Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
onion
Is this you? Claim Profile »
4 months ago
in Maureen Dowd hearts Michelle. David Brooks not so much. on AMERICAblog
if arms are not sexual organs, then why don't men also bare arms in similar situations?
2 replies
Msinformed
I thought the 2nd amendment gave us a right to bare arms!
AdmNaismith
Do you really want to see Joseph Lieberman's flabby arms? No. But if you do got'em, I say flaunt'em.
4 months ago
in Maureen Dowd hearts Michelle. David Brooks not so much. on AMERICAblog
Folks - I think Michelle looked great, love her clothes, I'm a woman making my way in a traditionally male-dominated career field and am for equal rights etc etc.
BUT just think for a second, why it is absolutely acceptable for women to bare skin (arms, chest, legs and more) in just about any situation, even a formal one, but NOT FOR MEN. Why don't we ever get the chance to debate a male politician's choice of sleeveless dress shirt?
Ah, you say because baring skin is "feminine." But why is baring skin not also "masculine?" Heck, I'd love to see some male bicep at the inaugural ball, or some well-cut calves hanging out there next to the podium.
Bare skin for women but not for men has its roots in a truly sexist take on how sexuality is important for our perception of a woman's worth. In the meantime, we judge men not so much by how they look, but by what they've got upstairs.
All you cheerleaders for the sleeveless attire during winter...if you don't think it's also ok for the men to show a little pec at formal events, then maybe you should reexamine why you think it is ok for women.
BUT just think for a second, why it is absolutely acceptable for women to bare skin (arms, chest, legs and more) in just about any situation, even a formal one, but NOT FOR MEN. Why don't we ever get the chance to debate a male politician's choice of sleeveless dress shirt?
Ah, you say because baring skin is "feminine." But why is baring skin not also "masculine?" Heck, I'd love to see some male bicep at the inaugural ball, or some well-cut calves hanging out there next to the podium.
Bare skin for women but not for men has its roots in a truly sexist take on how sexuality is important for our perception of a woman's worth. In the meantime, we judge men not so much by how they look, but by what they've got upstairs.
All you cheerleaders for the sleeveless attire during winter...if you don't think it's also ok for the men to show a little pec at formal events, then maybe you should reexamine why you think it is ok for women.
2 replies
Rob Mule
Maybe the President would look good at a 'naked from the waist up' state dinner but most, I think, wouldn't...
"Pardon me, Speaker Gingrich, but your man boob is in the cocktail sauce."
"Pardon me, Speaker Gingrich, but your man boob is in the cocktail sauce."
Arachnae
Oh come on. Why do men wear TIES? If you can come up with a cogent explanation for that, then you can arbitrate female fashion.
4 months ago
in Maureen Dowd hearts Michelle. David Brooks not so much. on AMERICAblog
Women show skin to appear attractive in a formal setting, men don't. Even in informal settings, women are always one step ahead of men in terms of bare skin acreage.
I am a woman, and I don't approve of women showing so much skin in such formal settings. Why? Think again about why showing skin is so uniquely "feminine." The roots of this tradition lies in sex. The suggestion of sexuality.
Sure, it is beautiful, it is gorgeous, but why isn't it as gorgeous and AS ACCEPTED for men? Because in a way that no one seems to want to admit, the "femininity" that is bare skin is a suggestion that we need to see her entire body in detail to deem her beautiful.
There are a million other ways for a woman to appear feminine and beautiful.
And why don't men need to bare skin to appear masculine? Get a load at how they look masculine - they cover nearly every inch of skin up in a form-obscuring, thick, opaque in every way SUIT.
I am a woman, and I don't approve of women showing so much skin in such formal settings. Why? Think again about why showing skin is so uniquely "feminine." The roots of this tradition lies in sex. The suggestion of sexuality.
Sure, it is beautiful, it is gorgeous, but why isn't it as gorgeous and AS ACCEPTED for men? Because in a way that no one seems to want to admit, the "femininity" that is bare skin is a suggestion that we need to see her entire body in detail to deem her beautiful.
There are a million other ways for a woman to appear feminine and beautiful.
And why don't men need to bare skin to appear masculine? Get a load at how they look masculine - they cover nearly every inch of skin up in a form-obscuring, thick, opaque in every way SUIT.
1 reply
6 months ago
in Palestinian woman stands up to Israeli troops on AMERICAblog
Scottsdalian - You are a perfect example of knee-jerk defense of Palestinians. The "Pals," such as Hamas, lob BOMBS, not rocks. And they admit that they are PURPOSEFULLY targeting civilians. At least Israel, even if they are screwing up, can claim that their INTENT is to target only violent, bomb launching militants.
Seriously, think about that.
And the jury may still be out about the whereabouts of the rocket launchers in the area of that school - I've heard that the launchers were just adjacent to it. Adjacent is just about as good as inside. Human shields still.
Seriously, think about that.
And the jury may still be out about the whereabouts of the rocket launchers in the area of that school - I've heard that the launchers were just adjacent to it. Adjacent is just about as good as inside. Human shields still.
1 reply
paulbe
Israel doesn't target civilians? Every living Palestinian must have a "militant" hiding behind them then. Are you getting your information only from Ynet or something Onion?
