I see that many people are arguing that the volume of letters that the Salon article has prompted means, from that fact alone, that Dowd's views are compelling.

Nonsense: Many letters suggest her work (on gender, not her riffs on politics) is tripe, a view I agree with. It's entirely possible those letter writers are factually correct. Surely if you write in to say that something is awful, that doesn't "prove" that it is, in fact, excellent!

Doubly unsettling is the sycophantic posture of the author. Roiphe in Slate had by far the better take.

We need to remember that this is the sage who , before the 2000 election, declared that there was no difference between Bush and Gore. Nice Call. Why should we take anything she says seriously?

Ms. Traister and Moho the Dodo's continuing fascination with their own dating lives, and their belief that their lives are in turn a commentary on the state of feminism is less inflammatory than infantile.

If we are to accept these two as a brightly burning binary star of commentary on feminism, then perhaps we should also include Sex and the City and Desperate Housewives as feminist deconstructionist theatre.

Having read this article and the New York Times piece but not Dowd's book, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage in commenting. Still, given what this article says about her book, I'm having a hard time seeing how the NYT piece was such a misrepresentation of Dowd's wandering theses.

Are men necessary? Are women betraying feminism by thinking so? I don't have all the answers, but I wonder if Dowd is confusing the idea that some (well, many) women don't think of men as useless appendages to be beaten into submission or ignored with the idea that those same women see men as "necessary." I'm 37, and just married for the first time. Personally, I consider myself incredibly fortunate to have stumbled into a person who I considered almost instantly to be a true life partner. It happens. Was he necessary? Did I need to have him? Well, no. Was I happy in my life without him? Well, yes. But do I believe that my life will be happier now that we're together? Damn right I do, or I would never have married him. For the record, I make twice what he does, have significantly more formal education, don't wear make-up and slutwear to get his attention, and have no problem speaking my mind when I disagree with him. Know what? So does every other married woman I know. Given that, I have agree with other letter writers that Ms. Dowd and her cohorts need to look up and out once in awhile, because the rarified, overexposed world of high-power Northeast Corridor media has very little to do with the world. The fact that I and others like me exist in this world means, at least to me, that feminism hasn't turned tail and run. We are not all betrayers running back to 1950s submissiveness because it's the new black and looks so pretty, any more than all men are intimidated-into-domineering Blutos just because you haven't found one who matches you.

And, Ms. Dowd, I will be unapologetically taking my husband's name when I get around to filling in the paperwork, not because it's a status symbol or a symbol of the erosion of my feminist principles and sense of womanly self. Quite frankly, it just sounds much better than the harsh Germanic one I got as my accident of birth and which, at a mere four letters, no one in this country can seem to pronounce.

Is every choice I make part of a trend (or bucking one)? I always thought the whole point of having a few choices was that they were mine to make, though always within the limitations around me. Am I hopelessly "retro" if I look realistically at the state of the U.S. economy and choose a mate who can provide for me and a family while I stay home and do other things? Is someone else a feminist bully if she likes her job?

Everyone's choices are limited, but Dowd is so surprised at this that she has to write a book about it. The rest of us always lived in reality, trading off imperfect choices to get what we really wanted. We weren't theorizing when we made our personal moves.

It's in our public choices that we should have been feminizing the world, choosing to build greater public resources instead of fighting (with men or other women) over scarce ones. The last time I checked, women had the vote. That we think we can still win a zero-sum game is proof that girls still can't do math. . . .

I am so disappointed in this community. Whether you agree with Maureen Dowd and Rebecca Traister; whether you feel offended; I don't see the need for the personal attacks. Can we have a civil discussion? If a person expresses a viewpoint, no matter the quality of the expression, her experience is her own and is valid simply because she has experienced it. A bottom line respect for this as one valid entry into the human experience is the basis for civil dialogue. So please call off the dogs and offer something constructive.

I also suggest that just because you found a path in life that works for you - marrying someone who earns less; realizing that love is service to the other; or whatever - you might consider that this is not the right path for everyone. There is no one right way to go about life and relationships. If there were it would all be so easy.

Is it possible that we do still have cultural blockades to allowing women to be fully realized in whatever form they naturally are without being villified? I would say that the comments on this site confirm that possibility.

It is also possible that what Ms. Dowd may be expressing (I haven't read her book) is a symptom of leadership. Whether you agree with her views or not, she is a successful and well-read writer. Her opinions are published in the New York Times. By virtue of her career status she is a leader. Leaders by definition can be lonely, as they have fewer peers than non-leaders. Leaders also have the personal dilemma of having a calling to serve a large group of people rather than a single individual. It is not selfish to pursue that calling. Rather is quite selfless. It can be tricky to find a relationship where the needs of the personal relationship don't interfere with carrying out your calling. This is why nuns, monks, priests of many faiths take a vow of celibacy.

There is that addage, "Behind every successful man is a devoted woman." These women are not merely the trophy wives that we demean them to be. They play a vital role in managing the personal life of the man, so that he can focus his energies on his leadership role. The woman has to be content with the support role and be fulfilled without having as much personal attention as she might receive with another man. Or she has to heed a calling of her own and find fulfillment there.

Perhaps the addage should be, "Behind every successful person is a devotee." That devotee is not always a spouse. She could be a secretary. He could be a brother. Or a great friend.

I am not as successful as Ms. Dowd. I am probably less educated. I am however, somewhat facile of mind, somewhat articulate, and, I'm told, somewhat attractive. I own my own business and that business hosts a creative community that is predominantly women. I have been told repeatedly throughout my adulthood that I intimidate men. I am not an angry woman. I thoroughly enjoy the company of men. I have a great appreciation for all people.

Yet, when I hold my opinions strongly, I am often told by men, who claim to love me, that this is offensive. Of course, it is only offensive when I'm not expressing their point of view. And when I signed up for Match.com and researched other matchmaking services, I was told that I would be the most difficult type of woman to find a match for. Why? Because I owned my own business. Who knows more about the ethos of male/female attractiveness than professional matchmakers?

Of course, these are my anecdotal experiences, but there may be a discussion to be had here. In this culture that claims to worship individuality, do we still try to tear down individualists? In our supposedly post-feminist society, do we still want to stone a woman who claims the power of her voice and struggles to find or figure out if she wants a mate?

Yes, there has been improvement in the choices available to women. Still, we don't get paid the same wage for the same job. The biological fact that we have to be the ones to bear children is considered a career problem. The question of a woman's right to choose whether she ends a pregnancy is under attack. We're treated as though we make these choices frivolously. We still subject ourselves to precariously high-heeled shoes which make sure that we aren't well grounded in order to be considered attractive. Women still rip each other apart if someone stands out in the crowd. And we're still considered 'unfulfilled'if we choose, or even consider being, single for life.

Yes, we've come a long way. But just as the work of racial prejudice is not complete. Nor is the work of gender bias. So, let's join our sisters and brothers in the continued work to break out and value each person for who they are. Let's empower each person to feel comfortable and safe to voice their experience and express their humanity. Let's see what we can do to end the suffering of others rather than attack for their suffering. We might simply start with some mutual respect and a willingness to let each person put their experience safely into the melting pot. And some understanding that every human being has her personal inner struggle that informs her perspective on the cultural challenges of the day. It is all those personal struggles that actually make up our culture after all. Each and every one a living result of our impact on one another. What kind of impact are you having today?