Since the concept of choice is not a valid one to Eriksen, I don't see how he can possibly object to being "misunderstood," deliberately or otherwise. According to him, he doesn't get a say in the matter. Next.

Anyone who denies that woman-hating is rampant in our culture need only visit this blog's letters section. Or any woman-/feminist-related blog letters section, for that matter. A certain subset of [mostly] men, obviously hateful and angry, tries to hijack the topic in order to belittle feminism, dismiss feminist concerns and insert themselves into the spotlight in an attempt to force others to feel angry. Rather like rape itself. Rape is about power, not sex.

The troll reaction on this site is completely predictable, not special. It used to bug me but it's like wallpaper now, Internet-wide. Part of the problem, illustrated over and over. It actually reinforces the need for feminism and for the culture to become more balanced and equal. Trolls need more therapy and less of an audience, IMO.

Ms. Walsh, your column is smart and a breath of fresh air in what has otherwise become a media landscape that caters to women-hating men (and their brainwashed women). Seriously. I rarely read the Salon letters anymore b/c of the vitriol and ignorant invective therein. In fact, I have no doubt that as soon as *this* is posted it will be trounced upon by some male-identified snake just waiting for a fresh opportunity to assault a feminist -- because s/he can. This is an example of how dumbed-down our American culture has become and how unchecked male privilege leads to unrelenting metaphorical, if not literal, rape.

Last year I made a bet with a friend of mine, a man of color. I bet him that a man of color would become president before a woman of any color. It was a realization that I'd reached a few years ago. This was before the campaigning became intense or even all that focused. The reason the bet was so easy for me to make back then is ... well, you're seeing the reason right here on Salon, and anywhere there are open comment sections online. Bullies abound and, just like real life, unless there are consequences, the bullies win. We will not stop it and there is no reasoning with bullies, especially woman-hating bullies. It's just so *fun* to be able to openly insult or even threaten fully *half* of the world's population in one fell swoop -- must make the bully feel more powerful than hating just about any other group. Pretty powerful motivator, that.

Could this in any way possibly be related to the fact that decades ago the U.S. could not pass the equal rights amendment? That seems too preposterous, or does it? I mean, a group who can't muster "official" support is a group that is open to attack. The U.S. government/elected leaders said women did not need or deserve to have an amendment that specifically mentions gender, and here we are today. People of color have had some amendment action, and here we are today. But maybe it's just a coincidence, right?

Race hatred exists, of course, but it's no longer *officially* sanctioned (ok, except in pockets of the South). But everyone knows that it's always open season on women, everywhere; and the pornification of our culture assures that will always be so.

So, anyway, you're appreciated, believe me. I suspect that many readers now avoid the comments pages b/c of the aggressive and hateful discourse, but we read your column. Keep it up, and maybe avoid the letters section.

Maybe Salon should discontinue the letters sections altogether -- and lead a movement to not provide such an open platform for bullies. What is another way, besides letters, that readers can meaningfully engage with the ideas -- and continue exploring the topics -- raised on Salon? There's a challenge, to figure that out. As it is now, this is a community I rarely want to be part of.

Hmm, evidence will change people's minds? It's a good thought, but I don't know. I mean OJ Simpson was acquitted. Which is completely irrelevant, sort of. Anyway, the domestic scene in the U.S. looks more and more like a civil war - the political polarization, different rules and laws for different groups, overt hatred and media complicity, and the rampant sexism. It's a war on women, and no matter how much those who benefit from sexism will naysay it, it's a hostile country for most women. It's evident everywhere, every day.

Any country that's trying to outlaw birth control or abortion has got serious problems with women having free agency. In this climate, a woman so uppity as to think she can be president Must Be Stopped At Any Cost. That's what we learn from Salon letters, many of them. To be fair to Salon, you can read the same thing(s) over on any news or blog site. It really is open season on women, and when Hillary loses, which we are told she will, that will not have changed.

What will be interesting is if McCain uses, I mean chooses, Condoleeza Rice as his VP running mate. How will the press and the public treat her in that role? Will the now-familiar bombastic invective will be invoked in the blogosphere to couch hatred of her in terms of gender? How will they parse her personhood to serve a sexist agenda? On the other hand, she's a Republican, so she may already know "her place." See, I think this is the real trainwreck ahead on the tracks.