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.

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.

Has anyone else noticed similarities between extreme animal rights activists and pro-lifers? Both are obsessed with powerless beings beyond all normal and reasonable limits, even to the detriment of those who they deem flawed and unworthy of compassion or consideration ( i.e., sick or hungry humans and women, respectively).

The X Games themselves are a good example of how it's sponsorship that makes sports popular, not whether women or men play them. Men's sports tend to be given all kinds of sponsorship, even when they lose games and money. Women's sports aren't given the same promotion.

Everyone should take a deep breath and calm down.

First, little girls want to be like their moms, like little boys want to be like their dads. I don't think that there is anything wierd or "sexualized" about a frou-frou woman having a frou-frou daughter, and I resent the implication that womanly things somehow taint little girls. I think this is an insidious form of misogyny, one that sneaks into the minds of feminists. Like liking barbies and the color pink and pedicures are all bad, and if she was a girl worth her salt she would just be a tomboy.

I have a six year old girl, and while I try to teach balance between caring about your appearance and everything else in life, I realized early on that it was rather mean of me to belittle the unicorns, rainbows, play makeup and pretty shoes that she likes. She plays soccer with pink shinguards and a matching skort. She fishes with a Barbie fishing rod.

Even if it DID pervent implantation, how extreme is it that we are debating whether a minutes or hours old "pregnancy" is more important than the autonomy of the woman? Prolifers depend a lot on the spectrum of personhood throughout a pregnancy to further their cause. They focus on third trimester abortions and they show pictures of very developed fetuses when speaking of their cause. Yet they won't be able to show a picture of the microscopic cells they believe have more rights than a woman. Pro-lifers should be very honest with themselves about what they themselves would do in the emergency room after a rape- take the pill, or martyr themsleves for the supposed, possible cells? Asking them to be honest about what they'd choose after unprotected sex with a boyfriend or husband would be asking too much.

I agree with everything the post said, yet I don't begrudge any poor murdered woman the interest and sympathy her case genrates. Sometimes I hear in the backlash a little misogyny and derision, like: for get about that ugly, stupid rich white woman! As if to examine the wierd young blond victim obsession means we have to dehumanize the young blond victim.

I clicked on the article because I was curious how the author would explain why she felt she had to flee the US to find cultural freedom. This premise went unexamined, but whatever.

The other, more important unasked question is: what responsibility does beautiful Lebonon bear for it's current situation? Does Hezbollah's inferior fire power entitle it and Lebanon to perpetual victim status? Is Lebanon some sort of underage country, unaccountable for it actions? Or- if we accept that it was too weak, not merely unwilling, to deal with Hezbollah, where is the authors examiniation of the how that guerilla group, which no one doubts would slaughter more civilians if it could figure out how, got Lebanon into this fix?