Breaking news from the New York Times (emphasis mine):
FIFTY years ago this October, Ursula Andress, clad in nothing more than a white cotton bikini with a makeshift knife holster, wandered out of the surf and into the imaginations of millions of filmgoers. By the following summer, when audiences around the world had seen “Dr. No,” the first James Bond thriller, and Ms. Andress, the first Bond girl, sales of bikinis, which had never quite taken off in this country, finally did.
And since men are the new women, it only makes sense that for “Casino Royale,” the 2006 reboot of the 007 series, a different blond came in out of the Caribbean. That is, Daniel Craig as Bond himself, who in a pair of short, tight GrigioPerla swim trunks caused a splash in the otherwise placid pool of men’s swimwear, the effects of which are still reverberating.
Times writer David Colman reports that more men are wearing tighter, shorter swim trunks these days--or, at least, fashion companies believe this is the case.
But the casual way Colman describes men as "the new women" suggests this gender switcheroo is old news to Times readers, right? So does this mean Republicans are now waging a war on men, too?