I was so happy that Cary put this possessive, quasi-violent, seemingly extremely controlling LW in his place in the first sentence of the response. No, buddy, you don't have a "right" to any kind of wife. Your wife or husband or whoever is an independent person and you and she have to negotiate the terms of your relationship -- there are not "rights to things" involved here. It's dirtubring that the LW even managed to write that sentence without deleting it before sending his email to Cary.

Clearly, these two people shouldn't be getting married, but i think it's more because of the LW than his fiancee. Next, he'll want a wife to who cuts everything off with any threatening males, and then, with anyone who she could possibly relate to or hold in higher esteem than the LW, male or female. He wants to control and own her and mold her into the "perfect wife." She should get out NOW.

But i guess we're supposed to assume that the women who ate 3 or fewer servings of red meat per week were getting their proteins from somewhere else, like chicken or fish, which are just as full of chemicals as red meat. Plus, many non-meat products are also full of chemicals, like non-organic vegetables, almost any packaged food that has all sorts of preservatives in it. Even if they got their protein from beans, nuts, other legumes and soy, they could still be injesting as many chemicals as the red-meat-eating women.

So, let's see, out of salon's readership, 15 people hate RT? Yeah, you guys are clearly the majority, assuming fewer than 30 people read Salon.

If you hate her so much, stop reading her. What is so hard to understand?!...

They had a black president on 24 after all.

Yes, but they have a woman president on Battlestar Galactica.

In any case, I really don't see the point of asking this question. We don't choose presidents on who has been more oppressed. I would say that both a black man and a white woman would have to work harder than Average Presidential-Looking & Sounding White Guy #243, but it's possible for either of them to win. On a more specific level, I think Clinton has image problems to overcome that are specific to her, not all women.

As for whether people are more racist or sexist, I think the answer partly lies in the fact that with race, the overwhelming majority of people have abandoned any notion of explaining racial disparity through biological differences (and undoubtedly rightfully so), but the explaining of gender disparity on biological differences continues to thrive. This desire to explain why women are lagging behind men in so many areas is a desire to find an explanation other than hundreds of years of inferior treatment. It's a desire to absolve ourselves of historical responsibility and see ourselves as blameless, because, it's biology's fault, not ours.

No one ever mentions that the differences between men and women biologically in areas that are related to human achievement are very negligible.

Some of you will object by saying "but look, there are no differences on race, but there are so many differences documented about gender!" and i will say that a large explanatory factor for that would be the amount of research on differences on race vs. differences on gender. It's still perfectly okay to do research comparing men's and women's brain functions and emotions, etc., but it's become pretty much completely unacceptable to do the same kind of research on race. It used to be acceptable, and back then, you could have found hundreds of "scientifically proven" differences to justify your beliefs that a particular race is "just better" at math or government. But we have decided that not only are those justifications scientifically incorrect, but that there is no point in pursuing that kind of research, because we're just going to work form the assumption that there are no inherent biological differences based on race. We have yet to agree on working from the same assumption in relation to gender.

I really don't know what the pratical benefits would be of identifying concrete and serious cognitive differences based on gender. The normal distribution of people's abilities would still tell you that it would be stupid to group people by gender rather than ability during schooling. Would people actually advocate concretely different treatment in our government, hiring processes, the justice system, of people based on gender? We don't do it based on race.It seems like it's the wrong way to go.

In the governor's race in MA this year, the candidates were a black man (D) and a white woman (R). The black man won hands down in a very blue state.

Although this may not be very indicative of the rest of the country, since blacks could vote in MA for much longer than the rest of the country.

Elizabeth hit the nail on the head about your prostate cancer.

I have a few comments:

1) "After all, fewer unwed welfare mothers mean fewer economic problems. " Well, 1/3 of all abortions are had by women who are married.

2) Almost everyone who is anti-choice, including yourself, assumes that pregnancy and childbirth are not a burden on a woman. Read up on it, maybe you'll think twice about the government mandating women to go through that kind of physical and mental change.

3) 57.8% of all abortions are had by white women.

4) "Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%."

http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

So i'm not sure what you're talking about.