Sorry Rebecca, but nothing this woman says is interesting. She just says it in that old, aggressive, Jerry Falwell, liberal-eating mode. Most of her answers here are too booorrrring to read. So let her book die the death it deserves and is so clearly destined for, and get on to something future-oriented. I graduated from high school in 1967, too (we're 56 or 57). She's in in-your-face, interrupting sort of troll I knew a lot of back then. Let her drag her knuckles back to her cave. Also, because you yourself are young, DON'T BELIEVE A WORD SHE SAYS!

She drove to the interview by herself (in her own car)? Without a male family member to escort her? She has a driver's license? Her husband let her have enough money to pay for the lunch? She is allowed to go out in public with her hair and face uncovered? She has not yet been stoned to death for letting men see her ankles?

A truly anti-feminist woman should not be speaking in public at all - let alone writing books. She should stay home and raise her babies. Who taught her to read and write, anyway?

And more seriously, from a female lawyer (remember when women couldn't be lawyers?), who can read and write (aren't there countries where women aren't allowed to learn?), who is allowed to vote and own property (ditto?), and who does not live in fear of being killed by her own male family members for some imagined transgression, shouldn't one expect at least some gratitude for feminism?

A lot of what O'Beirne said is garbage, but a lot of it is correct. The same applies to Traister. Yet every letter writer has steadfastly chosen a side and they are sticking to it come hell or highwater.

O'Beirne is right in that feminists have inflated the "wage gap" for dramatic effect. Feminists in general usually play very fast and loose with stats and other factual information. Either though invented statistics (200,000 women a year die of anorexia in the US, domestic violence rises on superbowl sunday) or through manipulation of terms. (50% of women have been raped or suffered through unwanted sexual advances - that could be 1% raped and 49% advanced upon)

Since these letter pages are small-mindedly obsessed about how liberals can effectively fight back against evil conservatives, a word of advice - if someone is poking you in an open sore over and over again, cover your sore.

Feminist statistics are a soft target. So is Eleanor Schmeal. (For reasons I'm too lazy to explain right now - dishonesty would be a big one) Women who put down stay-at-home moms are a soft target, and plenty of those exist. The Larry Summers shitstorm is a soft target. Feminist authors often mention women's innate connection to nature (have we suspiciously forgotten the entire sub-domain of eco-feminism?) or to children, and the subject of black vs. white athletes and the role of genetics has been broached many times with little fanfare. Men can bench press more than women, women can swim longer distances than men. Merely suggesting that genetics may be at least partially responsible for mental differences between men and women (or any two genetically different groups) is hardly worthy of crucifixion. If nothing else it certainly give ammo to the bad guys - a guy makes an offhand comment in an off the record meeting and crazy PC feminists start frothing at the mouth.

O'Beirne is mostly wrong but what matters is she is partly right and she can hammer on those things until the cows come home. I'll never understand the knee-jerk reaction to defend even what is clearly wrong just because the "bad guys" are attacking it.

Make the wrong stuff right and they'll have nothing to talk about.

Any time that there is a massive change in society, especially one that continues to develop over a long period (as equality has) there will be a rocky stretch that can last for years as society adjusts to the big changes, refines the parameters, and some of the concommitant problems or side issues become apparent.

It is helpful to step back and recognize this type of natural, graduated social adjustment and realize that many of the social 'problems' now associated with feminism will gradually be worked out over time by new generations.

For instance, O'Beirne makes a point about the negative aspects of male children not having a Dad around; but instead of blaming the obvious culprits for this, the absent fathers, she and most conservatives blame the women - as if a majority of single mothers decide to have several kids sans a partner.

Sorry, no.

The majority of male kids who get into serious trouble are not sons of educated mothers who 'choose' to be single moms. (the feminists)

They are primarily the sons of men who father kids and leave - or pointedly ignore their parental obligations. It's the men, not the women, causing the problem.

Tell me again how that is somehow the fault of feminists, then? Oh, wait - it's still our fault because we 'disempower' all men by some of us being feminists; thereby hurting their fragile egos and making them want to leave all women, which hurts our kids - is that it? The possible permutations of why it is 'still our fault' is endless with these people.

Yes, feminism has prompted some thorny issues that will take a while to completely iron out. However, the fact that everything is not perfect yet is not an indicator that feminism is 'bad' - it simply shows that society is in the midst of change. Likely, as new generations take up these issues, large strides will be made. I refuse to accept O'Beirne's assertion that it will never be accpetable for men to stay home. She thinks that only because that's how it had been for years - she is not looking down the path of gradual social change that will come with new generations being reared with equality and choice. She only sees her prejudices, in other words.

It would be intellectually dishonest of us to deny the connections between feminism and some current issues. However, that should simply prompt us to continue working on them - not to decide that feminism is 'bad' because it requires time to work out the kinks and sizable social adjustments.

If we in the USA looked at everything that way, there would have been no emancipation of slaves, no desegregation of schools, no equal rights for minorities - in short, much of modern human progress here would never have happened.

Creationism would still be taught in public schools; which clearly illustrates my point about the slow social acceptance and time-consuming problems inherent in making major changes. The court decisions to include evolutionary theory and drop creationism in our schools 'happened' decades ago, but society is still grappling with them to this day.

Amazingly.

O'Beirne is forceful and glib - but she is not intellectually honest, convincing, or a truly skilled debater. Any spirited, informed, logical thinker could rip her to shreds in a discussion.

I'm not surprised that she stayed at home - society obviously didn't miss anything.