They may all be porous to some degree but their are real variations in the degree of porosity which have have very real effects. Are you saying that it would make no difference to the situation in say, Israel, if there were no barriers between Gaza and Israel or the west bank and Israel, to pick one of an infinite number of possible examples.

cancels out any tendency that PTSDers have to make sacrifices in order to be protected.

This is a common misconception, unfortunately RwW was NOT based on the right to privacy, it should have been, but it wasn't. It was based on equal protection: if women don't have a "choice" about pregnancy they can't be "equal". This argument is both legally and culturally vulnerable. Maybe now that the court HAS held that a right to privacy exists (the texas sodomy case) we will have a chance to get the right to abortion established on a more secure legal footing. A right to privacy might be problematic though for some abortion rights supporters because it would at least open the door to the argument that people have the right to engage in consensual porn or consensual prostitution or whatever.

from women.

how much of it was due to her being a woman and how much of it was due to her being a Clinton.

to evade the authorities and communicate.

this is the right way to go on so many levels.

No but it does prevent them from being taken seriously now.

"you just don't like it that someone else gets to give their version of you"

No we don't like it that we aren't allowed to give a version of ourselves that conflicts with your agenda without being accused of nefarious motives or subjected to a smear and silencing campaign. Case in point: sexuality.

This may be a little late and maybe beside the point but I can't resist: actually they DID dislike her and DID treat her worse more quickly than otherwise would have been the case because she was a woman (and a "foreigner"). Of course these weren't the only factors or even the biggest factors and they would be very hard to truly sort out but they played a role. It is an interesting example actually but if looked at in any detail it actually suggests the opposite of what it is being cited to support.

Are you suggesting that if women were more often telling men what to do (if that is possible) that the reaction would be less. I think your analysis is somewhat on target except for the truly bizarre claim that what makes the idea resonate is that the situation is, supposedly, somewhat uncommon.

in typical feminist/female supremacist fashion of course she blamed male lack of creativity/intelligence/insight/whatever for the situation rather than admitting that status and accomplishment is/always was/always will be necessary for biological survival for males in a way that it is not/never was/never will be for females, but it's at least a partial acknowledgment of reality, which is something, but not much actually.

not quote of the day.

this is the biological survival I was referring to.

Since self sufficient women can't be GENUINELY attracted i.e willing to make REAL compromises and REAL sacrifices in order to maintain the relationship (as ALL men MUST do to maintain ANY relationship with ANY woman) to men less accomplished than they are which results in the proportion of the male population of interest to the average female continually shrinking it seems very likely that it isn't going away.

men have a certain emotional attachment/obsession/whatever (in this case vicarious) to high social status/rank/money/success that goes WAY beyond any practical or rational considerations that women do not. Obviously women can have their own emotional attachment to success too, since once they have all the money they need they are free to do ANYTHING they want (a situation which men, even rich ones, can only dream of. see Eliot Spitzer) but even so the desperation level is different.

not a conspiracy against women.

so it is erroneous to imply that the presence of a more influential factor means that other things don't matter(of course it is all about plausible deniability anyway: if most males are uneducated blue collar workers it just means more women will be in the positions of authority that they should be in anyway).

alone, but for this to have ANY chance of working voluntarily when the man has options at least three factors would have to exist:

1)He is STRONGLY attracted to her to start with

2)They are compatible in other ways

3)She is very into him sexually and stays that way.

Obviously the chances of this all coming together are not very good.

if women couldn't complain about men or eat chocolate unless they made partner at that Wall Street law firm THEN you would see what women can do if they are truly motivated. It would also give them some insight into why men are the way they are about work, money and sex.

so any woman who says they would do it if it were "more acceptable" (yeah it was really accepted when Spitzer did it wasn't it) is either lying or is just talking out of their ass and doesn't REALLY want to do anything. Because if they want to NOTHING is stopping them.

It won't make any difference when it does happen. If the military doesn't like/care about the president they go on their own way without being influenced at all. Just like they did when Clinton was president. I'm not saying things won't change over time but it won't be because the president is, or isn't, female.

the fact that boys can be made to sit still doesn't mean that there isn't a problem.