You didn't understand this two years ago, when you saw how the Democratic Party treated Hillary (and Bill)? When they not only tolerated, but excused and participated in blatant sexism and misogyny? When they ignored the fact that she DID get more primary votes, awarded votes she did get to Obama, and forced her to cede the nomination, not even allowing her a roll-call at the convention? Not to mention how the fauxgressive blogosphere and Salon's TableTalk denizens treated Hillary supporters?

What's next, are you finally going to admit the PUMAs were on to something after all?

Of course the democratic Party is not for women. They take us entirely for granted and treat us like shit. You had a chance to "go there" then.

We told you so.

Most women can't orgasm during intercourse, but for those that do, the best way is to thrust the same way over and over, for twenty minutes or more if you have to, full length strokes if possible, vigorously.

But they didn't orgasm during intercourse. They faked it to get you to stop.

I was in awe of Terry Gross' composure. Morgan was giving non-answers, being extremely defensive and combative, and yes, quite vulnerable. "Mommy" and "daddy" were his own words when referring to his parents. Terry Gross had to repeatedly placate Morgan ("OK. OK!" she said when he'd go off on a tangent in aggrieved tones, as if she'd asked him to defend himself. She did not).

He struck me as being more than a little unbalanced, though considering his awful childhood, who wouldn't be?

But Howard Stern, a better interviewer than Terry Gross? It is to laugh.

Apparently her only role in your life is as a life support system for a vagina. And then you have the gall to complain that she's not making you sexually happy? Please. If you were my husband and spoke of me like that, you'd be getting nothing at all. Has it never occurred to you that YOU are responsible for at least half of your own marital satisfaction? Perhaps if you began thinking of and treating your wife as a human being, not a sperm receptacle on legs, you'd notice a difference.

I'm sorry about your dog and your impending bad health, but get a grip. As someone over 50, I can tell you that it's a waste of time to dread debility that hasn't happened yet. When you are 60 - if you make it that far - you will regret every minute you spent dreading not being able to do what you enjoy when you could still have been doing those things instead. Do what you can while you can still do it. There will be plenty of time later to think about what you can no longer do. It will still be a waste of time.

Old age is not for sissies. However, 50 is not old. At 50 (and beyond), people can go back to school, fall in love, have a better sex life than ever, go places, do things, and just generally participate in life. This grief will pass. Take a lesson from your dear departed doggie - did she spend the final years of her life in dread and regret? More important, would she want you to?

The point is that Pollan is indeed guilty of thinking with his penis.

Look, I love food, I love cooking, I love Julia, I own and enjoyed all of Pollan's books, I've read all his articles, and I think he makes excellent points about food and our relationship with it.

However, he is sexist. Appallingly so, in my opinion; he's done his research, he's well-versed (for a layman) in botany and natural sciences, so there's really no excuse for his obtuseness about gender.

I first noticed this in The Botany of Desire when he was writing about bees and flowers. He cast the flowers as feminine and the bees as masculine - the bees acting foolishly besotted as they are lured to the passive and beautiful flowers for the purpose of pollination. Here, see for yourself: http://books.google.com/books?id=Woywyw8LlcgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=pollan+bees&source=bl&ots=EJo0_9Z567&sig=sXuJ138zDxDE9LzrY3PMKsZgf_o&hl=en&ei=3bZ1SuWWJoLysQP3oM3dCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12#v=onepage&q=&f=false

All I could think of the entire time I was reading it was, "Dude, bees are female."

Bill Clinton? Seriously? That CDS kool-aid is a year and a half past its sell-by date. And you rendered the entire article useless and not worth reading by his inclusion.

Shame on you; shame on Salon.

I'm suppose to care about the opinions of people who make judgments about other people's characters and intelligence based on their footwear? And there are people who think it is some kind of mark of distinction not to wear (or know anyone who wears) a certain popular brand of shoe?

I bought a pair of Crocs in the style called 'Malindi' about a year ago and they've been on my feet almost every day since. They aren't ugly - they look like ballet flats. You'd never know they were Crocs to look at them. And they're wonderfully comfortable, and great for travel (slip-off for TSA), gardening, cooking, just walking around in the house or our of it. Added bonus, you can wade in them, so they're water shoes. My mother wears hers to water aerobics. They were worth every penny and I'll be buying another pair or two.

Why did the author use the cheap trick of calling them ugly and implying that it's somehow embarrassing that lots of people wear /wore these shoes? Apparently only to get attention for an article that only states the obvious -

Newsflash, company makes great product that people love, is now having trouble in a recession in part because the product is also a good value and lasts a long time. Duh.