You are one class act Rebecca Traister to deal with the criticism you received on this story in this way. We could all learn from this.

Ditto on the Kudos, Rebecca. (Too bad Deborah Howell couldn't follow suit.)

I didn't comment on your original piece... there were already so many comments, and very little to add to the controversy over which one of you won.

However, I could have said-- and Jill's response at Feministe makes this point even clearer-- that an interview is not the same thing as a debate. (Cable News has really blurred that distinction.)

I did think that your interview accomplished the job of beginning to reveal Kate O'Beirne to your readers. A significant accomplishment, considering that she could not have been an easy interview subject, and probably has more than a few decades of verbal sparring to her advantage. At a minimum, you set her up well enough for the Feministe response showing her to be a woman who, given the chance, would "make things worse" for other women.

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about straw men and straw women. A more useful comparison-- to me-- would be some sports metaphor... volleyball, maybe (and I'm not even a big sports fan), since to so many readers it seemed like a contest between you and O'Beirne, rather than an interview.

I'm younger than O'Beirne, but not by much, and can remember when married women could not have their own credit, could not use their own names, and would often have to "give up" their jobs when they married, and especially when they became pregnant. Later on, I remember when it was acceptable to ask women personal questions during interviews about how they would manage/balance their personal and working lives. (Has anyone ever asked a man such a question?) I can remember (and from personal experience, too) when it was considered no big deal if a woman's boss either made a pass at her, or made crude, sexual remarks in the office. Boys being boys, and all. And, I am pre Title IX. Thus, the lack of interest in Sports.

More recently, I have been dismayed that so many younger women seem to consider feminism as passe', something that really has no relevance to them or their lives. Kate O'Beirnes without the history.

So, I am just grateful that there is an ongoing discussion at all, and to you for your part in it.

It shows real class as a reporter/interviewer to admit that an article you wrote could be improved on, and even better, to actually point to the improvement. It shows real respect for your readership.

If only the folks that run the Washington Post or New York Times could take the same attitude.

Rebecca,

First of all, I enjoyed reading the interview and found myself speechless, as I'm sure you were at times, based on some of O'Beirne's responses. Also, as other posters have noted it was very classy of you to link to Feministe's blog about your interview to keep the discussion going, even if her entry could be construed as a critique of your interview, as much as O'Beirne's answers.

Feministe and other posters have covered just about all of what I had wanted to say, except the following point....

O'Beirne pointed out that mothers working full time instead of staying home goes against nature. In some historical biological sense, I suppose it does. But then so does monogamous marriage!

Once we as society entered into the marriage deal as equals, it seems that sharing the workload and child-rearing is a natural compromise along with marriage itself. The same psuedoscientific arguments O'Beirne makes in favor of full-time stay-at-home mom's, could be used to argue against monogamous marriage. If as O'Beirne suggest that men by nature just want to impregnate and then move on, while women nest and raise the kid, then WTF is the point of marriage? The 'sanctity of marriage' goes against nature in the same way. But we've adapted because it's practical for most people. So I wonder why O'Beirne considers one 'unnatural' choice to be a detriment to society and the other doesn't get a mention.

And not to mention that if women were all stay-at-home mom's (or at the most worked 20 hours a week part-time) as O'Beirne urges, the country's economy would collapse. There'd be much less disposable income to buy the inconsequential shit we don't really need. And those retail purchases drive our economy in the early 21st century. If we weren't sold on the idea that we needed to buy a new car or upgrade our media gadgets every 3-5 years, what industry would actually be making any money in this country? There'd also be less vacations. And the real estate market would collapse because many couples would be unable to afford the pricey mortgages without 2 full-time steady incomes. The American way of life in the 21st century is implicitly dependent on having two wage-earners in a household.