This study is not the paradigm-shift that Lloyd reports. For a real eye-opener about the problematics of even asking the question "why women stay" see Loseke and Cahill (1984). The question does not "[confound] even domestic experts," since those like Loseke and Cahill criticized reducing the complexity that is domestic violence into such a loaded question over twenty years ago.

I mean, if Stark is purporting a new theory ("cohesive control"), then he isn't as much breaking out of the "why women stay" paradigm, but is just looking at the abuser side of it more closely (which heavily populate both psych and soc lit).

By even engaging the question "why women stay" is akin to the "pro-life" rhetorical frame, the assumptions about women in both are dangerous.

If not, enough said.

You would think Silicon Valley's airport would be better; you would be wrong.

First, heaven forbid you are picking someone up curbside and miss them at terminal A (which houses Southwest and AA) and have to circle around. You're then forced to proceed past another terminal (not to mention the 'international' terminal that seems to be finished, but not open yet) and head all the way back around.

Second, anyone who has traveled through this airport on the morning before a three day weekend has undoubtedly enjoyed queing up in the parking garage. Yes, that's right. SJC's terminal A has a very pleasant skywalk that mostly doubles as a place to stand in line. And during busy times, the line typically goes out into the parking garage. Granted, I don't think they designed this airport prior to all of the new security regulations, but for all of the gates for Southwest and AA in terminal A, there are four xray machines total.

Third, the bottleneck at terminal A is where the ticket counters for Southwest and AA meet, along with the aforementioned lines for security. During peak times (which in my experience seems to be prior to noon pretty much any day of the weak), they have literal traffic guards stopping people who are trying to go to the ticket counter to let people in the security line move forward. Really, it is a piece of work.

Fourth, after four years, the new direct on-ramp onto the freeway is finally finished. But it only lets you go southbound.

Fifth, terminal C is similar to Ontario airport (see previous posters' comments). Small, low-ceilings, etc.

I encourage anyone traveling to the Bay Area to do yourself a big favor and head straight to SFO.

Portland is also nice, complete with lots of public transit.

And I like DFW as long as you're not trying to change flights there and can land in terminal D.

great posts above.

I'll give another comparison...How is telling me to give money and eventually vote for Hillary because she and I share a gender any different than the KKK telling its members to vote for a white candidate?

Also, women have been making important progress in education and the workplace in the past forty years. All without a female president. So while I think the symbolism of having a woman hold the highest ranking office in the nation is important, I don't think it is the end-all-be-all. I'd rather vote for someone because of their positions on the issues, and I'd rather have more time, energy and resources be systematically devoted to feeding, housing, educating, and keeping healthy those in need. I think the more we do that, the better women's lot will be--with or without Hillary.

(although the image of Bill holding the bible while Hillary is sworn in, with Bush and his stupid smirk standing off to the side on his way out of office is tempting....tempting...)

"It was generally assumed that it wasn't until preschool -- when kids split into gender segregated groups -- that they started to recognize gender stereotypes or expectations."

First of all, these sorts of allegations with buttress verbs have got to stop ("it was generally assumed" "some claim" etc). I expect more from Salon. Second, if you actually went to look for those who claimed this to be true, you would find debates, not agreement. For example, in the 1940s Talcott Parsons said the family was the primary socializer of sex roles and that sex segregation within the family was paramount to role socialization. I'm sure the newly published article proclaims the "generally assumed" quotation to be true, but that doesn't mean you take their word for it, does it? You do do some research for statements like "It was generally assumed..." don't you?