First, in terms of the topic of Thailand outlawing marital rape, the U.S. did not outlaw marital rape until the last thirty years. That is, states didn't start passing laws well into the late 1970s, and some states today still don't classify it as "rape" when it happens between husband and wife (see your own state's statutes, you'll be surprised).

Second, how did this law come about? What's going on in Thailand that got this law passed? I know how the US laws got on the books, but a little insight into the law's origins would've been a valuable addition to this post.

Third, per the comments telling posters to go read other blogs, I can't imagine a more un-insightful response. Last time I checked, Salon and Broadsheet both tout themselves as a community, and within the community there are going to be disagreements. Telling people to go elsewhere and that their opinion isn't needed hurts us all. How does it hurt us all? Well first it reminds me of the 'America, love it or leave it' fallacy that is so popular among people who don't really want to think. And by chasing away (or hoping to chase away) people who post lame-ass name games with rape leaves us not knowing what people's counter-arguments are. I mean, anyone who wants to can post. Go for it. Give it your best. And so they do and they insert "rape" into Broadsheet author names? I mean, if that's the best they got, let 'em post I say. I think it speaks more to their lack of insight than anything else.

Fourth, here's something of substance the nay-sayers could've actually engaged, which I myself feel is important. While I don't think postings about rape on Broadsheet are too frequent, I do notice sexual violence is rarely discussed in the main reports on Salon, which leads me to agree that sexual violence is ghettoized in Broadsheet. That is, I agree that Broadsheet may post about rape more often, but that's because rape is rarely talked about in other front-page areas of Salon. Sure, we get parenting and political violence (Abu Ghraib, Gitmo) aplenty on the front page, but rarely is sexual violence front-page news, so it appears here. (The only exception I can think of is the constant cute white girl or woman case that the cable news networks love more than the war now that things have "gone bad" there.)

we've got big problems...

If parenthood is a choice, as some of the absurd reasoning goes, and parents must therefore suffer the consequences and benefits of said choice, then I should be able to get in on other people benefiting from my childbearing and childrearing. If you go see one of my kid's to get your teeth cleaned, your dry cleaning done, or if my kid makes your coffee in twenty years time, I want a cut. If my "choice" to have children and repopulate the workforce is going to be so denigrated by others and, perhaps most importantly, my labor power while childrearing is not supported by society, then I think I should be able to charge for your later benefit for the uncompensated labor I'm putting in now (since you're all for nobody getting "special rights" and all). After all, a kiss and hug by grandchildren a few times a year is minimal considering the 40 hour a week my children will be providing to the economy for 40 years or so.

Of course, this is absurd. But so are most of the "breeder" comments here.

Anytime someone claims "special rights" when women are the only possible beneficiaries, I have to say I'm amused. Surely, we're not going to cut the "special rights" of lets say, old people (Social Security), the disabled (disability), veterans (guaranteed home loans, etc.), alumni (guaranteed college admission for their children (aka "legacy admits")), homeowners (tax deductions galore!), etc. Hopefully it is obvious that many groups of people get "special rights." So how come you're not out in the street about these "special rights"?

If everyone is the same, and nobody needs "special rights," then there is no basis for any notion of equality. Equality presupposes difference. The question then becomes, how do we address these differences that are best for society?

I think a number of people, and I'll include myself here, are having children because they want an intimate part in raising the next generation. Personally, I want to be a part of raising smart, capable, and hard-working people. I am not having kids to stay home for the next two decades, or to live vicariously through them, or to obsess over baby clothes. If people seriously think providing space for mothers to pump breast milk is a "special right," it says volumes about a massive social disconnect. Do you really want to make it harder for women who are trying to do what's best and stay employed? What demonstrable harm do these rooms cause to you? I think as far as "special rights" go, I can point to many others that have a much more immediate financial cost.

"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?