First of all, Christina Hoff Sommers is a feminist. If you decree that everyone who doesn't agree with your particular agenda for feminism is not a feminist, then that gives the lie to the oft-repeated mantra that it's a pluralistic, varied cultural movement. Sommers is a gender feminist, not an equity feminist. She's said so many times.

If women's studies is "predictable, tiresome and dreary," perhaps that's because only one monotonous view is allowed, all others are silenced, and therefore one knows without asking exactly what response the program will have towards any given cultural issue.

Secondly, how on earth do you make the leap from the death of women's studies (isn't dead now? what percentage of schools in the U.S. still maintain a women's studies program?) to the death of feminism? Were there no feminists before the mid-70's?

If I understand this article, feminism only exists when deemed so by "approved" feminists, and it can only be sustained if college campuses maintain vigorous women's studies programs. If that's the case, the movement had best be put on life support ASAP.

Yes, I think shooting at the First Lady would be considered an issue of national security. You don't?

You really think she can blatantly lie, make up a scenario of bullets flying, a rush for protection, and no time for an official welcome...and then have the clip run of her arrival: no bullets, hugging a child, and a big reception...and furthermore have further information released that at no point on the trip did such an event occur..and her candidacy not be over? Can this be called "misspeaking"? Or a comment "taken out of context"? Sorry, no. It was a lie. A flat out lie.

Clearly, just like Bush, she twists international events to suit her political agenda.

She's over. Over.

I think you're completely right.

Salon hasn't covered the Bosina issue. You haven't been "all over it" as you suggested on television, and you've still to write about it yourself. Your site is playing the ostrich game. This is Fox News tactics you're emulating, as others here have noted. Look at the letters page and the number of people disgusted with Hillary for lying. Shouldn't you address that?

I have no problem with metrosexuals. I'm gay, but metros have it all over me in terms of fashion sense and style. They're generally in better shape, too. Absolute definitions of how a man or woman should act are a little ridiculous, people being individuals, and all. No senstive guy should feel forced to be a caveman. But by the same token, why should a guy who's just a guy be forced to change his ways? And why is it a bad thing for either to acknowledge their feelings? Or do something about it? Especially when it comes to taking responsibility for themselves, and changing their own outlook, rather than trying to force others to do so.

If men, straight or gay, feel a lack of something important to them, isn't that worth respecting? How can we be asked to respect women and support feminism when every time a man says "I'm losing sight of ideals that are important to me, I need to recover a sense of my masculinity" he gets hooted and derided? This seems to happen every time men mention they are unhappy, despite the fact that women supposedly want men to open up and share what they are feeling.

To snicker and sneer at a man's lament for lost masulinity is to fall into the stereotypical "castrating female" mentality, one I'd always heard was a false libel against feminists. I thought feminism was supposed to help make the world a better, more equal place for everyone. Isn't what makes men tick, and makes them happy and satisfied, as important as what does so for women?

Aren't both sexes, after all, equal?

She traces the simultaneous rise of academic history as a mostly male pursuit in the 18th century alongside the novel, something she defines as a predominantly female narrative form.

Name more than one 18th century female novelist. Men, obviously, are responsible for the development of the novel. Is the point that women were more likely to read them? The circulating libraries were certainly dominated by women, but I'm not sure that would determine women read novels more than men. Women having less money at their disposal would more likely need lending libraries than a men would, who would be more in a position to buy books.

Oh, wait...it isn't....