This is an especially strange article by Rebecca Traister, since if you know anything about Wikipedia, the content of an article is a reflection of the fact that a) *one* person chose to include that material and b) since that time, no one else chose to change it.

This is worth mention in a more-or-less fact-based publication like Salon?

Oh, yeah, there was that sophomore's letter to her school newspaper that there was a whole column or news story about in Salon, so there's no underestimating what material makes it to these electronic pages.

The world is full of people with different tastes, beliefs, ethics, and tendencies toward Web vandalism. If you don't like what you see on Wikipedia, change it!

There are so many things you could do with Wikipedia. Remove the offending words from the Woman article. Add corresponding words to the Man article. Look in a reputable slang dictionary to see if there are, in fact, many more derogatory words for woman than for man (I don't know the answer) -- and if so, try to come up with an explanation for it. Check out, for instance, if the very long history of women being treated as chattel might have something to do with it. Or if the widely accepted fact that on average, men are more aggressive than women might have something to do with it. Or the fact that for a very long time, using offensive language was considered, for better or worse, "unladylike".

Or if you prefer, you can just sit there and complain about it.

Whatever you may think of Ayelet Waldman and this piece in particular, I think the social worker whose letter about

potential child abuse was the most recent just before I began typing this, is greatly overreacting.

So the kid likes kissing his mother (even on the lips), and she doesn't discourage it. This is child abuse?

This kind of alarm-raising on the slimmest of evidence -- IF ANY -- is what leads to pandemics of irrational fear It is the kind of thing that leads to investigation like that of the McMartin preschool (which took several years, mucho $$, and found no abuse whatsoever).

Having said all that, I will also mention what Ayelet Waldman may not be aware of (and I hope she reads this): Some young boys start to have unequivocal sexual feelings as early as age six (e.g., I did).

Waldman might want to temper her actions with the awareness that her son may be starting to associate sexual feelings with maternal love. (To be honest, I really don't know whether this is anything that needs to be avoided.)

But it's my firm opinion that much of the world is colossally fucked up when it comes to sex: specifically they are terribly, irrationally, afraid of the horrific consequences that may follow a child's having sexual feelings.

I believe just the opposite: that *suppressing* this natural part of life -- for years after biology has given a person sexual feelings -- is where the harm is most likely to come (cf. the book Harmful to Minors, by Judith Levine).

I happen *not* to have ever heard of this radio program, or network, or satellite thing, or webcast thing, or whatever the hell it is, so with a headline like that (punny or not), I figured the article might be enlightening.

Wrong.

The author, and apparently the "editors" -- don't seem to care that by the fourth or fifth or sixth or seventh paragraph in, the main subject of the article has still not been described.

I'm not going to waste another second trying to figure out WTF Ms. Williams is talking about.

And I wish that Salon would not waste another electron on articles which, like this one, reflect an apparent total ignorance of Journalism 101.

By all means, please continue to express your opinion in writing. But it doesn't seem appropriate for you to do so by monopolizing Salon's "post a response to this article" feature.

What say you get a blog?

Dear Bipolar Sufferer:

I think what Cary Tennis wrote you is wise.

Your anger, which is probably an emotion outside of your control, seems at once entirely appropriate and bound to make things harder. (Some kinds of anger may spur people to positive action; I'm not sure what positive action your anger could possibly lead to.)

So if you have any choice in the matter whatsoever, perhaps it's possible for you to avoid fanning the flames of your anger. And when your anger speaks to you, you may be able to say "Okay, I hear you, but I'm not going to encourage you."

I don't know if this is accurate, but my impression is that this latest diagnosis has been such a hard thing to deal with, maybe you haven't even seen just what it is you are capable of writing -- even when you are taking all your medications. I don't know about your medications, but surely your letter to Since You Asked is as cogent, clear and moving as any letter I've seen in that column. So I hope you find out that there is still a definite connection between the you of a few years ago and the you of today (even when taking your prescriptions). The connection won't be exactly the same as it was, of course, but maybe it will still enable you to write (perhaps differently, but still)things that are well worth writing.

Maybe you can even turn your extraordinarily difficult experiences into fodder to write about.

The following may be a platitude . . . but since I know for sure there are many other intelligent and articulate people suffering with similar diagnoses, would you find any potential help and comfort in seeking out a group of such people? Either in person or online?

Finally, I want to outright disagree with your characterization of your diagnosis as "fatal" or a "death sentence". Yes, it changes the odds. But I don't think it helps to overstate the challenges that it presents.