This is about what employers expect from their employees, male or female. Anybody who has worked in an office has seen the effects of becoming a parent on co-workers (or possibly even experienced the effects themselves). All of a sudden people who used to work 60 hours a week and postpone vacations indefinitely are taking days off because their child has the flu and leaving work early because they have a parent/teacher meeting. The onus falls most heavily on women, because women are the "traditional" care-givers, but men become less productive, too, if they are truly involved in their child's upbringing.

Anybody who thinks that a woman can simply solve the problem by answering a few e-mails after the kids go to bed is living in a delusional world. There is no way that a parent who really wants to be a good parent can be as enthusiastic an employee as a childless person who is working full-time trying to be a good employee. American employers expect their employees to be very productive. People with children aren't asking just for flexible work arrangements, they are asking to get the same pay for doing less work for the employer. They may feel as if they are doing more work - but in reality nobody can take care of a child and work at home and be as productive as they could be in an office. Children need care, and you can't be a full time employee while you are wiping runny noses and interfering in childish arguments. Even if all an employee is asking for is different work hours, they are asking that the rest of their office arrange their schedules around the new hours, which is an inconvenience for everybody. Setting up work conditions where an employee can work from home can be very expensive, also. Computer equipment, software, and high-speed internets connections don't come cheap.

Can we stop pretending that this is just a matter of employers giving parents a little leeway? There may be very good social and business reasons for giving parents more flexibility, but this flexibility is a very real burden for employers and the employees who are left behind working when the parents take off at 3:00 to pick up their kids at school. We need to address this issue honestly. The problem is that employers expect too much from workers. All workers, not just parents. People without children sometimes need breaks, too. Right now, the socially correct solution to "women in the workplace" seems to be that the parents get whatever time they need to be parents, and the childless people are expected to pick up the slack. This is not a great solution. What we really need is a more flexible attitude toward work, not a more flexible attitude toward parents in the workplace.

... I try to substitute an equivalent act and think about how I feel about that. For example, a few years ago there were some fashion ads that showed women in chains. I imagined how those ads would be been received if the people in chains had been black men. It was pretty easy to see why they were offensive. In this case, imagine a similar ad, but with a mixed-race couple "kissing" instead of two men - same ending, including a series of web ads with respected people being deeply offended by the "kiss". The media would have crucified the ad makers. The only reason there is any question that this ad is offensive is because homophobia is so deeply ingrained in our society that it is socially acceptable. If you mentally replace the pseudo-homosexual actions with something that really is socially acceptable by most people, then it becomes quite clear that these commercials were completely cruel and tasteless.

And it's a doozy. He just signaled to the right wing that if they attack him he will back down immediately instead of fighting them. This is what Kerry did, and it lost him (and us) the race. I had assumed that Edwards was not responsible for the last election cycle fiasco, but if this is really the way he thinks, maybe he had a bigger role in decision making than I thought.

The right thing to do would have been to immediately hire a couple of liberal Catholics to balance out his workforce and to point out that not liking the Catholic Church does not make a person bigoted, just opinionated. This would have been a terrific opportunity to point out that there is room in the Democratic Party for everybody - Catholics and people who disagree with the Church. Now, the right wing is going to be searching the backgrounds of every person Edwards hires, and people are going to be very reluctant to work for him for fear of being discredited over something trivial.

I'd really like to get more information about this. What are the risks of this pill compared to other pills? What is the effectiveness of this pill compared to other pills? We live in an information age, where I can look up pretty much anything on the internet, but I have no idea where to even begin. Is this just another way for Nader to get his and his organizations names in the headlights, or is it a real threat?

Having a baby is often the most important thing a person will do in their life. I don't understand why it would be morally wrong for them to choose which gender to have. You might as well ask "Is is okay for parents to have a 3rd or 4th baby because they wanted a boy?". Would anybody dream of criticizing a family because they "tried one more time" to get a baby of a particular gender? It's their business. Nobody has a right to intrude on a couple's personal decisions about when and where and how to have a baby.