I have to shake my head at the mean-spiritedness of some of the responses here. If you've got this much schadenfreude concerning this letter then you're obviously as neurotically obsessed by looks as you claim the LW is.

She confesses some of her closely-held, completely human-sounding neuroses in a letter and gets branded a "mean girl" who deserves to wither into frog-like dotage -- by someone who has never met her.

There are many kinds of beauty and the LW got lucky with the most immediately obvious, which carries its own particular burden. Sounds to me like she's working through to a deeper understanding of her life.

It's astonishing that so many letter writers get upset when a critic CRITICIZES something. Grow up, you dimwits. I saw and loved the film but let's face it -- it's been a tad overhyped ("best movie performance of the CENTURY"??)

Daniel Day-Lewis is brilliant, and he was largely brilliant in this film. It was a riveting performance, but I agree, at many points it was indeed a performance. If you don't understand the difference, that's okay, nobody's saying you can't like the movie -- but Jesus, don't fling your handfuls of poo at those who do. You sound like a pack of drooling morons.

...but if it quacks like a duck...

I get the premise, I get the argument, but to me it smacks just a little of people needing to get over themselves a bit and not being SO goddamn sensitive, particularly when the guy apologized.

What I don't get is what AKA Smith meant by saying that "Obama supporters" probably wouldn't even understand Traister's argument. I haven't read the entire thread, but what the hell was that supposed to mean, since we're all measuring our every word so goddamn carefully?

Any parent, male or female, would hate to have some unsavory sleazeball use phony terms of endearment on their daughter while entertaining base motives.

I think what doesn't track is that Obama doesn't seem to be, to most observers, an unsavory sleazeball -- unless you know something that us knuckle-dragging Obama suppoerters don't, or unless you consider any male who uses gender-specific enderaments, expressions or whatever, to be one (as I guess some people do).

As you rightly observe, context matters. It also works more than one way.

I asked earlier what you meant when you said that you doubted "Obama supporters" would even understand the substance of Rebecca's argument.

Since this discussion is ongoing, I ask again: what does that mean and what do you base it on?

Well, thanks for your answer and for actually admitting that a few of us Neanderthals just might have heard of things like semiotics, linguistic analysis, or feminism.

In future, consider the old expression "the pot calling the kettle black" (and oh boy, what does 'BLACK' mean in this charged context? But I won't go there.) when making condescending blanket statements about groups of people in order to castigate them for defending condescending statements toward -- well, you get it.

I support Obama as the best alternative. I don't worship him or have a blinkered sense of hysterical idealism about him, or his positions. He's just a person, like you or I. Yes, his use of "sweetie" reflects a patriarchal mindset, of course, it's true. But to make someone as well as their supporters whipping girls -- (happy? ;)) for a momentary failure to step out of their given context seems to me a bit much.

I don't have much doubt that an Obama presidency will be much better for women than a McCain would be, and I believe he's more electable at this point than Hillary is, who I'd have voted for in a heartbeat, though her campaign -- I'm talking her actual campaign, not a few nasty supporters on the internet -- has been far nastier than Obama's.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the fear here; I'm an African American who didn't think I'd see a Black man actually win the nomination in this generation, let alone have this clear a shot at the Presidency.

There will be a woman candidate at some point. Hillary has all kinds of baggage, good and bad, and she has been hammered mercilessly by the right and by misogynists for two decades now. I would have been overjoyed to see her triumph fair and square over the Repubs. I, and the majority of other African Americans, seriously considered backing her over this new guy Obama when this all started and a lot still do.

But as is possible for any candidate, she and her campaign have made numerous missteps, some more hurtful than others, and she's running against a charismatic, fresh voice who actually energizes and uplifts people (like it or not Clinton fans, you can't deny that he does).

But another woman will come along and the timing and message and delivery will be right, and there will be countless posts stating that "x years ago, no one could have predicted..."

I find it odd how many Clinton backers downplay the notion of racism directed at Obama while simultaneously citing it as one of the major reasons he's "unelectable". Meanwhile, sexism is cited as the only issue that keeps Hillary from garnering the nomination -- but her, unelectable? No way!

From all the hate on this site from Clinton backers you'd think Obama raped and killed an entire dorm at Wesleyan on live TV. Calm down a little, folks -- you're the ones who keep telling us this is "hardball politics".