Rue McClanahan—who passed away today—is best remembered for her Emmy-winning role on The Golden Girls. Blanche Devereaux was a notch in the bedpost of sex-positive feminism because—for the first time—a self-involved, slutty, older lady was endearing, not repulsive.

In McClanahan's 2007 memoir My First Five Husbands…And the Ones Who Got Away, she wrote:

People always ask me if I'm like Blanche. And I say, 'Well, Blanche was an oversexed, self-involved, man-crazy, vain Southern belle from Atlanta—and I'm not from Atlanta!'

Unlike other actors who portrayed beloved iconic pop culture figures, Rue really related to her character. In fact, Rue was initially offered the part of Rose on GG, but when she received the pilot script she instantly knew that she and Blanche "were made for each other," which is a funny thought, considering that the character was often referred to in the dialogue—mostly by Estelle Getty's character Sophia—as "slut," "Sheena, Queen of the Slut People," and (my favorite) "slutpuppy." But Rue loved it. Writing about her time on GG, she says:

I decided right away that Blanche would laugh whenever Sophia shot a poisoned arrow her way…After all, putting up with that sot of thing was, as Blanche breezily put it, 'the curse of every devastatingly beautiful woman.'

And perhaps it was that choice of self-acceptance and confidence that made her character so lovable. In the stiflingly conservative sexual and political climate of the late '80s—during which some felt that the AIDS epidemic was a punishment for sexual promiscuity—a 52-year-old woman saying that she related to a fictional character who shamelessly and genuinely enjoyed her active sex life and spoke frankly about condoms was progressive to say the least. In fact, she felt so strongly about the part, that she agreed to begin shooting the series with a salary based on her previous project (Mama's Family), which she says was tens of thousands less than that of Betty White and Bea Arthur.

One of Rue's favorite exchanges from the series is also telling of her own admitted free spirit:

ROSE: Is it possible to love two men at one time?
BLANCHE: Set the scene. Have we been drinking?

In 1987, she won an Emmy for her role as Blanche, and gave one of the most notorious acceptance speeches in the history of the awards show:

My agents told me I'd never work on TV, that I wasn't photogenic. My mother told me life was a lot of kicks and a lot of boosts... I won't mention who gave the kicks, but you know who you are—and you'll be in the book.

Although McClanahan's career spanned more than half a century—acting in films and Broadway productions—she didn't find mainstream success until she hit primetime TV in 1972 on Maude, a seminal show in the canon of pop cultural feminism, starring Bea Arthur. Playing title character's best friend Vivian, Rue portrayed a sort of silly woman who—with the help of Maude—found liberation from traditional gender roles. Later, on Mama's Family, Rue played a "spinster" freelance journalist.

In her real life, Rue had married five times (as chronicled in her memoir), was a staunch democrat, and was one of the first celebrity spokespeople of PETA. She always had a love of animals.

Rue—an undeniable gay icon—was also a longtime supporter of GLAAD, and long before the organization was founded, she publicly associated herself with gay acceptance. In 1971, she starred in the little-known film Some of My Friends Are…, about a group of gay men who meet up with their female friends at a bar in Greenwich Village on Christmas Eve.

In the first season of GG, Dorothy gets mad at Blanche about something, and spits, "You, Blanche, are a self-serving, amoral, backstabbing Jezebel."

As someone who made no bones about enjoying her life as a gay-friendly, animal-loving, sex-positive, imperfect woman, we can only hope we grow up to be half the Jezebel that Rue McClanahan was.

June 3rd, 2010 Top Stories

• 

  Gap's MObama-Lookalike Dress, Yours For $248

• 

  Bestselling Chick-Lit Author Is Rich, Depressed, Human

• 

  Reality Bites: In Which The Girl Never Has To Play Dumb

• 

  Banker Deemed Too Sexy For Her Job

• 

  The Real Story Behind Heidi & Spencer's Probably Fake Divorce

As someone who has been moderating comments for over two years (and using the internet for about 17), I've seen a lot of internet slang fads come and go. But there are some phrases, it seems, that just won't die:

I'm not going to go so far as to say these phrases should be outright banned (mostly because that never works) nor am I going to deny using any of these phrases at one point or another (everyone has at some point, I'm sure), but lately it seems like it's getting harder and harder not to feel slightly irritated when coming across one of the following phrases, which seem to have overstayed their welcome by at least four years:

5. "DIAF/Die In A Fire." This is one of those expressions that people throw out in order to let everyone know just how much they HATE somebody, as dying in a fire is perhaps one of the worst possible ways to die. I really, really hate this expression. I've always hated this expression. How did this expression ever get popular? It's one of those things that is strictly internet-only: if you ever went to some random party and pointed to another human being and said, "That's Alan. I hope he dies in a fire," everyone would look at you like you were Patrick Bateman in a dress and then whisper, "That was a bit much, right?" as soon as you hopped off to pet a kitten or talk about American Idol or what have you. And even if you don't agree with my personal distaste for the phrase (and wish that I, too, would DIAF), you have to at least admit that the phrase is really, really tired. It's so old and overdone at this point that it's akin to saying "get bent" or "drop dead" or "stick a rubber hose up your nose" or what have you. I'm not telling you you can't hate people, internet. God knows I wouldn't take that away from you. But when your go-to attack phrase is as overused at this one, it probably needs to die, too, in whatever horrible way you can imagine it to.

4. FAIL: "Fail," as a concept, can be fun. Look at FailBlog! You can easily laugh at whatever dumb/funny stuff gets thrown up there, because it is, in fact, a failure of sorts, but one that finds success in being awful/unusual, and therefore actually ends up winning in some bizarro Bad News Bears kind of way. But "fail" has replaced "awesome" as the word that everyone needs to pull back on by roughly 9000%. Your inability to finish breakfast at the diner last week was not a "Pancake Fail." Your mascara getting in your hair is not a "Cosmetics Fail." Fail is catchy and easy to use, which makes it the -ista of internetisms, attached to everything to make it conversationally trendy. You don't have to give it up completely, but if you're using FAIL! to scold the government and FAIL! to mock your cat's inability to piss in the litter box and FAIL! to recall that time you ate a paper clip, the phrase itself kind of loses a bit of power, doesn't it?

3. "THIS." We have all done THIS. This! THIS THIS THIS! SO MUCH THIS! THIS!!!! THIS THIS! It's a more enthusiastic way to say, "Yes, I agree, you've completely captured my thoughts on this subject and expressed them in a way I couldn't quite express myself. Thank you, fellow internet user. You are correct, and I appreciate your input." And that's fine. I get that. It's a relief, sometimes, to see that someone has perfectly put together the thoughts that are floating around in your brain. But lately it seems that "THIS" has taken on a life of its own. People tend to get annoyed in forums when people pipe in with "me, too!" or "I totally agree!" but somehow, "THIS" gets a pass, because it's more definitive, and currently quite popular as an internet tool of expression. But "THIS" can actually be detrimental to a conversation, especially when the THIS! poster only posts that one word, and nothing else. Yeah, you agree, but why? For what reasons? Why is whatever this comment is so very THIS to you? Why can't it be THAT? It's one of those things that's fine in moderation, but used too often, the very emphasis it's supposed to provide—that whatever comment it follows is a definitive statement or the truth, end of story, thanks for playing, have a nice day—becomes watered down and meaningless.

2. TL; DR/ "Too long; didn't read." People are still doing this! In 2010! (They are also using too many exclamation points! And by they, I mean me! THIS! Epic Fail!) I have no idea why this still exists. If something on the internet is too long for you to read, I'm sorry. Life is hard. Go to Twitter.

1. "Wow...just, wow." NO, JUST NO. This is maybe the most annoying phrase in internet history. "Wow...just wow," is one of the laziest remarks you'll see in any comment section, because it requires no thought whatsoever while implying that the reader does, in fact, have several thoughts on whatever brought them to the brink of implied speechlessness. It is never "wow, just wow." That phrase holds a million reactions, all watered down into a cliche, and it's unfortunate, in that some of the best emotional reactions to seriously weird/insane/disturbing/amazing things on the internet could be written in place of this tired, tired, tired remark, and they aren't. If something has moved you to the point where you have no words, fine. But don't throw out three overused words to express it. If you're able to hit your keys, go beyond "wow, just wow," and explain why you're so amazed/horrified/blown away by whatever it is you just read/saw. Either that, or skip to another site and catch the latest trend that's suddenly bordering on overexposure by posting a picture of someone you want to have sex with alongside the caption "UNF," which the Urban Dictionary defines as the "Universal Noise of Fucking."

So there you have it. Like I said earlier, we've all done these things. We'll all, myself included, probably do these things again, millions of times. But I don't think it would hurt to consider, at the very least, pulling back on a few of these phrases, at least for a little while.

All requests to STFU, DIAF, tell me things are full of win, TL; DR, or a total fail, yell THIS! or paste a picture of a cat saying something funny can be posted in the comments below.

Here's Christian Bale. UNF, am I right?

[Image via Natalie Dee.]

May 31st, 2010 Top Stories

• 

  Ask Men Has 12 Ways To Steal Your Heart, Ladies

• 

  An Open Letter To Heidi Montag From Quinn Morgendorffer

• 

  5 Things You May Have Missed On TV This Week

• 

  The 10 Worst Sex Stories We've Ever Heard

• 

  J.Crew's Summer Abroad: Sweet Swimsuits, Sharp Shorts & Dreadful Dresses

Naomi Campbell, who has recently come under fire for allegedly accepting blood diamonds from warlord Charles Taylor, will be compelled to testify about said gems, if prosecutors in the Hague have their way.

Campbell has told a lot of different stories about what did or did not happen between her and Charles Taylor one night at a charity dinner in 1997. She's said that they never met, although there are photographs of them together, like this one taken by Mia Farrow, below.

Campbell has said that Taylor never gave her diamonds, and she's said that the diamonds he did give her, she gave to charity. (The charity she named had no record of any such gift.) When ABC asked her about the blood diamonds, she threw a producer's camera to the floor. When Oprah asked about the blood diamonds, the supermodel told her, "I don't want to be involved in this man's case — he has done some terrible things and I don't want to put my family in danger."

But it doesn't really matter what she wants; Campbell is involved. If in fact she received blood diamonds from a man who was, even in 1997, known to be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, then she involved herself in Taylor's case. Until now, Farrow — who was also staying at Nelson Mandela's compound at the time, and who, like Campbell, met Taylor at a charity dinner hosted by the South African president — was the only witness tying Campbell to the blood diamonds. Farrow said Campbell told her a story of being visited by Taylor's representatives and given diamonds in the night. But the actress's account of a breakfast table conversation that happened 13 years prior was thrown out by the trial judge as hearsay.

Now, another witness has come forward: Carole White, who was Campbell's agent from the dawn of her career, in 1992, until 2007. White was with Campbell on the South Africa trip in question, and even stayed with her at the same guest house on Mandela's property. White's account of the night in question, as reported by ABC, is damning:

In an interview, White's lawyer, Daniel Bright, said that White overheard Taylor telling Campbell at the dinner that he wanted to give her diamonds. Later, according to Bright, when the representatives of Taylor came to the guest house they threw pebbles at the windows. They hit White's window with the pebbles and she let them into the house. White allegedly then watched the men gave about a "half-dozen" uncut gems to Campbell. According to Bright, White remembers Campbell being disappointed with the stones, since she had not expected them to be uncut.

White and her former client have been involved in a series of lawsuits since the dissolution of their business relationship, in 2007, so one could argue that White may have ulterior motives for coming forward. But if Campbell is called to testify, we may at last be able to get to the bottom of this sordid little footnote on a years-long war crimes prosecution.

Prosecution Asks To Subpoena Naomi Campbell In War Crimes Trial [ABC]
The Trial Of Charles Taylor [Charlestaylortrial.org]

Earlier:
Naomi Campbell And The Warlord's Big Blood Diamond
Naomi Campbell Gives Oprah A Tour Of Her Closet

May 20th, 2010 Top Stories

• 

  Bragging Rights & Birthdays: 3 Years Of Jezebel.com

• 

  How I Broke Up With Lost And Never Looked Back

• 

  What We Talk About When We Talk About Oversharing

• 

  On The Matter Of Blake Lively's Breasts

• 

  Lost Recap: Community, Communion, & Choosing Choice