I share annoy's bewilderment at the desire some women would have to change their vaginas without very serious reasons (prolapses, cancer, etc.), but, like Al Bania, I don't think that the reason is "porn". There's too much variety in it, with too many different types -- just take a look at various sites, you'll see so many different sizes and shapes that I don't think there is only 'one kind of vagina' being overwhelmingly publicized as 'the normal one'. I see as much variation as you saw in old movies. Just as I wouldn't blame anorexia and bulimia on porn (porn actresses are -- thank god(dess)! -- in average less skinny than most female celebrities).

Does it come from males' reactions to 'slit vaginas' in porn? Do we men really react like that, and does that impact women to that extent? What do the guys and girls here say about that? Did this kind of influence because of some male's reaction ever happen to you?

I find this difficult to swallow; but I am at a loss as to how to find an explanation. Men (at least in America) do obsess a lot about penis size, and are apparently willing to undergo treatments to increase their penis size. Maybe the horrid disproportionate penises of certain porn actors had an effect on that; but my understanding is that the American male fears about penis size precede these actors. In fact, it seems to have been there already way before porn became so accessible as it is today.

Could it be that women also had some sort of idea about how vaginas were 'supposed to look' -- I don't know, from talking among themselves? Something analogous to male concerns with penis size?

Of course, I'm in favor of vaginal diversity. Svutlana got it exactly right. One is reminded of philosopher Forrest Gump: "[life/vagina] is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're gonna get".

I agree with you on Saudi Arabia: it's a complicated area of the world, and we need friends there. This trumps gender equality. But don't I wish we could influence their culture without losing their political support!

Now, as for discrimination in the US, I tend to disagree, somewhat. My experience of other countries -- and the experience of female friends from Brazil who were also in other countries -- is that America is one of the places with the least amount of discrimination. Of course America is a big place, and I don't want to say that New York and San Francisco are the same thing as Midland, MI, or Cheyenne, WY, in terms of gender equality. But all in all, a lot of the claims of discrimination I have seen are at least a bit exaggerated.

Take the list of presidents, CEOs, wealthiest, etc. that you've mentioned. There are factors other than discrimination at play: e.g., life choices. Women often want to have children, and often want to combine their careers with other commitments and other pursuits. This tends to diminish the number of hours they actually put into their works. This is not a bad thing: they usually make healthier life choices than the men. But in many cases, to get to the very top, you need a near obsessive dedication to your work that is not so compatible with such life choices. Men, whether from innate tendencies or social conditioning (more probably both), seem to make the worse life choices more frequently than women and actually put those extra, obsessive work hours.

Does this explain everything? No, there are other factors. We can start a discussion on them if you will. My point here was that we jump too quickly to the conclusion that, if there's a difference in the number of men vs. the number of women in any situation, the reason must be discrimination. There are other factors at play, which need to be taken into account if one ever wants to be able to measure exactly how strong -- or weak -- discrimination really is.

You're making some pretty strange assumptions here. I didn't "choose" anything; I just realize that Ms Clark-Flory's post is short, not meant to depict the whole of a reality (which we all know is much more complicated than could be described in a couple of paragraphs), but simply to point out a phenomenon on which other people, including men (have a look at the original articles that she cites), have already commented. Since you like to speak in questions, why exactly is this "painting the 'Arab World' with a broad brush"? And how is this different from the way you are painting white feminists?

HRC's campaign was bad, in my opinion. I agree with you that she should have run it differently, and that she may have overplayed the gender card. But how does this relate to a soap opera from Turkey, and to Ms Clark-Flory's opinion on it?

I don't think I'm myopic (well, I actually am; I wear glasses; but not on this issue). Notice that I present arguments and criticize ideas. Whereas you didn't. Could it perhaps be that you are the one who needs new glasses?

Yes, you're right. The fact that your family is from the Middle East doesn't matter. Even people without family from the Middle East also have the right to have and express an opinion. Just like I (and perhaps you?) can talk about Americans, despite not being one and not having any American relatives.