If male circumcision prevented males from achieving orgasm, or routinely endangered the sexual, urinary, or general health of the male, or if malecircumcision didn't afford (albeit minor) protect against HIV and other infections, then we could compare the two procedures.

Re-hymen-ating seems relatively humane compared to female circumcision, which removes the clitoris and parts of the labia minora as well. For women living in a culture that demands an intact hymen for a "good" marriage, then surgery is a clever way to obey the spirit of that custom, and I say "good for you!" But, I am troubled by it nonetheless. Clearly this is a gesture to save face with a patriarchal dictate, changing one's body to please a man (though at bottom, isn't just about anything most women do to their bodies at least in part to please a man?), and no surgery is without risk. Since a hymen serves no health or medical function, it is an "unnecessary" risk to have it surgically installed.

Here's another idea: maybe if every single woman intentionally "broke" her hymen, there would be no "virgins" left, and so the practice of hymen-checking would be abandonned ....

I din't mean to imply that I thought hymen reconstruction involved removing the cklitorisand labia. I was responding to a poster comparing female genital mutilation (aka "female" circumcision) with male circumcision. In my view, they are not the same type of procedure. And hymen rconstruction is yet another type.

Sorry for the confusion.

Seems to me this reality show takes a grain of truth: we should be kind to our spouses, and turns it into an argument against feminism.

It's as stupid as every fad diet that takes advantage of "you lose weight if you consume fewer calories" to sell some "miracle" pill, shake or cereal bar.

If women and men made an active effort to be patient, respectful, and demonstrably loving to their spouse, no one would need to be submissive. Those of us in happy marriages know this already, even if we are feminists.

to deliberately deny the right of a duck baby to exist. She's playing Duck-God! Will nobody think of the (unfertilized) duck eggs?

I actually wish more people would talk about Senator Clinton's idea. Not her potential calculations for doing it, but the idea itself

Can congress revoke their authorization? Should they? What recourse would the executive branch have then? How would this affect the troops?

Personally, I think it shows some good brass to raise this idea. You go, girl!

"The fact is, women have always been equal to men. The division of labor made him deal with things outside the home, her within. There were benefits and burdens to each role. It was often said that he ruled the roost, but she ruled the rooster."

The problem with this logic is, that until well into this century, women were simply *not* *allowed* to own property, sign for loans or other financial transactions, vote, or hold jobs that might dis-employ a man. Women were 100% financially dependent upon men, qwhether they be fathers, husbands, brothers, sons, or the State. With that utter financial dependence, women also had little control over their homes, beyond what to cook for dinner; their own bodies, (as she was as much a commodity as wheat or wool, as it didn't count as rape if she were married, as she was considered promiscuous even if she were attacked, as she had no access to birth control ...I could go on for *days* if you like); even their own children, who were could be sent to foster care, apprenticeships, and early marriages without their mother's consent.

Yes, there are exceptions that prove the rule if we look for them, but insisting that women have always been "equal" to men, overseeing the divided labor of civilization, just doesn't wash. It's like Ben Franklin's quip about calling an ox a bull ... nice words, but he'd rather have his missing property than the inaccurate, though flattering, title.

Please show me the societies where the women, as a class of citizens, were "better off" then the men. And show me the proof.

"women sometimes live longer, suffer less violence, etc, so by some measures women are better off"

And women sometimes win the lottery. But that hardly helps the women who don't. And it certainly proves nothing about one gender or another being "better off."

Perhaps the best response to this should be "How much of a Tough Guy can Rudy Guilliani be if Keith Olberman intimidates him? Keith is 'just' a liberal mamma's boy after all." "Poor Rudy! Did the Big Bad Wibewal scawe you?" Hardlymakes him seem Presidential...

IIRd, the rightstarted this name-calling bit by claiming the Dems were weak for not debating on Fox. I'm just pointing out the pot who's already called the kettle black.

Besides, if Anonymous' analogy is true, then Fox = Terrorists. Why shoud the Dems engage with Terrorists? Hasn't this administration told us to not engage with terrorists?

But keep stitching your arguments together as they fray. It's fun to watch.

You don't scare me. I haven't been afraid of bullies since I was nine. But now I know how to regard anything else you opine.