[I haven't read all the comments, so sorry if I'm repeating what has already been said]

While I don't believe you should put limits on "art" - I'm upset that "shock art" hasn't lost its psuedo-legitimacy in the 21st century. I've seen many installations that are controversial, but the so-called art that pulls out the gross factor to make its "impact" seems, to me at least, a clumsy effort to garner attention while having nothing important to communicate. Great art (as seen through the ages) has not always been comfortable to view by its contemporaries (The Third of May by Goya or Daumier's Rue Transnonain 15 avril 1834) nor has it taken on the typical form of the day (Guernica by Picasso), but it produced a visceral response.

I don't see the point of this student's project - in fact whether or not she has actually done this to herself, the very idea is an affront to the human body. It is a denial of natural biological function. And the wasteful, heinous nature of repeatedly impregnating herself and then inducing miscarriage for an art project undermines the ongoing struggle to self-govern our bodies and our choices.

It does have a nicer ring than navel contemplation - and tastes better (eeewwwww). Maybe it really is just about the cake. Easier to bake, frost and embellish than a full-size cake, cupcakes are the answer to the busy woman who likes to bake and eat to relieve stress.

Seriously....

Feminism has meant different things to different generations. In Wollstonecraft’s days, it meant legal recognition as a human being and in some sectors of the globe the right to own property. At the turn of the 20th century, it meant the right to vote and have a public presence. In the 1960s & 1970s, feminists were fighting for economic opportunities and rights over their bodies (hmmmm, some things never change).

Each "wave" of feminism, however, opened up the world for successive generations of women. That cupcake baking as a symbol of the backward slide of feminism seems silly to me. I don't think my baking habits are the cause of the continued politicization of my body, the regulation of my bodily functions by anyone other than myself, or the glass ceiling that lies above the last glass ceiling I cracked my head against.

If we really are worried about a backward slide into the female ideal of the 1950s, perhaps we could focus on issues that are pertinent instead of baking (in heels and pearls).

This woman with no federal government or foreign relations experience may be our potential back-up leader? And now we are supposed to pat the Republican party and McCain on the back - good job, good fellas, you are sooooo progressive!

I find nothing exciting about a race in which gender is used as a political prop, like a costume an actor dons to get into character. It's ridiculous to think that female Clinton supporters will be attracted to the Republican side just because there is a female candidate on the ticket. We weren't supporting Clinton because she is a woman, any more than we are not going to vote for McCain because he is a man.

Was it historic that Clinton ran for the Democratic nomination? Of course. It's historic when anyone goes forth and stretches the boundaries. But her gender was not central to the issues of the campaign - it was her experience and qualifications to lead the nation that were under consideration by millions of voters.

And it is definitely not historic when a female candidate is chosen because she is the party's gender beard. It's shameful.

than 3+ hours to watch it (hours I'll never get back). snnnzzzzzzz.....