presumably you've seen this:

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/13/whats_behind_greg_craigs_resignation

Ms. Harding wrote: "I can assure you that no matter who you really are or what you really want out of a relationship, it all boils down to one simple fact: Men want short-tempered, poorly dressed fat feminists who have sex on the first date and never stop talking."

I believe this proves the old adage 'there's someone out there for everyone'.

When I read Kate Harding's work, I am reminded of a working definition of diversity and inclusion--at the end of the day, if Harvard wants to be truly diverse they need to admit some less-than-stellar freshmen every year.

Salon and Broadsheet are demonstrating their own version of this sort of diversity by employing Ms. Harding. The piece of writing that these letters reference is so bad, so awful...it is among the worst things I can EVER remember reading.

I am not kidding--from my perspective, Kate Harding is to feminism as Rush Limbaugh is to conservatism...and I am the left-leaning headstrong father of two daughters.

Congratulations Ms. Harding. Congratulations Laura Miller. Congratulations Salon.

You are all aiding and abetting the dumbing down of America, and the coarsening of discourse in our country.

"relentlessly pursuing the same question just makes you look like a bully who can't roll with the punches"

pot. kettle. black.

...at least as far as obesity issues are concerned.

Kate Harding is to feminism/women's issues as Rush Limbaugh is to conservatism.

...as Rush Limbaugh is to conservatism.

And both are endomorphic bullies, as well. And my supposition is borne out in their work.

in a heading entitled: "The ultimate bully"

"just take a deep fucking breath and understand precisely what it is you are advocating: the right to an environment free of contrary views."

I wonder if this poster is aware of the fact that Ms. Harding has an entire blog that is 'free of contrarian views'...at least as far as views and opinions concerning overweight (mostly) women are concerned.

But I agree completely...and have posted on it a couple of times. This will be my last time: Ms. Harding is a bully. And while some of Salon has improved...her inclusion is not a part of that improvement.

Her views on a wide range of things are colored (obscured?!) by her weight...and her perception of men's perception of her weight. She is a classic bully.

Her post here is consistent with other recent articles--she literally does not understand what another writer is attempting to say. Shame on Salon...

...as I have also revisited my views of the Clinton years, and, specifically, Mr. Clinton's indiscretions (and the media's view of them).

But I 'gots to know', Joan.

When you make public appearances, do you have 'handlers'?

is Kate Harding always so angry? In her own way, what she writes about is pretty much always the same thing...and she is always angry about slights (perceived and othewise). Kind of like the wingnuts these days.

...point to what I wish to say.

I will re-post part of one of them:

=====

"She's actually being thoughtful and compassionate -- a welcome change, I must say.

Kate -- zero tolerance polices come about from the same kind of PTSD tunnel vision that your very own rhetorical style promotes when the subject is rape."

=====

I couldnt' have said it better myself. Thanks to 'Silenced'.

My own view of this article: I half-expected some off-the-wall 'logic' connected to fat acceptance or body image in her commentary.

I do not at all understand the reason that salon.com gives so much space to Ms. Harding...except that her inclusion is some sort of affirmative action for the horizontally challenged.

Her views, as this article demonstrates, are so poorly formed...so immature...they belong on her own blog.

...a Salon article written about a sensitive topic (women's weight/insecurity/self-image etc.) authored by a person with the maturity of an adult. Bravo to Sarah!

I am amazed...and have been amazed...for several years...at the popularity and notoriety of Tom Friedman. He, quite simply, is not that smart...

More precisely, he is not as smart as his writings make him appear to be...and I can't even explain exactly why.

Of course, Friedman did write that just about anyone could open up an online bookstore and be just as successful as amazon.com

My oh my. Good column, Joe.

perfect.

...a wonderfully written story!

...in Salon, written by Ms. Harding...supporting S. Williams.

Here is what I have observed: many large women are bullies. Ms. Williams is a bully (I have personal experience). I have not met Ms. Harding--but I have read much of her work on Salon and her blog.

Without meeting her in person, I speculate that she, too, is a bully. Certainly both women are large.

Ergo, her support of Serena and her simply intolerable outburst/threat.

This support is misguided. Mary Carillo said it best last night: Serena should not be allowed to play doubles today...the transgression was that serious.

...for more mud-slinging than you've ever seen. Ever.

One more thing: you will be referred to at least once, in these very comments, as a 'self-hating Jew'.

I do not agree with everything that you write here on salon.com, but your pieces over the past 12 months have really shaped my 'old dog' views of things...and you are to be commended for that.

Keep up the good work, Glenn. I really appreciate it.

...Ms. Harding?

This is not a personal attack...it is a real question.

I read your main blog...and my goodness the hate and the venom...it is impossible for me to read this post and Salon and not wonder about where you're at food-wise right now.

Poor Amanda, the Apple phans will descend upon you like a plague of cockroaches...

THIS POSTER IS 100% CORRECT.