Emily,

My sweeping generalizations are for the most part just meant to rebut the sweeping generalizations and gloss that Broadsheet provides.

So, I really am not sure of the point of their post. I find it interesting that scientists found a pill that is supposed to make women sexed up and want to lose weight.

I find it hard to believe that that was their original intent, and yet Broadsheet and many posters portray a picture of this pill as the ultimate in patriarchal nazi science.

I actually think very highly of Salon and I am trying to figure out why Salon would want to have Broadsheet around. I think a journalist would call up the scientists and ask them how they discovered this pill. What was their intent? What do they believe this discovery says about sexuality, evolution, medical health, or ...?

But Broadsheet can't or won't do that. They just put out the same unthinking spin we see on many feminist blogs with no followup. Who needs that? Is that really a valuable addition to Salon?

I don't think so.

So here Salon has to be snarky and say that this could lead to the medicalizing of relationships. Huh? That happened a long long time ago. We now have industries devoted to it.

I see lots of sweeping generalizations of one sort or another, spewed forth at Broadsheet. In this article, as I pointed out, they worry that this pill will lead to medicalizing bad relationships. As readers have noted, without saying it, they play on the notion that this is some sort of male mandated drugging of women.

Put yourself in female shoes for a second and see if you can't imagine why we'd react the way we're reacting to this particular piece of news.

So... I have often heard statements like, "why haven't they invented a pill for men yet?" Meaning there is some conspiracy not too. "If this were for erections... it would be legal in a second!" "If this were for testicular cancer... it would get a gazillion dollars in funding!"

Are there no women scientists brave enough to tell us why there is a conspiracy to only create drugs that keep women down?

So frankly, I know women that tried viagra to see if it would help their libido. So I am not sure what is wrong with a pill that does that.

We've had diet pills for ages. So they are nothing new and I don't see how the patriarchy is forcing women to buy them.

So what seems so awful about this is that it is both a desert topping and a floor wax. And I find that so strange that I have to wonder how the scientists designed this, or if it is some accident like so many drugs have been.

And that would have been an interesting story, but Broadsheet chose not to look into that, but just to use the same old same old "patriarchy is keeping us down through chemicals" story.

well gee, isn't isn't totally freaking annoying that instead of trashing stupid stereotypes, we're offered pills that help us adhere to them better?

Which stereotypes? The stereotype that women are undersexed, or the stereotype that men are oversexed, objectifying, rapist pigs?

Men are already medicalized for that. There are meds, there are laws, there are therapists, all so that men will control their libido. Maybe it's just a stupid stereotype that needs trashing.

Maybe men's libido shouldn't be criminalized or medicalized but seen as the current end product of evolution. And that many negative images of it, are just a negative stereotype told from one of many different viewpoints from women. And that there are many non-criminal, just as enlightened feminist women that hold a different viewpoint regarding the male libido.

If one of the classic problems in a relationship is libido mismatches, maybe a pill that can help one partner meet the other partner half way isn't such a bad thing.

Maybe Viagra is already the pill that men use to meet women's demands half way and maybe this new pill really ain't an attempt to keep the women down, but an attempt to help women AND men both.

There is still a big hurdle in convincing Americans that lighting-purchase decisions make a big difference in individual electricity bills and collectively for the environment," said Wendy Reed, director of the federal government's Energy Star campaign, which labels products that save energy and has been working with retailers to market CFL bulbs.

"I have heard time and again that a husband goes out and puts the bulb into the house, thinking he is doing a good thing," Reed said. "Then, the CFL bulb is changed back out by the women. It seems that women are much more concerned with how things look. We are the nesters."

How come you didn't pin any of the blame for this article on Wendy Reed, female that has breached the glass ceiling by becoming directory of the Fed's Energy Star campaign?

It seems that as the director of Energy Star, AND as a woman, her statement might be insightful. How come you didn't call the reporter or Ms. Reed and ask for their evidence?

I think your exclusion of this woman was horribly sexist of you. Or maybe her statement and title just didn't fit with your predrawn conclusion.

Jeez, did you read the article you critiqued?

Apart from the one family, the authors cited a Washington Post-ABC News poll, Walmart sales figures, and market information from the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.

On what planet does that form broad generalizations?