Clooney has more gravitas and is more openly political than Witherspoon (AFAIK, she's not political at all). AND he's older.

And Witherspoon's dress was one of the nicer ones.

Yes, there are differences from tuxedo to tuxedo -- but for the most part, the men have a uniform. It would make little sense to ask Clooney about his attire.

If you don't want people talking about your dress (I'm talking to you, Charlize), then adopt a uniform. I'm sure the glamour gals will all love showing up in the same outfit.

on a bet, but I assume what you say is true. Maybe the preoccupation with Witherspoon's dress has something to do with the fact that women spend so much time thinking about, talking about, writing about (not least in Salon) their hair, clothing and makeup. And that's when they're not standing in front of the mirror primping.

It's hard to spend so much time on the superficialities and be considered deep.

While there is certainly sexism in Hollywood, I think it's worth noting that George Clooney has defined himself as a political activist, while Reese Witherspoon has not. If the reporter had asked Susan Sarandon (an avowed political activist) about her dress instead of the politics of Hollywood, I'd be with you, but I'm not sure I agree here.

The manner in which Mr. Clooney and Ms. Witherspoon are pursuing their careers are quite different. Clooney was nominated for two different political movies while the Witherspoon was there for a biopic. It would be pretty strange to ask her about the political significance of her movie.

That, and let's face it, there aren't many questions to ask about tuxedos are there?

George Clooney makes political movies and political statements. If Reese Witherspoon has ever made a political movie I must have missed it. As far as I can tell, the most political thing she's ever said is that it is important to be a good parent.

Here's the deal: Women get a TON more attention than men on Oscar night. Heck, on any awards show night. Two of the biggest reasons for this are attire and lack of attire, though the latter is not really an issue at the Oscars. The female celebrities love the attention they get from their clothes or lack of clothes. They court it. They demand it. They go out of their way to loiter on the red carpet so people can take photos of them.

So they shouldn't be asked about it? In which parallel universe does that make sense?

Can anyone who's ever watched E! be surprised that it is sexist and brainless?

If my husband hadn't heard it too, I'd think I imagined the whole thing in a pre-Clooney-victory swoon. But during E!'s red carpet coverage, one of the hosts made a comment that actually made me physically sick. Juliana DiCandi(?)was commenting on Salma Hayek's dress and said, "To all the young girls watching out there, that's the body you want to have."

Now, admittedly, I'm a proudly small-breasted woman who will never, ever be featured in a "Hollywood's perfect body" poll. But I was flabbergasted that someone in possession of two X chromosomes would use whatever influence she has to tell young girls that large breast implants are the sort of body you want to have. Isn't the indirect pressure to look like that causing enough damage?

I've never considered E! television to be a bastion of feminist thinking - but I wondered what was next. Perhaps a shot of Reese Witherspoon's milky-white skin with the comment, "That's the color skin you want to have."

I turned off the Oscars last night when they introduced the Best Supporting Actress category by talking about "faces." I didn't wait to see if they spoke of "faces" for the men, but I can only assume that they didn't. Forget the questions asked off the cuff. This was written ahead of time by someone who shaould have been able to realize that while men are protrayed as actors (ie taking action), the best supporting actresses are "faces" who somehow resemble human beings. At that point I decided to watch the taped episodes of My Name is Earl and The Office. At least the sexism on the Office is tongue in cheek.

Re mrsskaggs's dismay at the praise of Salma Hayek, I'm fairly certain that what she has up top and out front is all natural and always has been (though she did look a bit misshapen last night due to the weird left-breast-in-a-sling effect of the bodice of her dress).

I may be giving the red carpet chatterbox too much credit, but my impression was that she wasn't telling the girls of America to run out and get breast implants: she was pointing out a woman who is curvy and healthy, not emaciated, totally comfortable in her own skin, and taking open and unashamed pleasure in her own beauty. Which isn't as easy as it sounds; our weirdly schizophrenic culture has repeatedly done its damnedest to make women of all sizes and shapes and degrees of spectacular gorgeousness feel like they have no right to take pleasure in their physical selves. Plenty of women as curvy and gorgeous as Ms. Hayek have fallen prey to body image demons. Her refusal to do so is surely praiseworthy and emulable.

Salma Hayek's body is 100% natural, I do believe. Some ladies really do have smokin' curves without aid of anaesthesia and advanced polymer technology.

That is a body *I* would love to have, truth be told. I said to a friend of mine once that I would give my right arm to have a figure like that, but then again it probably wouldn't do me much good to have a bodacious rack if I only had one arm. In the next lifetime, perhaps...

In the meantime, I don't watch the Oscars for political commentary. That's why I read Salon (!). I watch the Oscars to see what all the ladies are wearing, so I can look at their gowns and either go "Ooooo" or go "What the frack??" as in "What the frack was up with Charlize Theron's dress? What *was* that? Yikes!"