I don't want to look "young." I'm not. I'm 58. I want to look -good-. This whole thread, especially the people who enjoyed themselves criticizing women for vanity, made me go buy some more moisturizers and colors last night. Apparently, there's a new "wrinkle": feathering.

This is not the fur on an Irish setter's legs, but tiny vertical lines on the upper lip of a woman of a certain age. Lipstick can flow into these channels, and it looks like hell. Anyone know about that? -I- didn't, but Bigelow's Pharmacy sure did. Anyhow, feathering is at an end, and I'm sure you'll all be very glad.

I buy St. John Knits on e-Bay. Retail, the prices are unspeakable, but they're beautiful, comfortable, durable, and appropriate for my age, style, and job -- plus they travel well and transition from day to evening perfectly.

I don't know if I look old or young. I feel good, I turn the occasional head, and -I'm- pleased. But I grew up being taught these things and realizing that as you mature, you go from one type of clothing to another: it's an evolution, not a disintegration.

Last point. My late aunt was a -very- pretty woman. Everyone said so, and it was one of her core strengths, to herself. She went through a rough patch. Within 18 months, she had a radical mastectomy, a hysterectomy, and part of the lobe of a lung removed. That would be enough to kill some people. Not she. What kept her going? "I'm not going to be a hag," she said. Even before the doctor said she might, she was in her leotard, exercising at Eileen Powers. The hair might be a bit too bright, the face a little too roughed, but she was still a pretty woman, and continued so into her 90s, when she died.

She used vanity as a survival tactic. If it helped her keep going, thank God for it.

"roughed" should read "rouged." She would never have allowed her skin to become rough.

This is why there are moisturizers.

I can just see the cab drivers surrounding Brightstar and wrapping him up in blankets, towels, ANYTHING...

Does he think so little of men that they have no self-control or self-respect?

That title swings two ways.

First, much humor has an element of cruelty in it. Humor in which a group is asked to assent in its own victimization and even laugh at it has more than a little sadism implicit. And that goes for this Allen screed or the T-shirts that say "boys are stupid; throw rocks at them."

In addition to being overgeneralizations and hence impossible to prove or even treat with respect, they're inherently unkind.

When things -- positions, opinions, movements -- swing too far in one direction, we see a reversion to the mean, a countervailing force impelling ideas toward the center. We certainly saw a trend away from some of the excesses of the 1960s, just as I think we're seeing a trend away from the budding theocratic oligarchy we've seen during 43's regime. I can't help but think that's a good thing: that common sense may ultimately prevail.

The past few months have been marked by misogyny such as I have never before heard presented (the occasional Promise Keeper Kraft Durch Freude egofest notwithstanding) in serious channels. I think a revulsion of feeling is only logical at this time. At the same time, no one gives up power (even when one has more than one's share) willingly, so you get the MRAs swinging out...but I think that's swinging back too. At the same time, if their efforts do enable us to rescue some of the boys in peril of not getting educations, of dying far too young, they will have served their purpose.

I think -this- particular article affected people the way Ann Coulter does: enough is enough, already; a line has been crossed; and let's attempt some kind of rapprochement, however flawed.

I personally would be glad to see less preening about intellect on all sides and more emphasis on courtesy and genuine kindness.

"Monster" is far from the worst thing Hillary's been called and probably mild compared with some of the things that she will be called in the future. I know it's mild compared with some of the flak she's withstood in the past. And she's handed out some good ones: I personally would -hate- to be compared with Ken Starr, but I am not running for public office.

Obama and his supporters really do need to decide what sort of a campaign they're working on. If it's all new, visionary, eloquent and humane, comments like "monster" or "you're likeable enough" are out of place. If it's business as usual, they get to knock themselves out.

But they can't claim one, while doing the other -- or rather, if they try, they're going to look awfully inconsistent.

One group's Kool-Aid doesn't taste great to everyone. Similarly: Hillary's campaign.

"But we're RIGHT" only comes across faux-naive. Been there, done that, lived through the 1960s and 1970s.

The last attack of delicate sensibilities (and a third-party candidate) cost us 8 years of Bush.

You may be willing to suffer for your purity of principles, but consider the cost to the rest of us.

How is it MISTS OF AVALON?

You've been flaming here, there and everywhere.

You're not an Obama supporter; you're an Obama idolater, and it's not helpful.

Now, it's actively insulting to a group of women of whom I have the honor to be one.

I'm sure you can think of more substantive things to say.

Or even how to spell Gloria Steinem's name.

One day, if you are fortunate, you will be as "old" as we are.

Then, because it's karma, you're likely to run someone just like you, implying that you have no more to contribute and that you should get off the planet or at least STFU.

Can we assume you will withdraw gracefully?