My husband (who is a great dad, and pulls his weight housework-wise) has said more than once he'd be thrilled to trade places wih me.

Then he spends an extended weekend being primary or sole care-giver (when I'm in dress rehearsals) and says "My God. I don't know how you do it. I'm a wreck" and goes happily back to work.

And while I sometimes daydream of being in a high-powered, interesting, job with global travel and a nice office, I'm sure that if I tried to do my husband's job for a week, I'd be thrilled to give him back his laptop and come home to finger paint.

Not because I'm a woman and he's a man, but because the grass does always seem greener on the other side of the fence. Isn't that what this study proved?

Sure more boys than girls will naturally be interested in trucks. And more girls than boys will be interested in baby dolls. No one is insisting Tonka trucks be market specifically to girls (although I would personally love to see ads with little boys playing "house" with toy appliances, and little girls playing with trucks.)

But, an ad campaign that specifically says "these are for boys" (or girls) is different than an ad campaign that makes no gender statement. It encourages a rigid mindset in the viewer and buyer, it makes a tendency (boys like trucks more than girls) a rule (these trucks are for boys). School-age kids are quite sensitive to picking up on rules, whether blatant or unwritten. Ad campaigns like this encourage everyone to think a little smaller.

I think the poster who suggested Tonka was promoting a "gay vaccine" is right on the money (and hilarious). (What will happen when the "Brokeback Workzone" movie is made?)

Our great-grand children will be ashamed of what we allowed to happen to our country, assuming that they will be allowed to read about the 2000 election in the future Bush theocracy/oligarchy.

I read an article in 2004 about Presidential candidate Halloween masks: the candidate whose mask sells best, typically wins the election. (I had assumed Kerry would be a shoe-in, given the comedic potential in his face. More proof of election fraud?)

Given the strong penchant forem n to dress in drag for Halloween, I bet Hillary masks will sell quite well this year. Wear them in good health and go TP a certain ranch in Crawford, tricksters!

If this ain't it, I'm hard-pressed to see what is.

Willful? Check. No "I didn't mean to pierce her labia" defense.

Torture? Check. Mom stated she *wanted* her daughter to feel uncomfortable/in pain if she had sex.

Malicious? Check. See above. Mom wanted daughter to feel pain and humiliation.

Punishment? Check. This was in revenge for "sleeping with" Mom's boyfriend. (I see there isno mention of similar vengeance on the boyfriend. Interesting).

Sick, sick puppy. Rip up the Mom card. She should be in jail.

of the usual semi-anonymous suspects is interesting in its predictability.

I note the huge number of women who condem he acts of this other woman, and say she was criminally wrong.

I see the jury that aquitted her was composed of 5 men and 1 woman.

These Usual Suspects continue to rail against "the feminists" who will defend their own at any cost, and refuse to take maternal-inflicted abuse seriously even though not a single woman or feminist has said in these comments "Y'know, the Mom had a point". And I note that the jury that aquitted the defendant was composed of 5 men and 1 woman.

Failing to get traction on that front, the Usual Suspects then switch to their "more moms than dads are abusers anyway. Women suck! Give Dads the kids!" line, which has been reefuted many, many times here and elsewhere. Then comes the shout out to Glenn Sacks, because he must be mentiomned in every Broadsheet column. As does male circumision, as if Lynne Harris is misandronist by not saying "And circumcising boy babies is wrong, y'all!" in every column. But my favorite is the deliberate mis-reading of Harris' post to accuse her of siding with the defendant.

All that's missing is brightstar, who I am guessing is out at a Halloween party and will join us later, to tell us that while he has nothing against women, all women are ball-busting, gold-digging, life-sucking harpies out to personally make brightstar miserable. (So when you get in, darling, no need to post. I said your piece for you).

It's time-consuming to wade through the posts to find the ones that actually discuss and debate the issues in the column. But it sure proves why a column like Broadsheet is necessary.

reading the comments thread to this column could reach this conclusion:

"We don't see women as abusers because we always suspect men as the abusers. FetBoy, Agent Smith, and JulieBird just continue that long tradition."

without the aid of some serious pychotropics must be the most intellectually lazy person ever to type.

I can't even comment on the 13/14ths"math" and "statistics" mentioned in the same post beyond this: what do 2 and 2 equal in your world?

So, did you thank the male anonymous of 6:14 (many hours and postes before the one you mention) for complaining about his spoiled, lazy, spendthrifty wife? Or is it ok to complain about women?