Faludi's argument is not at all compelling in the face of the first woman striding confidently -- and with very little opposition based on her gender alone -- to the Presidential podium. Hillary may not win, but her bid will always register as historic...in part because she's a woman but even more because no one seems to care all that much. Opposition to Hillary certainly exists, but has little or nothing to do with her being a female; it is almost always framed in terms of her ethics, stance on health care, foreign policy, etc.

In the past 2 years the media have been lousy with 'the mommy wars' and "boys at risk" stories. Surely these stories are a direct reflection on the culture as a whole's continued march toward gender equality. Both stories have the 'modern' woman as the power/driving force to be feared, threatening and smashing what is traditional (moms that stay home, moms in general, growing boys trying to be boys). If one wished, one could view the very presence of these stories as evidence that feminism is alive and well and effective as never before - else why so much anger and fear over its results?

Faludi's effort to co-opt 9/11 as a backdrop for a continued backlash against feminism is weak. I mean, come on -she wrote "Backlash" in 1991....and is claiming the backlash continue 16 years later, refreshed by events of 9/11? Pretty scurrilous.

I could just as easily write a book about how men have been 'freed' by 9/11...they are marrying in their 20s at less than half the rate of men in their 20s two decades ago. The trouble is that 9/11, seminal as it was, has nothing at all to do with that cultural shift - it's the triumph of feminism. Men are far more likely to demand equal partners in a marriage than was the case for their fathers and brothers just 20 years ago. Women are far more likely to defer marriage and child-bearing until they have established their careers.

If testosterone fuel the response to 9/11, including the ongoing backlash of feminism (and yes, to answer Faludi's gleeful journalist -- war does put feminism on the backburner of most people's agendas...racism too. All kinds of isms, in fact), then maybe all Faludi is proving with the writing of this book is that she has more than her fair share.

genius. pure and simple.

I had to laugh though - who among us hasn't said / email/texted something that has come back to haunt us? Mine was to a colleague .

Here's the thing - don't text or email her anymore. Next meeting be professional and focus on the project. When the meeting is over, give her a face-to-face apology with a light tone: "I want to apologize for my text message of the other day. I am not only embarrassed that it went to you instead of my husband as I intended, I was embarrassed to see how silly my so-called harmless venting was. Apparently I still have a little bit of growing up to do - in the future I'll make sure you don't have to bear witness to my growing pains. I hope we can move on from here. I admire you and like working with you and would hate to have single handedly changed what I consider to be a good working relationship, hissy fits notwithstanding."

She may let you off the hook, she may not. Either way you can count it as a lesson learned and move on (and now you have a good anecdote when an interviewer asks: tell me about a mistake you've made / tell me about a difficult client you've encountered etc.)

...not a female.

Perfectly said. Amen.

...when anyone who has visited Salon more than 2 times would know that "liberal Republican" is the REAL ignition point.

I'm all for telling the guy, regardless of his politics. Not because he has a right to know who you slept with but because significant relationships (no matter if they are with women, Norwegians or liberal Republicans) are like a map, not only defining where we have been but illuminating the journey to the destination that is us, today. This will help your man see you with a clarity of love and compassion he might not otherwise be able to achieve.

'nuff said.

The Emmy's is an award show, not a platform for spouting personal political ideology. If they allowed Sally Field to speak her piece against the war, then they have to allow any actors or actresses who disagree and are FOR the war have equal time. Since support of the war, or lack thereof, is irrelevant to the Emmmy's, there is nothing wrong with what Fox did. I'd do the same - if they didn't remove war-related comments (for or against) then they can be accused to agreeing with whatever is said under their banner. No corporation wants that.

Of course such a policy has to be evenly applied to ALL actors making ANY comments about the war.

It's irrelevant that Fox has 'news' shows that are pro-war. Those are shows designated for that sort of commentary. The issue isn't what Fox's position on the war is (that seems pretty apparent)..the issue is whether they can or should censor unsolicited comments in an entertainment setting. I'd do the same if I were them.