Forgive me for injecting this note of sadness, but I'm mourning the death today of my friend Eden Ross Lipson. Eden was for a long while the children's book editor of the New York Times. I knew her after she retired. She e-mailed me one day a few years ago about a piece I wrote on reading books to boys that are usually given to girls, like Little House in the Big Woods. I'd just started writing about kids and motherhood, and I felt the opposite of confident about whether I had much to say worth hearing. Eden's brisk e-mail made smarter points than mine. But she didn't point that out. She offered suggestions for the next piece, the best kind of deft encouragement. From then on, she wrote when she wanted to tell me I'd gotten a children's book right, or when I'd gotten it wrong. She suggested topics. She became my literary fairy godmother.

I met Eden in person last summer, when I went to consult with her about the germ of an idea that has turned into the new website we launched today. Eden gave me peach tea, if I remember right, shooed her husband off on a walk, and reeled off the names of potential reviewers and contributors. To my delight, she said yes when I asked if she might herself contribute to the new site. Oh yes, she wanted to write about lost books—the ones that go out of print or fall out of favor but shouldn't. "Here are four that come to mind," she wrote in a follow-up e-mail. She continued:

"Tell Me a Mitzi by Lore Segal—a splendid picture book about childhood incident and ritual story telling with strange, haunting illustrations.

The Doll's House by Rumer Godden—a post World War II children's novel about the arbitrary but abiding nature of a family... in this case the dolls who get to live in a restored doll's house. The plain, simple farthing doll embodies courage and bravery, another is both beautiful and evil.

The Home-Maker by Dorothy Canfield Fisher—an old-fashioned, but always timely, "women's novel" about stereotyped role playing in marriage. The first chapters capture the frenzy and despair of a stay-at-home wife who should be out at work brilliantly.

The American Table by Ronald Johnson—a truly great cookbook published in 1983 by a man better known in another world as an outstanding American poet. (On the basis of a tribute at Poets House in New York in 2006 I think it's fair to say the poets don't know he wrote cookbooks, the cooks have never read the poetry.) The hundreds of recipes from all over the country are deceptively simple and easy and charmingly sourced, collected from old ladies, pamphlets, friends and traditions. The Shaker vegetables are a special treat. He wrote four other cookbooks, all worth having nearby."

I am so sorry that I won't get to read those pieces. Eden took children's books as seriously as they are meant to be taken. If we are very lucky, and at our very best, that spirit will infuse Double X. And still I will miss her.

Tags: Eden Ross Lipson; children's books

The announcement that Gen. David McKiernan is being removed from command of NATO forces in Afghanistan—apparently the first firing of a U.S. commander in a theater of war since Korea—is a very big deal. But what does it actually mean? One thing it means is that the dust has yet to settle in the transition to a new U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, which suggests that any fruits of that strategy remain distant. Laid out in a white paper this spring, the new strategy stems from a wholesale rethinking of our approach that has been underway at least since Gen. David Petraeus took the helm at CentCom last fall. It includes, but isn’t limited to, the decision to deploy some 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan, increase the number of civilian advisors and quicken the training of Afghan National Army cadets and police officers. Among its more controversial aspects are initiatives like one underway in Wardak Province, near Kabul, to arm local militias to fight the Taliban in a sort of wannabe “Anbar Awakening”, and various under-the-radar attempts to negotiate with the elements of the Taliban and its collaborators known in military and think tank jargon as “reconcilables.”

In announcing McKiernan’s firing, Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke of his “long and distinguished” service and said that “nothing went wrong, nothing specific” to necessitate his removal. The consensus seems to be that McKiernan, who oversaw the ground invasion of Iraq in 2003, was too conventional a thinker to lead U.S. and international forces during this next and as yet mostly imaginary phase of the war in Afghanistan. It isn’t simply, as Brookings’ Michael O’Hanlon notes, that “McKiernan did a good job, but they need someone they think can do an excellent job.” It’s more that they need—or think they need—a commander who thinks like one of those bearded guys in street clothes who tend to be both more politically thoughtful in their conversations with locals and more targeted in their assaults than conventional forces. The choice of Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal as McKiernan’s replacement confirms this. McChrystal headed the Joint Special Operations Command in Iraq, and Bob Woodward credits his use of so-called “collaborative warfare” with a key role in the success of the surge in Iraq.

Afghanistan has always been an unconventional battlefield, and some of the military’s greatest successes there have been a result of the comparatively delicate work of well-deployed Special Operations teams. But even if you think a more nuanced approach would work better, you might sympathize with the difficulties McKiernan faced in what has so far been a profoundly under-resourced fight. The awkwardness of waging an unconventional war with thousands of soldiers trained primarily to “close with and destroy the enemy”—even when it’s unclear who the enemy is—was perhaps best articulated in a tactical directive McKiernan issued this winter to all 58,000 NATO troops under his command, including some 26,000 Americans. Following several air strikes that killed Afghan civilians and angered many, the directive advised soldiers that:

We must clearly apply and demonstrate proportionality, requisite restraint, and the utmost discrimination in our application of firepower. No one seeks or intends to constrain the inherent right of self defense to every member of the [NATO] force. However, commanders must focus upon the principles which attach to every use of force – be that self defense or offensive fires. Good tactical judgment, necessity, and proportionality are to drive every action and engagement; minimizing civilian casualties is of paramount importance.

To some this may seem like common sense, but it should be noted that a directive like this would have been unthinkable in Afghanistan a few years ago. If you’ve ever hung around soldiers, you can imagine that some grumbling ensued, as well as a measure of genuine confusion. No one seeks or intends to constrain the inherent right of self defense to every member of the force. To me, it sounded as if McKiernan were saying, “if at all possible, don’t shoot.” For conventional soldiers trained and acculturated the way ours currently are, this is very strange advice. It’s indisputable that you fight with the army you have, but I for one don’t envy McKiernan or his replacement the task of transforming that army into a more nuanced, Special Ops-type institution, and fast. Fewer shots from the air would certainly calm Afghans on the ground. But the very prospect makes infantrymen nervous as hell.

Tags: afghanistan, David Petr, Defense, General David McKiernan, NATO, Robert Gates

Apparently, if you launch a website for women in 2009, the most important question is whether or not it's feminist. At least, that's what you'd think, judging by today's launch of the women-oriented website you're reading. Only, the funny thing is, I thought feminism was dead. I mean, didn't we kill it already?

At best, it seems odd to judge a 21st century production by the politics of a decades-old movement, the relevance of which has been dubious for years now. The sense I get reading Jezebel's dismissive, snippy critique, which seems to amount to "you're a bunch of old farts, blppph," or Tracy Clark-Flory's more considered missive is that the only way to judge a female-oriented site is by whether or not it's "feminist." What gives? Aren't we over that already? I could have sworn feminism was cultural road kill, at this point. And isn't it intellectually reductive and culturally retarded to imply that the only site for women worth doing is one that follows an abstract set of political rules upon which no one can agree? It seems to me that "feminist" sites like the aptly-named Feministe are interested in having it both ways. They want all the power their feminist foremothers promised them—and the right to play full-time victims of the patriarchy. Get over it. Get on with it. I hope the feminist mantle doesn't fit Double X. I hope this site is bigger than that. I want to be more than a victim of the patriarchy, go farther than the feminist movement ever did, spend less time reading about women who are wondering if their supposed sisters are doing "the right thing" in terms of antiquated political concepts, and get the hell on with doing it already.

Tags: double x, feminism, Jezebel

Dear Double X fans,

As you clearly already know, today we launched our new site, www.doublex.com, a spin-off the XX factor blog in Slate. We've already gotten lots of great press and excited responses but we've also gotten one persistent complaint: People are having trouble logging on.

We hear you and we're working on it. One of the reasons we launched Double X was to hear from all of you, and get you involved in the conversation. So we are just as frustrated as you are. But please be patient and try again soon.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Emily Bazelon, Meghan O'Rourke, and Hanna Rosin

Hanna, you masterfully parse Elizabeth Edwards' public persona, but you don't really touch on the other people who might be affected by her ill-fated tale. No, I'm not talking about John. I'm talking about her children: Catharine, Emma, and Jack. When Edwards was on the Today show earlier this week, she said she wrote the revealing Resilience explicitly for her children. This morning, Tina Brown and Gloria Allred argued in front of Today's Meredith Vieira about whether or not Elizabeth's choice to speak out about her husband's affair was a good one.

Gloria was staunchly pro-Edwards. She said that Elizabeth was revealing herself "with dignity," as she had done everything else in her life. Tina was anti-Edwards. She upheld Hillary Clinton as the model of how to weather a cheating husband in public, because she barely acknowledged Bill's wandering eye. Tina described the situation as "squalid" and added "I regret that [Elizabeth] used her book to drag everyone into this."

Are you with Tina, thinking Elizabeth's young children must be damaged by their mother's public discussion of their father's philandering? Or do you side with Gloria, who believes that Elizabeth is being a good role model for her offspring by showing them that life is "complicated"?

Tags: Elizabeth Edwards, Gloria Allred, Meredith Vieira, motherhood, Resilience, Tina Brown, Today Show

I was perversely pleased to read this story in the New York Times about women bullying other women at work. A new study by the Workplace Bullying Institute—who knew such a thing existed!—reveals that men aren't the only elbow-throwers in the workplace: A full 40 percent of workplace bullies are women. Why, exactly, would this please me? Because the impish part of me is happy anytime a finding comes along that challenges stereotypical views of women as "nurturers" or "supporters"—a view that is all too common, as Peggy Klaus, an executive coach, tells the Times. For me, the upside of feminism had everything to do with making more identities possible for women, not fewer; with allowing each of to let our inner "freak flag" fly, as what's-his-name urges the uptight Sarah Jessica Parker in The Family Stone. That's not to say I think anyone should yell at her assistant today; but I do think that anything that reminds us that women hardly conform to a single type, in the workplace, at home, or in the bedroom, is a plus. That's why I never really got into difference feminism, which would have us believe that XX and XY are apples and oranges: Where men charge ahead alone, women are good co-operators. This study seems to challenge that. The downside, though? According to this study, women bullies seem to bully...other women. I'm not sure this has to do with gender so much as it has to do with power structures.

Tags: bullies, workplace

In a column today on the famous Harvard Study of Adult Development, which has followed the paths of a group of graduates from college to old age, David Brooks quotes lead researcher George Vaillant's conclusion about what matters in life: “Happiness is love. Full Stop." It's a somewhat odd conclusion since Vaillant has had three marriages (two to the same woman), and long periods of estrangement from his children. Maybe he knows how important love is because he understands how difficult finding and maintaining it can be. But I hope this is not the single message that filters out now that the original study subjects have or are coming to the point at which their files are closed. Vaillant may conclude love is the secret, but he has had a long, distinguished, fascinating career that must have helped carry him through the times when love failed. Isn't that one of the lessons of the Elizabeth Edwards saga? Yes, love is essential, but it can't be all.

Tags: Elizabeth Edwards, Harvard, life, love

Today's New York Times hosts a bloggingheads debate on breast-feeding between me and Dr. Ruth Lawrence, a researcher from from the University of Rochester and a major breast-feeding advocate. The occasion was my recent Atlantic story taking issue with the science behind some breast-feeding research. When bloggingheads found my opponent I swallowed hard. Dr. Lawrence is a longtime advocate of breast-feeding and wrote the textbook for physicians on the subject. She is also affiliated with the United States Breast-feeding Committee, which organized a letter-writing campaign that brought in nearly 1,000 complaint letters to the Atlantic about my story. I got out my sword, put on my shield, etc.

Of course it turned out she was a lovely person with a thing or two to teach my generation. I was going on and on, complaining about how hard it was for us Gen X mommies, with kids and work and gourmet dinners to cook. Then Dr. Lawrence let out a bit of personal information she said she normally doesn't reveal. She has nine children. She breast-fed them all, while working as a full time physician and researcher. So much for my "balance" issues.

Tags: breast-feeding

It's May, the month of nice weather, pretty flowers, weddings, declarations of love, pregnancies, hallucinations, fatalities, cliffhangers and shocking twists. It's the month of TV finales, wherein shows wrap up the season that came before, while providing incentives to watch the season that comes next, manipulating you into thinking "Finally!" and then "Really?!" in quick succession. House did exactly that last night with an episode stuffed with a possessed hand, a wedding, and a trip to the loony bin. Most importantly (spoiler alert), it was revealed that last week's long-awaited "Huddy sex" (that's the official term), in which Dr. House and Dr. Cuddy consummated their love-hate relationship (Finally!), was actually a hallucination (Really?!).

Ginia Bellafante, writing in the New York Times, took the mature view of this sucker punch. "Shamefully, I would have been overjoyed if the season finale had ended with House and Cuddy electing to spend the summer together in Corsica," she writes. "[Though] this would have betrayed the show's primary covenant—to keep House miserable—and entirely erased its integrity." Other House fans, not professionally required to be rational, took a less subtle position. "REALLY, SHOW?/ That was a letdown/ Whaaaa? That was lame/ WTF show?? Seriously??" were the initial comments on a message board about the episode.

In other words, the House finale was a total success. Not in spite of being enraging and disappointing and manipulative and even a little cheap (hallucinations have been a twist on House before), but explicitly because it was all of those things. Good finales don't have to be enjoyable and satisfying (nice when they are, of course), but they do have to make you yell at your television. Come September, the agitation and anger will have faded and we'll only remember that we really cared and we'll show up to see if maybe, hopefully, Huddy get together this year, preferably not just in House's imagination. Season finales are an exercise in a visceral, brute storytelling, the intent of which is to manipulate. That means that any and every cheap trick becomes acceptable and even laudable, so long as it works an audience up. (Hallucinations? Why didn't they just say it was all a dream?) So, during the coming weeks, expect to sit down on the couch and have your favorite show try to make you angry. It just wants you to care.

Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images.

Tags: House, Television

If you're reading this you already know that Double X, the new magazine from Slate Group, about "what women really think" launched today. Double X inherits a legacy of women's content that spanned decades of comfort food factories such as Ladies' Home Journal ("Can this marriage be saved?"), McCall's, and Redbook, then spawned junior versions Seventeen, Glamour, and Mademoiselle (featuring David Newman and Robert Benton's advice column, "Man Talk"), before blossoming into the original womyn's periodical, Ms. Magazine, co-founded by the glorious Gloria Steinem in 1971. The many prosaic and pugnacious periodicals with chick mastheads that followed (including, notably, Bitch) offered readers observations, news, tips, and warnings to navigate the brave new world of brave new women. Today, with the immediacy of the blog from which it grew, Double X takes publishing perspectives on how women think to its next iteration. I can't wait to watch and chime in as the newest forum comes of age.

Tags: double x, Gloria Steinem, Ms. Magazine