I recently discovered Advertising for Love, a blog that’s been posting personal ads from the 19th century. Some of it’s just fun, but I was struck by this post showing some women in desperate straits. It shows why women in 19th century New York would marry: for financial support. An unmarried woman in the city without a family had nothing.

I’ve been reading Beyond Heaving Bosoms, the Smart Bitches guide to romance novels, and in the chapter on heroines, they discuss a problem with historical heroines: in romances written today about bygone eras, women are usually empowered to a point, and they always marry for love, which is nice and all but undermines the basic fact that women in the 19th century married because they had to in order to survive in many cases. Plenty of women did marry for money. These women didn’t have other options. The advertisements highlight that.

Speaking of romance novels, I think this ad sounds like the potential beginning of one. Two people spend almost a week together, then the woman doesn’t show up for their second scheduled rendezvous. What happened? Did she move on to greener pastures? Was she already married? Was she actually a prostitute? Was she struck ill or killed in a carriage accident? The possibilities are endless, no?

I’m not usually one to get maudlin at celebrity deaths, but somehow I still managed to spend 3 hours last night watching Michael Jackson retrospectives on TV.

Songs have a way of imprinting themselves on your memory, or being associated with specific memories. Billy Joel’s “Time to Remember” was my prom song and so is indelibly linked to a ballroom at the Sheraton Crossroads, for example. This is the case with a lot of Michael Jackson’s catalog, me being a child of the 80s and 90s.

I was a toddler when Thriller came out, so that’s one of those things I came to appreciate more as an older person, although those songs were all classics by the time I was old enough to have taste in music. Bad is more familiar, although maybe because the kids at one of our babysitters’ houses would watch MTV in the afternoons, and we loved Weird Al, so I knew all the words to “Fat.” “Man in the Mirror” was a favorite slow jam for a while at the roller rink where all my friends had their birthday parties. Before Michael Jackson was weird, he was completely awesome. It’s easy to look back now and judge his affectations, like his penchant for wearing sparkly quasi-military jackets or just one glove, and say, “Oh, he was always weird,” but, no, we all thought he was the coolest in 1989.

Even later, everything he released got a lot of attention. I was in high school when HIStory came out. “Scream” was the most expensive music video ever made and was duly hyped, and my friends and I were mildly obsessed with it. We were probably bigger Janet than Michael fans at that point (remember how good the Janet. album was?) but that space-agey video was pretty wild. I remember us all going to the mall—because that’s what you did if you were a teenager in New Jersey—to buy the cassette single of the song.

I’ve never been much able to stomach Michael Jackson gossip and fall from grace. I think it’s amazing that his music transcends all that, that we as a culture have separated Michael Jackson music from Michael Jackson the man. No doubt he leaves behind an impressive legacy. So far, most of the tributes I’ve seen have been overwhelmingly positive, which I think is how it should be in the immediate wake of his death. So let’s uh, “Remember the Time” for now.

Do you have any Michael Jackson song memories?

I heard someone say the other day that, when we elected Obama, a Democrat, we did it because we wanted to be governed by Democrats. Some of us wanted a government made up of appointees who were all for women’s rights (including the right to choose), marriage equality, universal health care, the end to torture, and the whole shebang. So why does Obama keep adhering to some misguided sense of bipartisanship. Bipartisanship? That’s not what we want. All those lovely things you promised in the campaign? Progressive leadership, change, that’s what we want.

My friend Beth, who has been unemployed for the last few months courtesy of our lovely economy—read her unemployment blog Cardboard Furniture—has put together a coffee table book of her photography, mostly of sights in Arizona. It’s available at Amazon. Buy a copy so she doesn’t have to eat her furniture!

Courtesy of the shuffle function on my iPod, I was reminded today that my favorite song from the musical On the Town is “Let’s Go to My Place,” in which a young soldier gets into a cab and lists all the things he wants to see in New York, and the saucy female hack informs him that all of those things are closed, but there’s lots to “see” if he goes on back to her place… if you know what I mean, and I think you do.

Fitting, since it was just Fleet Week. I don’t know about you, but I love Fleet Week. One of my friends complained that there were sailors all over the city—few things are a bigger nuisance to a New Yorker than a preponderance of out-of-towners—but… there were sailors all over the city.

But then a friend of mine said to me on Saturday that she hated Fleet Week because seeing all the sailors left a bad taste in her mouth: she’d soured on the military in general because of all the news of late of atrocities committed, especially on women, by soldiers.

We’ve had this argument before. I won’t name my friend, but she knows who she is. We’ve basically agreed to disagree on matters military, because I don’t think we’ll ever see eye-to-eye, but we respect each other’s opinions. On Saturday, I dutifully argued what I always do: that I know (and am related to) many fine members of the armed forces so I can verify that there are many really great men and women serving right now, and that the truly awful situation of sexual assault and other atrocities at the hands of our troops is created, at least in part, by stress and peer pressure: some of the men abroad, the very men committing these atrocities, have been in Iraq a tour or three longer than they really should have, and it’s a tough, highly stressful situation, and sometimes men break under such difficult circumstances. Which obviously doesn’t excuse heinous behavior, but some of it could have been prevented if, you know, we hadn’t gotten into this ridiculous war to begin with.

I was dismayed to learn that some of the photos Barack Obama decided not to release may or may not show American soldiers raping prisoners. If it’s true, it’s horrifying and heartbreaking. But what I don’t agree with is the liberal/feminist blogosphere going bonkers and making blanket generalizations about the troops.

I can concede that there is much broken in the military. We can sit here and list policies we disagree with: recruitment techniques, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the treatment of female troops, etc. It’s leadership that’s the problem, though, not the troops themselves. Let’s get that straight.

I don’t mean to pick on any one blogger, but here are some posts I ran into today that prompted this (well-tempered, don’t you think?) rant.

I hate to pick on Tiger Beatdown, because I only recently discovered this blog and have enjoyed it immensely, but she says:

Not to point out that military culture is tied to the performance of a very specific, very violent form of masculinity in which to be a “pussy” or a “bitch” or a “faggot” is the worst thing imaginable, that it is a culture that promotes and tolerates pro-rape attitudes, that it is a culture that promotes and tolerates rape. Not to point out that military culture systematically cuts the hearts out of our young men and women, makes them into sociopaths and racists and misogynists and sadists and murderers, in the service of allowing them to more efficiently torture and kill an Other, because recognizing the Other’s humanity would only slow our boys down. Not to point out that rape is inevitably a part of war, that rape is a weapon of war. No. None of those would be the most direct consequence.

Just… no. No doubt there’s misogyny in the ranks, no doubt some people are corrupted by their experiences, but it’s slander to make a statement like this as regards all troops, that vaguely defined “military culture” makes “sociopaths and racists and misogynists and sadists and murderers.” In my, albeit limited, experience, this is just not the case.

There’s a car I walk by almost every day that’s got a bunch of Army stickers in the window and a bumper sticker that says, “Thank a Vet!” I want to! I know a few Iraq war vets, their experiences vary, but these are good people who sometimes fought in a war they didn’t believe in because they thought their work would help keep us safe at home. I also thought today of this guy who lived in my dorm when I was in college. He was in the reserves, and he’d get all decked out in his uniform every so often to go report for duty. It was kind of wild to see the crisp uniform, because this guy mostly wore pajamas around the dorm otherwise. He was a really sweet guy, too, as I recall. He was in the reserves partly so the Army would pay for his degree, but he got something significant out of it, too. You know, “military culture” is also full of discipline and camaraderie and friendship and the value of teamwork and hard work.

I never supported the war, but I do support the troops and veterans. They didn’t start the war, a lot of them got and are getting a raw deal. I realize everyone’s horrified and angry at what these photos may or may not contain, and I recognize that, but let’s not go over the edge and start making pronouncements about how the whole military is like this. It’s a subset, a few men who behaved abominably. If prisoners were raped, let the rapists be court martialed and punished. Let’s not punish the whole dang military.

The greater offense seems to be that Obama won’t release the photos. (There is some interesting stuff in the post linked about the conflation of photos of rape and pornography, FYI.) Personally, I respect Obama’s decision. I certainly don’t want to see the photos, the fact that any photos of what happened at Abu Ghraib exist is enough for me. Atrocities were committed there. If Obama thinks releasing them creates a hazardous situation for the troops still fighting abroad, as he’s argued, then fine. The mere discussion of the photos’ existence has created plenty of anti-military backlash (I’ve seen it all over the web today), which doesn’t do anybody any good. Let’s not make the soldiers’ job harder worse, eh?

I mean, let’s change the military where we’re able. End the war, try those accused of crimes, eliminate Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, etc. Don’t let military leaders condone bad behavior.

I bring you another edition of: Interesting things I ran into on the internet this week that I did not also Twitter about. That’s right, bitches, original content!

Anyway. Possibly some unpopular opinions follow.

+ Every couple of years, someone publishes an alarmist article about how girls are outperforming boys academically. I’ve seen some theories on this phenomenon, mostly that the women’s movement has encouraged more girls to be competitive and study traditionally male disciplines like math and science, while boys, who have had an easier go of it generally, are more complacent about their academic success. Well, believe what you want; Isis the Scientist gets steaming mad over an article about boys not competing in science fairs. Her whole post is pretty insightful, but I agree whole-heartedly with her conclusion:

I am so pleased that young girls are becoming better represented in science and I certainly hate to think that young boys are not pursuing science. However, to conflate this with the success of women in science is short-sighted and fails to appreciate the complexity of the factors that keep women from transitioning from trainee to career scientist

+ The headline on this Jezebel post is a little needlessly alarmist, but I think it highlights an interesting consequence of the fundamentalist abstinence movement: This couple has been married for 2 years and they’re both still virgins. Why? Well, it sounds like the wife has vaginismus, and I think it’s a great tragedy that such a condition even exists. My amateur postulating has led me to conclude that the psychological aspects of the disorder are due mostly the conflation of sex with sin and then pressure to make the wedding night “special.” The fear of sex drilled into this woman from a young age combined with her feeling pressure to make the honeymoon magical led her to not be able to perform at all. I wouldn’t go so far as to argue that this happens to all couples who wait; I’m sure there are plenty of people who wait for marriage to have sex that have perfectly healthy and satisfying sex lives. But I feel terrible for the woman in the Jezebel post and I wonder if her problems could have been avoided if she’d been taught about sex differently.

So, how about that Manny Ramirez? I sometimes go back and forth on my feelings on steroids, because on the one hand, these are “performance enhancers,” meaning the guys taking them were already talented (the drugs didn’t magically grant them the ability to hit a baseball), but on the other, it still feels like cheating. I thought A-Rod was the great hope for a while, as he’d be the next person to break the career home run record, and he’d be untainted, but so much for that. Blah.

Babe Ruth was one of the greatest players of all time. His performance enhancers? Booze and women. Can we go back to that?

—

Manhattan: 1609 vs. 2009. Some very cool photos and renderings; it’s pretty surreal.

—

I’m watching Rachel Maddow, and she’s doing a segment on Lieutenant Dan Choi, a West Point grad and Arabic translator who lost his job because he is gay. You can guess how I feel about this, but just on a practical level, doesn’t it seem silly to you to kick people who want to serve out of the military, especially when the military has a recruitment problem?

President Obama says he’s going to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. So… can he get on that?

Also, similarly, go Maine!

You may have noticed that things look a little different around here. That’s because I redesigned! I liked the old design, but a lot of the code broke after I upgrade WordPress, so now it’s all fixed and pretty, and who doesn’t love a makeover?

I may have some real content soon, too!

But alas, I’m making a post to lament the fact that I never post anymore.

So let it be known that the quick links and things that used to get compiled into quickies posts are mostly winding up on my Twitter, so follow me there for fun and games.

But, here are some things that didn’t make it to the Twitter.

+ Urban Sketches has some really cool drawings of Brooklyn.

+ Here are some women pioneers.

And that’s all she wrote. I am laaame.

Excuse my general blogging slackery. Ahem.

Two items. The first, a dude writes into Jezebel about a problem: he left an expensive new shirt at his ex-boyfriend’s and he wants it back. Consensus of the commenters: Dude, you’re not getting that shirt back.

The second is an awesome Cary Tennis screed, brought to my attention via Gawker.