In defense of Kate M., I thought she succeeded in keeping Kate O. from being able to rant on Meet the Press, as she did when she had the "mike" in Rebecca Traister's interview.

What never ceases to amaze me, though, is the ability of rightwing lawyers to sniff out money or power. The 1985 Alito resume pandering to Reaganism is a prime example. Was it prescience about power swinging to the right or did they just stumble on extremist positions, inflamatory language and personal attacks as the way to fame, power, career and fortune?

Interestingly, buried within Kate O.'s antifeminist rant are some nuggets of common sense that a proud feminist like me would not necessarily disagree with. But Kate O. (and not just her publicist) obviously learned early that big bucks can be made in using vitriolic language and stirring up controversy, fear and hatred, just like her pals Rush, Anne and the loofah guy.

I didn't see anything about rape, certainly something feminism changed in the criminal justice system. What a shitty interviewer.

You know, I've known plenty of women (and I've been one of those women) who were criticized for working -- but I've never heard of a feminist in recent history criticize a woman for staying home with her kids. Who are these people? I have a circle of friends -- some stay home, some work p/t, some work f/t -- and you know what? We're all supportive of one another's choices. Imagine that.

I'm a 36-year-old woman, and five years ago I left my drug-addicted husband, when my son was just six years old. (My son was "raised in day care," as they say.) My husband wasn't physically abusive, or unemployed, although he was rather controlling and generally uninterested in being a parent. I've raised my son on my own with no financial or emotional support from his father. You know why I was able to do that? Mainly, because I had a job that paid me enough that I wasn't tied to my husband's salary. I live a comfortably middle-class existence -- it certainly would have been a lot harder for me to manage if I'd been earning, say, the wage of a cashier at Wal-Mart.

Fast forward five years. I'm not rich, but I'm fortunate enough to own my home. My son is thriving. I am happily partnered, but not married, and we are expecting a baby in the summer. Will I get married? Probably not. I don't need to be married to have a family, and I'm not too enthused with the notion of putting the property that I do have in the path of a mandatory 50/50 property settlement, if it ever came to that. Since my son's father doesn't provide for him, this house is his nest egg.

These days, I stay home with my son and homeschool him. I'm planning to stay home when the baby is born as well. I don't think that this baby will necessarily be better off than my son was just because I'm going to stay home instead of working. This works for us right now, but it may not always -- and that's OK. We're fortunate that we have the financial flexibility to make choices -- but I would never presume to think that all families have this option, nor would I presume to think that working families can't raise happy, well-adjusted children.

I don't have any regrets about how I've conducted my life, but I wonder what Kate O'Beirne would say to me? How do I fit in with her "opinion data" and sweeping generalizations?

I find it difficult to believe that an author who is purportedly as "educated" as O'Beirne makes so many broad and sweeping generalizations about feminists (clearly she's never read bell hooks or Angela Davis or Barbara Smith). 1970s brand feminism had a number of shortcomings, as any feminist of color will tell you, but the basic tenet of feminism still holds true: women should be treated equally--as cohuman beings to our male counterparts, not as their inferiors. Any woman who disagrees with that sentiment is sorta stupid.

>>but I've never heard of a feminist in recent history criticize a woman for staying home with her kids. Who are these people? I have a circle of friends -- some stay home, some work p/t, some work f/t -- and you know what? We're all supportive of one another's choices. Imagine that.>>

I agree; there is no criticism among women, we support each other in real life.

The conservatives spread this myth to incite distrust among women. If we're so busy fighting each other we won't have time to notice what they're doing to our rights. I support every woman's choice. I do NOT support her if she claims her choice is the only right choice for all women and that she's better than the women who made different choices, but usually only the media pundits do that. Most of us know there are different answers for different women and different times in our lives.

Why does Salon even give this woman (Kate) space on Salon. There are more important and more interesting things I'd like to read about. In fact, I didn't read this interview. I've heard enough from & about her to fill a lifetime.

From the article:

Q: But isn't that social conditioning?

A: I did it, and I did not feel I was socially conditioned

She might not have felt it, but it was there and it was strong.

She's big on interrupting questions too, isn't she? All that nonsense about how if there'd been no feminism everything would have worked out fine is just so much hot air. Just take a look at the transition from the 40s to 50s. Women in the workplace to women forced to stay home.

She's just yet another person of privilege that can't understand that not everyone is just like them. She trivializes domestic abuse, thinks that all women have the choices she does and refuses to acknowledge that there are people with circumstances other than her own.

As for the "Stay together for the kids" crap, what's better for the kids? Seeing parents hating each other and miserable every day or going their own ways and being happier?

Someone should take a trip outside her little bubble and try to put herself in other people's shoes.