I don't see ads, and I assumed that's because I pay for a sucbscription. But I thought the little green circle with the white star meant you were a "Premium" member (a distinction whose purpose I've never understood the point of making public to readers, but whatever). And I see people with stars complaining about ads. What gives?

I also want to chime in about transcipts! I'm not hearing impaired, but it's clear from many complaints that plenty of readers - READERS - are. Also, people who are at work or whose children are sleeping might not want to play the audio.

CAN ANYONE HEAR ME???????

I'm not sure that's totally accurate, but it's definitely true that there has always been tension between feminists caused by this misguided gender-before-race or gender-before-class issue. Honestly, I don't come down on either side. There are contexts in which gender comes to the fore as a source of greater oppression for an individual, contexts in which race does, contexts in which class does. And when I was a poor person, I confess I thought gender was more important. As a member of the middle class now, I see poverty as a more pressing issue than feminism - perhaps because I see that within my class and race, gender is less an issue than it was when I was poor. I am disappointed in Gloria Steinem's recent picking-of-the-gender-race-scab by saying that gender trumps race, as though this were always true, everywhere. It simply isn't. We should all be working together to end institutionalized biases based on race, class, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Trying to determine definitively which category 'trumps' all the others is a waste of energy.

And as far as the skeletons in respective candidates' closets. The point of scandals to suppress voter turnout. It doesn't matter if negative advertising is obvious, utter lies; its effect is always to make voters feel that the system is bigger than them, and to get them to stay home. So I doubt there's much real difference between Obama and Clinton on that score, once one of them is up against a Republican. That machine always works the same way no matter what, and it's our job to VOTE ANYWAY.

My original post was not a rhetorical question. I got rid of my television 15 years ago, and I have not shopped at a grocery store that sells tabloids for 10 years. So forgive me if I am not up to date on the latest celebrity scandals; my only knowledge of them comes from Broadsheet, and would that there were less of it here.

My point about Michael Jackson was this: he is a gender deviant who is widely considered to be the worst sort of sexual deviant as well - a gay pedophile. Whether this is a fair or accurate assessment of him or not, he is an anomaly. Spears, by contrast, is a very common type with which we are all familiar. If Giuliani is America's Mayor, she is America's Slut. I'm perfectly willing to accept that there are male equivalents of the Spears phenomenon, but 1) I genuinely have no idea who they might be, and 2) despite their similar celebrity history, in terms of gender and sexual deviance, even *I* know that Michael Jackson ain't it.

I think a deeper analysis of the Spears phenomenon might compare her (ahem) coverage to coverage of Mike Tyson or O.J. Simpson (America's Bullies?), and might consider public views of people with Borderline Personality Disorder, which I would argue is a distinctly feminine pathology (notice I did not say FEMALE, but feminine) vs. their views of antisocial personality disorder, which is a distinctly masculine pathology (notice again that I did not say MALE pathology). That might actually be interesting and enlightening, instead of just another version of the disgusting/titilating/titillatingly disgusting crotch shot.

Personally, I think the media in general and the tabloid media in particular dehumanizes all of us.

"[M]en and women from across the political spectrum can rally around a fundamental belief in women's equal rights, while debating the best way to secure and defend those rights."

And I think I count as an old-school Steinemite, even though I'm 35, but I think what Pappas did was really, really dumb. There are some people you just don't want on your side.

"look at the how young male star athletes (who happen to be of similar age) as the starlets covered here are treated by certain kinds of tabloid sports media."

Well, that is a good point, but too bad you buried it in a lot of nastiness. I didn't even know there WAS such a thing as a "sports tabloid." Comparable examples would be helpful.

Are there any manly - or even vaguely masculine - male stars who provide what you would consider an adequate comparison?

"Maybe Fay Weldon is struggling with the thought of smart women because she's not particularly bright herself"

My own little personal red star for _Allie_! That is the smartest thing on the thread so far.

I switched to Yahoo mail when AOL bought Netscape and did all this annoying, screwy shit to its mail client. I can't even imagine what kind of irritating "synergies" will start showing up in Microhoo's mail client. I guess it's gmail for me in the near future.

Sounds like one more person who likes dirty politics better than the candidates themselves do.

Can we please get a Nazi-imagery-free rundown of the real differences - and similarities - between Clinton's and Obama's health care plans? Besides climate change and Iraq, this is my biggest issue of interest this year, and it seems to be their biggest point of contrast. Thanks.

If we're really betting, I accept checks and PayPal. Nope, haven't even done it once.