By all means, do cultivate other values and other ways of being yourself -- intelligence, general knowledge, and artistic taste is quite high on my list of qualities to judge people (including women) by.

At the same time, let me point out that wanting to look pretty is not always, and not necessarily, a reflection of being a woman in a man's world. Looking attractive to the opposite (or same, as your taste may be) sex is also part of our nature. I think, as physico-spiritual beings, we need to be liked on both spheres: we want to be liked because of our soul (including intelligence, reason, etc.), and we want to be liked because of our bodies (including appearance, clothes, etc.). Both are OK, and men also try both (trust me, I was an 'ugly' guy at highschool, mostly because of my glasses and my skinniness (even today, after so many years, my naked body would probably evoke memories of Mickey Mouse rather than Governor Schwarzenegger), and I got duly ignored by the girls despite my top-quality grades and broad intellectual interests until I turned my intellect to the question of how to look more like they wanted me to look. I hasten to add that, for the reasons you mentioned, this need to 'look your best' is much more strongly felt by women; my point here is simply that men also hear this song.)

So don't despise your pretty- or hot-looking outfits; there are moments when they will be wonderful to look at, and they don't imply necessary slavery to men's desires. But I agree: it would be great to change stereotypes about how women should look by also stressing the value of other characteristics and bringing them out. Intellect is great!

@bigguns: how do you manage to meet so many female geniuses? I wouldn't mind meeting some myself! (No, I'm happily married. It's really just personal curiosity.)

Is it my impression, or did the Broadsheet page just change, eliminating the pink color in the Salon symbol? This looks like a reaction to the points raised in the comments' threads. Hm! Grassroots politics does work.

to the 'pink' literature thread? Great! I like the new look.

I must agree with Ms Price's article: it would indeed sound sexist to suggest that choosing another woman for Veep would imply an offense to the effect that women are interchangeable. We've all grown past that, I hope. It's the competence and the political qualities that we should look for, not the gender, right?

Personally, I think Sebelius would be a great choice, from the political perspective: I completely agree with CeliaInSF on the topic. Hillary's problems seem to have been widely analyzed: the way she ran her campaign doesn't bode well for the way she'd run the country, she was involved in a number of shady cases that would be immediately publicized by McCain in ads, and then there's Bill. From a sheer political point of view, Obama would obviously have more to lose than to gain with Hillary on the ticket: it would seem the number of PUMA diehards who wouldn't vote for Obama is much smaller than the number of those who wouldn't just because he chose someone else.

But then again, I'm not an American citizen, so, like women in pre-sufragette days, I can't vote. It's up to you, American boys and girls!

Oh yes, kufir77 is the man! I agree with you bigguns and melthought, I was so surprised by my immediate agreement I gagged and spit out the Brazil nuts I was eating. I hope he will make other good posts and even engage in civil dialogue. (I guess you might say I've launched the adopt-a-troll campaign: They're people too! Show them you have a heart, and maybe they'll show you theirs!)

I am also a man, Doppelganger, and I can understand your decision. But look: nobody here is suggesting (I don't think it would be "moral" in any way to suggest) that you have to do something. You don't have to donate food to third-world countries. You don't have to give money to charities (especially if you don't believe in them). You don't have to go to church, even if you're religious. If you don't want to adopt, as you pointed out, it is your right, and I'll never be against IVF children per se. I don't think anybody here would. Maybe not even kuffir77 (who first suggested the adoption idea and, by the way, is probably also a man).

But I do think that there are too many children waiting for foster parents, and it would be good if couples, as you and your wife did, at least discussed the possiblity of adopting, and were shown the advantages and delights of doing that. One of my paternal aunts was an adopted child, and she's never had any problem with that, and was never treated as anything but a full member of the family. I don't think every husband has such strong feelings as you, and if the couple feel it would be OK to adopt, they shouldn't rush to IVF just because it's "closer to the traditional procedure".