"our entire grade arrived at school with the girls wearing slacks, dress shirts, and ties, and the boys wearing pantyhose and dresses."

Great!

Note, though, that the boys pitched-in to support the girls’ issue. The point Anonymous might have been making is that the reciprocal rarely occurs. In fact, it's anathema to most feminists. They discourage women from helping the opposite sex. They are more selfish, in that, than men…who help(ed) the women's movement, including securing the right to vote (even when most men did not have the vote; the majority of men in England were politically like women until universal suffrage came). Today guys march in support of abortion rights. Where do gals march to make sure women fight alongside guys on frontlines...not just "near" or "behind" them?

Note, too, that when something benefits women, men get marginalized. For example, nearly all coverage of domestic violence says, without evidence, that most victims are women. How can DV stats be accurate when men are socialized/shamed to keep silent when injured, especially when women are the abusers? That's like "proving" apartheid black South Africans were healthy base on records kept by white-only hospitals.

Unless and until men receive the same federal/social help to reveal personal pains (like women got entering the business world), DV "facts" will remain suspect. And we will reinforce the illusion of inequality.

On the other hand, no articles on military matters mentions the fact that women comprise a tiny minority of modern armies, navies, etc. Instead, we hear of "our brave men and women," as if they serve near parity. Ergo, we reinforce an illusion of equality.

People hate feminism because it loves illusions and SAYS it’s for equality, while ACTING to spread misandry and assure female superiority.

Since you folks keep telling us that even though it is called "feminism" it really is about the rights of everyone, why don't you defend this guy's clothing choices?

Oh, for pity's sake. I'd like to be attacked for positions I actually hold, not for stuff you make up.

When I was in high school, our school held a "Pride Day" each Friday. Pride Day was meant to "instill self-esteem in the student body" according to the handbook; in reality it was the day prospective parents were allowed to tour the campus, where we would all look like good little senators-in-training instead of the hooligans we were on the other four days of the week. The uniform for Pride day consisted of:

for girls: A skirt or dress, pantyhose or stockings, and appropriate dress shoes.

for boys: a dress shirt and tie, slacks (not jeans), dress socks and dress shoes.

Well, we girls asked the administration if we were allowed to wear dressy pants instead of skirts. No. So next Friday, our entire grade arrived at school with the girls wearing slacks, dress shirts, and ties, and the boys wearing pantyhose and dresses.

I've never been so proud of so many people in one place at one time. Everybody showed up, all the guys, all the girls, even the science teacher. The administration were not amused. Rather than allow us to wear our forbidden clothing, they dismissed classes for the day and sent the entire 10th grade home. The teacher was apparently lectured about her responsibility to inform staff in case of future mutinies.

In other words, I support your right to wear aquamarine pants, and I'll gladly sit through detention in support of it.

:P

Subject line says it all. Hard to have a cooking show when you don't, technically, exist.

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/13589237/detail.html

CLEVELAND -- Air-traffic controllers locked in a labor dispute with the Federal Aviation Administration are upset over a dress code and have shown their displeasure in colorful fashion.

Their union said there have a been a few occasions where male controllers complied with the letter of the guidelines by wearing dresses to work.

At the Cleveland-area air-traffic control center in Oberlin, a controller was told his aquamarine pants were, quoting now, "not gender appropriate" for a man.

The FAA said the dress code is meant to create a professional atmosphere.

Spokeswoman Elizabeth Isham Corey said there have only been rare instances of outrageous outfits meant to create a stir while technically complying with the dress code

Since you folks keep telling us that even though it is called "feminism" it really is about the rights of everyone, why don't you defend this guy's clothing choices?

American prudery never ceases to amaze me. Sex and food have always gone together nicely, and if you want to pursue the connection forget about these tiny peeks at the top of a chest as if it's something scandalous. Jeez Louise, it sounds like the Taliban getting tweaked over seeing some ankle. Do you realize how ridiculous this all sounds?

Get down with Padma Lakshmi on her cooking show. Why not call a spade a spade? http://tinyurl.com/2dgwoj

If a women wears clothes you don't approve of, it's because they are form fitting to show off her tits. It can't be that feminists and women can wear the clothes they feel best fits the circumstances.

In this sense, just how different is Broadsheet and mainstream feminism, for Hester Prynne's Puritanical neighbors.

The Patriarchy is Dead, Long live Feminist Puritans the New Patriarchy!

I always thought the goal of this section was to puruse things happening in the moment, as they related to women, and make a quick comment about them. A kind of squib-sheet to set the mind thinking. And that this was not the place for deep-think articles long considered before publication. That occurs on the main page. And a feminist (I'm using that in the positive sense) ethos hardly disappears when leaving this corner. I think people expect the wrong things of Broadsheet, and therefore tend to dismiss it as trivial.

It's not just about women, and it's not just about television. Note the recent bios and articles of famous men (and Founding Fathers) that try to present the sexiest images, highlight their sexual history, and in general try to re-package the men as well as the women who created just about anything of value in the world.

There was quite a large spread given (here at Salon, I think) when a re-conception of Washington's image was unveiled, proving he didn't look like a shrivelled mushroom, a la the dollar bill, at all. He was quite handsome. WHO CARES? He could look like Quasemodo and have a one-inch penis for all I care. He's the friggin' founder of our country, a general who defeated the greatest army of the world and rejected the crown because he believed in democracy.

Even the latest edition of Penguin's The Complete Novels of Jane Austen has replaced the old pink cover, featuring a copy of the famous sketch by Austen's sister, with a sleek, ultra modern cover including the image of a sultry woman falling back in ecstasy.

It doesn't matter if you are a woman, or a great author, or the father of our country. What matters is can you be made to look HOT.