Some people in this thread may be overlooking how men's control of property limited women's choices.

In the 1960s, when I was twenty, I paid cash for a car, but I could not take possession of it until my father signed for it. It was my money and I was not buying on credit but for some damn reason women my age were not allowed to purchase a car without their father's or their husband's agreement. My mother's signature would not have been sufficient. My brother was able to buy a car at eighteen with no one's signature.

It is really hard to go places in Texas without a car. Look at a map if you don't believe me.

For years men (or the Patriarchy, however you prefer it) controlled women by controlling money and the laws of property. In most nations, for most of history, men also controlled women through their children. Children, like women once were, counted as property. Since the man owned the property, he owned the children. If a woman left a man to pursue her own interests, he would keep the children. Divorce laws also made it nearly impossible to get a divorce without a charge of adultery against one of the parties. Even as men controlled women, the Church (or some religion) controlled both men and women.

In the early part of our nation's history, married women were not allowed to own property. When a father died, most often his property went not to a surviving wife, but to his sons. Daughters were expected to marry and thus be provided for.

I remember reading an article that during the witch trail era of our nation older women with property were often targeted as witches. The reason: Her neighbors wanted to seize her property.

is an early warning sign of the person doing it becoming an alcoholic. There are more male than female alcoholics. Alcoholism also seems to be highly heritable.

One could argue that drinking to that level shows a lack of control of one's own body, but we cannot forget that different people have different tolerances and that how much you weigh affects your tolerance.

It is too easy to use natural pitch to demonize women, but certain patterns -- such as beginning sentences with I'm sorry or ending even declarative sentences at a high pitch -- is annoying. I suspect, however, that the male law students mentioned who seemed to be unhappy with more female participation were unhappy just because the participants were women. In fact, the women who began sentences with "I'm sorry" (indicating that they might be about to disagree) were probably unconsciously trying to appease the animosity of the guys.

I will say it bluntly: Women care too damn much what men think. Young women seem so eager to mate in captivity that they give away their very souls. I feel sad for them.

As to that Paris, etc. crap, I am utterly bored with discussions of celebrities who are famous for being famous.

that starlet is a term almost never applied to men, so unless they are going to start applying it to young men who are mainly famous for being famous, they should just lose it.

It is annoying that articles which purport of be opposed to sexism too often are sexist. It shows an absurd lack of self-examination. That pandering-for-attention stuff can be applied to members of the media as well as it can to what's her name -- that jailed blond-haired woman.

How is almost as important as what. Everyone knows the correct answer is to begin to redeploy. None of these candidates really distinguish themselves much if they cannot speak to the specifics of how to get out -- both our troops and our equipment.

In the Shapiro interview, Senator Clinton mentioned getting our out equipment out as well as our troops. It is important to get our equipment out -- keeping in mind how it may be used if we do not manage this carefully. Al-Qaeda having access to our equipment and the technology of our equipment is unacceptable. So much money and equipment has already gone unaccounted for, some of it no doubt used to line the pockets of war profiteers, that one of the most important things must be logistical aspects of withdrawal.

As to the answers given here, I thought Kucinich was dreaming. Can he really want the nomination? Edwards' answer depended too much upon the actions and goodwill of others. It was light on specificity. Since I like him, I was disappointed. Richardson stood out by using the word differentiate when the simple word differ would have served him better. (Can we stand another president who doesn't communicate well.) Governor Richardson's answer was also light of specifics. I have to say that Clinton answers like a woman who has done her homework. However, do we really want someone who will not do her homework? Senator Obama appeals to pathos in the end. It is good to be aware of the suffering of others, but is he sincere or just using a rhetorical devise?

Candidates, don't just tell me you are going to end the war. That can be just pandering. Tell me when, tell me how, and tell me what the world should look like afterwards. We need someone who can think theoretically, logistically, and strategically.