I strongly urge pro-choicers to make their own ban--don't visit states that overturn legal abortion. I'm guessing tourism is a huge part of South Dakota's economy, and we can hit them where it hurts.

Yes, what I'm advocating assumes that one doesn't already live in South Dakota. But since only ~770,000 people live there, there's millions of us who can enact a ban.

And yes, a trickle-down theory of economics could suggest that a tourist ban would eventually hurt women, but I'm not going to willingly give my tourist dollars to a state that makes such harmful legislation. They can use their own tax dollars for that.

In addition to such a ban, I think it is important to figure out how to help the women of South Dakota (and the other states that will soon follow) get the type of health care they need.

they just had no where to go. But Chloe's collection looked at least like a collection.

that word always bugs me when used in the context of gender issues...

and I don't get why Marlowe criticizes books like "Nickel and Dimed" for not doing an about-face in its "political" or "ideological" point of view. Is that the purpose of Ehrenreich's book? If not, I don't think it is the place of a book-reviewer to hold it accountable to such. I am a big fan of Ehrenreich's book because it examined the consequences of "liberal" policies (like Clinton's "ending welfare as we know it"). Ehrenreich's book is hardly a "left-wing cliche."

I suggest that Anonymous read some Foucault and then get back to us about how dumb this stuff is. Post-structuralist theory on gender and sexuality is some of the "hardest" reading "out" there.

In my humble experience, my girlfriends who were raised in strict religious households

a. had sex early in high school (most often without contraception)

b. got pregnant from said encounters and either had abortions or were sent away to have the kid and give it up for adoption

c. have a difficult time enjoying sex even after they are married

I mean, if you are taught that sex is unpure (until that magical ceremony of marriage), how do you make such a shift in thinking from literally one moment to the next, "sex is bad....sex is now good."???

If you are taught that those feelings you get are bad and dirty, how are you ever going to express them in a healthy way once you have a ring on your finger? I mean, women's first sexual experiences with men are sometimes painful, that can't help.

And was I the only one reading through the pledge/promise/convenant whatever for loopholes on lesbian relationships? I mean, can another girl make one of these girls impure?

is a serious global concern. Just the other day Japan was considering putting dating services on TV ads (which are currently a no-no).

The problem isn't overpopulation. There's no such thing. There's over-consumption and over-waste, but not overpopulation.

Many highly industrial countries are experiencing drastic fertility declines because of, yes, education and work opportunities for women. This isn't a trait you can pass on to your children, it is a standard of living that people grow up in and expect to continue.

For example, in the U.S. we have the baby boom generation that is going to retire, but there is no comparable generation to completely replace them. So no wonder countries are all freaked out about low birth rates, who's going to pay into the tax system to provide funds for all these people who will need social services? The government needs to find a way to bear the brunt of the costs--how better to encourage childbirth, preferrably among native-born citizens? Why do you think George Bush is even considering amnesty among immigrants? It does double duty: helps business and helps keep taxes rolling in.

I think the most disturbing thing about LW's comments is the couple's lack of decision making together as a couple, especially finacial decision making. If the fiance won't listen and come to mutually agreed on decision about how to spend money now, is he going to change once he gets a ring on his finger?

Unless the two of you are going to be keeping separate finances, which the comments about home improvements and trips doesn't seem to suggest, then there's no his money and your money--how the $900 is saved or spent should be mutually agreed upon. Failure to do that adequately now, well...good luck with bills, accounts, retirement, etc.

Rings, whether with or without diamonds, don't and can't mean just one thing.

I'm surprised that people are suggesting that they can look at the ring on my hand and know what it means to me and my partner, whether or not it has diamonds or not.

Is the diamond industry a bad industry? Yes. Probably one of the worst in fact. But no less than the oil industry you patron on a weekly basis.

If you don't like diamond rings because of their sexist implication or because of the blood on their hands, that's great. That's the meaning you bring to your choice of ring. But don't suggest that you are the final arbiter of what rings mean.