Somebody should have pointed out to Ms. Dowd that Dick Cheney himself got in trouble for dressing inappropriately -- he wore a fluffy hooded parka to a Holocaust memorial service in Auschwitz. People in power receive a lot of scrutiny, male or female. Don't get me wrong -- propriety in dress is still a gender issue. But I wish Dowd had tackled the plight of transgender women who get hassled by cops, not executives who can't take their boots to work.

Holla Back posts run the gamut from nasty -- calling men "fugly jerks" -- to the downright racist. Here's how Laura quotes a Caribbean man: "i saw you in de lobby." If you don't appreciate a guy's advances, women, by all means tell him so. But don't insult his looks or his accent. Feminists need to build credibility -- not lose it by hitting below the belt.

djbollman wrote "When women start being interested in men simply because they have a penis the way men like and value women simply because they are women... then men might change"

djbollman hints at a basic injustice: women often like high-achieving men, and men like women with big tits. Both of these tendencies are probably based on biological urges to produce successful offspring, urges we share with apes, birds, guinea pigs, etc. But if we're going to rise above our animal forebears and build an equal society, I'd rather base that equality on our achievements (at work or at home), rather than the size of our sexual organs.

It's a mistake to assume traditional "girly" toys always encourage passivity. Girls use dolls to act out complicated scenarios in which their roles are far from passive. Sometimes these scenarios involve clothes and boyfriends, but that doesn't make them worthless or stupid. When we equate femininity with passivity, the chauvinists win.

All these letters over one wackjob who thinks women are just wombs on legs? Take heart, feminists. The gender wars aren't over . . . and maybe we can do it right this time.

Both men and women need to stop blaming gender for our inability to communicate in relationships. PMS alone doesn't make women trash their husbands' cars,just as testosterone doesn't make men sink into codependent, "drama king" depression. People fight because they have problems with each other, and Japan all these problems on the deficiencies of a single gender is to ensure that they will never be solved.

Both men and women need to stop blaming gender for our inability to communicate in relationships. PMS alone doesn't make women trash their husbands' cars, just as testosterone doesn't make men sink into codependent, "drama king" depression. People fight because they have problems with each other, and to pin all these problems on the deficiencies of a single gender is to ensure that they will never be solved.

Sorry for the earlier error; must be hormones.

Traister's aside that C. Baum may be a woman brings up an important point. Traister assumes that those who hate Dowd's book will probably be men, and that those men will of course be threatened by Dowd's criticism. It's a misguided assumption on both counts. Can't men -- or women -- disagree with Dowd without being threatened by her? Why does debate on gender politics always have to be described in terms of attacks, threats, and defense?

In the "father's choice" debate, I always bring up the kidney analogy: You don't have the right to make someone else donate a kidney. The process is dangerous, and ultimately, our kidneys are own property to do with what we choose. Similarly, a husband shouldn't have the right to make his wife donate the use of her body to produce a child she does not want. A pregnancy poses a great risk -- both physical and psychological -- to a woman, and she should never have to bear these risks against her will.

Perhaps the image will alert readers to the fact that the time to help someone with anorexia isn't when she (or, increasingly, he) looks like a skeleton. It's way before that, when body type and eating patterns begin to change, when the sufferer can look normal to everyone but friends and family -- the ones who can step in and help. I only wish the cover image had been a black girl, or a boy, to show us that the stereotypical Beverly Hills skinny rich chick doesn't capture the breadth of the problem anymore.

The emphasis on Ms. Nguon's privacy seems odd to me, given the much more basic discrimination she seems to have suffered. One article stated that the principal tried to separate her and her girlfriend. This is totally inappropriate, something I'd wager the principal wouldn't try with a pair of straight kids.

A final note: I wouldn't be surprised if this school was a lot harder on gay PDAs than straight ones, but then I didn't attend it. Any Garden Grove alums in the audience?

The rules of Ms. Nguon's school are on the web. I couldn't find any explicit prohibition against PDAs, so it certainly seems like Ms. Nguon was victimized unfairly. But please, check the rules and see if I'm wrong. (Click through to my blog for the link, or visit first Google hit for "Santiago High")