"What's on besides the Super Bowl?"

"'Sex and the City' marathon... 'Toddlers and Tiaras' marathon... 'Bewitched' marathon... 'Worst Cooks in America' marathon... 'Jerseylicious' marathon..."

"Is it harder for women to be sports fans?"



(Bonus question: Is it harder for women to speak without sounding like everything is a question?)

Is anyone watching OWN?

Do you even know what it is?

When I started watching OWN, a couple of days after it began, on January 1st, I truly thought I was watching reruns from other cable channels.... From what I’ve seen so far, it’s numbingly unimaginative and middle of the road. What that road is, and where it’s going, and why we need to be on it remains to be seen. Promoting the channel, [Oprah] Winfrey likes to say that it will air nothing that will keep you from sleeping at night. “The intention of this channel is to bring good energy”...

Oh, but Oprah, the very idea of energy keeps me up at night.

The very first episode of Skeptoid was about the horror that is energy...

Energy is a measurement of something's ability to perform work. Given this context, when spiritualists talk about your body's energy fields, they're really saying nothing that's even remotely meaningful. Yet this kind of talk has become so pervasive in our society that the vast majority of Americans accept that energy exists as a self-contained force, floating around in glowing clouds, and can be commanded by spiritualist adepts to do just about anything....

"Everything you touch turns to gold. Could you touch me?"

Piers Morgan embarrasses himself trying to interview Oprah.

During the last episode of "Sarah Palin's Alaska," TLC put up this teaser for its special "Kennedys' Home Movies."

Yes, they are both TLC shows, but why did TLC think the people watching a show about Sarah Palin and her family would be susceptible to a show about the Kennedys? (Meade raised this question in the comments to the post earlier today about "Sarah Palin's Alaska.")

Your first thought might be that it doesn't make much sense because liberals love the Kennedys and conservatives love the Palins. But let's assume TLC isn't run by idiots, that they know how to appeal to viewers. If you had to argue that a good chunk of the "Sarah Palin's Alaska" audience would like to watch "Kennedys' Home Movies," what would you argue?

I'd say: Not all American TV-watchers are strongly grounded in one political party or the other. These people are not cemented to abstract ideology. They may feel their way into politics through personalities. Or they may not care that much about politics at all and simply enjoy peering into the family lives of celebrities, and politicians are a special, elite breed of celebrity, like royalty. The Kennedys have been, for many people, America's royalty, and the Palins may be the new royal family that people who like that sort of thing like.

Obviously, there are differences. The Kennedys posed as European-style aristocracy, and the Palins present themselves as working-class Americans. But both are very much big, colorful families with a strong sense of geographical place — Massachusetts/Alaska — and a mesmerizingly beautiful and feminine woman to fascinate us. Both families have a lot of children who we get to see looking robust and active in outdoor settings — especially boats.

There's a romanticism of the family about it all. I'm not saying that's good. It's a point of entry by which political opinion seeps into a certain very common type of American brain. And it happens through television. Pay attention.

***

By the way, what do you think of the crazy culture clash that is Johnny Cash singing the Beatles ("In My Life") over home movies of the Kennedys?

Howard Stern excoriates Kathy Lee Gifford for tormenting an autistic boy.

Kathy Lee somehow managed to produce the most unbearably tasteless display I've ever seen on television, and Stern lets her have it. Language alert on the second link, but the first link is much more offensive.

[Second link was wrong before. Fixed.]

How to get people to watch women's sports: "1. More singing.... 2. No more uniforms.... 3. More dating intrigue."

Joel Achenbach is using the hoary old tactic of trying to get a rise out of the feminists.

1. More singing. When U-Conn tips off against FSU with the all-time record on the line, we know that U-Conn is going to clobber the overmatched Seminoles. But what if the teams were also required to conduct a singing competition at halftime and, say, in the closing seconds? And they don't know if they'll have to do a hip-hop number or some country-and-western? Nothing but suspense.

2. No more uniforms. I am not suggesting nudity! I am suggesting that, rather than the players wearing identical outfits, they get to wear whatever they want, ideally clothes that they have personally made. And not even with real fabric, but with items purchased at, say, a hardware store! And this would be rated by judges. A player could have a rough night at the free throw line, making only three of ten shots, but she could still come out with extra points for having fashioned her outfit out of a heavy industrial tarp.

3. More dating intrigue. Break-ups, hook-ups, emotional anguish, betrayal, reconciliation. Friendships damaged and repaired. Gossip. Melodrama! Less emphasis on teamwork, more emphasis on the mating competition. If you can't steal the ball, maybe you can steal a boyfriend. Nothin' but viewers, my friends.

When "Project Runway" went from Bravo to Lifetime...

... this was all so predictable. Spoilers after the break and — presumably soon — in the comments.

I think the whole season has been soap opera. All dreams and journeys and men pushing back the strong woman and labeling her a bitch. You can see where the climax is on that story. It's a long hard struggle, but in the end, the climax belongs to the woman. On Lifetime. There were 3 gnomish little men and one giraffe-y woman, and the woman was stomped to the curb over and over. But in the end: Triumph!

But Tom And Lorenzo say it's about commerce:

[T]his was about Nina and Michael and in many ways that judging session was representative of an ongoing conversation in the fashion industry in light of the collapse of the economy. Namely, should the industry move away from a focus on theatrical high-priced luxury goods and fantasy clothes and should it embrace a more downscale, less complicated point of view? 

I wouldn't leave Heidi out of that. She may have taken Mondo's part in the big fight over who should win the show, but look at her line of women's clothing at Amazon. It could hardly be more "downscale" and utilitarian.

It's a discussion worth having and there are points to be made in favor of each side, but the bottom line is, this is a design competition and something of a game show. 

Yeah, Heidi kept saying it's a style show, but don't just hear what she says says. Look what she does. I'm talking about the oversized hooded ponchos she thinks will be snapped up by the Lifetime crowd.

... Despite the fact that they literally could not describe Mondo's collection without using the kind of language reserved for winning designers ("He's incredibly creative and talented.") the ONLY arguments made in support of Gretchen by Nina and Michael were "It's on trend" and "I can sell these garments." Pardon us for being purists, but what appalling arguments to be making. This is what happens when a show goes from ELLE Magazine and the Banana Republic accessories wall to Marie Claire and the Piperlime accessories wall. Project Runway was never cutting edge even on its best days, but the dumbing down of the brand has been a distressing thing to witness....
We think Gretchen is a talented designer and we think that there is a market and a customer for her work. We just don't think she'll be able to excite the public and interest the press the way that Mondo will....

I loved Mondo and assumed he would win, but in retrospect, I can see some problems. He was an extremely reserved person, and at the finale runway show, he seemed confused and close to breaking down. He seemed oddly numb. Also — I was willing to accept this particular man in shorts — but what sort of man wears shorts when he has big, scabby sores on his leg (as he did at the reunion session that preceded the judging)? Considering that he's HIV-positive, this was a disturbing showing of disrespect for other people. And listen to his confessionals: He was very self-absorbed. That was kind of endearing, but in the long run, you might not want that person to take on the work of carrying the banner of your brand name.

Finally, never forget that the show is edited to create a narrative and keep people watching. Gretchen won the first 2 competitions, and if that had kept going, the season would have been boring. The 3 guys — Michael, Andy, and Mondo — were selected as good foils for her, and the competitive tension was built around that. They pushed Gretchen around with criticisms and placement in the bottom 3 to wring melodrama out of her. They tried to make us love the 3 guys, and Mondo's rise to the presumed winner was the story they told as they beat Gretchen down. They put the reunion show before the final judging, which exaggerated her aloneness, while Mondo had his pals hugging him (despite his scabby leg). Gretchen got called a "bitch." Everyone out on the street, we were told, wants to know: Is Gretchen really a bitch? That was the narrative. And that narrative needs to end with victory for our heroine. Maybe it was too abrupt to be believable, but I think it was all in the script, perhaps from Day 1.

"2 of the 3 broadcasts being anchored by women is nothing to sneeze at..."

Well, I'm sneezing because I think it means that the network news isn't important anymore. That's not progress in feminism. It's what is conventionally a symptom of anti-feminism: That women do something signifies that it isn't considered important.

Let's talk about that "breastfeeding doll."

Lisa Belkin writes about "Bebe Gloton," the doll that makes a sucky noise and mouth movement when placed next to plastic flower-shapes that are positioned at nipple level on a shirt to be worn by a little girl (or — I might add — boy):

Dr. Ronald Cohen, medical director for the Mother’s Milk Bank in San Jose as well as director of the intermediate intensive care nursery at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford University, told ABC News, “My take is that anything which reminds young girls that their bodies are something other, and more, than sex objects, is a very good thing.” In the next sentence he added: “On the other hand, encouraging young girls to want to have babies at a very young age may not be so great.”

Don't all baby dolls do that?!

Here's video showing the doll — and The Today Show's Hoda Kotb and Kathie Lee Gifford — in action:



I think it's pretty tame, actually. In any case, little girls (and boys!) who see their mothers breastfeeding younger siblings are likely to put their dolls up to their nipples and pretend to breastfeed. You don't need the additional technology to get that effect. My main objection to the doll is that it is annoying. I'd try not to buy kids toys that make irritating sounds. Leave more to the imagination.

And speaking of annoying sounds... Hoda Kotb and Kathie Lee Gifford... yeesh!