By and large, I agree with you, Soliel.

I think Ms Harding was making the point (with which I agree) that people have all kinds of taste, so there are men who won't mind the kind of behavior that Ms Harding had (I assume that Ms Harding also doesn't mind the same behavior from her husband -- i.e. if he is also chubby, likes to do masculinist analyses of movies they see together, talks as much as she does, dresses comfy all the time, etc., she will still dearly love him for all that, or at least despite all that).

Indeed this is true. It suffices to look around to see all kinds of matches between people.

But since I've always been a defender of 'nice' in behavior -- as you put it: "fun, light, interesting but without all those things that most people sort of recoil from" -- I also recommend it. Not only for romantic relationships, but for all kinds of relationships.

The essence of 'nice' to me is the idea that the person you're with is also a person whose personality (desires, preferences, etc.) should be fully taken into account. Being nice, and having others be nice to you, is soothing and relaxing, and very enjoyable for me.

Of course there are other kinds of personalities, and some people do like to 'play rough' at least some of the time.

But to me, 'nice' -- when sincere -- is usually better.

It's not that marriage is a bad goal; it's that the obsession with marriage (like any other obsession -- with work, study, sex, politics, drugs, guns, religion, atheism, etc.) is wrong, and books like The Rules tend to feed on the obsessed.

Relationships are wonderful! (If I didn't think so, why the heck would I be in one?) They're just not everything. If you want one, more power to you. If you don't, the same. Either way, The Rules aren't going to help much, and if you're obsessive you're probably going to feel unhappy even if you get the object of your obsession.

Why does the army put up with slackers? Wouldn't it be more efficient to get rid of them by replacing them with people who actually can and will do the job well? Is the army so desperate to get more people that getting a slacker in looks like a good idea?

But in most 'normal' jobs, I suppose the argument is valid--it is unfair to see people who are doing the work of other people who getting paid the same. Let's call it the "still-to-be-discussed wage gap" -- same pay for less work.

Again, I agree that work and family have to be harmonized somehow, and at least for some professions flexible time may be the solution (as I said my own profession can do it quite well). But not all of them are like that, and some solution other than having some people do the work of others must be found.

than the "Saw" trilogy, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and other similar stuff? Making it 'porn' doesn't change the fact that the effect sought is the cheap disgust thrill.

Just don't buy it. But 'New low for humanity?' Hardly. It's been done before.

LeftWingPharisee, I've always asked myself that, too. I think it must be something about American (or Anglo?) culture. It's not like that in Brazil, or in Europe, or elsewhere (as far as I know).

Should we start being surprised if athletes act like poor sports? Isn't it true that it's wrong when athletes act like poor sports?

If the point is simply the media going 'oh, it's a woman who did that!'... well, frankly, that's very little when compared with bad, unacceptable behavior itself. Oh, of course that will change if more women into sports start doing that too -- but that is hardly something anybody should be proud of.

In my opinion Ms Lambert is simply saying something to deviate attention from the fact that she was wrong in acting like that. She's playing the sexism card as an attempt to manipulate the public. When the right did it in the Sarah Palin case -- 'oh, look, the left is now sexist, they go against a female candidate!' -- nobody went around saying that 'this will change when we get more terrible politicians like Sarah Palin who are female'.

I feel Ms Lambert is trying to use 'sexism' as a way of escaping some of the consequences of her behavior. It sounds to me just like when 'and what about the men?' of antifems is used as a distraction from the topic.

Yminale, $500 is not cheap, but if you have conditions like cancer or leukemia, you'll end up paying 100 times more. If we had to choose between coverage for abortion and coverage for cancer, which would it be?

Besides, it can be changed later. The letter of the law is not set in stone.

Also, as smartacus said above: the wording of the amendment is very clear in that women who need abortions for a number of medical reasons will still have them covered. So the problem is again only with elective abortion, right?

Pregnancy a medical condition? :-) Yminale, I suppose you're thankful that your mother didn't think like that when she was pregnant with you?

so is mine.

is that feminism cannot define itself -- or is not trying to define itself -- as simply "the advancement of women" of any kind. It would seem that feminism is (essentially? seen as? contingently? happens to be?) also about social liberal ideals, so that a 'female Hitler' would be anti-feminist by definition.

I wonder if that is what it should be. Is feminism just about advancing women, no matter what they think or stand for, or is it about advancing the 'right ideas' about women and men and gender roles -- in which case it does matter for feminism what a given notable woman thinks or stands for?