Perhaps but you are not a Black woman nor the parent of a Black daughter..

I am a woman and I recognize sexism when I see it. If you are a man, perhaps you don't always. I don't recall you saying. Are you a man or a woman?

You are oversensitive, since my last post was meant as satire. Or did the mention of furries not tip you off?

What is so cum ba ya about her ass fetish?? Inclusion???? Your post is an attempt at satire right???

I bet you found the NYer cover great satire as well..

Once you established you have some writing credentials to pen some satire you will not need to post that what you wrote was satire..of course since I am sensitive I would notice your growth in that area...lol,lol,lol

but rather I was satirizing JudgeMENTAL'S implication (I am sure unintended) that only certain people have a right to speak about Kaplan's article.

Enough already.. I think your future and talents are better serve elsewhere...I really do but I am a man what do I know.....lol,lol,lol

You didn't answer my question. Are you male or female?

Also, you don't know what furries are, do you?

No, I think the cover you refer to failed as satire.

So glad you get it.

I am as entitled as a woman AND THE MOTHER OF A DAUGHTER to my opinion about the ojectification of women as you, as JUST a man, are entitled to your opinion about the ojectification of black people.

But that is not exactly the point I was making to JudgeMENTAL, who happens to disagree with both of us, that we are ALL entitled to our opinion on this matter.

However, I can see why you are a bit upset. You perhaps thought that as a man that you should get to play wrangler to the the opinions of all the fillies.

I don't herd so well.

Don't worry about it.

I am black, and a woman, and had some very serious problems with this article -- and was more than slightly annoyed at JudgeMental's apparent assumption that only someone white could possibly take issue with it. You posted your deliciously withering sarcasm before I could respond with a hearty "Way to ignore all the pissed off black women posting here for two days, thanks!!!" -- with wit to boot.

(There's a reason the Brits tell us Yanks we don't "get" irony. :-D)

The Hollywood stars have nearly always been impossibly glamorous but the focus of pulchritudinous perfection is no longer located in Hollywood alone. I think there are tee-vee programmes about "America's Next Super-Model" and I've seen one on this side of the world called "How to look good naked" where a fella called Gok Wan has the freedom to touch women's bodies, gush about their potential to look like Aphrodite rising from the sea, put on a show of false sincerity and ritual humiliation while these women acquiesce to his commands.

It's pathetic and also very unpleasant when it rebounds on young girls, as cyber-bullying involving accusations of "fat" has become a 21st century phenomenon. Your African-American friend may not have seen anyone on the screen who looked like her but in that she's not unique.

I don't live in a hierarchical society and find the fawning of the British press about its royal family amusing but their Queen's rump has never been subjected to any kind of scrutiny, favourable or otherwise. Margaret Thatcher was the Prime Minister of the UK and, even though she was the target of much jeering in satirical magazines and on a very funny "Spitting Image" puppet show, her nether regions were very much her own; that's probably why they're called "private parts". Elizabeth 11 and Thatcher are also wives, mothers and grannies.

Ms. Kaplan's article is totally lacking in discretion but maybe that's OK too. It's also based on a false premise. There are plenty of white backsides that jiggle. As the buttocks are composed of muscle and a lot of fat, junk food and gluttony contribute to the maximus of the gluteus just as hormone-enhanced meat has led to women having bigger feet than those of earlier generations. It's not all bad news, all the same. as it seems that the wooly mammoth may be roaming the earth any time soon. I have no idea what Ms. Kaplan meant to achieve by concentrating on Michelle Obama's bottom but the reaction is as angry as a "spanked bottom", although that must have its compnsations if she's going to get her 15 minutes of fame on radio stations. Anyway I don't really care. Barack Obama's election was hailed in Europe as the moment of healing in the racial divisions of the US but that seems to be wishful thinking, considering the tenor of Kaplan's article which particularises a body part usually kept under wraps. I suppose my interpretation is facile and, as the proverb goes, "It's easy to sleep on another man's wound". It's late here and there is much more to grizzle about than an essay on a woman's haunches, no matter how important or insignificant she might be.

I see we must fight on for the right for the first black first lady to be treated like a human being. Broadsheet has posted an article about the controversy.

Good old Broadsheet. Always on the look out for the rights of women everywhere -- unless they are garnering page hits out of exploiting the rights of women everywhere.

"GBT" is our old sideshow, Thrasher. So to answer your question, he's a black man, as he will tell us over and over again.

At least Healthy Skeptic is still gone.

Am I the only person in the world who doesn't find Michelle Obama attractive? I'm embarrassed even writing that because it's catty, trivial and doesn't matter. And yet I felt I had to say it. Hmmm.

I'm far more impressed by her smarts and her skills and her accomplishments and hope she contributes more during their tenure in the White House than being First Mommy.

The only person she needs to be beautiful for is Barack. And I bet she's got that one sewn up.