to lifelike who said

"I haven't read a bunch of women being catty because she is beautiful"

I see your point, maybe I'm responding to different comments. Because it seems to me that there are a lot of comments which equate to: "I'm glad that this once-sexy woman is not so hot anymore, that's what she deserves." Taken by itself, it's jealousy plain and simple: You would not say that about a flower, a tiger, a garden or a sunset. It's said about a woman because of jealousy or bitterness. I just didn't get the impression that she was full of herself, just that she is explaining what I think is a really sad phenomenon - fading beauty - which requires a bit of explanation that she was very beautiful. The loss of beauty is something that every single person who grows old will experience, and everyone is somewhat afraid of it, no matter how plain or pleasing they started out, no matter how much they say they don't care.

I love beautiful women, I gravitate to them, I tend to befriend them, and I have yet to meet one who is full of herself or thinks she's better than everyone, but I've noticed that other people will say that about them anyone, not even knowing them, starting or believing rumors, or intentionally misunderstanding every word or gesture. I never have understood the general attitude of most other women to despise them. Wurtzel is telling a tale that I don't think a lot of people tell -- probably because they know what the response will be .. 90% of the audience is just ecstatic to see a beautiful person losing their looks and suffering from it. As the saying goes: Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes all the way down.

What you are proposing is called terrorism, and you are inciting terroristic activities. Maybe you're just joking, maybe the FBI can appreciate your sense of humor.

I love how a couple of the guys here are certain that Wurtzel must have said something to deserve being chased down by a man wielding a hot frying pan.

Woman complaining too much = Okay for man to hit her in the fucking head.

You make me sick.

The post and comments are cracking me up!!!

Erickson's "one of our own" mindset is disturbing.

everything old is new again

I must agree with the crazy person, that this is not why people support gun rights. I support gun rights so that I can have the legal means to defend my person and my family, not so that men who lay their lives on the line to protect women's health can be martyred. Oh yes, and I am a WOMAN. Whatever that has to do with anything.

I didn't find anything that guy said to be helpful. He basically said there's nothing we can do about it.

Why would the slaying of an Army recruiter be on a blog about women's rights issues, which this is: Broadsheet.

Islamic terrorists arguably are not winning, since they have not disabled the American government or economy as they intended. On the other hand, Christian terrorists have reduced the number of late term abortion doctors to 2, and have reduced the number of abortion clinics from 2000 to less than 1000 over the years, and reduced the safety and availability of abortions to women, by causing fear and intimidation to all workers and patrons of these clinics and adopting violent and inflammatory rhetoric towards them. And nothing is being done about that. As I read elsewhere, the fact that some clinics have been bombed lends a sheen of terror to any even peaceful protest of a clinic.

I heard that she is very judgemental.

Do we really want that in a judge?

Donated and passed on the word. Thanks for the heads up!

Is anyone else afraid of what might happen to the bloc of conservatives still loyal to Limbaugh if the Republican Party *did* leave them behind? Can we assume these are the same people who think that violence is a viable political tool, whether it is a preemptive war, harsh interrogation techniques, or assassinating a doctor? I'm afraid of what these people who resort to if they truly did lose all their non-violent political power.

I get the impression that ectopic pregnancy is the only justifiable circumstance to the writer of the guide not because the mother's life is in danger, but because both the mother and child will die and there is no way to save the child.

In other situations which threaten the mother's life, the fetus may survive, and it has more of a right to life than the mother. Therefore abortion cannot be justified in those cases.

Ahhhh, sorry OT but the font size is very small now and it doesn't change when I increase it on Firefox. Is there somewhere on screen I can change it that I haven't found yet?

I'm as rabidly pro-choice as anyone, but this doesn't bother me, because:

1. This pro-life group works to reduce the number of abortions needed, they don't attempt to block women from clinics or threaten doctors.

2. This is a visible fulfillment of Obama's statement that the two sides of the abortion war need to meet on common ground.

3. This person hasn't been put in a position of authority at the HHS -- they're put in charge of a faith-based outreach branch -- which seems entirely appropriate given where they're coming from.

Thanks for telling what is probably an embarrassing confession and taking all the nasty comments for it. It was funny and insightful to read, and I passed it on to my husband, who also stays at home. I'm not sure if he ever feels the same way, but it's probably a great relief to know other very intelligent and witty men are doing it, and finding humor and worth in it.