It became such a big deal that she was even asked about it during an interview with CNN. Hilary said:

“I feel so relieved to be at the stage I’m at in my life right now, Jill. Because you know if I want to wear my glasses I’m wearing my glasses. If I want to wear my hair back I’m pulling my hair back. You know at some point it’s just not something that deserves a lot of time and attention. And if others want to worry about it, I let them do the worrying for a change. It doesn’t drive me crazy anymore. It’s just not something I think is important anymore.”

Oh man. I get it—Hilary woke up, probably pretty jet-lagged, and decided that she would rather throw on her glasses and a little lip gloss and go to work. That’s right—the woman WORKS for a living. She’s not an actress or a model; her job isn’t to look good. Her job is to get India to stop giving money to Iran, and you know what, guys? There isn’t always time or desire for pancake makeup and eyeliner!

I saw a headline that said “Hillary Clinton ‘au natural’ is no Kate Middleton. Is that OK?” and honestly, I was baffled by that. Kate Middleton just turned 30 years old and is a duchess. It’s her damn job to look the part of a duchess, right? Hillary Clinton is 64 years old and the Secretary of State of the United States … a little bit different, no?

At any rate, I’ve got to say: I think Hillary looked dang good without makeup on. She’s 64 and I wouldn’t have guessed a day over 52. Sure, she’s got some loose skin and a few wrinkles, but she appears to have a nice, even skintone, her eye glasses were very stylish, her hair is multi-tonal and was not out of place or unkempt.

Is this a discussion we really need to be having in 2012?

Breastfeeding has always been a hot button issue from the healthy benefits of it and ‘how dare you deny your child something like that’ to ‘don’t do that in public, that’s atrocious’. But this, for me, crosses a line. It’s partially Time’s fault, as they purposefully posed the picture this way. They were the ones who wanted people to be uncomfortable and angry and start talking about them. It was marketing. I get it. But that doesn’t take away the fact that it does happen. In my opinion, women are breastfeeding for far too long, the new trend is called “attachment parenting.”

There is a triad of attachment parenting: breastfeeding into the toddler stage and beyond, co-sleeping, and “baby wearing,” meaning the infant is forever attached to the mother in one of those baby slings. All of this was introduced in a book called “The Baby Book” by Dr. Sears. Dr. Sears says, ” … the more time babies spend in their mothers’ arms, the better the chances they will turn out to be well-adjusted children,” and that “every baby’s whimper is a plea for help and that no infant should ever be left to cry.”

That does make some sense. But dude, babies cry … and they cry because they don’t know how to communicate so sighs and moans and screams is how they talk, too. It is not a “plea for help” all the time … that’s a bit much.

I’m going to get a little personal here: when I was younger, my mother rocked me to sleep and her best friend told her “don’t do that, trust me—that baby will have issues leaving you,” to which my mother replied “this is my last baby and I’ll do what I want.” That best friend was Nancy Sayles Kaneshiro, who went on to write a baby book called Baby: An Owner’s Manual and sure enough, I’m in a chapter. I did grow up to have severe separation anxiety from my mother, and I also much preferred sleeping in her bed instead of mine. When my parents divorced, I moved into my mother’s room, where I stayed for months. Even now, in my late 20’s, I am ridiculously attached to my mother. If I have a bad day, I call and yell to her because she’s the closest thing to me. I often find myself worried at the thought that one day she won’t be just a phone call away. Now, I don’t know if that’s because she rocked me, or if she …

… just spoiled me, but there is something to be said about mothers that make their children rely on themselves. I grew up very quickly and have always been a tough kid, but like I said, whenever something goes wrong to this day, I call my Mommy and there’s always that feeling in the pit of my stomach that she’ll be able to fix it (even though 99% of the time she’s totally useless in said situations).

But what is the other option? It’s the “let them cry” approach. I have a very hard time hearing a baby cry because I’m a human, but I also know that sometimes they just need to cry it out and know that crying does not fix anything. No one will come running to save you just because you cry … but I get it. Sometimes you need a good cry.

According to Sears, this approach has “harmful neurologic effects that may have permanent …

… implications on the development of sections of their brain.” Sears cites a number of academic studies to back up his point. But in looking at the research, there is no evidence that bouts of crying associated with sleep training affect brain development. Several papers Sears cites involved studies of rats. At least one looked at babies who suffered from cases of severe neglect or trauma, so yeah, that particular kid is probably not going to sleep well. The science to back up this claim just isn’t there yet. But you know moms and no one can tell them how to parent their kids once they make their mind up about it.

The problem with attachment parenting is that it is literally 24/7 parenting. You are your baby’s possession until … well I don’t even know when. Forever, I’d assume. If you’re a stay-at-home mom, that’s awesome and you can be at your baby’s beck and call, but if you’re a single mom? Forget it. This just isn’t an option for you. And to say that good kids don’t come from single parents is ludicrous—just look at me.

Mayim Bialik (aka “Blossom”) wrote a book about attachment parenting and she insisted, in a recent New York Times piece, that it is a feminist philosophy for motherhood. Her argument about breastmilk and hormones and women’s bodies definitely had some logical points:

We believe that breast milk is biologically and nutritionally superior to anything formula manufacturers tell you is equal to it, and that sleeping next to your baby releases positive hormones that facilitate bonding … Now tell me how attachment parenting is inconsistent with feminism?

She’s right, breast milk is better (pending the mother took care of herself), but does that mean they should have it when they are clearly old enough to eat solid food? Isn’t organics good enough for your toddler? Yeah, I get that it’s feminism in a way, since your milk is way superior to anything man can make, and it comes your body blah blah blah. But that brings us back to the age old “is feminism oppression for men”? Are men less of a parent because they can’t breastfeed until the kid is in middle school?

Dr. Sears also has flawed opinions. In his first book he said if women went back to work, they damaged the child. Now he says:

“… suggest mothers quit their jobs and borrow money to make up the difference. [One couple] couple subsidized their sons’ wives so they could stay home with the Sears grandchildren.”

Well, we don’t all come from best-selling baby book author families so “borrowing money” isn’t really an option for everyone. I also find it very anti-feminist to be told I need to stay at home and beg for money or I’m a bad mother. My mother worked her butt off, supported two kids, and I had no idea we weren’t rich until I was in my late teens. That, my friend, is a feminist bad-ass mama.

The bottom line is that good mothering is feminism. It takes a tough woman to be a good mom, it takes a smart, selfless, caring, unbelievable woman to be a good mother. I don’t care if you do attachment method, or if you do “cry it out”—if you’re doing it because you believe that is the best for your kid and you will do anything to make sure that child gets the best, is happy, healthy, and succeeds, then damn it, you’re a feminist.

And, for that, we can blame feminism — a movement that, while liberating women to follow their dreams, devalued marriage and the familial and societal benefits of homemaking and encouraged self-indulgence.

She also says, “the present feminist climate pressures women to work. We should question why so many of us are working — single and married women alike. Is it because we bought the feminist lie that we don’t need a husband? Is it because we want to prove to the world that we are worth something? Or is it to live in a ritzy neighborhood and drive an Audi Q7?”

So that’s it, I’m putting my foot down and I’m initiating a new feminist movement. I get it—for a while, feminists were very “anti-marriage” and all that nonsense, but in 2012 can women still not make up her own mind? No one is saying you don’t need a husband, or that you’re only worth something if you work … so come on! Just knock it off!

That’s why I like Zelda Lily’s tagline of “Feminism in a Bra.” You don’t have to be an extremist, because most feminists are not terrorists. Yes, there was a time where things were really bad for women, and there are still areas that need significant improvement today. Yes, we were treated as second-class citizens, worse than cattle at times, but those times have changed and I feel like the feminist movement has changed along with it. But those who weren’t with the movement for some reason think we’re in the process of still fighting the same fight that started in the 60’s.

NO. We are modern feminists, and I’ve stated many times in many articles that being a mother, let alone a full-time one, is the hardest job I could ever imagine. So while these women are pointing the finger at feminists, saying they are attacking them for their decisions, do they not realize that they are pointing three fingers back at themselves?

Look, I think this new feminist movement that I am going to start is going to have this at its core:

1. Do what makes you happy as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.

Alright, ladies … who’s with me?

Amanda Seyfried, who plays Boreman/Lovelace, is shown in a traditionally alluring pose with her head angled at the camera, eyes come-hithery, a hint of cleavage, and her red lace bra strap and lace shawl falling off her bare shoulder. Light bounces off her brunette tangle, as if her halo slipped. Most egregiously, given the subject matter of “Deep Throat,” her plump pink lips are parted, though mercifully not in an “O.” The tagline “X marks the legend” is not reassuring.

It is your basic sexist movie ad, and there are have been far worse, but surely in this day and age a movie about the experiences of such a brutalized woman as Boreman daren’t suggest it can be sexy and amusing?

Well, it’s a movie about porn, so a sexy pose would be relevant to the topic, right? Furthermore, the sentence, “about the experiences of such a brutalized woman as Boreman daren’t suggest it can be be sexy and amusing,” I would have to answer this question with a resounding “No, it can’t be.” Of course a story about the horrors that Susan Boreman/Linda Lovelace endured can’t be portrayed as sexy or amusing. Gosh, what are we, barbarians?

This is not an empowering porn story, nor is it porn girl makes good. This is a story about a woman who gave so much power to men that she allowed them to run her life. The backstory is that while Susan Boreman was recovering from a car accident at her parents’ home, she met Chuck Traynor. Traynor convinced Boreman to move to New York and get into porn where she became known as Linda Lovelace. Susan, now Linda, started out performing in short “loop” films, did a bestiality film, and eventually did the porn film ‘Deep Throat’, which coined her as a bona fide porn actress.

The reason she’s famous is that Deep Throat went mainstream, even receiving a review in the New York Times. She’s also famed for performing the title act, having a fully shaved pubic area, and engaging in anal sex—all of which was very rare and taboo in porn at the time. She eventually left porn after producer/choreographer David Winters convinced her to, and once again, another man made her decisions for her. She eventually joined the feminist “anti-porn” movement, which wasn’t all that surprising, ultimately, considering the issues she’d had.

Lovelace had a history of drug abuse and was clearly used and abused by men. The synopsis for the film, “LOVELACE” is as follows:

Story of Linda Lovelace, who is used and abused by the porn industry at the behest of her coercive husband, before taking control of her life.

But I would argue that every woman who entered porn in the 70’s was used and abused by the industry. Porn was not pro-women until recently. I’d say, within the last decade or so, porn has become an industry that is run by women and controlled by women. The bottom line? If you’re looking to tell a feminist story, don’t tell one about a 1970’s porn star who clearly needed help that she was not given, and if you are going to tell that story, kindly remind the audience that this girl is not a feminist icon and should not be perceived as such … even in a movie poster.

Whenever someone says to me “So and so is so hot” I always say, “Yeah, just see her without makeup.” Then I promptly send a picture of said person looking completely normal and not impossibly gorgeous, because, of course, I’ve already trolled them this way.

I do this because I sometimes feel like less of an attractive woman because I don’t contour my makeup. (I know, right?) I don’t know how to expertly apply my eyeliner, I don’t use the “right” foundation. Pores are visible. You know. So to see these women looking normal and to know that if I had the $8,000 to spend on myself like Jennifer Anniston does (yeah, that’s right she spends $8,000 A MONTH to look natural), I could probably look pretty amazing, too.

In a nutshell, though, does that mean that makeup is anti-feminist? Does a young girl who thinks her nose is too wide so she applies streaks of foundation two shades to dark down the sides of her nose, because she read in some magazine that that helps reduce the appearance of a wide nose, have Covergirl to blame for her insecurity? Are magazines and makeup and the idolization of painted up models to blame for women hating themselves? I vote no on both counts; I say it’s women who don’t spend countless hours on the internet searching for “celebrities without makeup” who are creating their own problems.

Like my co-worker said to me with regard to these very celebrities: “They’re just people,” this is so true. They’re people who have access to better makeup and people who can do a better job at applying it than me and you. Combined. Makeup is an art form and sometimes art makes people feel uncomfortable and inferior, and when that happens to you, I suggest you hop on Google and throw that term in the image search bar. Or just become a writer for a feminist website and write 439 words on how you’re not a bad person because it makes you feel better to see the world’s most beautiful women looking normal without makeup. Just stay away from Halle Berry, Beyonce, and Kate Middleton … those brats are beautiful all the time.

The reason this quote bothers me is it landed Rosen in an article in which the writer states, “I know her (Rosen) slightly — we are both frequent panelists on PBS’ all-female public affairs program, “To the Contrary” — and she’s a perfectly nice woman. But she’s also a hard-core feminist — and that’s the problem.” No, the problem isn’t that she’s a “hard-core feminist,” it’s that people perceive a personal opinion from a woman to be a blanket statement of feminism.

I recently watched Angelina Jolie, who is a mother of six, on 60 Minutes. She was asked which she liked better—making a film or being at home, and Jolie said “I prefer being at home with my children” when the interviewer said, “Many parents would kill to be out making a movie,” to which Jolie responded, “Well of course, it’s easier.” That’s right—making a major motion picture in which you have the weight of a 120 million dollar budget hanging over your head is easier than raising kids.

Where did this myth come from that being a stay-at-home mom is an easy job? First of all, kids are time-sucks. They are demanding, selfish, self-centered, all-consuming jam-handed CEOs. Say what you will, but kids rule the roost. You sleep when they sleep, you eat when they want you to eat and if you do not give them their way, watch them rain down the holy terror of tears and temper tantrums (which is a lot like some editors and CEOs I’ve worked for, hmm …). You also never get rid of them: I know two people in their 30’s that just moved back into their parents’ house. This is a lifetime job. I still call my mother (who was not a stay-at-home mom) to ruin her day because I’m in a bad mood … shameful, I know, but whatever, right? That’s my job as a kid and her role as my mother. I always call to apologize, but the fact is she is the Joan Harris to my Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce (that’s a Mad Men reference for all of you who have lives and don’t spend your days living through your TV) remains. For some reason my mother will always be the person that has all the answers, despite the fact that she lives 2,000 miles away and has never worked in the industry which I’m currently in.

Stay at home moms are amazing. The patience it takes to spend all day with kids is one trait to be admired. To say that Romney doesn’t understand the struggles of modern women just goes to show that Rosen doesn’t understand women—period. Women as a gender are generally empathetic and most mothers have a knack for putting themselves in others’ shoes and knowing how to navigate uncharted waters. They are selfless and give up their own lives and freedoms to ensure better lives for their children.

Moreover, single mothers should be admired and revered, because God knows I couldn’t do it. You can say that a stay-at-home mom doesn’t know what it’s like to be picked over for a job, or be fired, or know the stresses of having a deadline. But they do know what it’s like to be picked on and looked down upon for their choices by people like Rosen, and they know the stress of having to be responsible for another human being, knowing that every decision they make might end up being discussed ad nauseam in therapy one day. Also, they will never be fired because they will never stop working until they die. There is no retirement here, there will never be a raise, or enough thank yous. They may not know the pressure of a deadline, but they do know the pressure of being the one place that their kids feel safe and the pressure of having to protect them and be there for them even when they’re 2,000 miles away. I’d rather have the pressure of a deadline, a boss that screams at me who I can leave at the office, and the knowledge that when I’m 65, this is will all be over than to deal with the uber-responsibility of being a stay-at-home mom.

Marriage is a big thing, and like many other big things (careers, living space) , there are many reasons not to rush into it. I currently am in a similar situation. I live with my fiancee, we have two dogs, a nice little house, and about two months ago he popped the question. After some discussion, we decided that we already live like a married couple, and we both wear rings so why would spent thousands of dollars on a wedding? My best friend is still paying off debt from her $35,000 dollar wedding (which is considerably cheap seeing how I live in LA and that’s what people pay for flowers), and don’t get me wrong – it was a beautiful wedding, but I could buy a car for that amount. I could buy a new wardrobe, more dogs, a king-sized bed with the best bedding known to man and have enough leftover dough to go grocery shopping with. For a years.

The point is, if I had $35,000 to go in debt with, I wouldn’t spend it on a piece of paper. I live with my fiancee, and we share finances. If he leaves, I don’t have to pay $20,000 on a lawyer to decide what alimony he gets, I just kick him out. So for us, it just seems a bit silly, and worse, some say it’s a trend of a modern world. Everything is so enticing and on-demand that people think everything is so fleeting. Now, couples are uber aware of a high divorce rate, and that in itself is perhaps deterring them from rushing up that aisle, or, on the flip side, getting that paper puts pressure on couples to be perfect. A piece of paper does not make a relationship.

The interesting part of this trend is the fact that people are still getting engaged. See, for me, it was really nice to get that ring. It was a tangible promise from him to me. When I looked down at those three black diamonds on my finger, I know that someone loves me and is willing to commit himself to me. Maybe one day we’ll get married, maybe not. Either way, our relationship works for us and really? That’s all that matters.

In the book, Elisabeth takes issue with someone becoming a mother and then automatically taking a backseat to her own children. In my opinion, that’s what motherhood is: you start to live for your child. Having a baby is an amazing responsibility and it’s a 24/7 job, so it’s only natural that you would give all of yourself to this all-consuming being. Right? No—not according to Elisabeth Badinter.

In her book, she talks about how a working mother is looked down upon for not spending time with her children, and if they’re not there for them, there’s massive anxiety and guilt. Now, I don’t have children but I have two “fur babies” and I work a full-time job and sometimes I look at them and think, “I’m a bad pet parent to you guys, I’m never here,” so I can only imagine what it’s like to have that resonating feeling when it comes to rearing a child. Elisabeth, however, is telling women “you’re a human too, you also have needs and that’s okay.” It’s a very healthy way to look at motherhood.

Badinter’s book is telling women that you can be both a mother and a person, that you don’t have to give up everything, and that’s it’s okay to take some time for you. Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind (yes, I rely heavily on advice from 80’s songs) and that’s apparently what Elisabeth is doing with her new book. It’s a harsh wake-up call telling women that they aren’t bad parents if they take time for themselves, because in fact you’ll be a better-balanced role model for your children in the long run. Isn’t that what it’s all about in the end, anyway?

Since then, nearly 16,000 people have shared the essay on Twitter, and 374,000 people have liked it on Facebook. Hopefully, this is a step in the right direction – women standing up and saying, “I’m not just a pretty face and it’s okay to have flaws.” Guys, flaws are the interesting parts! I live in Los Angeles where almost everyone looks the same, and I find it rather refreshing to see a girl with an interesting face and a fresh take on life – someone who steps out and says “I’m a bit weird in a certain way and that’s okay.”

Other celebrities weighed in on the topic, too - ”There is so much negativity online, so even if the content on a website is positive, the community is often incredibly negative,” Zooey Deschanel, actress and cofounder of HelloGiggles.com, and poster child for hipster semi-awkward geek girls, tells Mashable. “I was always shocked by how mean people could be when they were allowed to make comments anonymously online.”

“It’s easy to hide behind a computer screen and it’s nice to see that people are coming out from behind “posting as a guest” and showing that there is still kindness and caring out there. We all have such a short time together, you would think in 2012 we would’ve learned to not waste our time on such petty negativity. I once read something that said, (and I’m paraphrasing here) “that which makes us angry is simply a reflection we see in ourselves.” So those who attacked Judd for looking “puffy” aren’t attacking Judd, they’re attacking their own insecurity and it makes them feel better to take down a successful person by bringing them down to their level. Instead of knocking someone else down, why don’t we elevate ourselves? We can all take a lesson from Judd and her strength and belief in herself.

The show follows four girls into sexual conundrums, financial woes, and the mandate to make something of themselves. There’s a common theme coming to television along with Girls; there’s 2 Broke Girls, Whitney, and The New Girl. These shows portray women in a true light, with issues, opinions, ideas, and also, as extremely capable.

Despite the fact that the creator of Two and Half Men recently said “we’ve reached labia saturation level” and “we get it ladies, you get periods” when asked what he thought about all these girl-centric shows, they haven’t gone away, and Two and a Half Men’s popularity has plummeted (we won’t even bring the topic of Ashton Kutcher into this). Me? I took this as a sign that things are changing. Gone are the days of sitcoms and series featuring all leading men, because here come the leading ladies. Girls appears to be a breath of fresh air, a step in the right direction, and yet another crack in the glass ceiling.

Are you guys watching this yet?