The notion that, because men write much of the copy for commercials, sitcoms, etc depicting violence against men, then those depictions are OK is just not sensible. The simple, obvious truth is that men and women both do a lot of things for a living. If I work on a construction crew for a nuclear power plant does that mean I support nuclear power or does it mean I need to make the rent next month?

The short stories and movies that Betty Friedan complained about in The Feminine Mystique were often written by women and the parts acted by women. Did that make them OK by women? Feminists have never said so and I wouldn't either. Do you?

And your point that women don't particulary think jokes about kicking men in the crotch are funny may or may not be true. Do you have a citation for that or is it just that you yourself don't find those jokes funny?

But the main point about that is this: no one, certainly not me, has ever said that misandric popular culture is something that women do to men. It's something the culture does to men and in this case it abets the violence in our culture the vast majority of which claims men as its victims. That's something that any true feminist (i.e. one who actually supports gender equality) would oppose. It's odd that so few do. Do you?

is that it makes allegations, but offers no forum for the players to defend themselves. If the players aren't disciplined (and doesn't the collective bargaining agreement require a positive drug test to discipline a player, not just an allegation of past drug use?), how can a player tell his side of the story? As it stands, there are just a bunch of self-serving statements by people with shady pasts. In Tejada's case, there are checks which corroborate the allegations, but still, shouldn't the accused have a forum in which to defend themselves?

thought he could veto free agency? What planet did he live on? The agreement between ownership and labor to allow free agency under the collective bargaining agreement was and is necessary. Otherwise the courts will step in and start making baseball comply with the Sherman Anti-trust act. Everyone at the time knew the writing was on the wall and that baseball had to start allowing the players the freedom that every other employee has - to sell his services to the highest bidder. To avoid anti-trust scrutiny, baseball decided to have a collective bargaining agreement to govern how, when and under what circumstances players could truly be "free agents." That the Commish didn't get that concept is beyond amazing.

and transcendentalists are interesting topics. Emerson, Ripley and Alcott were fascinating, accomplished, dedicated people. But neither the movement nor its adherents had much affect on the course of American history or thought. The transcendentalists' theoretical individualism and spirituality simply had little impact on this country as a whole. Our frontier history established individualism and materialism as the fundamental qualities of the American soul in a vast lived, fought and suffered for experience that overwhelms tiny, temporary intellectual exercises like Brook Farm. The transcendentalists actively opposed slavery (Alcott and Emerson knew and respected John Brown) too, but it took a long, divisive and bloody war to end it.

none other than David Broder pointed out that one of the ways the MSM marginalizes certain candidates is by simply not employing enough reporters to cover each campaign. Major news outlets typically employ enough reporters to cover two or three candidacies in each major party. That effectively sidelines several other candidates irrespective of their potential appeal to voters. If the networks, the NYT, Time and Newsweek, etc. don't assign a reporter to your campaign, it's hard to get much face time.

And, needless to say, those who get marginalized in this way are those whose ideas most conflict with received establishment policies and values. This year Paul particularly has no chance of getting coverage because his principled libertarianism is too at odds with the givens of the warfare/national security state elites have constructed. It's called Manufacturing Consent.

is correlated with a myriad of better outcomes for their children and less father engagement is correlated with a myriad of poorer outcomes. We've known this for a good number of years now, but various feminist organizations and family law generally act against father involvement in the lives of their children. That is bad for children, bad for fathers, bad for mothers and bad for society generally. Over the last 40 years or so we've engaged in a vast social experiment which we can now conclusively say has failed. The notion that fathers don't matter to their children is wrong. Period.

When feminists figure out that greater involvement by fathers with their children promotes the feminist goal of greater freedom for women, maybe we will begin to reverse the deleterious effects of the last 40 years. It's a simple concept: if women get the lion's share of custody they'll continue to do the lion's share of childcare. If they do more childcare than men, they'll do less paid work than men, earn less, have less wealth and less power. Those are not feminist goals, but when feminists resist expanded fathers' rights, that's what they promote. Incongruous, no?