but it is bad policy to rely on it developing in all circumstances.

most of the "anchors" on fox and cnn are women and most news shows have women as cohosts. It is probably true that they don't want it to look like a women only venue, but is the fact that something is not totally dominated by women evidence that women are being excluded or oppressed?

are on al jazeera. I'm not kidding.

they just want other people to watch it. This will totally flop

It's always tricky when discussing emotional issuses to strike a balance between engaging the substance, the emotional substance, of the questions surrouding a particular issue without seeming to question the motives or perceptions of someone else in an excessive or problematic way. In fact since those things are often THE issue it may be impossible. I'm intrigued by the question of what the birth rate would actually be if people had complete unconstrined freedom in the matter. If half the pregnancies are unplanned does that mean the birth rate would fall by half or more? If it did would society at large via the govt. take action to make child rearing more attractive or cheaper etc.?

and David Brooks may have ambitions but they haven't produced anything, except what can be measured by volume. As far as psychoanylsing groups and presidents go this seems as good an approach as any other since this president's policies do appear to spring straight from the right wing collective unconscious with scant to nonexistient rational filtering anyway.

(as does every cell in the human body) and the potential to develop into a human being under appropriate conditions (as does every egg and sperm). It is up to the "human life" assertors to provide a coherent argument as why it is that the instant these two characteristics coincide that the moral status of human is acquired. It is psychologically understandable why someone might be attracted to the idea: it is an identifiable distinct marker in an otherwise apparently smoothly continuous process, but the idea will not withstand scrutiny.

question of whether or not both genders can somehow manage to perform the same economic functions is to distort the issue beyond all usefull consideration. Of course they can in almost all cases. The issue is that there are emotional differences and the only real question is is everyone going to try and coopertively deal with it or are some going to insist that there is one right way, their way. Obviously the question is still open.

can be forced to pay child support and women can't be forced, yet, not to get an abortion so guilt, and harrassment, is all anybody opposed to women getting abortions has to work with. Actually some effort is made to guilt trip men into paying child support but the primary focus is on collection. Given the physical facts what would you expect.

It's truly an elegant argument, really a beautiful thing: If you don't get EVERTYHTING EXACTLY your way, why "he's just not that into you" and the situation is totally hopeless anyway so there are not balances to be struck or decisions to be made AND YOU are the victimized party. It's beautiful really.

to pretend. The fact is there are many differences between men and women which lead to, well differences, in outlook and reaction in daily life. It borders on dishonesty for women to pretend that most women are prepared in these situations to negotiate with the male in question as an equal but not more and that women don't believe they are objectively right on principle in most emotional situations and that they don't believe there is something wrong with men for having different reactions.

the market now is for women who have slept with a guy and want to replicate that experience, but I'm curious if knowing, (sworn affidavits I don't know) that it's an exact replica of someone you're attracted to but haven't slept with would add anything to the experience for women?

the human race would become extinct in one generattion. there are lots more examples just like this

on editorail pages without reference to women's problems and will have to suppress the impulse to paint a picture of the "truth" that the most important thing, or a least a very important thing, about everything that happens is the "fact" that the world is fundamentally arranged for the benefit of men and the detriment of women.

I don't know why the females preferred the pot but they did, the other findings of the study are easier to explain, and of course do show meaningful gender difference. Of course monkeys are not people but this kind of hysterical reaction does make it seem like there are two equally insane fundamentalisms competeing, the fundmentalist christian AND the fundmentalist antimale feminist.

But it is necessary to factor into the analysis the almost certainly true, if not rigorously tested, fact that if you take individual men and women and set them in a disaster situation and give them the same equipment the men will do better owing to both physical and mental factors, add kids and the disparity would be even greater.

for a lot of people to be SO CERTAIN that it has to be complete bullship indicates that they have an agenda. That agenda is: to establish that there is only one right way for people to behave, the feminist way. That is the explanation for the hysteria over the scientifically uncontroversial fact that there are meningful gender differences. When one group seeks to establish that it's interests and preferences should be imposed on everyone, and attempts to circumvent a rational discussion of WHY they should have this right, people who are not members of that group and do not share (all of)it's interests legitimately feel attacked. CLEAR?