Michigan has a rather funny situation going on: in November we will vote on the Civil Rights Initiative, which ends affirmative action. All the politicos are rejecting it and proclaiming that diversity is essential to education. Yet everyone, our governor included, is all gung-ho about a new law that permits same sex public schools. Because gender diversity is bad. Learn the other person's point of view- as long as she's not a girl. Bear in mind that a lot of the "boys in crisis" crowd thinks boys shouldn't have to read books about or by women. I think this fact is shockingly revealing.

The thing is, it may be easier to segregate the sexes sometimes. But how far do we go to make things easier and what do we sacrifice along the way? In many ways, I'm sure racial segregation in schools was easier, and similar cultural arguments and even biological explanantions could have been used to keep the races apart. Yet a higher principle prevailed- there really is no such thing as separate but equal. Just look at school sports: separated by gender, and who gets the short end of the stick when it comes to paying for coaches and equipment? And even the gains made by title 9 are begrudged. Couple that with the fact that this major policy change is based on dubious science that conveniently appeals to good old sexism, and you have a very bad idea indeed.

I don't believe that polygamy, by its very nature, can thrive in a free society where women have choices and power. Why on earth would most women choose to allow another woman into her home? How does this benefit her? If we assume that most people wil act in their own best intersts given a choice, then we know that polygamy needs control and abuse to survive, outside of a few (sorry) wierdos who voluntarily share men for whatever reasons they have.

I remember reading a trusim in the New York Times Magazine about sex slavery a couple of years ago: it is unbelievably easy to intimidate someone into doing whatever you want them to. Violence isn't even necesary, only the threat of it. Even when a weapon is involved, victims can benefit from knowing that getting into a car at gunpoint is more dangerous than running away or screaming. I also fail to see how self defense education- which is really just education about aperson's right not to be abused- needs to be altered for attacks by family members.

It's age! Duh.

"As a result, women are much more genetically diverse from one another than men. This makes us less able to cooperate with each other."

This hypothesis is so ridiculous for so many reasons, I wouldn't even know where to start. It reads like one of those far-out yet authoritative scientific "truths" the Victorian age- like "reading will overtax the female mind" or something.

So you are saying that war is actually a manefestation of male cooperation. Way to be a mental gymnast. I am dying to see how you contort your ersatz genetic theory into why males commit more violent crime, and why most of that crime is against other males, and most of it is within their own race.

You remind me of a man I know who insists that it's dangerous to have plants in the bedroom at night, because when the sun goes down they emit Carbon Dioxide. He's smart enough to understand the rudiments of photosynthesis, but his sketchy knowledge causes him to leap to silly conclusions that appeal to him because they are grounded in a true fact.

I read what he writes and I think, what does his idea of me complying with my destiny look like? Do I stop working, exercising, voting? What the hell does he want women to DO? Why is he obsessed with the idea that we don't really want to do waht we do and goddamn it, why does the NYTimes give him the platform to rant on his wierd obsession?

I have read Glamour for years, and anyone who thinks it's dedicated to celeb news doesn't read it. My reading standards are fairly high, and I whole heartedly endorse Glamour. Glamour is an overtly feminist magazine, with regular updates on women's issues and profiles on women leaders. It has at least one lengthy political article in every issue. The last two issues I read have Maryanne Pearl reporting on sex trafficking in Thailand and female Cuban dissidents, to give two examples of the type of articles Glamour has printed for as long as I can remember.

It also gives fashion and hair and makeup advice for the intelligent woman who wants to groom herself. It does not pretend that all its readers are wealthy size 0's, like Vogue does. Glamour magazine has certainly earned the right to be treated with respect. Shame on Fareed.

My mother in law, a South American, believes that a menstruating woman can easily hemmorage if she sweeps floors or performs certain other tasks. No word on how poor farmers get to lay around when they menstrute, but I digress. This Korean kerfluffle may be due in part to some lingering attitudes that menstruating women are somehow vulnerable. It wasn't that long ago that girls in this country didn't have to go to gym class for the same reason. In short: ignorance is at play here, and this is terrible for women.