I am so goddamn sick of hearing these debates progress under the assumption that everyone who talks on the phone while driving is engaging in some vapid or unnecessary chatter. Am I the only one who has ever needed to call someone to, I don't know, GET DIRECTIONS? But no, if I'm driving on a one-way street and not sure where someone's apartment is, or if I've taken a wrong turn and quickly need to find out where to go before I'm forced onto a bridge, or if my friends have changed plans and I need to figure out where the new meeting place is, apparently I need to find a place to pull over (something that's far from always being possible in cities) or I'm breaking the law. Sometimes I wonder if the people joining in the chorus to demonize cell-phone driving have ever actually driven a car.

I just love the rancid smell of sex-positive feminism in the morning, watching them try to convince themselves that strippers and hookers are "empowered women" are "pushing the boundaries of sexuality". Repeating it a bunch of times doesn't make it true.

This hypocrisy has always struck me. Think of the guys who frequent strippers and prostitutes. I have absolutely no doubt that you and other feminists would view them as misogynistic cavemen, or at least as chauvinistic egotists with warped views of women. For what it's worth, I would probably agree, being that the inside of a strip club on any given day consists of either skeevy blue-collar types, or arrogant frat boy/lawyer/corporate douches. Yet, on the other hand, you continue to insist that the women who are part of this world and who cater to these sorts of men (and encourage their taste) are somehow beyond reproach. Keep on rockin' that cognitive dissonance.

That link to the Salon feature story is broken, just a heads up.

Yea, everyone's entitled to their opinion. You see, Republicans are entitled to their opinion that global warming is a myth, that gay people will burn in hell, that the US should be a theocracy, and that we should invade countries and torture people, and I'm entitled to the opinion that having such opinions makes them and anyone who supports and enables such opinions repugnant. You see? It all works out.

I love how the centrist wusses are popping out of the woodwork to decry "ideological purity" and "partisanship" as if we were all just arguing about our favorite Star Trek episodes. If wanting to end an idiotic war and defend against obvious violations of the Constitution makes one "partisan", if the only way to avoid being called "partisan" is to stand for absolutely nothing and cave to the other party on important issues, then boo-hoo, I guess I'm a partisan.

Gee, that's funny. I could have sworn that most of the article was composed of quotes from those military commanders you so worship, but I suppose I'm not as smart as a guy who picks such an obviously tough and manly username or uses phrases like "liberal pantywaist" while claiming to be "progressive". Why don't you go back to playing Halo with your frat buddies and leave the conversation to the grown-ups?

You make an interesting point that I've encountered in a particular segment of feminist writing (Cixous and Irrigaray, for example), but I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree. The idea that the personal and emotional aspects of life are devalued because they are culturally associated with women (rather than vice versa) may be provocative, but is neither believable nor helps us break free of the cycle, since it doesn't explain why those aspects would be associated with women in the first place. Furthermore, it reeks of gender essentialism, since it seems to argue that these are essentially "feminine" traits that need to be taken seriously. At some point you really have to just face the reality that politics, economics, and science affect the masses in the same way, while everyone's personal and emotional lives are unique and not necessarily generalizable. And from a practical standpoint, I think it's much easier for women to keep trying to break certain glass ceilings than to try to change the entire focus of Western civilization, especially since now we apparently know that they are equally good at math and science after all.

As for the post itself, this is the first well-balanced and insightful Broadsheet piece I've seen in a while. I think it strikes at the heart of the internal conflict within feminism that I noted above: are women abetting their own second-class status by focusing on "feminine" topics and gender-specific activities rather than attempting to speak to universal issues, or is attempting to compete with men on equal terms simply letting the patriarchy determine the rules of the game? You can't have it both ways, as Hilary Clinton found out.

Also, it looks like we have a new troll in the neighborhood. Welcome, King Leonidas, I'm sure you'll find plenty of like-minded people here who only read the headline and proceed to fire off a stream of 4th grade-level sarcasm. Maybe you and James T. Kirk can hang out.

I know that you just want to make a grand statement, but the short answer to your question is that those troops would come from the troops that he would pull out of Iraq. While one could argue that we shouldn't be in Afghanistan either, it's pretty obtuse to equate the two. Most of the Afghan population didn't like the Taliban (considering that they were assholes that we helped put in place to fight the Soviets), and they welcomed our presence there far more than they did in Iraq.