First of all, no examples of the questions were provided. All I saw was a mere assertion that the questions asked were sexist in nature. Given that that judgment is often a subjective one, it begs the question of what exactly it was that they were asked.

Second of all, the fact that the women themselves were not able to identify the questions as sexist, and instead internalized the whole experience as legitimate critiques of themselves, indicates that perhaps the questions could be percieved as not sexist, but legitimate, neutral questions. Actually, the whole premise of this experiment - questions that are only subtly sexist hurt more - probably dooms it to the kind of circularity and unreliability that achilleselbow points out, as subtle sexism is usually subjective, and there is probably no way to objectively deem a statement "subtly sexist."

Achilleselbow deserves a star. He (or she - far be it from me to exhibit any subtle sexism) clearly stated all the issues I had with this post in a much more eloquent way than I would have been able to muster.

Noted and ignored.

"The article was subtle. The kind of sexism Harding describes is subtle and crazy-making. So, we got everything from name-calling to irrelevant attempts at invalidation."

Silenced basically declared that everyone who doesn't agree with him/her has Aspergers Syndrome. Canuckistan Bob posted a giant tract singling out every single poster who he doesn't agree with and labeling them all sexist. And here you are throwing around the word Troll at everyone who takes issue with this article, instead of actually engaging them. Looks to me like most of the name calling in this thread is coming from your side of the aisle.

Name calling - bullying tactic number one. And yes, it is also crazy-making.

The kind of sexism that Harding describes is, in fact, subtle. So subtle, in fact, that it perhaps is not even sexism at all, outside of the mind of the woman who percieves it as such. That is the critique that achilleselbow advances, and nobody here has been able to adequately answer it.

I am stil curious to see what exactly the questions were that were asked. A mere assertion that they were, in fact, sexist, is not enough, as often that determination - especially when dealing with subtle sexism - is subjective in nature.

That, I guess, is what I am questioning here. The notion that something can be objectively deemed sexist without being overtly so.

...with everyone here who has previously posted that Lizz Winstead is the only one here who deserves scorn of any kind. I don't drink, and have never really understood what is so appealing about alcohol and drunkenness. Clearly, I am not in step with the masses on this, and I don't begrudge anyone else their chosen vice, be it alcohol or whatever. However, one thing that we all know for certain about alcohol is that, whatever else it may be, it is definitely not an agent of empowerment. Getting her guests drunk, and then forcing them to justify their sex lives against the specter of rape, while broadcasting the whole thing on the internet, was not fair at all.

Point taken. Nobody forced them to drink. However, given that the name of the program is "thinking and drinking," I think its probably safe and reasonable to assume that drinking is an expectation. Furthermore, regardless of whether or not they were forced, it was pretty clear to all observers that they were, in fact, intoxicated.

I mainly take issue with the fact that she is taking it upon herself to make them justify their sexual choices against such an unfair assumption that she is making about the likelihood that they will be raped because of them. I would object to this even if her guests were stone cold sober. The fact that they were both clearly intoxicated makes it all the more objectionable.

Given that this bill is so clearly unconstitutional, what are the chances that it will end up before the Supreme Court and be overruled on Constitutional grounds? This is a serious question that I am posing, as it seems pretty clear that it will pass today, and the Supreme Court seems to be our only hope now.

"Actually, you vote for Barr over Obama, you have not only placed your imprametuer on this FISA legislation, but also on everything a conservative stacked Supreme Court will do to further evicerate the Constitution, (including for example their thus far unsuccessful attempts to tear usunder habeas, and for one conservative justice in one case, even for American citizens captured on US soil), not to mention unending foreign wars, and a further entrenchment of a Latin America style plutocracy in this country and attendant ramifications for the under class. Good luck with that."

The above statement couldn't be more false, and betrays a considerable amount of ignorance about the campaing that Bob Barr is running. Barr is basing his campaign largely on unconditional opposition to the war, uconditional opposition to the Patriot Act, unconditional opposition to warrantless wiretapping, and support for federal decriminalization of drugs.

That last point, were it enacted, would have positive effects far broader than most people realize. Want to balance the budget, eliminate street gangs, reduce the prison population, bring down healthcare costs, bring political stability to Central and South America, and take a big bite out of Al Qaeda's operating budget? Legalizing drugs is the way to do it.

Three weeks ago, I was happily looking forward to voting for Obama. Now, I haven't yet decided whether or not I will cast a less than enthusiastic vote for Obama, or take a chance on Barr. I must say, however, that in my eyes, Barr's stock is on the rise.