It reminds me of my ninth grade diary, in which every other entry began, "I hate my mother."

I'm 35, and I still have issues with my mother. My problems with the way she raised me are multifold. I've come to realize, though, that she didn't deform me with her parenting out of spite or feminist conditioning- she carried some serious damage of her own, as the result of her own deformed upbringing. Has Rebecca considered that maybe her mother did the best she could with the way she was?

in large part, I think, to deal with the stresses of parenthood. This has definitely given me pause. While she definitely has feminist sensibilities, my mother (born in 1949), was always a hands on parent. She did, however, have a fully attentive spouse who did half of everything. Still, parenthood has wrecked her, in much the same way her own oppressed 50s housewife mother was wrecked. I find it difficult to judge any mother who doesn't live up to any free-floating standards.

I think the problem is, while a mother might have looked like she was failing her child miserably, she could very well have been trying to meet her child's needs as best she could. It's not like parenthood automatically turns you into this selfless, mentally healthy creature.

Telling people they'll return to the Democratic family because "there's no where else to go".......well, you know, that's just asking for it, as is using abortion rights as a trump card. I have to say, at 35, I am presumably still fertile, but I feel considerably less vulnerable than I did ten years ago, and am also more inclined to see the Democratic party honchos as only supporting abortion rights because it's convenient. This whole debacle has me thinking just how pro-woman the Democratic party, and the liberal establishment, actually is. I used to love Keith Olberman- now, I think he, and his silly show, can just go fuck themselves.

For the record, I am going to vote Obama, and I've never once thought of doing otherwise. I have a 7-year-old niece who needs defending. She's what matters to me- not a bunch of douchebag 20somethings and Olberman fans who are pissing me off. I can see why some Democrats might refrain from voting Obama, though, as a protest against sexism. I can see how such a (non)vote would have its value.

He hit his high point with his eloquent, and much needed, words against Bush's nightmare agenda. Now that he's moved onto non-stop, unwavering Obama worship, I'm noticing how pompous and self-righteous he is, and you know, I just don't need him.

it's increasingly difficult not to see Olbermann as a guy's guy, given his sportscaster persona and his non-stop preference of Obama over Clinton. He is what he is- further proof the Democratic party is less pro-woman than we'd like to think.

After months of Obama's hope-pumped speeches, Palin's sarcasm-filled Convention speech was like a dog whistling missile aimed directly for my cynical, shriveled little heart. I can't help but feel compelled by her- this gorgeous, wretched, and decidedly female creature. And yet, I also can't help but feel more alarmed than ever before that this woman could be the one who actually pulls off the election.

Like others, I'm disappointed in your lack of fact checking.

I wish I could share in all this optimism about womanhood, but the fact is, I have never been more depressed about my sex than I've been this past year. For the first time in my life, I see the limits to what women can achieve. But, hey, women still make more than men as porn stars, right?

Men and women are different, in a way that black men and white men are not- leading sexism to be inevitable in a way racism is not. Limits to women's power are also inevitable.

I can just see how this argument will continue, 40 years from now. The States will, by then, have continued its' tradition of not electing female Presidents, and so, too, will the excuses for that continue, although they'll have morphed and changed for the times by then. This is the way the world works. The women who run for President are never adequate. The women we think are perfect for the job will never run. This is the way the world works.

Yeah, it might have been simple to decide how to treat an animal when the only things vets treated were broken limbs and fleas. Now, when vets do kidney transplants, delicate liver surgery, and chemotherapy (among other things), how do you decide when enough is enough from a financial perspective? Do you have to go broke? Currently I have one cat with a growing lump on his side (I had it biopsied last year- it's not cancerous, but still, I figure growing isn't good), another cat with an inflammatory bowel condition, and one who- lest he be left out of the high-maintenance cat society -needs constant grooming, some of it skilled. I worry that spending too much on one cat will leave me with insufficient funds to deal with another cat's more pressing condition. My vets are awesome and have never insinuated I need to do more than I do. But they also require payment in full.

I did find this article comforting, particularly since I live in Vermont (we're importing animals to shelters here? That's good to hear, although it does kind of conflict with my memories of volunteering at the local, packed to the gills humane society).