The day I decided to stop wearing makeup was the day someone said this to me because I wasn't wearing makeup. I thought, Now that is weird -men are never thought to look tired simply because they failed to line and lash their eyes in Kohl Black L'Oreal Eye Enhancer.

I must say I look much better without make up. I still take great care of my skin (but never wear concealer) and I think men should take a page from this book too - keeping your skin even tones, blemish free, soft and wrinkle free is attractive on either sex.

I've always used men as my guidelines for just how nutty something is to do. Breast augmentation and vaginal reconstruction - crazy if you imagine men in the same numbers risking their sexual pleasure and performance for a vanity inch or two on the penis. Same with collagen, etc. When I see men plumping up their lips like a trout in large numbers, then maybe I'll do it too. But if men aren't going under the needle, knife or make-up brush to 'look better' or 'feel more self-confident' I see no reason why I should.

So it's sort of scary to think that the cosmetic companies have figured out that the best thing for their business is to make men as crazy and vain as they've made women. Shudder.

P.s. That Zac Efron guy totally sets my gaydar off. And not because of the make-up. And not that there's anything wrong with that. But I think few men will follow Z. Efron's lead on this. When Damon, Pitt and Clooney rock the eye liner, perhaps we'll see a move in that direction, but likely not until, and likely not even then.

The truth is, we expect nothing from our First Ladies. Nothing except to look nice but not too nice - clothes should be tasteful but not too expensive or she'll have an air of privilege for which we must take her to task; face and figure must be attractive but never overly sexy or we must take her down. She must be intelligent but not demonstrably so - a good degree, but no accomplishments that outshine the husband or make her seem like a 'ballbuster' She must be articulate but not opinionated, and she must be involved but not in anything with any kind of moral complexity. If the causes she chooses are for "The Children" that is all to the good. If she does not have children of her own, she is suspect. If she has been married before, she is suspect. If she has ever behaved immoderately - done cocained, inhaled marijuana, had sex in college with someone not her long-term mongamous boyfriend -forget about it..in fact, her husband might not have a chance at President if such information were made available.

We are not only uninterested in her accomplishments, we prefer she not have any, lest they overshadow her husband, or the men who voted for him.

The ridiculously low and ambiguous expectations we have for First Ladies reflects our continuing discomfort, as a country, in seeing women in positions of power that have nothing to do with motherhood. Had Bill Clinton attended the conference, the inanity of what we want/don't want from a First Lady would have been all too uncomfortably apparent: Bill is quite publicly accomplished and we have no choice but to assess his role as prospective First Gentleman in the context of those accomplishments, and not for the color of his suit or the style of his hair. He would have stood out as a person of substance expecting to be recognized as such, and because he's a man we would of course concede to this expectation...but then be flummoxed in trying to do the same for the other Prospective First Mates, because we're accustomed to judging/admiring them on how they appear vs. what they've accomplished.

Bills' attendance would have upended the entire conference; no one would have been able to 'compete' on the level he would expect to compete on. While Michele Obama is undeniably accomplished, we are simply not accustomed to looking at a First Lady first and foremost in those terms. What we'd gladly give to Bill, a man, we would reluctantly, resentfully give Michele. Hilary knows a little something about this, of course.

..and the practice of identifying these linkages is holistic or homeopathic medicine.

There is some merit to the notion that women suffer more from physical maladies brought on by emotional problems - certainly women are far more likeley to suffer from afflictoins such as chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia and related ailments. And given this, it is not really sexist or anti-woman to point out that if your emotional health is poor, it causes your physical health to be poor, and yes, you are responsible for this. Who else? It's not about blame, it's about taking responsibility for the things you can control.