Curiously, Rebecca Traister's article has engendered 145 comments in response. However, the post below this one, on the "bread and roses" march by Women of Zimbabwe Arise, has gotten not a single comment.

I actually find that news to be incredibly important and interesting. So why hasn't it brought about any discussion? Because there's lots we could talk about. These women are essentially the traditional, discontented housewives Betty Friedan talked decades ago, but their stakes are much higher than self-fulfillment: they're marching for their own survival, their own economic well-being, and that of their children.

So why no posts? Is it simply because we all agree that this is important? Then why isn't there a flurry of exclamations of support? Why no debate about the best way to help?

Is it that there are no obnoxious misogynist trolls whining about how if these women worshipped their husbands they wouldn't get AIDS from them?

Or it could be that neither we, nor the trolls, give a fuck, and that we scroll right on past the meat and vegetables to the junk food posts, the stupid debates that don't matter. I'm beginning to wish that one of them would say something offensive in response to a post like that, because it might draw people's attention. It all does make me wonder whether Heffield has a point. Let's prove her wrong.

Confidential to those who consider whining sanctimoniously about how the Salon writers never post about serious issues, I think women trying to do something about a 38-40 year life expectancy is pretty damn serious, so why aren't you there either?

These are women who are flouting tradition to fight for their lives. This is how feminism starts within a culture. It's an important moment.

I didn't have anything substantial to add there, because, like you, I don't know anything about the situation. But someone else commented--whether because of this discussion or not, I don't know--but THAT's a useful response.

Avner Kauffman. Knows how to cook and loves his wife.

Some male figure skaters are gay! Who KNEW!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, it's pretty out there, although some of its campaigns--a touring demonstration of how vegetarians make better lovers, for instance--could possibly give some people pause. And some were pretty funny. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't PETA responsible for the spay-and-neuter-your-pets ad featuring a cat orgy while the owner is gone, or was that a different organization? That was hilarious!

Whatever we think about breastfeeding notwithstanding, I think the idea of this commercial was to equate drinking cow milk with drinking human breast milk, the notion of which most adults find pretty distasteful. Add to that the "eeuuwww gross" factor associated with lactation fetishes, and this was essentially another over-the-top PETA antic. The people who are offended by this ad have probably mostly already made up their minds about PETA, but will probably find other animal-rights organizations to be more reasonable by comparison, making them seem more "middle of the road." And some people may indeed be put off by the comparison of cow "breast milk" to human breast milk, or at least by the inhumane practices used to extract it.

that's hysterical. My eyes are watering, that's so funny. I truly truly hope he was able to have a good laugh when it was all over.