I appreciate your not "flaming me," but I dan't agree with your premise. Whedon first responded to the brutal stoning to death of a young woman for adultery or maybe it was just having some sort of "inappropriate" sexual relationship. The man who was stoned to death was sentenced several years ago for adultery and the sentence was recently executed. Whedon condemns the one and not the other. What you seem to be saying is that, according to Whedon, stoning to death is OK as long as it's sanctioned by a court in Iran. I respectfully disagree with that idea and I am virtually certain that Whedon would too.

Look, I understand that it's inappropriate to say that one is a hypocrit because he/she condemns atrocity A but not atrocity B. It's like criticizing War and Peace because it's not Anna Karenina. But the stoning of the woman and the stoning of the man are the same except for (a) the sex of the victim and (b) the fact that one was sentenced by a court. If the salient difference is (b), I'd like you to explain why the one barbarity is OK and the other isn't. It just doesn't make sense. Again, you wouldn't condemn the lynching of black men but not that of black women, would you?

how the concept of equality of the sexes escapes so many people. The number of excuses for Whedon's obvious willingness to overlook the identical act of brutality done to a man that he rightly decried when it was done to a woman is marvelous to behold. The notion, clung to by several people on this thread, that asking Whedon to be consistent in these two almost identical cases is somehow the same as comparing two completely different atrocities, is truly grasping at straws. Believe me, it's a lot easier to just accept the fact that Whedon, according to his own statements, is inconsistent on this issue, than to contort your reasoning as so many are doing. I mean even the Broadsheet editors managed it; can't you?

why do you think I'm not trying to do something to stop violence against males?

if you'd paid the least attention to what I've written on this thread, you'd notice that I have not once disparaged what Whedon did write, but rather what he didn't. Indeed I've said several times that, of course, the type of behavior he talked about should be decried, as he did. Apparently you didn't notice that.

Presumably we all oppose the brutality visited upon the woman he talked about. The problem is that he, while claiming to oppose that sort of barbarity, has never gotten around to opposing the identical thing done to a man.

Again, I have to say that the level of criticism my posts have received is not impressive. To say, as you do, that I'm disparaging what Whedon wrote is simply not true. If that's the best criticism you have, you might conclude, as I do, that you don't have a lot to say. And if you get that far, you might be a little more open to what I actually have written on this topic.

but what the Times actually said was that the questions were good but the answers were the same as usual. That's simple english and it doesn't dis the novices, it disses the candidates for not giving better answers. I'm not a big fan of the NYT, but the words mean what they mean.

a copy of U.S. v. Nixon. I'm surprised he hasn't heard of it.

anonymously.........or do I?

Whatever the case, anything Salon can do to make discourse more civil would be welcome. Really, if a person can't address the IDEAS expressed by the poster, the article or whatever, without resort to profanity, ad hominem attacks, etc., he/she doesn't have much to say. I'd favor some pretty strict policing along those lines.

As to anonymous posting, I don't care, but a previous post in this thread had a good idea - to apply some identifier to each "anonymous" in each thread so we'll know who is saying what and so we can respond to that person as opposed to some other "anonymous."

The MSM have been doing this for years. The public opposes the "no negotiations" stance of the Bush Admin, so, according to the MSM, we must be educated. We got the wrong answer on the test, so we have to be tutored in correct thinking. And generally speaking, it works. Enough of this sort of propaganda and public opinion can change.

about a professional athlete, "if you choose to live your life in a fish bowl, don't be surprised when people see what you do." Lohan gets the good from her celebrity status, so she should get the bad as well. She can't choose celebrity and then claim privacy when it goes sour.

if you haven't read Anti-Intellectualism in American Life by Richard Hofstadter, please do. Though first published in 1962, it is alarmingly current. It's indispensible to understanding the American electorate, the Christian right, why three in ten Republican candidates don't believe in the theory of evolution and probably why that guy pronounces "bin Laden" "bin Loggin."

that the reason for the pay gap is that women are less agressive than men in asking for raises is absurd and a classic straw man argument. Women make less because they work less. Period. There are many reasons why they work less than men, but the pay gap is explained in its entirety by that fact. The vast majority of workers don't bargain for pay in any case. They take what they're given.