Gordan Ramsay bemoans the fact that only 25% of women are learning to cook before they leave home. Katharine Mieszkowski seems to think that this is somehow "burning women".

Whether or not these women go on to be housewives or CEOs, you have to consider it a step in the wrong direction. It surely would have done me--a man--some good to learn the basics before I left home: frozen pizza and TV dinners are way over-rated. I eventually taught myself to cook a decent dinner. I'm sure I'd be a better cook if I'd learned it as a child. Why it should be any different for the under-educated 75% of women is beyond me. Just because the fraction of under-educated men is larger doesn't make it OK for women to lose ground!

I have seen several recent articles that discuss the relative prison population of men and women. The rate for incarceration of women has tripled recently. Nobody is arguing that this is a good thing. But according to Mieskowski's myopic definition of equality, this should be a good thing. Perhaps the fact that more women being incarcerated demonstrates that women are demonstrating independence by breaking the glass ceiling in criminality.

Kate O'Beirne isn't a real right-wing anti-feminist. If she were, she wouldn't be a laywer. She did not spend her life barefoot and pregnant, nor did she spend it taking Valium in Stepford.

Now, she is challenging some of the recent political issues taken up in the name of 'feminism.' Stuff like legally enforced equal pay, subsidized day-care, etc. But these things should not be considered close to the heart of feminism, at least as I understand it.

Once upon a time, women were not allowed to vote, and were discouraged from holding property. Things changed at the turn of the century, and still more during WWII, then the 50's came along, and reaction set in.

What Kate O'Beirne is, is a conservative feminist. She

* expects to be able to go to an elite school.

* expects to be able to hold down a job as a high-powered lawyer, (or as an author.)

* has significant wealth in her own name, not her husband's.

* is perfectly willing to vote for women, so long as they are not liberal.

* expects to be respected if she does conform to a traditional role.

None of these things are in opposition to feminism as I understand it.

What she opposes are on the traditional divide between conservatives and liberals: the tension between economic egalitarianism and economic libertianism. Surely there's plenty of room for common ground here; she's a lot closer to Betty Friedman than she is to Pat Robertson.

Cary's advice is unusually facile on this one. I am reminded of the molecular biology professor who successfully demonstrated evolution to his fundamentalist student, then left her hanging with no further suggestions for spiritual advice.

There are many theologians who could help a person in such a situation. A "lapsed catholic" is a start, but is also just as likely biased as the church group from which this student needs a little distance.

Find a good theologian to help--if there is a semanary on campus or nearby, that is the place to start. Agnosticism or some vague deism is not the only alternative here. An academic in the field of theology could probably help a lot more.

I simply do not understand vanwall's complaint. Pierce directed 'cars blowing up' because she enjoys blowing up cars. Langley directed a sloppy unromantic comedy more or less for the hell of it. And another directed spiderman, and deeply symapthized with the protagonist.

I thought that was what liberation was all about: having access to whatever you would like to direct. It sounds like vanwall would like Pierce in particular to conform to some preconceived model of 'woman,' which seems like a step in the wrong direction. Some of these women like the challenge of a huge production... hence they work on blockbusters.

Further: I suspect that somewhere between 1/6 and 1/10 of women are going to be closer to Pierce's outlook than to vanwall's preconception, because that seems to be the level at which the ratio of f/m seems to equilibrate in traditionally all-male professions.

I found it more interesting, if unsurprising, that what actors look for in a film director is "leadership."

Dear MLB and Fox Sports:

Even your announcers have determined: the 8 day gap was disastrous for the Rockies. If the damage from this game persists any further, the series is likely to end up as a Red Sox rout. That is surely worse for MLB and advertising revenue than the hypothetical benefit of a series lasting over 2 weekends.

So as a new year's resolution, may I suggest that for at least the end of the LCS, there be no long idle gaps scheduled? The sight of a defensive switch watch being smashed by a shceduling hammer is both ugly and profoundly unfair.

Please, could we have a little variation on this? Listening to a bunch of countertenors sing God Bless America made me wanna puke.

Just once, I'd like to hear Seeger or Dylan sing "This land is your land." Or just anything, anything else.

To count as domestic violence, aggressive physical contact needs to be a repeat activity.

One of the threads at "Jezebel" describes a whole lot of women who got in a single fight essentially simultaneously with dumping a loser. And the guys were by and large not hurt much.

This is NOT domestic violence since it's not about domination or power. It's just a garden-variety minor assault. Shit, that happens to even the least pugilistic guys in middle and high school, at least a handful of times.

As for why abusive girlfriends might be funny in the abstract: it's because it upsets the classical power model, which--in the abstract--is often very funny.

If some woman is repeatedly beating up a boyfriend to dominate him, well that's something else. It's only funny in the abstract.