...but so does everyone else. Opinions: aren't they nice to have?

My two cents is that GWTW is a fun classic on Christmas day, especially if I'm with a gay crowd, but it really is overdue for a remake, "Rosenkrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead"-style. In other words, the same basic plot arc, but viewed from the perspective of the black characters; we see their lives "offstage" from Scarlet and her family; there's huge scope for a complex, black Civil War movie feeding off a classic, famous plot.

It would be a fascinating movie in the Obama age, and happily there is plenty of black talent, money and clout in Hollywood at the moment to get it made.

It's a free idea, Spike Lee – help yourself. I'd just love to see it happen...

...and only tenuously linked to actual "facts".

That's why most serious readers ignore it completely.

... do I have to talk about my feelings and go shopping with you?

'Cos I don't mind a bit of fart humour either, and I also have platonic, frisson-free relationships with straight men (and even some gay ones); but to be honest, nothing bores me more than shopping or dealing with someone else's emotional meltdowns.

And I'm also not a fan of rampant stereotyping, although I am glad the author has found some straight men who can be taken out in civilised company without soiling the furniture...

Surely you're missing a fundamental tenet of the faith here, Judy?

Which is: "Women should have total control over their own bodies until they make a decision that a bunch of bossy pseudo-feminists disagree with; at which point such control must be taken away from them for their own good."

How else will the matriarchy achieve hegemony?

Apologies if anyone takes offense at the snark, but sometimes I just get so tired of the stupidity...

- you can conceive and spawn children you can't raise, and the state won't step in.

- you can mutilate your sons' genitals on the grounds of stone-age superstition, and the state won't step in.

- you can brainwash your kids all the way to adulthood with the whims and foibles of a never-proven sky fairy, and teach them fear and hate and disgust for those who don't revere the invisible unicorn in quite the same way as you do, and the state won't step in.

But breastfeed when you're one over the eight, and the little mite's endangered! Possible over-reaction by authority figures who felt their power wasn't receiving due respect, perhaps? Gee, it's so hard to be sure...

"Go back to watching Gladiators, America; we are in charge", as Bill Hicks might have said.

...with your stunning understanding of "thriving Africa" and Mugabe's role in it. Or is it just that conservatives can only think in broad strokes, and the idea that the continent of Africa may have many countries, only one of which has ever been run by Mugabe, and none of which were left "thriving" by colonialism and US/Soviet Cold War meddling, is a little too complex for them to comprehend?

On the kid's side here. Uniforms, dress codes, hairstyle rules – WTF? How do any of those relate to the content of one's character? (Thanks again, MLK, for giving the world one of its finest pieces of shorthand...)

They have NOTHING to do with standards or principles, and EVERYTHING to do with the crushing of individualism and the enforcement of conformity. As someone who went to a Catholic school which insisted that brush-cuts and middle-partings (middle partings, FFS!) were signs of dangerous rebellion and "lower class values", I get where this kid's coming from. And once you start shaving, you encourage thicker regrowth and a steadily accelerating shaving routine – who the hell needs to go through that every morning? How does it improve your education to have to spend hours of your life (it all adds up) pointlessly modifying your body so as not to upset others' expectations?

And as for the "rules are rules/it's easier to comply" brigade, feh; shame on you! I hate to fall foul of the Godwin Rule so early, but really: what is "rules are rules", except merely another way of saying "I was just following orders"?

Are you married? If so, how many orphaned or abandoned children have you and your spouse adopted?

I'm not trying to be snarky; you seem to be thoughtful and accessible to logic, so I just want to throw some logic at you.

Let's assume that you're correct – it's "best for children" to be raised by a "traditional couple" (I don't believe the research proves that, BTW, but I'll assume you're correct for the sake of this argument...)

Are you saying that in the absence of a "traditional couple", children would be better off growing up in state care, or left to fend for themselves on the streets? Would you support legislation to remove children of single parents into state care? How about a former member of a "traditional couple" who finds him- or herself widowed before the children are grown? Should the kids be removed to state care, or to be adopted by a "traditional couple"?

Or are you prepared to admit that in the absence of a "traditional couple" alternative, a single parent, or gay married parents, might not be "best" for the children, but would at least be "better" than putting them into state care or letting them fend for themselves?

If you are prepared to admit that, then I think you need to reassess your earlier argument. Allowing single parents, gay or straight, or gay couples, to raise children is not the same as those parents invading "traditional" homes and stealing the kids for their own selfish ends. They are being parents to a child in need – children who, through no fault of their own, don't have access to the "best" parenting, in your opinion. Or would you prefer children in that situation to have no parents at all?