I'm watching a great interview from Charlie Rose last night: Gail Collins, editorial page editor of the New York Times, and author of the new book: America's Women : Four Hundred Years of Dolls, Drudges, Helpmates, and Heroines.

Her favorite story--and mine so far--is about Jamestown. The colony was begun with men only, two hundred of them: "What they produced was like a very large wilderness fraternity party--but no food," she said. "They wouldn't work, they weren't farming, they were bowling in the streets, they were drinking, they were killing each other, and the people who were sponsoring the colony decided: 'We gotta send some women over there.' "

At this point, a great big smirk settled in and she continued: "The one rule of American history is: Women's job is to make men behave. That's the most basic rule of all."

That made me smile. (And if you're not familiar, Gail is a proud feminist, intellectual and arguably one of the most successful in American history, having reached perhaps the highest position in American journalism to-date, other than Katie Graham, who married into hers. No dowdy Iowa housewife here.)

It seems so obvious, and I am amazed at the number of people--mostly liberals, I confess--unwilling in this modern age to accept this basic difference between the genders, at least when examined in large numbers.

And the biggest lesson of all, I'm afraid, which we have yet to learn, is for the homos. If we really intend to keep ghettoizing ourselves in these (mostly) all-male, all-gay monocultures, what are we going to do to control ourselves without women?

The same question haunts us when we narrow the picture down to individual relationships--or marriages, if you prefer (as I do). What do we do without a woman in the equation?

I'm not suggesting we insert a woman into a male gay marriage, much less that we continue to outlaw them, but I am suggesting that we have to recognize the ommission and do something about it.

(And on the larger, cultural, level, it's one more reason for us gayboys to go back out into the wider society now that the worst of the oppression has passed, and join the women and the breeders again.)

The lesbians must have some comparable problems without the men, but I lack the insight into that, having not experienced it. But I sure faced the distinction switching from straight relationships to gay in my thirties--and gradually from the straight world from gay.

Women, we need you! Or we need to learn from you.

Maybe every gay marriage could be assigned a female-buddy to help us sort out the mess when it overwhelms us. Is that what fag hags are for? I've never had one, I still don't completely grasp the concept.

Shit, I'm too hungry to hit all the points I really wanted to. And I'm sure half the phrases out of my mouth alarmed somebody. But there really is a lot to learn from looking at history, from looking at the results that occur every time the women are lacking. And gay guys really need to address it.

That's the issue for me, I think. This seems like the elephant in the living room of gay culture, yet I never, ever hear it discussed. I hear the example of Jamestown, and all I can think is, "Of course. Can't believe anybody was surprised. But we've kind of been building the same thing in these ghettos and . . . How come no one seems to be catching on?"

And if you thought Burton was an asshole last night, prepare yourself for the scum of all time on The Early Show:

First words out of his mouth, "For the record . . ." he wants us to know that throwing the immunity was not just his idea, everybody wanted to do it.

Here we go. Assume defensive posture!

The reason he was targeted: he was a threat. Oh brother.

And Julie Chen, least subtle interviewer ever, doesn't allow him to slit his own throat, responds with, "Too good of a player, you were?"

Fucking idiot. No person on earth is going to respond yes to that. They may be right in the process of making the point themselves--he was already starting to--but when you hear it that bluntly coming out of somebody else's mouth, it sounds way too conceited. How did she get this job?

So he makes an uncomfortable face and says, "I mean--" And that's as far as he gets. She cuts him off with another question. You idiot! Fucking newsmodel from hell!

Her question: "Do you feel betrayed . . . ?" Because Shawn turned on him, too.

Burton's response: "After watching the show last night, and after seeing Jon saying that Shawn and he were in an alliance, my guess is that at the end, Jon said to Shawn, 'Hey, we're voting Burton off, jump over to our alliance now to keep going in the game.' And anyone would have done that, no questions asked."

Huh. Interesting theory. If you accept Jon as the puppetmaster, Shawn the lemming. Those two have an alliance, but Jon gets to make the important decisions. And in this world, there are three different alliances, and Jon made the last-minute decision to join his and Shawn's (two-man alliance? they set up an alliance of just two?) with the others. Hmmmm. Sounds a pretty farfetched, but anything to avoid believing that everyone really wanted him out of there.

Julie doesn't question it, goes right on to how dislikable Jon was.

Burton thought Jon was hysterical, though "he rubbed a lot of people the wrong way."

Finally, Julie has something harsh for him.

 more more more -- click here for the rest of the rant

Head here all week for Survivor Episode 4 Comments

From Gail, on Survivor:

Watching the Morgan folks do challenges feel a lot like watching Celebrity Jeapordy on SNL, only less funny.

And an interesting question from her in the same comment:

Another question I have is why the girlfriends/wives on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy are always so atrocious, but I suppose that's another thread.

I do believe I can take a stab at that one. The guys tend to be in pretty pitiful shape. Wouldn't you wonder who would be hanging onto them?

Survivor Pearl Islands page here.

Head here all week for Survivor Episode 4 Comments