There is another side to this story and that is, in many competitive companies/industries, a single person or married person unencumbered by kids has the freedom to *choose* to work longer hours, gain more skils, work more and higher profile projects and thus climb the corporate ladder faster than family men and women.

I've worked at 3 Fortune 40 companies and this was the case at each one of them - those that put in the hours accrued more knowledge, skills and visibility, which led to getting juicier assignments, whch led to a faster rate of raises and promotions. Those unable to put in the time were left languising on the middle rungs of the ladder. I was accustomed to hearing some of my progeny-producing coworkers complain bitterly about how unfair this was, that they weren't getting the good assignments because they were being 'punished' for having to leave early for little Johnny's soccer game.

My view of this was, if you want to focus on career, do so and don't complain about missing out on the joys of family. If you want to raise a family, do so, but then don't complain that doing so makes it more difficult to keep aggressively compete in the workplace.

Any reasonable debate about a family friendly workplace must include the fact that single and or child-free workers have a much greater opportunity to use the flexibility inherent in their less-encumbered status to more rapidly advance their careers - instead of soccer games and school plays. Many managers are not 'using' their single/child free employees so much as depending more on them and giving them commensurately more rewards in the form of raises, promotions, and perks. For many singles/child-free, there is an inarguable benefit to leveraging your solo/child-free status to advance your career - and this attitude can be a real win-win for their managers/companies as well.

Every major life choice decsion involves some sort of sacrifice: singles putting in the grinding hours have the toys and status but often little time to enjoy them, and fewer close relationships to sustain them. Those attempting to blance work with family life may not have the dazzling job titles and salaries and financial perks that go with same but then again, they have the joy of watching their children grow and develop. No one manages to truly have it all - you decide which side of the equation you want to err towards (more career power or more family time) and then you live your life in such a way that you and everyone around you feels good about that choice.

Why not condemn Titian's "The Rape of Europa' - surely the 'messages' are just as negative, if not more so - we have violence, rape, enforced zoophilia, not to mention lying, trickery, and abuse of power. At least with hip hop, you can ignore the lyrics and dance to the beat.

Art is not required to send a positive message to society. Art is not required to have a message at all. All art, including music, is a statement of the artist.

The wives and husbands of artits certainly have no obligation to defend the work of their spouses. In fact, they are irrelevant to the work of their spouses. Just part of the audience like everyone else.

If you don't like the message of a particular piece of part, then exercise your right to not look at it, not listen to it, not watch it. Or make your own art to counter the messages you don't like. Censorship of all but the 'right' messages is not the way.

That's the only reason I can think as to why these girls would be so pathetically desperate for attention from boys. Um, hello? Girls? It's the *girl* that has the vagina. If you want sex, pretty much all you have to do is pick out a nice attractive guy and tell him you want to have sex - likely, you will not have to do this more than once or twice before you'll find a taker. No need to get drunk or make out with your friend. Think of all the money and humiliation you'll save by just saying what you want, instead of performing like a drunken monkey puppet! Also, no hangovers.

I wouldn't say Coulter's success has anything at all to do with her ostensible feminism - she's successful for the same reason Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are successful: they are self-promoting, articulate, quick-witted, and glib. They have a genius for turning every discussion into a personal platform. And they masterfully manipulate media attention their way by addressing issues in an inflammatory, attention-grabbing way; they make any issue they discuss topical simply by making outrageous statements that cannot be proven. "I've never seen widows enjoying their husbands deaths so much" is neither provable or debatable - it is the verbal equivalent of a fart in an elevator - it's there and whether you pretend to notice it or not, you still have to deal with it.

Ann Coulter's success has nothing at all to do with her 'feminism' though it might have a bit to do with her femininity. As for the personal snipes in Rivers' and others' critiques - well, clearly Coulter uses her looks and personal style to get attention (constantly flipping her hair, wearing thigh- and arm-bearing outfits on televison) so she herself has made those attributes fair game. Still, I'd like to see women avoiding the trap of engaging in criticizing Coulter the woman (I assume she's a woman - I mean, we don't really know for sure, right? She could be a man. Or an alien. Or a bipedal warthog); it would be more sporting to focus the debate (such as it is) on Coulter's ideas. It's not as if there's a dearth of material there. A dearth of sense, maybe, but not material.

Ann Coulter, feminist warthog.

I just had to see that again; it was so...so....*Coulterish*.