How are racial differences unlike gender differences?

Consider the following. An acquaintance is telling you an anecdote. Your acquaintance mentions an encounter with a black woman. Your immediate thought is likely to be, ‘Why is this person telling me that this woman is black?’ It isn’t, ‘Why is this person telling me this human being is female?’ or, for that matter, ‘Why is this person telling me the black person in question is female?’ (I’m sure others have thought of this before, but bear with me.)

Now, what this tells you is the difference in how gender and race differences are understood in our society. It doesn’t tell you, not necessarily at least, that the difference between men and women must forever be seen as particularly important. It seems like gender matters more (and it certainly does in the way sexual orientation is understood), but I’m not sure it always will.

There was a time when identifying a ‘Negro’ was not unlike identifying a woman…It was a form of shorthand, the default being white and male. One could mention ‘a farmer’ or ‘a doctor’ without specifying that this farmer or doctor was a white man, because this was assumed. Meanwhile, today, whiteness is starting to be a defining feature, a hyphenation-worthy identity, with everything from SWPL to television personae whose whiteness is over-the-top.

It is therefore conceivable that it will eventually be seen as just as offensive to point out a person’s gender as to point out his (’or her’, I feel I should put, although on principle I do not add those) race. Is that such a disaster? If so, it has to be for some reason beyond of course men and women are more different than any other Group A and Group B, because societal understanding of different differences has changed over time.

My ladylike nature is to tread lightly, so this post on gay marriage raised the idea that gay marriage would annihilate gender differences but then dropped it as if it were merely a suggestion. Not so Robert Stacy McCain:

Are men and women equal in the fullest sense of the word? If so, then equality implies fungibility—the two things are interchangeable and one may be substituted for the other in any circumstance whatsoever. (La mort à la différence!) Therefore, it is of no consequence whether I marry a woman or a man.

. . . This is why so many of those who would defend traditional marriage find themselves unable to form a coherent argument, because traditional marriage is based on the assumption that men and women are fundamentally different, and hence, unequal. Traditional marriage assumes a complementarity of the sexes that becomes absurd if you deny that "man" and "woman" define intrinsic traits, functions, roles.

To declare men and women unequal, however, puts one outside the law—you are guilty of illegal discrimination if you say that there is any meaningful difference between men and women. Yet if you refuse to argue against sexual equality, you cannot argue effectively against gay marriage, and find yourself subjected to lectures about "accessing the positive social norms" with nothing important to say in reply.

Emboldened by his example, I’ll come out with it: Gender differences matter; men and women are not equivalent; gay marriage pretends that they are, and so reinforces a falsehood that’s already dangerously prevalent.

If you take one idea away from this post, let it be this: Don’t be fooled when feminists say that they want equality, not sameness. It may sound like a concession, but it isn’t one. Put it a different way and this becomes obvious: "Men and women can be different, but the differences can’t matter." A pipe-dream only marginally less foolish than trying to eliminate gender differences altogether.

How do I know that gender differences matter? Gay men told me so. The very fact that people think of hetero- and homosexuality as inflexible sexual preferences tells us that gender isn’t just any characteristic, but a fundamental one. If you need more evidence, consider the radical difference between sons who grow up without mothers and those who are raised without fathers. Or the difference between telling a child to be more grown up and telling him (not her) to "be a man." (If you need more proof, I’m at a loss; I can’t imagine going through life past the age of fifteen still blind to the fact that men and women are fundamentally different. I guess the right answer is "Read any great novel, ever.")

I have an advocate of same-sex marriage sitting next to me as I type this, and he says that there’s a difference between saying anybody can marry anybody regardless of gender and saying that we want to establish two institutions—gay marriage and straight marriage—and have the government treat them the same even though we admit that they’re fundamentally different. (The latter is his position.) I think this is sophistry—for one thing, most SSM advocates want the former; for another, I think the subtle difference will be forgotten in a generation if we establish gay marriage. Remember how quickly feminism slid from "equal but with fundamental differences" to "equal in every way that matters?" I can’t imagine the rhetoric of "equal but different" outlasting the century. I doubt it would last the decade.

A culture that cannot acknowledge gender differences has hobbled itself: it can’t speak the truth and, if we know one thing about truth, it’s that it always comes out one way or another. If we can’t talk about gender, we can’t  develop helpful ways to deal with it; if we can’t deal with it, we guarantee that, when gender differences do surface, it will be in unhealthy ways. If gay marriage consigns us to that slow, unpleasant declension—and it does—it’s something to think twice about.

Advocates of gay marriage may think they’re showing due conservative respect to the institution of marriage, but, however much deference we give the institution of marriage, the fact of gender deserves infinitely more.

As I pored over the NY Times Book Review this weekend, I noticed that only four women made it onto the top 15 bestseller list for fiction. This is disappointing to say the least, but they’re all powerhouse writers: the riveting mastermind behind Scarpetta – Patricia Cornwell – held the number 1 spot; the relative newcomer, vampire aficionado Stephanie Meyer, is at number 5; and the legendary Toni Morrison is number 11. Holding down the fort at number 15 is the  renowned detective expert P.D. James.

Two are on my 2009 list of must reads: Cornwell’s Scarpetta, and Morrison’s A Mercy. I love to settle into a compelling book written by a woman – not because I feel women write better, but just that I really like what THESE particular women write.

I’m excited about a few other books coming out by women authors this year: The Piano Teacher by Janice YK Lee (which sounds a lot like The Ginger Tree), The Little Giant of Aberdeen County by Tiffany Baker and Things I’ve Been Silent About by Azar Nafisi (which is non-fiction and amazingly reviewed).

Giselle Melanson wasn’t really clear on what her other coworkers did. She wasn’t clear on her company’s directive. And she really wasn’t clear on how it was supposed to survive.

Chris Asch didn’t quite convince me that one needs to study public service in order to, uh, serve publicly. But if that’s a given, his call for a public service academy seems fair.

J. Last on on the most interesting, thoughtful, culturally relevant TV show in maybe forever.

Alan Jacobs, time machine.

Dear Child of Mine:

I have to tell you something. I have to tell you that I’m sorry; the timing of your birthday is less than ideal, for a number of reasons.

Mir at Woulda Coulda Shoulda puts it so beautifully…as she always does.

Ever since election night, I have been praying for Al Franken to win the Minnesota Senate seat he campaigned for. Is it because I agree with his politics, think he’s up to the task at hand or admire his background story? Heck no! I wanted him to win for the pure theatrics of it. And he might have — by hook or by crook or divine intervention — done it.

As a reporter, I crave drama. An alien-like, possibly-constantly-inebriated Teresa Heinz Kerry would have provided much more fodder than the sort of charming Laura Bush. The only thing Laura had was a smoking habit. Other than that, she was pretty normal.

And Franken has a lot of trouble keeping his mouth in check. My husband profiled him years ago for a magazine and Franken provided a list of friends for references. They said he was very talented as a comedian but was a rather disagreeable and rude human being. When your friends say such things about you, you’re bound to have some awesome blow-ups on the Senate floor with adversaries, no? Franken is known for calling reporters and yelling at them over how he’s portrayed. Which is going to be so much fun for the press corps.

I know, I know, the Senate needs another Democrat about as much as Paula Abdul needs more barbiturates. But having one Al Franken is like having 10 normally bad politicians. And as a libertarian, I’m looking for an efficient way to demonstrate that politicians aren’t looking out for our best interests and should probably be handcuffed shortly after taking their oaths of office.

Anyway, this new era in Washington is looking a lot like other eras, (cough, Bill Richardson, sold Senate seats, cough) but that’s just fine.  Or maybe this time it will be different, with Obama at the helm! Unlike all the other politicians who for decades have promised to "change Washington’s way of doing business," he actually means it. He dreamily gazed right into our very souls when he said he’d never hurt us, at least according to the Washington Post.

In the New York Times’ ever-reaching series on how the recession is "really hitting home" (as in 17-year-old girls not being able to have their weekly private Pilates lesson) the latest installment looks at how much more difficult divorce can be during an economic crisis:

In a normal economy, couples typically build equity in their homes, then divide that equity in a divorce, either after selling the house or with one partner buying out the other’s share. But after the recent boom-and-bust cycle, more couples own houses that neither spouse can afford to maintain, and that they cannot sell for what they owe. For couples already under stress, the family home has become a toxic asset.

"It’s much harder to move on with their lives," said Alton L. Abramowitz, a partner in the New York firm Mayerson Stutman Abramowitz Royer."

Wait? It being more difficult to divorce is a bad thing? With divorce rates being significantly higher (though not quite as high as the oft-quoted 50 percent) than the last time there was a recession, call me crazy, but I think any other obstacle to divorce is actually a good thing. Combine that with the housing crisis, and you might actually have people thinking twice about buying a home they can’t afford or marrying someone they’re not in love with. For being a single girl living in New York City, it might be a little Pollyanna-ish for me to say this, but when I marry, it’s going to be forever, and when I buy a house it’s going to be something I can pay off before I die.

I read an article in Britain’s Daily Mail (my guilty pleasure, as you know) the other day about the use of pink in marketing to little girls.

Experts claim a ‘pink plague’ on the High Street is deliberately widening the gap between the sexes by putting undue pressure on youngsters to conform to traditional roles.

Many are becoming ‘hooked on the girl colour’ from a young age and are being duped into buying products that encourage them to grow up too quickly, such as lip-glosses and Playboy pencil cases.

As a result, young girls are discouraged from thinking for themselves or rebelling against the ‘princess role’, according to Sue Palmer, a literacy consultant and author of Toxic Childhood.

 

Ah, another expert. I hate these damn experts.

What was your favorite color when you were little? Mine was turquoise. Most of my friends preferred colors like red or purple to pink, and the only pink we had was Barbie stuff. Yet now more than 20 years later, I have a laptop, cowboy boots and iPod all in a matching shade of hot pink; and my cultured pearls, digital camera and BlackBerry are all the same shade of pale pink. Go figure.

My obsession with pink started about four years ago, a little after the birth of my blog. It began ironically, as a testament to mock femininity, with a pink address book I kept my girlfriends’ contact details in. Now I love the color. Prior to that I wasn’t into pink at all. I wasn’t repelled by it, but I wasn’t into it.

Is this proliferation of pink really a ploy by The Patriarchy™ to keep little girls down, or is it just a fad that will pass in a few years?

Jerks get girls.  This deeply regrettable morsel of conventional wisdom is true.  It is likely, however, that the lesson that men often draw from it – that it pays to be a jerk in the dating market – is false.  How can these apparently contradictory claims be simultaneously correct?  The answer, dear reader, lies in a deep, dark secret harbored by nerdy statisticians who hope to offset their lack of fashion sense with superior analytical ability.  This answer is: selection bias.

To better understand the concept of “selection bias” (and therefore to hone your dating strategy) consider the case of rude computer programmers.  An ex-boyfriend of mine is a technology entrepreneur, and he regaled me with tales of an extraordinarily rude computer programmer of his acquaintance.  This man yelled at everyone.  He spit on the floor, even in rooms with carpeting.  He once threw a whiteboard eraser at his CEO.  And yet, he was universally hailed as the most outstanding programmer in his field.

Unsurprisingly but regrettably, he started a trend.  “Difficult” was thought to be a synonym for “talented” among hungry pretenders to our gifted miscreant’s throne.  They carefully cultivated his vices.  And yet, most of them failed to attain his acclaim.  Instead, they unnecessarily disadvantaged themselves by earning enemies along their erroneous detour to success.  The reason?  They mistook correlation for causation.  That is, they thought:  he is such a jerk and so successful!  If I become a jerk, I too will be successful.

But oafish behavior did not cause our miscreant coder’s success.  Rather, he paid a professional price for his misanthropy.  He was just so talented otherwise that he could easily afford to pay that price.

So it is, I believe, with most jerks that get girls.  It is unfortunately the case that romantically attractive qualities are not evenly distributed among men, nor are they distributed according to virtue (although virtue itself, this analysis thankfully permits, is one among many romantically attractive qualities that can be intentionally cultivated).  Romantically successful jerks – like rude computer programmers – are not romantically successful because they are jerks.  Rather, they have other attractive qualities – often bravery, charisma, looks, or talent – which allow them to indulge in the costly habit of being cads and a**-hats while still garnering adequate feminine attention.  More plainly: the set of men who choose to be oafish in the dating market is disproportionately composed of men so otherwise gifted that they can afford to pay a romantic price for their lack of chivalry and still come out ahead of most competitors.  This is selection bias.

It is impossible to say for sure how much of the perplexing phenomenon of jerks-getting-girls can be explained by selection bias, but it surely plays a role.  And conservatives should be encouraged by this explanation for two reasons.  First, the selection bias explanation does not demean women’s psychologies as do pernicious theories that depend on claims that women love jerky behavior or are attracted to abuse.  Second, if selection bias explains most or all of the observed phenomenon of jerks-getting-girls, then no individual man need be tempted to become a jerk, as he will not increase his options through caddish behavior!  That seems like grounds for a New Year’s resolution.

Why do feuding women make good entertainment? In the soon-to-be released movie Bride Wars Kate Hudson and Ann Hathaway are purportedly lifelong best friends, but when a mix up results in their weddings scheduled for the same day, they turn into mortal enemies hell-bent on ruining the others’ big day.

The movie is ostensibly a comedy. But is watching two intelligent, grown women being verbally abusive and playing nasty tricks on one another actually funny? No. It’s tragic. You would never see men ripping tuxedos from each others’ hands and dying each others’ skin an unfortunate shade of self-tanned orange. True friendship, like marriage, means supporting one another, overcoming petty jealousies and being there through sickness and health. But Hudson and Hathaway make it seem like weddings are worth throwing all of that to the birds. I’d hate to make a bet on their chances of getting divorced.

Weddings are stressful, I know – I planned TWO destination weddings to satiate both my family and my husband’s. But never was I willing to chuck a friendship over the stress of it. I wasn’t upset when one close friend chose to have her wedding a week before ours, and another not-so-close friend chose to have her wedding the day after ours. We’re all still friends.

Coming from Hollywood, Bride Wars more than likely has a let-bygones-be-bygones happy ending. But the end doesn’t justify the means. Losing lifelong friendships for any reason is never a good thing. Ever.

I got a few laughs out Nancy Morgan’s "Top Idiots of the Week."

A Swedish man’s attempt to impress his date went horribly awry, as he ended up lighting himself on fire and going into shock. His date said,  "Don’t ask me what the point of the trick was supposed to be."

…a 27 year-old Deltona woman…didn’t feel like making love with her husband and made her feelings known by biting her husband’s schvanschtooker. She was arrested and charged with misdemeanor battery. No word on her husband’s schvanschtooker.

…mental note: use the word "schvanschtooker" as frequently as possible….

The idiots who decided to hold a sex-fest on ‘International Orgasm Day’ in order to promote world peace. Unfortunately, they had to cancel the event after receiving numerous threats.
 

Every year I make a list of the best things I’ve read and said and seen in the year just past. It’s only two days into 2009 and I’m already convinced I’ve read one of the five best things I’ll read this year: Luca Turin and Tania Sanchez’s Perfumes: The Guide.

Like certain fragrances, this book aims to be not merely authoritative but beautiful. It is wistful, evocative, hilarious (flip through looking for the one-star reviews if you don’t believe me), and partisan. Its prose is exquisite: One masculine is

a disastrously beautiful boy who turns every head in the street, even if his hair is overgrown, his grubby clothes fit badly, and . . . he breaks more hearts running out innocently to buy milk than we ordinary mortals manage to bruise in a callous lifetime . . . . I smelled it for the first time on a woman and it caught my heart the way a stray branch in the woods catches the sleeve of your sweater, and I realized I loved it because of the pitch in my voice when I asked for its name.

(link)

Turin provides the male romantic perspective, while Sanchez provides a bracing, cheerfully cynical feminine worldview. He is the swoop and swoon of cobbled French streets filled with Caribbean rootlore; she is the wry memories of Strawberry Shortcake dolls and high-school hallway trench warfare. He is European to his core; she is an American who unashamedly uses terms of praise like "trashy," "sleazy," "garbagey," and even, memorably, "dirty male underwear."

This is a ridiculous, invaluable book, filled with "mutant mimosas," "flesh-eating Barbies," perfumes with "opening credits" and suspenseful plots. I could not love this book more unless it came scratch-and-sniff.

Is there a feminist understanding, give or take degree of radicalism, of the conflict in Gaza? Does feminism mean being pro-Palestinian, that is, "search[ing] for the voices of women, for the organizations where women, and specifically Palestinian women, are leaders and speakers"? Does a feminist have to react to violence in the Middle East by recommending books by Edward Said? Does the fact that a situation affects men and women differently make it "gendered" and thus "a feminist issue"?

Without bringing up the oft-repeated discussion of how things are for women in Israel versus in neighboring countries, let me first get it out of the way that I a) consider myself a Zionist and a feminist, b) am for a two-state solution, and c) think what’s going on in Israel and Gaza is tragic for all involved, something that, yes, Jews understand. My question here is not whether you, readers, prefer the Israelis or the Palestinians, which side you think more mean-spirited than the other. (Because discussions on this topic often disintegrate into something along those lines.) It’s whether there’s any advantage to framing the conflict as a) more about women than men (a "feminist issue"), and b) to placing feminism (defined, it seems, as women’s interests) definitively on one side or the other.

Conor petitions the universe for non-fail-based arguments against gay marriage; Joe Carter gets his dandy dander up; the world keeps spinning on its axis. They’re two very smart writers, but this gag’s got whiskers on it.

I can’t revolutionize the debate over gay marriage in one post (only Eve Tushnet can do that), but there’s one thing I wish supporters of same-sex marriage understood better: You can change the institution of marriage without changing its definition. In other words: There are things that logically follow from the extension of marriage to gay couples, things that follow from the plain and literal fact that both parties are the same gender. There are also changes that gay marriage is likely to bring about, things that follow from the integration of gay culture into the institution. To focus merely on the former effects is equivalent to reading a poem exclusively for its literal meaning.

I suspect that I will sound less crazy if I preface further explanation with this analogy to welfare reform. (That sentence did not sound helpful, but trust that it is.) In a perfect world, charity would be handled by private institutions; liberals point out that some people fall through the cracks in such a system, so we might as well supplement private assistance with public aid. The next step in the debate is the important one: Liberals, thinking literally, say that there’s no reason why government welfare can’t exist alongside private charity; conservatives understand that, when organic institutions stop being a necessary source of public services, they wither. Public welfare does not forbid private aid, but it does prevent it.

In much the same way, the integration of gay couples into "marriage" does not forbid strong and healthy heterosexual unions; that doesn’t mean it won’t affect them. Joe got into trouble (if nasty comments can be called troublesome) for pointing out that gay culture has a different understanding of monogamy than his own. Inasmuch as Joe was not saying that all gay men are profligates and hustlers, this reaction was unfair. The fact that two men will never produce a burdensome pregnancy no matter what they do to each other doesn’t logically imply that gay culture will value sexual exclusivity less than heterosexual culture; it helps, though. Similarly, I can imagine a family in which a single mom instructs her young son in manly virtue, but it hardly ever works out that way; a son seems to need a father, not because logic says so but because human nature does.  In Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, John Boswell notes a persistent association between urban environments and gay-friendly ones; obviously he doesn’t mean that tall buildings make you gay.

When a blogger compares SSM and interracial marriage or polygamy, it usually means that he’s caught up in the logical consequences of gay marriage: "If we cede this ground, will it inhibit my ability to make other arguments?" That stuff is important, but other questions are important, too: Will gay marriage reinforce the modern fiction that gender doesn’t matter? Will it inhibit society’s ability to shame breeder couples into growing up and tying the knot instead of persisting in ad hoc, temporary, and conditional cohabitation? Will it emphasize the privileges of marriage at the expense of its responsibilities (i.e. the breadwinner’s responsibility to earn enough not just for himself but for the whole family, the responsibility of both parties not simply to love each other but to stay faithful to one another, etc.)? Perhaps the answer to all three is "Maybe not necessarily, but nevertheless inevitably." I’m not necessarily (ha) making any of those three arguments right now; all I’m asking for is some indication from pro-SSM pundits that those kinds of consequences matter to them as much as logical ones.

^{*I realize that the difference between analyzing the traditions of gay culture and trading in stereotypes about gay men is slippery indeed. By all means, throw out the bathwater. Keep the baby.}

Mollie got me thinking about the the "great message" found within Beyonce’s latest hit, "Single Ladies." The simple lyrics were stuck in my head most of New Years Eve night (to the annoyance of friends, as I insisted on singing them aloud.) The song reinforces the basic and healthy idea of marriage. "If you liked then you should’ve put a ring on it" plainly tells guys to step it up and make it official in due time. It’s a traditional idea and one that most women have a hard time holding to. The strong, independent woman doesn’t stand around waiting — right? She shouldn’t but she does. Beyonce sings, "cause you had our turn and now you gonna learn how it feels to miss me." But how many women have the strength to walk away from love? It seems like good, common sense but it would take strength and character, if you ask me. 

The song works coming from Beyonce, who recently married longtime boyfriend Jay-Z. In a recent interview on Oprah, Beyonce was discreet discussing her own marriage. Her discretion, I think, demonstrates respect for the sacred union that is marriage. It may also be the key the a lasting celebrity marriage. Maybe Beyonce told Jay-Z (after five years) he’d better put a ring on it  — or else. Strong women are everywhere but when it comes to relationships, I’ve seen the strongest wither to nothing. The harsh truth is this: if a man really wants you, he won’t let you go. Remember how we are always told how uncomplicated they are? It’s true. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of strength to give that test.

Do you want to eliminate your credit card debt? Build up some savings? Buy a house? Max out your IRA?

Whatever it is, creating a budget will help. With a name like Penny, you can probably guess that I have a monthly budget which I track down to the cent.

I have a set budget each month which accounts for fixed costs (e.g., rent) and semi-fixed costs (items which fluctuate but in a predictable way such as utilities). I then breakdown my spending habits into categories, such a clothing, dogs, education, fitness, etc…

I’ve been calculating a personal budget for years, so I have a good idea how much I spend on each category. However, when I first started this system I tracked my expenses for two months averaged the cost and subtracted 10% from each amount. That amount became my budget for each category.

From the remaining amount, I calculate the maximum I can contribute to my 401k (hooray for company matches!), put into a savings account, or make as regular contributions to my Roth IRA. I set to have these savings contributions come directly out of my paycheck so I am never tempted to spend what I should be saving.

 Over the year, I carefully track how much I spend in each category. When I stay under budget, the leftover goes into a vacation/special treat fund. If I go over my budget, I take that amount out of the vacation/special treat fund.

 There are a variety of online budget tools such as Buxfer, Expensr, and Mint (all free!) but I use mostly cash and prefer my spreadsheet because of the ability to customize my categories and for privacy reasons.

A good premade monthly budget spreadsheet is available from Real Simple and the Windows Excel Templates is another good place to look for free budget templates to download. Using a template as your guide, you can create your own with categories that reflect what you spend your money on.

So, what are your financial goals and resolutions for 2009? I aim to save $400 by packing my lunch at least twice a week.

So what’s in store for 2009? We now move into a new era, with a historic presidency, a hard-pressed economy and Americans trying hard to balance culturally conservative values with political solutions. It has been an impressive year for women with Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin confidently entering into the limelight. Both women sparked hot blogging conversation for months. What will the headlines reveal in the next 12 months and what do culture-making women think will happen in 2009? We’ve got your political and cultural predictions:

Cassy Fiano (blogger): By this time next year, over half of the people who voted for Barack Obama will have severe buyer’s remorse.

Amanda Carpenter (political reporter): KFed hits Britney Spears up for more child support. Rielle Hunters hits up John Edwards for the same.

Michelle Malkin (columnist and blogger): Michelle Obama will say something obnoxious and conservatives who dare to criticize her will be accused of racism/sexism. A trillion-dollar stimulus plan will pass with bipartisan support and will — like every other government intervention over the last year — fail to "rescue" America from economic pain.

Elizabeth Terrell (online media): The hobo/grunge look will begin to re-emerge. Saul Anuzis will win the RNC Chair race.

Michelle Oddis (columnist): Blagojevich is forced cut his hair in jail. Starbucks starts serving Irish coffee to boost sales.

Krystle Weeks (blogger): More bailouts to come. Britney Spears makes a comeback.

Melissa Clouthier (blogger): A very weak economy. Higher crime. Higher birth rate to those who don’t have enough money.

Heather McMahon (Trial Clerk with the US Tax Court):There will be a reality show about online dating. Spying and tensions even among supposed allied nations will increase.

Amie Steffen (freelance writer): Iowa will legalize gay marriage (already in the Iowa Supreme Court, and a lower court affirmed the decision), the country will fall deeper into a recession but new policies will begin to reverse the trend, and I think the Midwest will see record flooding and crazy weather again this summer.

Katie Favazza (new media consultant): Dead-tree media–print newspapers and magazines — will die hard.Ted Kennedy will cap his four-and-a-half decade career in the U.S. Senate with one last stand for universal health care. The bill will be named after him, he’ll give a history speech on the floor of the Senate about his own medical experiences–particularly over the last year–and America just might embrace socialism like never before in her history. Heidi and Spencer will get divorced.

SE Cupp (columist): Chicago caves under public pressure to reform corrupt government, installing Oprah as Governor and Jerry Springer as her lieutenant. Obama’s historic inauguration gala is huge and larger-than-life success. The internationally-watched event pulls out all the stops with spectacular fireworks, eight course gourmet dinners, five-star entertainment, Hollywood celebrities, and the kind of over-the-top hospitality the Obamas have become famous for. Unrelatedly, national debt soars to unprecedented heights during same week. Leno, Letterman, Conan and SNL writers start petition to bring Bush back when they discover Obama administration "not that funny."

Actually, no I don’t. I try not to buy into the idea of New Year’s resolutions, because life is too important for one to save up all one’s big decisions for one day of the year. Sure there are things about me I want to improve and change, and I certainly hope for a better year than I had in 2008. But I’m not going to bust my ass coming up with a list of goals by midnight tonight. When something needs changing, I change it.

For example, on an idle Thursday in February I may decide I need to lose 10lbs (I need to lose that about 8 times over, but bear with me). Should I wait another 10 months before doing anything about it? Hell no! I will get up off the couch on that idle Thursday and take a walk. If I am in a bad relationship in June, do I wait till December 31 to get out of it? No. Life really doesn’t work that way.

While I appreciate the whole "out with the old, in with the new" sentiment around the flipping of the calendar, it just isn’t feasible and can lead to disappointment. Don’t put all your hopes into one silly day. Make positive changes to your life throughout the year. It makes more sense to just enjoy being with friends and family on New Year’s Eve, and forget about the silly promises that will break the moment the champagne hangover sets in.

Enjoy the party, and have a good year. And if January 1 isn’t a good day, remember there’s always a tomorrow.

I have been watching Beyonce’s "Single Ladies" video, uh, . . . a lot. Ever since my friend Jordan introduced me to the video a few months ago, I’ve been practicing the dance moves and watching everyone and their dog imitate the choreography on YouTube. Here’s Justin Timberlake spoofing it — in a leotard. Here’s hands down the best imitation I’ve seen. Here’s a link to a slowed-down version of the video so you can learn it more easily.

The song is catchy as heck and has a great message missing from most pop hits ("If you liked it then you should’ve put a ring on it") but clearly what’s winning people over is the choreography. The makers of the video had so much confidence in the dance moves that they filmed it in black and white against a plain background. All you get is amazing dancing that is taking the world by storm.

There was a prescient New York Times story in September 2007 dealing with the importance of choreography:

As any good choreographer for pop stars would tell you, the Devil is in the details: a funky hip thrust or a confident stroll across the stage.

“The world is not into hearing,” said Frank Gatson Jr., a choreographer for singers including Usher and Beyoncé. Referring to the recent “Beyoncé: B’day Anthology Video Album,” on which he worked, he added, “If she does it the right way, people won’t say, ‘Have you heard Beyoncé’s new music?,’ but ‘Have you seen the new Beyoncé?’ ”

Mission accomplished. So what’s the story behind the dance moves? Turns out Gatson brought in someone to choreograph the latest video. He’s 19 years old. And what have you done with your life? Anyway, the wunderkind is Jaquel Knight and you can catch his choreography reel here. I think he has a future ahead of him.

The Single Ladies moves weren’t invented out of whole cloth by Knight. He came to LA from Atlanta where the style of dance popularized by the video is huge. It’s called J-setting and is done primarily in black gay clubs, according to Southern Voice, which is one of the very best, if not the best, gay newspapers in the country.

But the moves are inspired, according to the Southern Voice by black college dance troupes and majorette routines. Give it up ladies. Rewatching the video with this in mind gives a completely new perspective.

Of course, Beyonce herself says the video was inspired not by J-setting or majorette routines but by Bob Fosse, the famed Broadway choreographer. This is the YouTube clip she says inspired the video. It’s a Fosse routine synched up with Unk’s "Walk It Out." It’s pretty obvious that, as with all dance inspirations, Bob Fosse can even lay claim to "Single Ladies." Here’s the original Fosse routine led by Gwen Verdon. Get your 60s on.