There have been some truly disgusting and hate-filled comments in this discussion. It was the words of another poster that made me realize how frequently and consistently this occurs. I hoped the Letters section would enable Salon readers to engage in meaningful discussions, but I'm afraid it has only ruined my enjoyment of Salon. I've been a daily Salon reader since before the Hyde story, a subscriber since the first time subscriptions were offered, but I do not see any reason to support financially the sort of mysogynstic filth that passes for discussion here. I wouldn't support a site that allowed its readers to post racist rants either.

I don't visit or donate money to other sites that host this sort of nonsense, why should I patronize this one? I will not be renewing.

I just wanted to speak up on behalf of the many, many female small business owners who run a Curves franchise and have their own views on reproductive rights, thank you very much. Whatever the opinions of Curves "corporate", keep in mind this is one of the best franchises in the country--and the women who own and run these clubs are a driving force behind it.

Before you jump to the conclusion I'm biased, let me admit I am. My mom recently realized a dream of hers to become her own boss and is now running her own Curves. And she's one of the strongest pro-choice people I know.

I'm regularly surprised by the freedom with which seemingly normal people make snap judgments about women based solely on their looks. You never find the same comparisons made about men, and certainly never in the same numbers. Just look at all the vile remarks made about Helen Thomas on various sites if you want to feel nauseated. By way of comparison, I never see anyone giving Walter Cronkite or similiar elder males the same level of disrepect. Slashdot is only a reflection of the culture at large. Everybody knows women are judged by their looks. The worst thing isn't when geeks do it, it's when we do it to ourselves.

I've been reading /. for a long time as my fashionably-low user ID (low 5 digits, yay I'm such a nerd but hey I gotta establish my cred) attests. I'm also a professional software developer, so I'm familiar with geeks and consider myself to be one, despite my amazing lack of a Y-chromosome. Slashdot regularly runs articles on the mystifying dearth of female techies, or the latest game industry tactic to target the female demo, or the supposed unsuitability of the female mind for mathematics and computers. It's one of their perennials. Have a gander: http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=women

Whenever one of these "Gender Gap" articles comes up there are bound to be a ton of comments. Normally I'll scroll through the higher-rated replies, but I rarely read past the first couple. If I stopped to think about why I almost never bother to participate, I suppose it would be because of the inevitable ignorant/sexist comments... that are usually regarded as funny. There are so few women who read the site that complete ignorance can be rated "Insightful" or "Funny". Stereotypes thrive when you can express an ignorant opinion and not be challenged on it. I think that sums up Slashdot pretty well. It's an Old Geeks' Club.

Why don't we just pay money to everybody who has children so the men who are actually responsible for them don't have to? Isn't that what this is about?

If men can unilaterally terminate their financial responsibilities, I suppose women could too, since that is only "equal". I guess that leaves society holding the bag again. Note this has nothing to do with adoption, where both natural parents are involved unless the father cannot be found.

I am curious how this proposed system would actually work. For all those men who would potentially make an "up or down vote" on their obligations toward their offspring, how many would sign away their financial responsibility and then turn around and try to insinuate themselves into some sort of relationship with the child? Could the custodial parent retaliate on the grounds the father disclaimed his rights, or does the child's interest in a relationship with his/her father win the day? Does the child lose inheritance rights, too? A return to de facto illegitimacy? Do we end up with more weepy tales from Men's Rights Activists about womenfolk who won't allow a father access to his own offspring?

What we have is the best unsavory alternative among ever more unsavory alternatives. The sexes are not equal in biology; they are equal in their right to bodily self-determination. Since pregnancy takes place in a woman's body this means the system is unfair. Neither is it fair to deny a child the right to parental support when a parent is available. Neither is it fair for one person to force another to undergo or not undergo an invasive medical procedure based on economic blackmail.

Battlestar Galactica - It's overrated for a reason. BG is very, very post-9/11 and probably the most topical thing in SF since the original Star Trek. It's a little ironic to insult the show for being xenophobic when that's almost certainly the point. This show will hook you if you give it a chance (and wade past the obligatory hot Cylon sex).

House M.D. - The formulaic plots sometimes allow real genius to break through, as in last season's "Detox" and "Three Stories" (both Emmy-nominated). Hugh Laurie is brilliant as the title character. Too bad the other characters aren't equally fascinating. After I got the season 1 boxset I was hooked. I'll catch up with season 2 when it's out on DVD.

Commander-in-Chief - This fascinating show may not be very believable, but it's an exercise in wish fulfillment worth watching for Geena Davis' wardrobe alone. 6' of statuesque Amazon queen is not campy at all. Why is the Presidential Power Couple so much hotter than their teenage kids?