O'Beirne states that the disolution of the family is due to 30 years of feminism, which created the "me first" society we live in. I don't know why she needs to blame this on feminism, but I think the biggest change in society has not been feminism and its influence, but the sharp increase in consumerism. Feminism has been about choices and personal freedom, not selfishness. That's taught by the thousands of images we are bombarded with daily that say that we are nothing if we're not beautiful, don't have the latest SUV, drink a diet soda. We are not enough, and we should go out there and get more. If we're not happy all the time, then we must go after it at all costs. This is why we now live in a disposable society. This is capitalism, folks, not feminism. And just for the record, my folks stayed together for the sake of the kids. My role model of relationships became 2 people who argued, couldn't discuss conflict, couldn't work out problems, stopped speaking, and were miserable. And had no energy left for their children. No thanks.

The original goals of feminism -- giving women the same civil and legal rights as men, and removing artificial barriers to their progress in society and the workplace -- were all achieved (in America) by 1980 or so at the latest. Certainly there are still occasional cases of blatant discrimination against and harassment of women, but like blatant racism or anti-Semitism, these tend to be isolated incidents which, when brought to light, are met with immediate and widespread condemnation. It's a far cry from the bad old days of the 1950s, when, for example, Sandra Day O'Connor graduated third in her class from Stanford Law School yet was unable to find work as anything other than a legal secretary. When it comes to their position vis-a-vis men today, the women of the US and the Western world are indisputably the most liberated group of women in human history.

In their quest to stay relevant, feminists since the 1970s have gotten into the habit of seeing institutionalized sexism and oppression of women where there is actually little to none. In some cases, such as the gender wage gap or rape statistics, their complaints are based on false or misleading data. In others, they close their eyes to basic biological differences between the sexes, which absolutely include cognitive and psychological differences.

That there are more stay-at-home moms than dads is not proof that society is discouraging women from having careers. It is more likely a result of the fact that in our species, as in other mammals, evolution has designed females to be the primary caregivers for the young. That there are more men with PhDs in math and the hard sciences than women does not prove that society discourages girls from studying math and the hard sciences in school. It is more likely because -- as Lawrence Summers hinted -- men's brains are designed better for the kind of abstract analytical thinking involved. Scientific studies of the proportions of white and grey matter in male and female brains support this idea. That's not sexism. It's just a fact.

I was good friends with a first place winner in the Westinghouse (now Intel) Science Talent Search. She was as gifted at science and math as any man I've known. Feminism deserves credit for making it possible for her to develop her talents and have a scientific career. But feminism will not change the fact that she is a statistical outlier, and that the vast majority of scientists, particularly highly gifted ones like her, are male. Nor is entrenched anti-female discrimination responsible for this.

Feminists should celebrate their victories and stop trying to do the impossible: making women identical to, rather than equal with, men.

Granted I live in NYC, but the choice to be a Stay at Home Dad seems perfectly normal and acceptable here. In fact the vast majority of people, including my wife, seem to think it's great!

Of course there are a few others who frown on it too. But it is definitely a generational gap thing. Which is why I can't wait for Baby Boomers to get the heck out of this debate. Move on, your kids are all growed up! When is it going to be our turn?

Curiously I agreed with so much that she had to say early on in the article. There is almost a right meets left point where the views connect. She's right about the wage gap. She's right that most women by nature choose to stay home. She even got me--I'm a genuine starving artist slash at home dad.

But the idea that all of this validates traditional gender roles is where she goes right off the cliff. She connects two dots without any evidence at all. She even admits that some women are naturally high powered. So why are there no exceptions or choices for men? And given how much social norms have changed historically, is that idea of men staying home really so radical?

The world I live in doesn't seem to think so.

I commend Salon for highlighting a book, presumably as a warning, so that I will be able to stear clear of it. I think that it should be evident to anyone that a woman who is in the midst of a high-level career who writes that feminists are wrong to want high-level careers, has a major problem with logic. Frankly, to be really petty, it sounds to me like a case of jealousy about women who have even a higher level career going that she does. The whole book just sounds like so much red meat for the neocons and I don't need to inflict that on myself.

Why is Salon giving publicity to anti-feminist extremists? Can't you leave the reactionary drum-beating to Regenery Press?

What's next, a talk with the KKK? A warm first-person potrayal of a violent skinhead? A "fair and balanced" look at clinic bombings?

I had to laugh when Kate O'Beirne insisted she would have been a lawyer without feminism. Conveniently, she's ignored the fact that law schools had quotas that limited women to a tiny percentage of the class--if they allowed them at all. My mother graduated from law school in the 50s. She was one of five women in her class--and that was at infamously "liberal" Berkeley. She then went on dozens of interviews to get a job--most firms were willing to hire her as only a legal secretary or a librarian.

It's interesting to note that conservative Queen bees like O'Beirne (and Phyllis Schafly and Laura Ingraham)all took advantage of the hard spade work feminists did to abolish these quotas to obtain the prestige law degrees confer. None of them went to law school before feminism opened the legal doors to more than a tiny segment of women.

It's also interesting to note that Republican women, such as Sandra Day O'Connor and Elizabeth Dole, who did go to law school under the quota system, have never taken the vituperative, misogynistic attitude toward women's rights that someone like O'Beirne does.

As for Traister getting bulldozed--well, yeah, that's clearly O'Beirne's shtick. But since Traister had the advantage of being able to look up information and facts after the interview, why on earth did she type this up as a Q and A. O'Beirne clearly lied and skewed facts to serve her agenda, why didn't Traister point out these out? Surely, that's her job as a print journalist? I mean, who cares if she was a punching bag during the interview?