Let's take a closer look at these end-of-the-decade claims, shall we? Long's argument is short and simple: "Stuck between the greater promise of true love and the immediate practicality of settling down, Carrie’s choices were somehow our choices." She continues, "For 10 long years, Carrie couldn’t decide, and we couldn’t decide, so we all went shopping." That's all she wrote on that front: Carrie Bradshaw inspired women to shop the pain away; dilemmas about relationships and starting a family were tossed in the trash alongside a mountain of credit card bills.

However, Wolf wrestles with actual issues -- of course. She's a feminist icon in her own right and an enigmatic writer who is sometimes brilliant and sometimes a little cuckoo. In setting up her argument, she writes in the Guardian: "So why am I so sure that Carrie Bradshaw ... is an icon and did as much to shift the culture around certain women's issues as real-life feminist groundbreakers?" It's easy enough in first reading that line to drop the word "certain" and think with a gasp, She's saying that Manolo-collecting fashionista did more for women's issues than actual feminist activists? In truth, though, she's arguing that Bradshaw, and "SATC" in general, shifted the cultural landscape in some very particular and noteworthy ways -- something that has been observed without controversy many times before -- but, sure, she got my attention.

She goes on to herald Candace Bushnell, the author of the New York Observer column that inspired the show -- which makes you wonder why she didn't declare her, the real-life Carrie, an icon of the decade:

Bushnell was brave enough to lay bare the secret -- that for many women the search for love is the same urgent, central, archetypal quest story that for men is played out in war narratives and adventure tales. Bushnell was gutsy enough to disclose that even we serious, accomplished, feminist women spend a lot of time, when we are alone with our female friends, telling stories centered on the men with whom we are romantically entangled, exploring the quality of the love and attraction, the romance and the sex.

It's true, many women are deeply dedicated to ruminating on their romances and charting the emotional vicissitudes of life with their female friends. This is supposed to be the fluff of the "chick lit" aisle, but "SATC" made it seem smart, relevant and less shameful. "She was a writer who arrived in the big city to test her mettle and realise her voice," Wolf argues. "Male writers have structured stories around exactly this character from F Scott Fitzgerald to JD Salinger to Philip Roth; but Carrie showed audiences week after week that a lively female consciousness was as interesting as female sexuality or motherhood or martyrdom -- the tradition(al) role model options." I agree on all these points when they're stated moderately. Carrie Bradshaw isn't the feminist heroine of the decade, but did her character have a tremendous cultural impact? Absolutely.

I initially came to Wolf's argument with an oversize handbag full of caution, because it was just in May that she skewered today's "lifestyle" feminism. She wrote somewhat mockingly of the revolution (of which that fashionable HBO quartet is a large part) that brought about "a breezy vision of hip, smart young women who will take a date to the right-on, woman-friendly sex shop Babeland." Wolf also observed: "That very individualism, which has been great for feminism's rebranding, is also its weakness: It can be fun and frisky, but too often, it's ahistorical and apolitical." The article ended with this kicker: "Feminists are in danger if we don't know our history, and a saucy tattoo and a condom do not a revolution make."

Odd that she would exalt the star of the "SATC" franchise as a female heroine of the decade just half a year after criticizing the very same brand of fluffy feminism for overshadowing politics, no? Wolf wants more balance for today's young feminists, but she seems to be  having a hard time personally striking that balance herself -- and aren't we all! It's tough reconciling contradictions between your political beliefs and personal life, and that's what so much of "Sex and the City" explored -- maybe not from an explicitly feminist perspective but certainly a feminist-influenced one. The show made great stilettoed strides for women, but feminism sure paved the way.

As Rachael Larimore said at Double X, it's not like there's "a burning need for affirmative action in the meaningless-year-ending-attention-grabbing awards department. I don't care who Time picks. (And, believe me, I'm not sad it wasn't Nancy Pelosi this year.) But if Time is so uncomfortable with itself because its 'Carbon-Based Life Form of the Year' award comes across as sexist, it should, you know, give the honor to a woman once in a while." Time did award Pelosi runner-up status for 2009, but like Larimore, we knew there were even better candidates going ignored. "If ladybloggers were in charge," we asked ourselves, "who would be the Female Person of the Year?" And then we set about answering that question.

Four women tied for the most nominations (three each) in a highly scientific poll of noted women writers who responded promptly to my e-mail. "I know it's an obvious answer, but I must vote for Hillary Clinton," said Double X's Jessica Grose. "She's just done a fantastic job as Secretary of State. She hasn't showboated, she's just put her head down and worked -- without compromising any of her core beliefs. No wonder her approval rating is soaring. Also, I think Americans don't put enough stock in being able to handle defeat gracefully. It's all about the winners. Clinton lost the election and yet has become the consummate team player." Shakesville's Melissa McEwan added, "she gave us a hell of a gander at what a feminist looks like during her first year in President Obama's cabinet, whether it was delivering some major pwnage on reproductive rights or speaking out against sexual and gender-based violence while doing a little globetrotting awareness-raising. She also showed what it looks like to keep a campaign promise, by making good on her vow to make global gay rights an active 'part of American foreign policy,' in response to proposed legislation in Uganda to make homosexuality a crime punishable by death." "The Curse of the Good Girl" author Rachel Simmons also called Clinton the "duh" answer, but Bitch Ph.D's M. LeBlanc countered, "Duh! It's fucking Sonia Sotomayor. Obviously" -- a sentiment reinforced by Veronica I. Arreola, director of Women in Science and Engineering at University of Illinois at Chicago (and Viva la Feminista owner) and Pamela Merritt, the Angry Black Bitch.

Jessica Valenti of Feministing went with yet a third "duh": "Um, Maddow. That is all," and her colleague Ann Friedman elaborated, "Over the past year, Rachel Maddow has proved that there is still an audience for substantive television. She balances a serious news-anchor persona with a friendly and down-to-earth off-camera image. Plus, she manages to be openly and proudly gay, but not defined by her sexuality. It's a feat far too few people have managed to pull off. She is truly a journalist for the Obama era." Friedman was also among the three who named Neda Agha-Soltan -- "the young Iranian woman who died on YouTube a million times over," in Simmons' words -- as a contender for woman of the year. In fact, she expanded that nomination to encompass all "Iranian Women Activists. Yes, that includes Neda Agha-Soltan -- but is certainly not limited to her. When Iranians rose up to demand democracy and rights in June, women led the charge. And they paid the price -- the government is cracking down on women's rights organizers now more than ever. I know this isn't a stand-alone woman nomination, but -- despite the attention Neda garnered -- this just goes to show that sometimes women can't stand alone. We are more effective when we fight together."

Two women who changed the American pop culture landscape in 2009 garnered two nominations apiece. Women and Hollywood's Melissa Silverstein and Tiger Beatdown's Sady Doyle both picked "The Hurt Locker" director Kathryn Bigelow, for, in Doyle's words, "making a really great movie, blasting down stereotypes about which movies women can and cannot direct, and presenting us with a future in which a woman, FINALLY, might win a Best Director Oscar. For an action movie!" Doyle also suggested Lady Gaga, "for winning over all haters, claiming her feminism, being perhaps the only non-runway model in the history of the world to successfully wear those terrifying lobster-looking McQueen heels, and turning pop music into a venue for a funny, fun, powerful, daring expression of female sexuality that doesn't just recycle the same handful of boring old sexy-virgin tropes."  Friedman adds, "Rah rah ah ah ah roma romama gaga ooh lala. Duh." (To recap: We are now at four wildly different nominees who have  earned a "Duh.") Silverstein gave an additional nod to Meryl Streep, "for making 60 look fantastic on the screen," and Salon's Sarah Hepola offered a love letter to "Twilight's" Kristen Stewart: "She may be famous for playing an irritating heroine -- hey, even she makes fun of "Twilight"! -- but at 19 years old, she's on the cover of every tabloid, starring in the biggest movie so far this year, and has rammed a stake into a boring rut of bubbly, gleamy-toothed teen queens like the (I'm sure she's lovely) Vanessa Hudgens and the (does a lot for charity) Hayden Panettierre. Kristen Stewart is smart, talented, dark, slightly pained by gobs of attention and hugely successful. She's playing Joan Jett, OK? I don't give a damn about her bad reputation."

Friedman wasn't the only one to violate the "stand-alone" rule. Arreola's second choice was "The Nobel Prize winning women, especially the women who won the Nobel in Medicine. When I heard that Elizabeth H. Blackburn and Carol W. Greider had been awarded the Nobel Prize and that Greider had been Blackburn's graduate assistant, I immediately sent it out to my students. The win is not just a win for women but also a win for mentoring." And after acknowledging that Sonia Sotomayor was the first name to spring to mind, Merritt added, "But there is a huge part of me that thinks the woman of the year is the re-awakened feminist -- the women who pulled together in coalition to protest Stupak and defeat Nelson, the women who are now organized to demand reproductive justice in a way that has never happened before."

Simmons had two other picks, "The retroactive: Claudette Colvin, the woman who was the 'real Rosa Parks' but who has lived her life in anonymity even though she was the first to refuse to move to the back of the bus. An award-winning children's book was published about her this year" and "The slightly undeserved but so was Barack's Nobel: Michelle Obama." Lesley Kinzel of Fatshionista suggested breakout star Gabourey Sidibe, who's consistently charmed audiences in interviews just as much as she moved them in "Precious." M. LeBlanc and The Frisky's Jessica Wakeman agreed with Time that Nancy Pelosi deserved a nod; said LeBlanc, "The house has passed all manner of incredible legislation this year." Most of my selections have been mentioned at least once, but I'll throw two more into the mix: Laura Ling and Euna Lee, the journalists who, while reporting on trafficking of women along the North Korean border, accidentally crossed it themselves and spent nearly five months in prison there.

Who, then, is Broadsheet's official pick for Female Person of the Year? None of them. Which is to say, all of them -- and undoubtedly many more we and our prompt responders didn't immediately think of. (If more responses come in, I'll update the post throughout the day.) But we can agree on one thing: as Friedman put it, "these are my Person of the Year nominations," not just women of the year. Too bad Time didn't consult us.

Updates: Nona Willis Aronowitz, co-author of "Girldrive," checked in to say, "I second Rachel Maddow and Sonia Sotomayor, but I'd also like to give a nod to Sarah Palin, solely for providing a platform for feminist writers and activists everywhere to call out exactly what's wrong with the GOP's opportunistic, hypocritical co-opting of feminism. (I guess that's 2008, too, but her memoir just drove the nail in deeper.)" Dodai Stewart of Jezebel made a similarly contrarian choice: "Most of my picks -- HRC, Lady Gaga -- are in there, but instead of Kristen Stewart, I'd say Stephenie Meyer -- I don't think the "Twilight" books are very well written, but she had the ability to energize a huge fanbase and get girls and moms reading and going to the movies. We haven't seen that since, well, J.K. Rowling, ha!"

Finally, two other nominations came in via Twitter and Facebook: Canadian activist Muriel Duckworth, who passed away in August, and Elouise Cobell, lead plaintiff in a suit against the U.S. federal government for mismanagement of the Individual Indian Trust. After 13 years of litigation, the suit was finally settled this month, and according to Mother Jones, although Cobell says "Indians did not receive the full financial Settlement they deserved," what they did receive is "believed to be the largest ever against the federal government and dwarfs the combined value of all judgments and settlements of all Indian cases since the founding of this nation." 

Instantly, jobs became easier to get.

There was no haggling. There were compliments, there was respect. Clients hired me quickly, and when they received their work, they liked it just as quickly. There were fewer requests for revisions -- often none at all.

Customer satisfaction shot through the roof. So did my pay rate.

I think Mary Elizabeth Williams spoke for all of us at Broadsheet when she said in an e-mail, "Wow! That's so fucking Brontë sisters!" George Eliot and George Sand also leapt quickly to mind; when we think of women writers finding success under male pseudonyms, our thoughts naturally turn to the 19th century. But then, Chartrand also mentions Isak Dinesen, whose first book was published in 1934. And come to think of it, I've read that in the late 1990s, J.K. Rowling became known as such because her publishers feared that boys wouldn't read books written by someone named Joanne. Last spring, the website Divine Caroline made a list of seven famous female authors who used male names, including Alice Bradley Sheldon, who found it easier to break into science fiction writing in 1967 as James Tiptree, Jr., and Nora Roberts, who chose the name J.D. Robb in 1995 when she began writing detective fiction alongside her wildly successful romance novels. When much-admired political blogger Digby accepted an award in person in 2007, some of her biggest fans were shocked to learn that she's a woman.

And not long before that, the vicious harassment of tech blogger Kathy Sierra sparked a national conversation about the dangers of writing under a female name on the internet; it's not just about the unfair differences in remuneration and respect, but about the threats of murder and rape. In her 2007 essay "Where Are the Women?: Pseudonymity and the Public Sphere, Then and Now," academic and feminist blogger Tedra Osell writes, "Although both men and women said they used pseudonyms to avoid being identified by their employers, many women simply explained pseudonymity as the result of fear, not of professional repercussions, but for their or their children's physical safety. Five women reported having been 'threatened' online before taking up blogging. One man who did express anxiety about putting his or his family's real names on the Internet explicitly noted that his wife was more afraid of it than he was." And even if there's no physical danger, the emotional abuse hurled at women writers can be intense. In the wake of Sierra's decision to stop blogging, Joan Walsh wrote about the response to a Salon interview she did with Anne Lamott: "I don't want to compare that thread to what Sierra suffered; there were no threats of violence and no particularly sexual insults. But boy, there were plenty of insults, and most of them had to do with us as women -- as mothers, as sexual objects, as writers, as professional women in the world. To boil it down, we're wrinkly old hags (even though Lamott said my neck looks good! WTF?); we're narcissists and bad mothers, and worst of all, for writers, we're really bad writers, and terribly stupid. But mostly we're just bad women. Bad, bad women. And did I mention ugly and wrinkly?" Yes, male writers take all sorts of criticism online, much of it nasty, personal and unjustified -- but it's rarely so blatantly gendered.

In light of all that, then, I shouldn't have been surprised that using a male pseudonym had such a dramatic effect on Chartrand's career. Death threats and sexually degrading commentary directed at women writers seem very 21st century -- so modern! so fresh! -- but being paid half as much for the same work? Landing fewer jobs? Receiving more criticism and less respect? That just sounds so old-fashioned. I learned about women posing as men to get work in elementary school history lessons, not when I went to grad school for writing. The thought that if I'd tried writing as, say, Kevin Harding, I might have earned far more money, opportunity and authority than I have, is almost as inconceivable as it is chilling. Since the Brontë days, says Chartrand, "we've had feminism. We have the right to vote, to own property, to be members of Parliament and Congress, to get a job, and to be the main breadwinner of the family. And yet apparently we haven't gotten past those 19th century stigmas."

But that shouldn't come as a shock so much as a sobering reminder of what women continue to deal with in the workforce every day. The most embarrassing thing about my initial surprise is that I know it's all of a piece -- that the constant threats and insults directed at female writers are meant to silence us and reinforce our inferiority when employment discrimination and crap pay aren't doing that fast enough. I get furious when people insist that western women have achieved full equality, feminism is no longer necessary, the wage gap is imaginary or the lack of women in positions of power is unrelated to sexism. But even I've bought into the myth of meritocracy enough that my first thought upon learning a female writer massively increased her success by adopting a male pseudonym was, "Wow, how retro! How Brontë, how Eliot, how Sand." Certainly not "how Rowling."

But the difference a male name can still make in the 21st century -- and the connection to Kathy Sierra's harassment and the fears expressed by female bloggers in Osell's essay -- should have been obvious from Chartrand's post-script to the piece. "Oh, my real name?" she writes. "Well, I never really wanted that revealed, totally apart from the gender issue. I know better than most how quickly and profoundly revealing just a tiny bit of personal information can affect (and even destroy) people's lives. I have kids. I'm not interested in making myself vulnerable in that way. So please. Just call me James."

The Josh Brorby deal is, he wrote a piece for the Dakota Student in which he attempted to satirize the thought processes of rape-minded college dudes, but instead came awfully close to offering what Jill at Feministe called "a rapist's playbook." Sample text "She's good and buzzed now, right? Maybe a little unconscious? Whatever, bro, it's a one-night stand. This is where you drop the line, something funny yet titillating to let her know your intentions. Try this one on for size: 'Let's have sex,' and if that doesn't work, drop this bomb on her: 'Hey I'm going to have sex with you now.' If you're a real dare devil just pull down your pants and get to it." As Jill wrote, "[S]atire by definition requires wit, and, well, let's just say that 'wit' doesn't apply here, unless it is prefixed by 'dim' or a choice four-letter word. There's also a difference between 'satire' and 'repetition of actual events. Satire holds power and reality up for mockery and challenge through irony or derision; none of that is present in this article. It is instead a mash-up of common rape-promoting and apologizing tropes."

This week, both Dickinson and Brorby issued public apologies for their respective failures of sensitivity (and arguably, common sense). One of them basically offered a standard "I didn't mean anything by it" eff you. The other wrote an extremely thoughtful essay taking responsibility for the blatant screw-up. And if you're thinking the middle-aged female advice columnist must be the one knows how to give a proper apology, while the random college dude is the one who refused to acknowledge his mistake, you've got it backwards. Dickinson is Goofus here, and Brorby is shockingly, refreshingly Gallant.

For example: Goofus still shies away from the word "rape."  "After saying in advance that she didn't want to have sex," writes Dickinson,  "she did have sex." Yeah, sex after you've made it clear you don't want sex? Better known as "rape." Gallant, on the other hand, does not hesitate to acknowledge that even drunken frat boys -- perhaps especially drunken frat boys -- can commit rape, and it is not only the alcohol that makes them do it! "Rapists aren't monsters in dark alleyways, true; they are the person walking across the street, that guy in Spanish class, the man you saw fist-pumping at a party last week. And these men aren't born rapists, monsters within waiting to pounce out. No, they are created by the notion that it is okay to view women as nothing more than an achievement, a challenge, or an object to be used during a one-night stand. "

Goofus says she didn't really do anything wrong, except for phrasing one thing a bit brutally, and acts as though "not intending to offend" is the same thing as "not being offensive":

Because "Victim" wondered where the line was, I tried to draw it for her. My intent was to urge her (as I often urge readers) to take responsibility for the only thing she could control -- her own choices and actions -- but I regret how harshly I expressed this.

I certainly didn't intend to offend or blame her for what happened, and I hope she will do everything possible to stay safe in the future.

Um, Goofus, implying she didn't do enough to stay safe in the first place, simply because she made the choice to drink alcohol at a party, is exactly why people accused you of victim-blaming. But it's great to know you didn't intend to do that. Twice. Also, if you're going to make claims about what you said -- e.g., "I told her that the perpetrator should be confronted by authorities at school because he might have done this before and might do it again unless he is stopped" -- it's best if the original document backs you up on such statements. Because when it doesn't, people will be tempted to write things like, "Goofus lies through her teeth."

Gallant, meanwhile, tells the truth and accepts responsibility, even when it means acknowledging that he simply shouldn't have written what he did:

I was wrong to think that humor could be used to look at a problem that is so visceral and prevalent in universities. In the article - no matter how each individual received it - I did not take into account the fact that many women have dealt with situations incredibly similar to the one I presented. I did not consider that in writing a satirical piece on such a personal issue, I was taking my position as a man for granted, ignoring the fact that such humorous overtones allow men who may think like the satirical character created to feel okay with their behavior, or to joke about deep sexual issues. The approach I took (I now know) did not address the issue in a way that could help; it only propagated the intense and still-existent rape/predatory culture that pervades our society.

For this, I am truly sorry, and I apologize to all readers of the Dakota Student. It was a gross mistake on my part to submit the piece.

Finally, Goofus gives a vague nod to the importance of Talking About It -- "I'm grateful that she chose to share her question with all of us, because talking about it will help others" -- while Gallant actually takes the time to think about and discuss the issue in greater depth, sharing what he's learned from all the criticism: "In all of this, though, there is a blessing of sorts: I now have the opportunity to write about the issues I wanted to originally discuss in a serious arena with a larger audience than previously available. I can address the problem of the predatory-sexual mindset that some men have without hiding behind a character or beating around the bush (things I shouldn't have done in the first place)." And then he does just that, and it's terrific.

Even Brorby's sincere, well-considered apology can't completely undo any damage his original piece may have caused, but as Jill put it, "it does seem like Josh is making a very serious effort to be a good and productive ally." Meanwhile, it seems like Amy is making a very serious effort to rationalize telling a rape victim she should be ashamed of her "awful judgment." So if you ever need some guidance on how to take constructive criticism and own your mistakes, you might just be better off writing to a North Dakota college student than a professional advice columnist.

"But many women, at the stage when they have done their training really want to think about family . . . and they just are very daunted by the career structure. Not by the science, in which they are doing really well."

The two laureates spoke to reporters ahead of next week's Nobel Prize ceremony. They will share this year's 10 million kronor ($1.4 million) medicine prize with countryman Jack W. Szostak for discovering how chromosomes protect themselves as cells divide -- work that has inspired experimental cancer therapies and may offer insights into aging.

It is the first time two women have shared a single Nobel science prize. Over the years only 10 women have won the medicine prize.

Blackburn said a more flexible approach to part-time research and career breaks would help women continue to advance their careers during their childbearing years.

"I'm not talking about doing second-rate quality science, far from it," she said. "You can do really good research when you are doing it part-time."

Greider added that she especially wants to see measures to get more women onto committees and decision-making positions.

"I think that something active needs to be done to do that because there has been many, many years where there have been women coming in at a 50 percent level, and yet the levels at the upper echelons hasn't really changed very much," she said.

Sweden's King Carl XVI Gustaf will hand over the Nobel Prize in medicine on Thursday along with the awards in chemistry, physics, literature and economics. The Nobel Peace Prize is presented at a separate ceremony in Oslo, Norway.