"That's not what she said at all; one of the major points she is trying to make is that feminists have insisted that choosing the traditional path of staying home with children (even just until they are in school) is weak-minded and a cop-out."

The problem with that is that it's not true. It's a strawman. At best it's an exaggeration. What about the feminists who are SAHMs? Sure, some women occasionally criticize others choices (SAHMs, WMs, Childfree, Single, Married, etc) but so what? There's nothing unusual about that.

"What she wants is for it to be okay for women to make choices--even the choice to stay at home--without being belittled by anyone, especially by other women."

It already is okay. I believe that's what feminism is about (choice)? The "belittling" thing is silly.

There's nothing wrong with those goals or ideals. Your life might not mirror those ideals but that doesn't mean that those ideals failed. The whole thing is an evolving process rather than something that's set in stone.

"Who are these women who criticize women for staying at home? I'll tell you."

Yes and single career women without children are lonley bitter harpies and working mothers are neglectful parents and on and on. I'm sure you could find examples of all of the characatures but I suspect they would be more of the exceptions that the rule.

LOL. This is the part of the whole opt out thing that kills me. When the original NY Times article came out talking about the "opt out revolution" a couple of things gave me pause. First the focus on a certain class of women. Namely, the highly educated fast track high end Wall St or Law Firm very upscale types. What those Type A women discovered is something that men long ago knew. That, outside of the huge pay potential, it sucked (e.g. crazy hours, tenuous job security and advancement, grueling work loads, etc.) Apparently this was a surprise to those women. So, they opted out, but, managed to, as they say, "marry well" and become rather comfortable SAHMs. I can't say I'm overwhelmed with symapty for their "plight".

The other thing was that the whole argument is somewhat fradulent. Most PEOPLE (e.g. women, men, single , married, parents, childfree, whatever) can't opt out of working unless they want to opt out of eating, having a roof over their heads and so on.

Perhaps you should have put an asterik after your last paragraph as well? While women ceratinly shouldn't be thrown into jail for "miscalculating" and naming the wrong father, the advice you give to men (get a paternity test you non-trusting lout!!) is rather half assed.

The main problem is not women or anybody else entering the workforce in numbers they haven't in the past. It's that the jobs which would allow, and be available to, one average educated wage earner to support an entire family today, for the most part, no longer exist, and those that do exist, don't exist in the the numbers needed to make that so.

Part of it is the private market somewhat gouging two wage earner familes, but, a bigger part of it is that the earlier programs you mentioned often received generous government subsidies which allowed them to charge less. Those subsidies are history and a lot of those programs are gone, and as you state, they have mostly been replaced by expensive private services.

It doesn't make sense that if someone fumbles the ball out of bounds anywhere else on the field their team retains possesion but if they fumble it the out of bounds through the other team's endzone the other team gets possession. Since nobody recovered it should be spotted at the last field possession and whatever down it is should be played next.

But, the rule that kills me is that an offensive player can "stiff arm" an defensive player all the way down the field but if a defensive player does it, it's a facemask penalty.

"If you on offense lose the ball into the other team's endzone, then you basically are losing the ball to them."

"Basically"? You are only losing the ball to them IF they recover the fumble in their endzone. If the offensive team recovers it, it's a touchdown. If the offensive fumble goes through the defensive endzone, it really doesn't make sense that it's a touchback.

Patriot fans should just count their blessings. The Bailey play was way too close to overturn and when sportwriters start to appeal to "geometrics" to try and explain something, you know you're in trouble.

The worst call of the weekend was the overturned interception in the Colts/Steelers game.

"It's quite apparent right now that women in my generation and the one behind me will be ahead of the males at the end of their lives."

....and stop trying to turn your dubious observations into fact. No, it is not "quite apparent" at all that women blah, blah, blah. While there may be individual concerns that the relevant folks should address, there is no War on Boys and "Boys concerns". The notion that simply because women are doing better than they have in the past means that boys/men are being minimized or punished is plainly stupid. As was said before, it's not a zero sum game.