>>The fact that financial independence for women is a by-product of this free-market economy of the home has of course affected women's choices for sticking around when they are fiscally solvent on their own. So they are outsourcing their men! Big deal! Men have been doing it for eons>>

And true.

The economy is why O'Beirn is a femimist (women can be lawyers) but against a lot commonly associated with feminist: she's a fiscal conservative who doesn't want to pay more taxex (out of the millions she earns) for child care to help a woman work her way out of poverty.

Ms O'Beirne's take on the Larry Summers flap is correct; I wonder if Ms Traister has ever taken the trouble to read the transcript of those remarks.

If "feminism" describes the PC response to those remarks, then it ("feminism") has become another branch of the politics of victimization. I thought it meant equal opportunity - not a quota. Summers' remarks - read fairly - suggested that research should be done to explain the inequality of result; the response - with which Ms Traister apparently agrees - was to the effect that "we don't need no stinkin' facts"

Ms O'Beirne will continue to make mincemeat of her television opponents so long as they continue to take such intellectually vapid positions. Summers was made to grovel - but didn't get fired. Those calling for his dismissal are calling for censorship and climate of fear not conducive to the free exchange of ideas (and isn't that what universities are about?) worse than any Red Scare, since the latter came from outside academia, and this uber-political correctness is rot from within

>>If you want to make more than 72 cents on the dollar, then make the personal choice not to have children>>

men have children and they get paid 100 cents on the dollar.

>>So men do not contribute money during marriage? That's rich>>

I clearly never said that. every married couple negotiates a division of work (housework and bringing home the bacon) that suits them. Both generally contribute both these days. This issue about how much money each contributed in a marriage would be during a divorce proceding, or really drawing up the petition beforehand.

You, "b" were talking about women who had DNA results which revealed their husband was not the father. That would come about during a paternity suit, a totally different subject which has nothing legally to do with how much of the family income a husband contributed.

Generally being a bitch and divorcing your husband does not legally constitue fraud, no--even if you were sure she wasn't a bitch when you married her! Finding out she IS a bitch does not mean she comitted fraud against you! LOL

Stephanie Cootz wrote the groundbreaking "The Way We Never Were" which exploded many of the man-works, woman-stays-at-home myths. She more recently wrote a history of marriage book which looks into, well, the "history" of marriage throughout the ages.

I would pay any amount of money to put Ms. Cootz and Ms. O'Beirne into a debate together. Not because I know that Cootz is a great debator, but I know she knows her socio-anthropologic history of feminism and marriage.

The reason why the faculty wanted to fire Summers had nothing to do with feminism.

The real issue behind his faculty conflict was that he wants to turn Harvard into MIT. He wants to build up the science part of the core curriculum and throw the humanities away.

Because he's a math nerd and has the usual disrespect for humanism that math nerds have.

Plus, he can be extremely rude and dismissive to anyone who disagrees with him about anything. He does not play well with others.

Look, when you've achieved a professorship at Harvard, you do not deserve to be talked down to by an administrator.

He talked down to highly accomplished people, he dismissed their input, but the conservatives had to ignore the truth and ignore the facts and try to use his dispute with the faculty as some way make it look like the evil feminists were at work again.

And by the way, the people who blasted him the hardest for what he said about women not being able to do science weren't even feminists.

They were working women scientists who were sick and tired of having this same old juvenile CRAP shoved down their throats for years and years on end telling them they can't do what they ARE ALREADY DOING QUITE WELL as working women scientists.

But forget any facts or truth when the culture wars are involved!!!!

The conservatives have to whine whine whine their little hearts out about poor Larry Summers the victim.

He's not a victim. He wants to turn Harvard into MIT, and I'll bet there are even a few conservatives whio might take issue with that.

Since, after all, science is now considered part of the evil liberal conspiracy, along with feminism.

I think this is the best thread I've read here.

Beside the occasional snarky comment and arguement (which I contributed to, I'll admit), the letters here have been amazing.

Intelligent, thoughtful, informative.

I've learned about a number of books I want to read (NOT O'Beirne's!), learned cool info about ancient civilizations, heard real bright retorts to O'beirn.

I am still trying to sneak in reads inbetween working and i haven't read them all, but wow! most the letters are great! thanx

Thanks for the info on Stephanie Cootz. I'd like to see Salon interview her, perhaps as a counterpoint to Kate O'Beirne's looniness.

It's long irritated me to see the concept of mom-working-outside-the-home portrayed as some modern phenomenon. It's partly personal: both my grandmothers, as well as my great-grandmothers and great-aunts, worked outside the home, mostly in family owned mom-and-pop shops (they're not called "mom-and-pop" for nothing) and on family farms (talk about some serious work!!!)

Women, including mothers, have been working outside the home since before the invention of money. Just look at our indigenous cultures' food-gathering traditions, many of which live on.

It's a bit of a diversion, but I feel I must point out that families (which come in a multitude of configurations) are lots of things, including individual economic units; all adults and often the children are full participants in income-generating activities, no matter whose name is on any particular paycheck. Even those who work exclusively at home (say, a stay-home parent, older sibling or live-in grandma doing child care) are doing vital jobs that makes it possible for other family members to bring in the dollars.