This discussion is probably over now that another Broadsheet article has been posted (that's usually the way things work), so my contribution to the definition of domestic violence will probably not be read by many. But I wanted to say thanks for acknowledging that domestic violence can be perpetrated by either sex. I call this site on double standards when I see them. I'm happy to congratulate it on even-handedness.

Personally, I think domestic violence must relate to some genuine physical threat. A wife slapping her husband in the face is not committing an act of domestic violence, unless she's stronger than him or somehow has him incapacitated and keeps slapping. To a certain extent this is going to seem biased in favor of women, because women are generally less physcially strong then their husbands. A wife slapping her husband simply doesn't carry the physical force a husband slapping his wife is likely to have. But I think in any instance, the question has to be: is this a physical threat that can inflict damage? It might be that with women, either they have to go for the groin, or use a weapon on another part of the body, to actually commit an act of domestic violence. That doesn't mean it doesn't occur. And, of course, in some instances the woman is the stronger party. But I do think it comes down to whether a genuine physical threat is involved.

I don't agree with the Church on a lot of issues, but I agree with you about the integrity of the Pope's statement in relation to Catholic theology. And I agree that a religious doctrine which re-conforms itself to whatever happens to be popular opinion at a given time is worthless.

There are some ludicrous statements being made here, but the more irritating is the "why trust the sex advice of someone who hasn't had any?" Does that mean the commentators would agree with the statement if it came from a conservative Protestant who had only had sex with his wife? More to the point, will they only let a doctor treat them for cancer if he's had the disease? Will they not trust a psychiatrist who hasn't suffered schitzophenia, clinical depression, or whatever they sought therapy for? It's ridiculous. It might well be someone who abstains from sex has a clearer position on the issue than someone who doesn't.

Thanks for the rational response, about the only one here. I agree with you that it's not a gender question.

The piece has great humor. "F. Scott Fitzgerald would have loved the Obamas, though one suspects that he would have edged Michelle into crazy territory or made her into a black Jordan Baker type, mysterious and cool with a borderline lesbian vibe." In other words, made her into an object or a symbol, rather than a person. That could be construed on Samuels' part as making a feminist point.

I'm not sure that a "practical" role model for young women means a "preferable" one, as Traister would seem to read it. And it's curious that in a large collection of essays, she only responds one. So often Broadsheet pieces feel dashed off, a quick look at an issue or article and an immediate emotional response. It's worth pointing out that this collection of essays is called "The Power of Michelle Obama." The fact that New York Magazine found her too complex for one or two writers to assess everything that makes her powerful might be read as a feminist point, too.

Most of Traister's articles used to really irritate me until she mentioned at one point that she's 25 or something. When I realized I've been supporting feminist causes longer than she's been alive, and when I considered what I was like at her age, I eased up on my response. I remember being young and easily antagonized when something bore even the slightest whiff of oppression, whether it be sexism, racism, or homophobia. I didn't have a national outlet for my vitriol, and so I couldn't build my youthful rants into a journalistic career, but why should I begrudge someone else their good fortune?

A very close friend is a true conservative. Earnest, not corrupt. And he still thinks invading Iraq was a good idea, and while he doesn't attribute 911 to Hussein, he still stands by the argument that Hussein gave aid in a variety of ways to Al-Qaeda.

My point is that the assumption that going to Iraq was wrong and simply a (very horrible) blunder for which an unquestioning news media is responsible ignores the fact that one side of our national debatehhaving questioned the documents, the arguments, and the decision to go to war, finds them accurate and justified. And in fact, this side does not see the national media as complicit but already extremely critical of all three of the above. The Times was regularly excoriated as anti-the Iraq war with only a couple of editorialists actually supporting it. I want to point out that my friend isn't a board member of Halliburton or a benefactor from the war or anything. He's a smart guy with integrity. And he sees things completely differently than I do. Or most Salon readers do.

So the answer isn't as simple as "If we had questioned this, an overwhelming majority of Americans would not have supported going to war and their representitives would not then have voted for it." That's a kind of pie-in-the-sky vision, the failure both the left and right have of thinking "If the facts were just available, everyone would clearly see my position is the correct one."