It's so effective to criticize feminism by painting us all with the same broad brush. Feminists had diverse responses to the Duke issue, but the extreme ones got the press (as is the case with every issue in our media today). I for one was wanting Nifong disbarred a long time ago. And I doubt very much that the police or the prosecutors who mishandled that case were feminists or motivated by feminism. In my opinion they did a great disservice to people who seek real social justice for oppressed people in this country.

And for goodness sakes, the absence of a rape in that case does not imply that there was no racism or sexism (and hell let's add classism into the mix) involved in a bunch of frat boys hiring an African-American stripper to entertain them, then getting drunk and hurling racial epithets at her. And the way that the accusations were interpreted was also about race and gender too, which I as a feminist also think is very important but not so important that it obviates every single thing that a feminist says from here unto eternity.

The Duke case is going to be the perpetual strawman of every antifeminist on the web. The "logic" being: because some feminists jumped to conclusions on that issue, this means that all feminists are wrong about everything. Really, though, that strawman is starting to look awfully threadbare.

AKA Smith, I agree with you 100% and will henceforth follow your lead on this issue.

Anonymous, I am a modern feminist and I have not made any of the claims you list. I have worked in Domestic Violence programs with male and female offenders and with male and female victims. I agree that the gender bias in the childcare system is deplorable (and bad for women as well as men). And on and on and on. Feminists aren't always right, and they don't always agree with one another, but that's no reason to discount everything that every self-identified feminist says.

What does all of this have to do with the issue at hand? Because so far I'm seeing ad hominem attacks on feminists rather than substantive discussions of the legal ruling, whereas on a lot of the sites frequently vilified here (Feministing, etc.), in amongst the hyperbole there is also actually a debate going on about the legal reasoning behind the ruling.

Because feminists aren't doing everything possible to help every woman everywhere, their concerns are worthless!

Like feminists don't point out the intersection between race, poverty, imperialism, and global oppression of women on a regular basis?

Like antifeminists are doing so very much to aid Iraqi women?

Like WE FEMINISTS are responsible for the bad decisions of the ninth circuit court of appeals?

It's great when folks throw the oppression of women by the American judicial system in our faces as a way of trying to prove that feminist concerns about the functioning of the legal system are silly. It's the strangest doublethink I have ever seen.

I said I wasn't seeing substantive debates here but I left out some very substantive and thought-provoking exceptions.

My apologies to those of you who have been engaging in the actual issue at hand. I missed your pearls as I was swimming about in the muck.

Psychiatrists are doctors (MDs) who go to medical school and may or may not be trained to do therapy as well as prescribe medications.

Psychologists have doctoral degrees (PhDs or PsyDs) in psychology and are trained in counseling/therapy. In most states they do not prescribe medications.

Therapists can be Psychologists, or folks with varying MA degrees (MFTs, LCSWs, etc).

This article refers specifically to Psychologists.