Comparing being fat to cervical and ovarian cancer is mean-spirited and deluded.

There are many heavy people at the marathons I run. I applaud them for the work it took to get there. I don't look down at them for running an 11:00 mile for the duration of the race, any more than I look down at my very thin little sis for running the same pace. I think it's great that they are getting aerobically fit.

I"m sure Jennifer's class is fun. I'm equally sure none of her fat students could keep up with me when I run. There are no obese runners at Boston.

I run to test the limits of my endurance. Carrying extra weight would inhibit that goal. I read books on eating for endurance and peformance, I hang around people who are better athletes than me, I do everything I can to learn about the optimum performance of my body. It's made me better at everything I do, not just running and staying trim.

My love for the people around me is not conditional on their being in optimal physical condition. My mother is 5'0' weighs at least 200. She has struggled with weight for the past 30 years. My father is at least 50 pounds overweight. My grandfather is well over 300. Over the years my husband's weight yo yo'd 50 pounds and back again. I have a close friend who was severely obese, as was her husband. I have thin friends who aren't fit, who couldn't run a mile without dropping over from exhaustion. I have a friend who is 5'9" and a frail 93 lbs due to a genetic condition. I love them all. I'd risk my life for each one of them.

Weight has absolutely nothing to do with their worth as human beings - who said that? Who even implied that? But as much as I love them, I won't pretend the fat ones aren't out of control of their eating. They are. My obese friends wouldn't lie to themselves either - they finally decided to lose it together - a combined loss of 300 pounds. My mom is still in denial, which is fine as long as she doesn't complain about why she won't get thin with magical solutions like pills and cremes, instead of putting down the potato chips. My dad is content as he is - that's fine too, as long as is diabetes is under control, which for now it is.

All that being said, "worth as a human being' is not remotely akin to 'attractiveness quotient'. They are independent concepts. The former is universally important; the latter is simply a matter of my personal taste and is only important to any male who might wish to date me. And, for me, when it comes to dating (that's dating, not 'assessing the worth of a human being') optimal physical condition is a necessary (not sufficient) condition for me being attracted to a new romantic partner. Not for how it makes them look (though that is nice) but for the things it enables them to do.

It's called 'having things in common'. No one said anything about wanting a 'trophy partner'. Where are you getting this?

You wouldn't attack a fat man for being attracted primarily to fat woman, so why attack a fit woman for being attracted to a fit man?

Your vicious judements, bitterness and self-righteous rage are certainly more unattractive than fat could ever be.

..as a woman who laughs at his jokes. If men like this wanted women to be anything more than a mirror reflecting their status, perhaps they'd have a greater appreciation for actual humor when they encounter it. However, most men like this are content for other people to find his woman attractive and 'sweet', whatever that is, and not gut-bustingly hilarious.

Obviously, women don't laugh at Hitchens' jokes. Erego, they aren't funny.

Sounds like Hitechens finds women to be unfunny in the same way he finds blacks to be unleaders. Look at the ratio of male to female comedian! Look at the ratio of black athletes to black coaches! Amazing how such simplistic drivel can actually make it into a major publication. And the comments about women being focused mostly on babies - I guess he concludes that because look how many women have babies, after all. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that we're the ones who carry the equipment and so have to have them, even if it's mostly the hubby that is the one dreaming of mini-mes.

But stirring up feminists is like poking a caged bear with a stick - it's easy, there's a lot of noise and furor and todo, but in the end the bear remains safely in its cage while the stick-wielder goes merrily on his way, looking for something else to poke. In other words, the VF editors gave Hitchen a podium not because they agree wit him or even because its a good or well-written article, but because its sure to provoke a lot of furor, and since no publicity is bad publicity, the question becomes not 'why' but 'why not'.

I don't think women are inherenlty lacking in humor. They aren't rewarded for being funny, though, so it's reasonable that they wouldn't go out of their way to cultivate a quality that will go largely unappreciated/unrewarded/unrecognized.

I hope Salon sics Heather Havrilesky on the gauntlet Hitchens has so limply thrown down. Not that HItchens would be swayed by the reality of a woman who makes her living being funny. Still it's worth a try - an H-bomb accompanied by a nice author photo showing Heather in her pregnant glory. Maybe Hitechen's head would explode. That would be funny! See, we *do* have a sense of humor!