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.

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.

I read this interview at 6:30 am est - upon coming back at 5:30 pm est, I find folks are talking about the KKK. I'm going back to reread the interview, but I remember O'Beirne repeatedly saying that women should do their own thing, but not to expect men to help around the house - now or anytime in the future, because men are men and men don't do house! I recall in this interview something about the 60's and 70's era of feminism, when excess defined many movements, and the leadership she considers fools, reprobates and phonies. She spoke with a hostile and dismissive tone (though Rebecca was easy meat), and she's old and white and rich, which means she's probably racist, too (probably??). Is O'Beirne impolite? No doubt. Ignorant? perhaps. But lazy and stupid and a hater? I think most guys would side with O'Beirne on the suggestion that men won't soon be the major caregivers in the family - and most women too, and to imply, from this interview, that O'Beirne would deny any equality to any woman anywhere - that she wants women barefoot and pregnant - or even that there's a hush hush movement to get the majority workforce back into the bedroom and out of the boardroom (as if THAT exists), is such an overCoulter, that O'Beirne is made the sympathetic figure - which she ain't! But let me go back and read this again, I may have missed something!

I mean, nobody is stopping any woman from being a stay-at-home mom. Are they? Except, of course, for poverty. That'll stop you from being at home with the kiddies. As will a husband skipping town.

Is O'Beirne's point that movement feminists of the 70s should just shut up? Or, since they pretty much have, that nobody should listen to them? Few do. Is it that folk should stop trying to use the legal system to change culture? Or the political system? Arguably the political system and legal system follow culture. If they follow culture that some people don't like, those people will claim that it is leading, not following - that it is being "activist".

So what is she saying people should DO? Anything? It sounds to me more like a negative message: don't listen to those old feminists.

Well, okay. Now what?