So Kate thinks that progress for women would have happened without the feminist movement? Where's her evidence for that? Making broad statements aggressively and repetitively without offering any support accomplishes nothing and it's sad that that's all she's offering.

Also - for someone who thinks progress comes without any fight or effort - which is what she's suggesting with her comments here - she's certainly combative.

and she's flogging her own book. Of course she's going to have every sound bite down pat. If this had been a televised debate it might be reasonable to want a debater of equal, I hesitate to call it a skill, maybe relentlessness, but in this situation I think a lot of the material speaks for itself if given the opportunity, which it was.

I just finished preparing lunch for my 2 year old son and as I put him down for a nap he said "night-night Daddy". My workday is off to a pretty good start.

O'Beirne seems to have a fairly low opinion of men if she feels that they need look around to see what all the others are doing and keep pace to validate themselves. I grew out of that in my late teens.

Or does she just feel that we are inherently selfish?

Pretty cynical outlook on males in general.

Dear Kate,

Sweetie, of *course* feminism created more problems than it solved. Liberty is *always* more complicated than restriction. Freedom is harder than slavery.

And, SO like a Baby Boomer to say, oh yes, I know there have been two generations of women since the 70s, but we all know they're not important and have no influence. But NOW does? (who joins NOW anymore?)So good-bye to Anne Lamott and let's ignore Susie Bright and never mind about the Berkley Pro-Life Feminists and we *really* don't want to hear about Mukhtar Mai! Honey, don't you get it that you're the older generation? Nobody reads that stuff anymore!

Now ... God forbid ... but women might be ... (gasp) criticized! for staying home with their children? Oh HORRORS! My goodness! How will we bear it? We must be fragile flowers indeed! Women do not deserve freedom because we are saints but because we are people. Give some of us a pen, and we'll be hateful, yea, verrily, even to you.

As a multi-ethnic woman of color (African American, Japanese American, French, Scottish and Filipina American) I'm shocked that this woman is so ethnocentric and completely unaware of the reality poor and working class women of color live in this country. She reminds me of Richard Rodriguez, Shelby Steele and others who are angered that Affirmative Action programs helped them because they invested in the idea that reversing discrimination and correcting power imbalances somehow comments on their worth, abilities, or reputation. I wish the reporter had consulted with women who don't share the economic background these two women clearly shared so that she could have asked Mrs. O'Bierne pointed questions about her own clear insecurities. It's frustrating to see two white women arguing about the legacy of white feminism and know that neither of them is ever going to expand the discussion beyond it -- it remains confined to a cultural monologue instead of becoming a meaningful discussion on gender roles and equality in modern American life.

I grew up in a Marine Corps household, and I promise you, my father taught me to defend myself. He grew up in Watts, Los Angeles and wanted to insure that I never had to depend on a man to defend me, provide for me, or shelter me. These should be things that people want to do for one another not have to do for one another. That was the point of the feminist movement.

I would remind Mrs. O'Bierne that Women Are Not Roses. But it sounds like she probably hasn't heard that one....

I'm going to have to disagree with most of you here. Sure, I disagreed entirely with what O’Beirne said about abuse and unhappy marriages; I felt she really was trivialising the issues. However, I can understand her basic belief that the welfare of a couple's children should be more carefully considered, and that there may be a connection between feminism's focus on 'self' and the fact that divorce rates are spiraling out of control.

An argument O’Beirne made that I liked included the 'unequal pay' fallacy. She points out that never-married single women make more than never-married single men, which I would argue is the basic unit where we could see a bias on gender in employment (it's free of factors like marriage and children). Then, Traister states that if there is a social expectation for women to work less for the sake of parenthood, and therefore earn less then men, it’s gender inequality. However, I think the point to be noted here is that when you're married, the 'basic unit' shifts to the family; it's not a zero-sum game between partners. At that stage, the man could be the 'carer' and the woman the 'worker' (and there are plenty of such examples), so the question shouldn't be so much "why are women being discriminated against?" but "why is the general trend in society for the woman to be the carer and the man the worker?" The probable answer (as O’Beirne touches upon, but doesn't really get to), is because women are better carers, and men are more built for protection and working - we are probably simply 'wired' that way - society is shaped around that biology because it creates an optimal balance. Note that other species also tend to exhibit this same balance.

If you ask why this tendency can be reversed (as mentioned earlier), then I’d suggest it’s because human intelligence has allowed us to create artificial environments that make that optimal balance largely unnecessary. Feminists noticed this and ran with the ball, opening up working opportunities for women. It was new, and it shocked society, but it's possible now, and it's OK. At this stage, I think what O’Beirne dislikes feminists is that they pass judgement on stay-at-home mothers because (as Traister said about Hirshman's article), there is that feminist belief that as long as a woman is in the house, feminism has failed. It was also mentioned that Jessie Bernard wrote "being a housewife makes women sick". O’Beirne thinks it's quite the contrary (and I'm sure a large number of stay-at-home mothers will agree). Instead, she says women are not weak-minded, dim-witted or oppresed by 'social conditioning', and instead are happy with their position as a mother, and don't want to follow the male career model. Those that do, she says, will be successful, and she doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

Traister then mentions women would be more likely to choose that path if it was made more open by cultural acceptance, and financial and government support. At this stage, I'd argue that the argument shouldn't be so much about gender as it should economics (I ignore cultural acceptance because as a male, I have no negative attitude towards women working, nor do I see it as a common social problem anymore). Anyway, O'Beirne doesn't even seem to be attacking feminists as much as she is the government for not providing fair or alternative subsidies (e.g. for relative care)!

I think O'Beirne's extremes (e.g. the VAWA bit) may come from the fact that when you engage in argument, you tend to become more rigid in your beliefs, and bunker down. O'Beirne is guilty of it, as are feminists, and so are many commentators before me who didn't consider O'Beirne's arguments thoroughly before attacking them. One example:

"For the record, I found O'Beirne's arguments… ludicrous for a lawyer - with Swiss cheese punts like 'opinion data shows....' or… flat out… generalizations like 'We (women) WANT to stay home!' as if that just came down from the mountain engraved to Moses. Oh, yeah? Who says?"

Did this person consider that in saying "Who says?" she attacks O'Beirne for speaking on what women want, at the same time implying the opposite, and thereby committing the same crime? O'Beirne didn't really commit that crime anyway. She might have been attacked for using 'opinion data' so much, but what do you think she should have used for an insight into what women want - immigration statistics?

I think Margalis (p5) got it right when she(?) said:

"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… These letter pages are small-mindedly obsessed about how liberals can effectively fight back against evil conservatives, [so here’s] a word of advice - if someone is poking you in an open sore over and over again, cover your sore."

I used to stand fast too. However, I now pride myself on listening to both arguments, and merging the extremes of 'black' and 'white' into what I call the 'decisive grey'. Have liberalsareawesome and Mishima666 considered that when right-wingers win arguments, it's not necessarily because they’re slick PR machines, but because they've discovered a chink in the left's armour? Learn to cover your sores, rather than defend their right to exist or attribute the pain to something else.

Finally, why didn't you self-titled cynics feel suspicious about TX Dem's comment on the book receiving hundreds of negative reviews? As soon as I read it I smelt a rat, checked it out, and discovered that popular websites (like Daily Kos) are encouraging people to tarnish it (another example of what happens when people choose sides, bunker down, and don't consider taking the 'decisive middleground'):

Check it out if you don't believe me:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/13/234138/111