helen, I'm begging you. The next time you're tempted to say the word "rape" in an interview, think twice. Think, like, six or seven times if you need to.

To say that it's been a stellar year for the women of "Saturday Night Live" would be an understatement. From "bitch is the new black" to Tina Fey as Sarah Palin to Amy Poehler's jaw-dropping 9-months-pregnant rap, the sketch show has been all about the ladies in 2008. The only problem? Now that the election is over, Fey is back to concentrating on "30 Rock" and her new book and Poehler is taking some well-deserved maternity leave before embarking on a new NBC sitcom, leaving the show with only two female cast members. While I don't really have specific problems with Kristen Wiig or Casey Wilson, their work on the show just hasn't been that exciting yet.

"You're left, you're right, but you're not center. This is a clitoris, it's not some kind of gear shift on your locomotion train."

So I was excited to hear that "SNL" has hired two new ladies to fill Poehler's shoes. Abby Elliott and Michaela Watkins will make their debut on Saturday night's broadcast. Watkins, a member of the Groundlings improv troupe, played a recurring role on Season 4 of "The New Adventures of Old Christine." Twenty-one-year-old Elliott, the daughter of "SNL" alum and "Cabin Boy" star Chris Elliott, honed her improv chops with the Upright Citizens Brigade (the group that also launched Poehler's career).

Luckily, thanks to the wonders of YouTube, we don't have to wait until Saturday night to see what we can expect from the new cast members. Both of their audition videos are already available.

Watkins' reel has shown up in a number of pieces, and they're all worth watching, but, for me, it's all about her Arianna Huffington impression:

Now, I'm not going to argue that it stands up to Tracy Ullman's Huffington, but anyone who comes up with a skit about the blog heroine waking up in a frat house has my attention. And her wacky monologue is right on: "This Bush administration is completely asleep at the wheel. They're like children at a Froot Loop contest at the wheel of a big boat. And you know what I'm talking about"? Brilliant! "You're left, you're right, but you're not center. This is a clitoris, it's not some kind of gear shift on your locomotion train"? Amen, Michaela?

Elliott's reel also looks promising: 

Though I find her entire cast of characters funny, it seems clear that Elliott excels at impressions. In fact, her talent for them is almost spooky. She manages to channel both Joan Cusack and Drew Barrymore purely via facial expression, before she even opens her mouth. It will be interesting to see whether "SNL's" writers use her youth effectively. As the clip shows, she's Urban Outfitters to Fey's "Mom Jeans."  

Of course, I'll have to reserve my final judgment until Saturday night's episode airs. But for now, here's to the next generation of "SNL" women. May they grab the torch that Fey and Poehler are passing and run like hell with it.

An update on Wednesday's brutal attack on 15 Afghan schoolgirls: After seeing their fellow students burned and blinded by men with acid-filled water guns, all of the school's 1,500 students were absent on Thursday.

The Associated Press reports that "a handful of teachers showed up" and "the only students who tried to attend were about 20 primary school students who arrived late in the afternoon and were sent home because the school had already decided not to hold classes." The attack is just the latest in several hundreds of anti-eduction attacks to be carried out since the fall of the Taliban, which outlawed girls' education. In short, the attackers, who are suspected to be Taliban militants, successfully attained their goal of scaring girls out of school.

Safia Ibrahimi, a friend of one of the two girls blinded in the attack, told the Globe and Mail: "After we saw her eyes, nobody will go to school any more." Principal Mehmood Qaderi told the AP that teachers and students have told him that "until security improves, they will not go to the school." Who could blame them?