the sentiments in this story are right up there with efforts to sanitize the workplace for the supposed benefit of women. no one deserves to be harassed, sexually or otherwise, in the workplace, but beyond that, the sentiments in this article, coupled with current efforts to "protect" working women has had the effect of reinforcing the notion that women are fragile creatures easily given to offense and discomfort in the face of the icky realities of harsh world. it's demeaning, and it goes to a very old argument for keeping women locked up in the home, where they can exist in total safety and bliss, safely under the protection (and thumb) of a man...

i'd be all for public crying in the office, except that what i've noticed over the years is that nine times out of ten, at best, the people who do it aren't doing it because they feel remorse over something they screwed up and how it inconvenienced everyone else, they're crying because they feel bad having that brought to their attention, and it's method - unconscious or conscious - of comforting themselves and manipulating others into assisting in that effort. at worst, it's just a cold, hard, calculated attempt to curry inappropriate sympathy and deflect attention from poor performance.

need to cry? go to the washroom or go home.

Ann Coulter is certainly a feminist success story if you buy the narrative that it's a nifty thing every time a woman manages to grab a piece of the action that actually made Feminism necessary in the first place...It's the same feebleness that drives that wide-eyed media coverage of women who turn their backs on the Boardroom to become stay-home moms, while neglecting to mention that these women are hitched to men who rake in enough dough for the whole family - and the live-in nanny. (Gee, with that kind of spin, it's no wonder feminism hasn't resonated further in the past forty years.)

As far as the hair-pulling over Ann's presentation? Part of it's cattiness (ever notice how you don't see men making fun of Dick Cheney for being fat or wearing boring clothes?) and part of it is simply the fact that there is something extremely odd about anyone (man or woman) who thinks cocktail attire is as appropriate for a 7 a.m. panel discussion or Today Show appearance as it is for a chic, 7 p.m. Aryan Nation fundraiser...

Whatever happened to the term "Reproductive Rights"? Speaking as a man, I'm not "for" abortion, but I'm even less "for" taking away someone's right to control her own body - and turning her into an incubator against her will.

You could call it "Personal Decision Rights" or (better still) "Individual Decision Rights," or "Physical Integrity Rights" or "Personal Control Rights." I think we need to find a way to replace the word "choice" with the word "decision," which acknowleges the gravity of the situation, but you also need to frame this as protecting the rights, integrity and privacy of the Individual. Anti-Abortionists need to be re-characterized as people who are anti- autonomy and anti-individual. They're big, intrusive, government types, who think nothing of empowering complete strangers to make decisions centered in a woman's unterus. And who knows what they'll try next????

Is there any way to verify that this murderer is actually telling the truth and not using a better-crafted version of the "Twinkie Defense" employed by Dan White, the murderer of San Francisco councilman Harvey Milk. White claimed (successfully) that a junk food diet had impaired his judgement when he shot Milk. It wouldn't be that much of a stretch to claim that exposure to a particularly distasteful genre of porn (I'm assuming we're talking about porn which depicts torture) might spark a need to kill your girlfriend.

But there is plenty of mainstream "entertainment" which depicts torture and physical abuse. Who decides the difference between that and "porn." And what would constitute this difference? Bare breasts? A menacing penis? A vaginal closeup? Blood? Bruises? Most torture videos depict very little, if any, sexual activity (unless it's rape, which isn't really a sexual activity, either) and very much violence. Rather than ban the stuff, it might be more useful to find out who is watching it and why.

So the high-level female execs have every opportunity to pump breast milk and breast feed, and oh, surprise! the lowly barristas and secretaries have to use the bathroom.

Looking for an example of why the women's movement has never caught fire the way it should have, Ladies? Here's one. And have any of those high-level execs who presumably could at least raise corporate concscience about this even bothered to point out (or even noticed?) the discrepancy? This feminist man is betting no...

Anyone ready to start the discussion about the role of class in American society yet? Because until that discussion begins, Feminism, for far too many women, is going to continue to look (wrongly) like the exclusive province of privileged white women who need support as they angst over the many choices they face.