If I recall correctly, the charges of rape (though not all charges) have been dismissed at the behest of the state. While it may have been indicted as a rape case, how can anyone presently call it that?

Just wondering.

She died as well last week - or do only left-thinking women count?

PS - including a non-news site like Feministing along with Reuters and AP is pretty absurd...

Molly, don't go!!!!!!!!!!!!

is utterly, utterly disgusting, not to mention absurd. if your ego is fragile that how other people perceive you makes you want to die, you don't need to mutilate your genitals, you need take a deep look inside yourself and find something a little deeper to hold onto.

Come on! With all due respect to the seriousness of misgendering, I'm not on board with this.

Now Tara Conner says she IS an alcoholic. She wasn't a sloppy drunk, she could hold her booze. But she admits to a constant craving and she comes from an alcoholic family.

So now I think it's been more or less proven that Donald did her a big favor and Rosie was wrong.

The whole nasty horrible Rosie-Donald feud started because Rosie said Donald was unfit to be a "moral compass" for Tara Conner.

But you don't have to be a shining paragon of morality to help an alcoholic see that she needs help.

That's not being a moral compass. That's just being someone who cares.

And Donald earned his right to care when he lost his brother to alcoholism.

Rosie often -- almost every day it seems -- mentions on The View how much beer she drinks. It's part of her shtick now.

Maybe she needs Donald's help, too.

Maybe Joan Walsh needs to publish an apology for making this all about politics when really it was all about recovery.

Gender reassignment should not be classified with other sorts of healthcare, in a league with disease treatment and prevention, psychological and mental health treatment and reproductive care. Gender reassignment is perfectly legitimate, but it is also an expense one should have to pay for on one's own, just as we pay for cosmetic surgery (including fixing the noses that don't fit, whitening and other such things.

To suggest otherwise is pushing the limits of disbelief.

lol...where have you been?!

Salon utilizes the lunatic blogger over at "Iblamethepatriarchy" as a scientific expert.

Here's another example of her keen analysis as she throws a tantrum(natch) over the conviction of a woman accused of poisoning her marine husband so she could party and get a new rack. If you are one of those people who takes comfort in logic or reason, you'll find no shelter here.

And this woman is on broadsheet's blogroll...apparently to facilitate rapid access to her "research". lol

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/

"It’s no secret that living “like a woman set free” — as opposed to living like a proper woman, a subordinate enslaved and subdued by socioeconomic, ideological, biological and cultural forces — is an offense against human decency. Since the dawn of time, free-wheelinosity in women has been punishable by imprisonment, and it still is.

Take the case of Cynthia Sommer. Instead of clapping a delicate wrist to her pale brow and taking to her bed following the sudden death of her military husband, Sommer threw “loud parties,” got a boob job, went on “shopping sprees”, and — most heinous of all — had “casual sex with multiple partners.” In lieu of any actual evidence, San Diego prosecutors convinced a jury that La Sommer’s post-mortem laissez-les-bons-temps-roulent demeanor was as good as a signed confession that she murdered her husband with arsenic for the insurance money.

Now, I have no idea whether she dunnit or not. The point is that it turns out that ‘failure to pine’ is not just a Victorian literary device, it’s legitimate evidence in a 21st century American court of law. No joke, here’s how the DA summed up the prosecution’s case:

“We have somebody in the end who was not acting aggrieved at the death of her husband.”

Sommer had not read the manual, despite its wide availability on Oprah, the Lifetime Channel, and Court TV, entitled Socially-Mandated Stereotypical Conduct For Young Honky Wives Following Untimely Deaths of Husbands. She mighta saved herself a world-o-hurt if she had just followed this simple plan:

Prior to Husband’s Demise

• Maintain virginity until marriage

• Keep house, kids, and self spotless

• Go to church regular

• Keep husband’s drinking/gambling/sex/porn addiction a closely guarded secret

• Send casual emails to friends and family passing along latest list of Hillary jokes, adding how much you love husband and would never kill him

• Contrive to have photographs taken of self gazing piously at husband for later use on TV true crime shows; make sure they don’t make you look too slutty

Immediately After Husband’s Death

• Contrive to have local TV cameras videotape you weeping uncontrollably in front of your modest bungalow for a few seconds; then have family members help you into the car.

• At graveside either faint or collapse in a fit on top of the casket

• Wear just enough mascara so that it’ll run when you weep, but not so much that you look too slutty

From Here On Out:

• Never look too slutty

• Wear only greyish burlap sacks

• Never smile

• Never have sex

• Suck up to your in-laws: move in with them to cook and clean, and freely offer them custody of the kids

• Give the insurance money to the church

• Enter a slow decline

• After six months, get treated for depression, but be careful not to enjoy any drugs prescribed

• Attempt suicide, find religion

• Enter a nunnery, where you die of consumption"

Maybe the claims of I am an alcoholic are part of the PR Rehab process too. I wonder how long before we hear her say "I am bipolar", "I was sexually abused"?

Valenti is in high dudgeon because McElroy wrongly attributed a correct statement to her. Do I have that right? She's demanding a retraction because she didn't say what is objectively true about the Duke Lacrosse case? "How dare her say I said something true!" is the gist of her complaint?

Is this possible?