@Ghingis Can: you seem not to understand the law. It doesn't let women "get away with murder": even in the worst-case scenario -- the woman was indeed battered and physically abused by her husband -- this wouldn't acquit her, it would simply decrease the punishment. Much as is already the case for men who kill their wives when in rage after catching them in flagrante delicto of adultery.

@knecht: as dworkin's post makes clear, the 'haters' apparently think everybody here has some sort of hidden anti-male agenda. I think they sometimes really don't bother to read the whole thing and consider its consequences; but even when they do, they think they have no chance of influencing anyone. So they do their little game, which in fact does make them incapable of influencing anyone -- a self-fulfilling prophecy. I understand your anger, believe me; but I think that, when they're wrong, it's better to simply point it out -- you know, for the record -- but without too much emotion. What for? Who gains anything by doing this?

@Linney Uston: note that the wording of the law is not clear about whether or not verbal abuse would be a possible defense. As Allie says, the wording is very ambiguous. I think the idea is to allow real abuse as a mitigating defense (not as an excuse! not for acquitting!). I would also agree the wording should be changed. But the idea, as I see it, is not bad, and we still have to see how it will be used. I have some faith that judges and juries will not accept just anything as an excuse to claim abuse.

Let me see if I can summarize the points in the post (so if I end up commenting on something that wasn't there, you all can let me know):

(a) Blogher didn't get the respect it deserved in Jesella's article, not so much because of where it was placed (it had to be Styles anyway, since that's where she was working), but because of her excessive attention to (stereo)typically female topics and 'cute' details like the infamous bathroom message;

(b) Netroots Nation, on the other hand, got a much more even article, which took it much more seriously than Jesella's article did BlogHer.

Hmm... let's see. I'll address some of the questions in the post.

Why should Netroots receive more attention? As Rebecca said, it had more important people, journalists, etc. Because there was a larger emphasis on politics, economy, science, business, etc. -- topics which interest more people. And -- pace badstoad -- maybe they should. These are things that concern us as a community, that may affect our lives in unpredicted ways, and in which we're supposed to participate as citizens. I note even here at Salon that, say, articles on politics get far more comments than articles on health. So, given the larger political impact, I am not surprised that Netroots got more coverage. Just like the G-8 usually gets more coverage than the Mercosur.

But why shouldn't BlogHer be as powerful? There are many women who surf the net, read blogs or write them. But they talk about frivolities... well, they shouldn't. If more of them talk about serious things, their impact will increase. The number of New Yorker caricatures will decrease, and they will increasingly give the impression of being in poor taste. So here is an appeal: women bloggers, first ladies et al., please go against the mainstream expectations and talk about politics, jobs, the economy, etc., in your blogs. The more the better. Express opinions, contrast facts, research events, present predictions, compare polls, analyze tendencies. Go ahead! Change the mainstream interpretation!

I'm not against blogs on other topics -- health, lifestyle, etc. But if these topics do not get the coverage that politics, economics, etc. does (and I think there is a reason why they do), then the more women bloggers get involved in these topics, the more power BlogHer will have. And the coverage will become better.

A final question -- how hard is it for a woman to be a serious political blogger, as opposed to, for example, a serious political reporter or journalist? Is it really harder? (What would Salon's Joan Walsh say?)

Thanks for the support! How come you're one the haters? Uh... you managed to fool me! :-)

It would be great if you could spell the facts and the logic of the situation. Even if in order to demonstrate that it is, indeed, just a new manifestation of an ongoing an apparently interminable old argument. Of course, if you're lazy, then we have a problem :-). Another one would be that you would also have to take into account counterarguments: maybe, despite the looks, the situation is not simply a new manifestation of an ongoing an apparently interminable old argument, and someone might want to argue that. And you'd have to take his/her ideas into account. In case, of course, you're interested in the topic. If you aren't... then why bother? I mean, I assume you are interested in the questions.