Of the members of the Wu-Tang Clan, Ghost has always been the most outwardly sexist, dating back to the early days. (Check out the opening track on the "Iron Man" album).

I think all nine guys don't agree with the extreme views Ghostface advocates here...not that they are saints, but my guess is dudes like GZA (the Genius) and RZA and Inspectah Deck (for example) are a little smarter and would be offended by this too. Even Raekwon (Ghostface's tightest friend) and Method Man (whose sexism is more comedic but not much less obvious) might say "whoa...ease off a little" if they heard this.

Disappointing, but in character to say the least. Just don't lump in the rest of the Clan for guilt by association please.

How the hell did this become a D vs. R or black vs. white issue? Raping children is wrong, and people who do it are not heroes, they are reprehensible creeps who deserve to be vilified. Yes, even if they are very good at entertaining people. Come on!

Why would women want to emulate a self-promoting charlatan who cynically deployed the superstitions of the credulous masses to aggrandize (and practically deify) herself? You know what would be a miracle? If people would wake up and stop talking about angels and saints and wizards and other plainly absurd concepts. Or if the Catholic church would stop foisting AIDs, unwanted pregnancies, and other ills on the developing world under the sickening guise of "morality".

Otherwise I agree with your sentiments.

Unreal. This is as inexplicable as Wall St. bonuses.

It is not allowed. Period. Which gender does what has nothing to do with it.

I was under the impression that referring to someone as "butch" or (especially) a "dyke" was considered offensive, reductive, insulting, etc.

I'm actually pretty sure it's still NOT cool. Then again, reading Broadsheet regularly has shown me that obsessing over physical appearances is positive and feminist, not shallow and beside the point.

I am loving the era of Robert Reich as a Salon contributor. It is SO important that we get the message out there that we will have to swallow some bitter pills to have a chance to save the global economy. Reich has the fairly unique combination of expertise and writing skill to be a persuasive voice in this time where the opposition is content to watch it burn and simply complain as if this were not an unusual time.

Are we supposed to be judging women based on their appearance and commenting on their appearance all the time as if it were of primary importance? Or are we not?

Or is it cool when it's about larger women (because it makes the authors feel good about themselves), and not cool when it's about smaller women (because it makes the authors feel bad about themselves).

It just doesn't matter that much, fat/skinny, ugly/pretty -- when women are paid less for the same work, beaten by their partners, not taken seriously or valued properly, and on and on.

But at least you have taken your shallow empowerment pill of the day, right?

Until the last century or so, people who have lethal allergies to peanuts would have just died without the opportunity to live to pollute the gene pool with their weaknesses and deficiencies. - Dwight K. Schrute

"Just yesterday, I finished reading a clinical article about eating disorders being on the rise in teen boys. Is that trivial too?"

YES!!! YES! YES IT IS. TRIVIAL. IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH!? YES. TRIVIAL. OK?

(notwithstanding, I am very impressed that you read that article. way to go.)

That is why this is diminishing, reductive, and stupid. If it were a style article about black women's hair that happened to mention the First Lady in passing, that would be one thing (it still should not be on the front page of a primarily political web-mag).

But it isn't. It's a part of a series of superficial dissections of the First Lady's physical appearance, with a lame attempt to tie it to something larger. This article should be in Good Housekeeping from 1948.

The most important issues facing us are about policy, not fucking hairstyles. Or maybe I am paying my money to the wrong site?

The economy is on the verge of collapse, we are at war with two countries, among other important things, and the lead article here is about the First Lady's goddamn hairstyle? What the hell is wrong with you? Is this 1955? Go write for People and stop polluting my political website! Please!

I know a lot of people like this and I hope they all starve to death.

That's my best guess.

It's still just you, Tom. Your class allegiances and addiction to privilege are stronger than your commitment to justice for all...I get it. But please stop bringing it up. It makes you look foolish.

Typical difference (described by each party to their friends):

Woman: I used to *date* this guy for about a week and a half...

Man: We were *fucking* for a little while...

I hate euphemisms -- they obscure true meaning in deference to the most conservative and delusional among us.