So let me get this straight: when the medical/pharmaceutical industry does not develop drugs aimed at helping women to control their reproductive cycle etc.. then they are confirming and reinforcing the evil patriarchical disregard for female concerns. When, on the other hand, they do develop something like Lybrel, they are clearly trying to pathologize femininity. Give me a flipping break.

For some of us, menstruating as a reason to miss work does not cut it. For some of us, who go through intensely painful periods (hot, sweaty flushes, embarrassed trips to the bathroom to check for leakage, waves of nausea-inducing pain causing cold sweat to form on ashen faces) this is a godsend.

Menstruating women regularly suffer from more sleepless or light-sleep nights, more work downtime, more mood swings. What do you think that does for our career path in high-performance fields such as corporate law or medicine, where staying at home with advil and hagen daaz is not an option? Just because something is natural, doesn't mean its good. I know women whose period does not cause them a moment's pain who would still love to have the option to control when it occurs.

In making these retrograde assertions about what is natural, critics of this and other progress in the area of women's health come perilously close to sounding just like the denizens of the old school patriarchy arguing that women should do what our bodies were made for. Come on! We've got minds too. And careers, and demands on our time. Moreover, we're perfectly capable of making up our minds on issues like this with out any tsk-tsking from the earthier-than-thou "period is a form of female solidarity" crowd. Solidarity based on shared pain and discomfort is lame. Lets settle on an anthem (a la The Internationale), throw out our pads, and spend those lost days doing whatever the hell we feel like (even menstruating if that's what rings our bell!).

He made Freaks and Geeks for me, he was amazing in Undeclared, and it was awesome to see him in Knocked Up. Martin Starr is one actor I'd like to see more of - seriously cute and underrated.

Ok so I will admit right away that I am not married. But I am confused by this idea of a person have a 'primary allegiance' to their spouse. Surely one may have a strong and compelling allegiance to more than one person at a time. When these allegiances (I prefer the term responsibilities) come into conflict, then it seems to me that a husband will not always win out as a matter of course, or as head honcho in some sort of moral hierarchy. Sure, she married her hubby and took a vow to stand by him etc...but her mother, the person who gave her life, and pushed her into the world, has a very limited amount of time left on this planet.

In my opinion, no husband, no matter how perfect (or needy) comes before Mom in these circumstances. You've got a lifetime with him, hopefully, but your mother may be getting ready to leave for good. Getting married doesn't replace your old family with a new family. Rather it adds to the entire family unit. I would never even consider marrying a man who did not understand the fact that my Mom and brothers and sister will always be among the highest priorities in my life. And if one of them should ever face a life-threatening disease, no amount of love nor loyalty to my nuclear family would keep me away.

Your family may never get on with your husband. It's not the end of the world. I suggest that, next time you visit, leave hubby at home with the younger child. If he is truly antisocial, stop pushing him on your family. Go by yourself or with one of the kids, and spend your time hanging out with your sibs and parents.

Democrats are Republicans in sheep's clothes.

They went to the same universities, and they attend the same $1000 a head charity balls. Their kids attend the same private schools, they own the same blue chip stocks. Their family trees are intertwined, and the money runs back to the Mayflower. They don't care about public healthcare because they can afford private, they don't care about public schools, because their kids will never attend them, they don't care about the state of inner city crime, because they don't go near those parts of town, and they don't know anybody who lives there, and, here's the kicker, neither did their parents, nor their parents' parents. As tacky and trite as it sounds, this is an old boys club, and they don't share our values.

Day-Lewis' performance in Gangs of New York was spellbinding, mesmerizing, superb. I've run out of superlatives. Zacharek's sensibilities are not usually so pedestrian. Day-Lewis is a genius.

I went with a friend to watch in a movie theatre here in Toronto, and, maybe it's the whole Canadian thing, but I was really happy with the wins, the speeches, a few articulate, most completely flumoxed (did anyone notice how few references there were to God? Merciful reprieve!).

Daniel Day Lewis deserved his award, and There Will Be Blood ought to have won best film, but that's just my opinion. Happy to see the dark horse win for Tilda Swinton, although I thought that Julie Christie had it coming. Loved Stewart's quick, good natured humour, and especially the heart-warming moment when he had Marketa Irglova come back on stage for her acceptance speech. The theatre roared with good cheer when best actor and best song were awarded. And that's really all I ask from the Oscars, two or three great moments.