I thought the "third generation" of feminists had gotten past the victimization stage?

I read the piece, even though (don't tell my buddies, please) it was in the style section and I am male (as far as I can tell.) How it's taken boils down to a projection: is it the difference between the sexes necessary or not? What side are you on--and how does it relate to your interests?

My observation (and that's all it is) is that most women prefer the company of their own sex to men most days, so why wouldn't that be true of bloggers? Wouldn't men just wreck their good time? My wife of many years, now deceased, enjoyed The View on her sickbed more than any show. (You can spare me the point that women are the ones to choose--I got that one down.)

I think the mudslingers are the ideologues and if you really want to ruin a good thing--let them take over.

The "news" to me is that these bloggers are getting "rich" regardless of their sex. I'd like to hear more about that. I'm not interested enough--yet--to start my own blog because I haven't got a clue who'd read it.

Tell me more Rebecca and I'll send you my recipe for popcorn. If I do a "Digby" and conceal my sex do you think I can fool them?

It's time we respected femininity enough to see its expressions as valuable. And I don't just mean those of makeup and pink stickies. Yes, let's take ourselves seriously and, in doing so, wake society up to EVERYONE'S love and need for femininity.

But I do have to agree about the "Obama Boys" comment. This article was the most thoughtful piece I've ever seen in Broadsheet and under Traister's byline. But Traister's "Obama boys" comment disallows me from taking Traister's argument that women on the Web should be taken seriously, you know, seriously.

The use of the term "Obama Boys" in what purported to be a thoughtful essay could only have come from a deeply flawed world view, one that precludes its author from crying wolf now -- even if its a fair cry raised in the name of others.

Bloggers who name their blogs what might be seen as overly cute or clever names are appealing to an audience that enjoys cute or clever names. So that's the conversation they want and that's great. Cute is part of the mainstream too. If you want a different conversation, renaming might encourage other types of people to look. But is asking a blogger to rename not valuing them as well?

I mean, it is possible to go around in circles forever, but maybe the name is an expression of where they want to be and who they want to talk to.

Well, if patriarchy is a complex, ever-changing matter with lots of subheadings, perhaps we should be discussing those complex factors and subheadings. You know, like Rebecca was doing in the post before you chimed in with your snarky declaration that it's not any of those things, it's PATRIARCHY and that's what happens under PATRIARCHY, case closed.

The argumentative tactic of trying to paint a reductive image of where your opponent is coming from instead of engaging their arguments directly is generally unproductive. Yet it's also unavoidable to some extent, because we are programmed to make deductions from what people say that go beyond the bare meaning of their words. All we can do is try to make accurate deductions based on what we see. And what I saw was that you came into a fairly nuanced discussion about the specific causes behind why female bloggers aren't taken more seriously with an exasperated battle cry of "IT'S PATRIARCHY!" which was both an unhelpful contribution and served to paint you as a caricature.

Nowhere did I say "feminazi" or imply that you hate all men. Unlike our troll friends, I know that that particular caricature doesn't really exist. What I did mean was that your willingness to use "patriarchy" as a catch-all concept that requires no further explanation implies that on some level you believe that misogyny is some kind of primal impulse that men have for its own sake. Of course you will say you don't mean that, I am just trying to show you that it's what your kind of reasoning implies.

Then there was your response to Jim (not the Parson), who made a legitimate point that the media is market-driven and that in order to make a change in how they are perceived and marketed to, women will have to make a change in their consumer habits from the bottom up. Now, maybe he's wrong, but I still don't see how that particular point makes him a 1950's troglodyte. But of course, after your response to that effect, he instinctively strikes back with an equally reductive statement that confirms your originally unjustified opinion about him, and the cycle continues.Now, as for your conception of me, I'd direct you to my first post on this thread.

The other problem with trying to get a mental picture of your opponent is that when you have trolls like Parson Jim polluting the discussion, people tend to move further to the other extreme in response, and anyone who attempts to articulate a more nuanced or moderate viewpoint runs the risk of being lumped in with the trolls. Parson Jim and James T. Kirk are pretty much permanent fixtures around here, and I'm almost sure they're just different usernames of the same disgruntled right-winger who's been posting on Salon with childish sarcasm under different names for the past couple of years. They are irrelevant to the discussion here.

Traister is great.

The article sucked,

Your letters sucked worse,

The NYT' has ya beat.

I have to agree with those who find this post deeply ironic.

Broadsheet, in addition to its cutesy name, announced from the outset that it would be about things women really care about, like women's issues and..."celebrity dish." You reap what you sow, and unfortunately, what you sow in this situation is an inability to contribute to this discussion, because you can't provide the solution until you stop being part of the problem.

I'd encourage Broadsheet to take this opportunity to re-examine its own mission and the role it wants to play in discourse for and about women. This would be a great moment to experience a bit of a wake-up call and spend a little more time looking in the mirror and a little less time pointing the finger, because I'm here to tell you that for my money, "Lemonade Life," dumb-title-wise, is not one-fiftieth as twee as "Broadsheet."