I wonder if Matt Abbot is paid by the word. It seems that a pro-choice activist has clearly done most of the work for this column, followed by the anti-choice responder. He wrote maybe, one paragraph of original thought?

Then again, right-wingers aren't necessarily known for their creativity.

If we single-sex the schools, we'll reinstate (not that it ever went away) the good ol' boys network. We have to teach boys to act right. Same issue on the HPV story. I agree it could be positive, but the suggestion to "get to girls earlier" and teach them that they can say no to boys places the behavioral change requirements on (again) girls and women. We must teach boys that they can and should say no to unsafe sex and teach them that they are not "due" sex from anyone. If male behaviors are the problem, we need to change the boys!

Adipositivity would be a lot more impressive if maybe they'd used more than white models.

As I recall, young "alpha females" can be absolutely brutal. Overall I had fewer problems with boys than the bitchy "popular girls." I disagree with the author completely that girls don't benefit from boys' presence. It depends on the invididual boy or girl; if his or her parents have done a fine job, then he or she should usually function normally.

Does anyone else here remember this article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/199804/single-sex

?

As for single-sex schools, if my high school went single-sex then there's at least a 50% chance the only calculus class would have shut out girls (there weren't enough resources to teach two separate calculus classes, so all 30 of us in the course took it at the same time of day in the same classroom).

Lots of good stuff this week, Ann. Thanks!

A Hillary Clinton nutcracker is APALLINGLY SEXIST!!!!!

Whatever humor it might reflect about politicians or nutcrackers generally, it would obviously never have been a joke made on a male candidate. The article spins it as funny whether you are a Hillary supporter or not - either it reflects her her tough and experienced political skills or else her polarizing (nutbusting) pushiness [long rant about roles of professional women].

Not true. It says Hillary Clinton is a nut-cracker. They might as well paint "Hillary Clinton is a man-hating feminazi" on the Empire State Building. Except that still wouldn't get the message as neatly as this nicely packaged little kitchen toy that can be sold anywhere in the country.

Ugh. Nauseating.

A couple weeks ago me and Male Roommate rented a season of Penn and Teller's "Bullshit"; I made him skip the episode on legalized prostitution because they were presenting it as empowering, but with an obnoxious undertone of "Really we just feel entitled to film prostitutes in the shower, but don't tell the girls! wink wink"

Later I had to very slowly and patiently explain to him that, even if women in legal brothels were free to leave and making good money, I thought it was bad for our culture because it still sent the message that men were entitled to women's bodies, and reinforced the idea that there are "good" and "bad" women.

Now that I know for sure that the legalized prostitution in Nevada (where P&T shot their shower scene) is just as bad for the women as illegal prostitution is anywhere else, if not worse, I have one more reason to loathe Penn and Teller. Of course, I understand they probably encountered an entirely different atmosphere; when you're a prostitute, there's a big difference between a woman with a notepad and a man with a video camera. Still, shouldn't the whole thing have set off their bullshit alarms? What a couple of douchebags.

Over the summer I wrote a research paper on single-sex education, and almost all of the studies done on the subject contradict each other. A good report on this is ASU's "Seperate But Superior? A Review Of Issues And Data Bearing On Single-Sex Education" by Gerald W. Bracey. It's posted online, I encourage everyone to read it.

Regarding Barbie's butt, conversely, is anyone keeping tabs on the size of GI Joe's crotch area bulge? (it could be made anywhere, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it made in Africa somewhere!) Anyway, if such a thing as GI Joe exists still, I'm almost certain the bulge (and of course, the pecs) have been expanding lately.

JOHNNYKINS "Regarding Barbie's butt, conversely, is anyone keeping tabs on the size of GI Joe's crotch area bulge? (it could be made anywhere, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it made in Africa somewhere!) Anyway, if such a thing as GI Joe exists still, I'm almost certain the bulge (and of course, the pecs) have been expanding lately."

Yes, definitely - male action figures have gone from normal looking guys in the 1960s to overwhelmingly muscular in present day. It's part of larger trend focusing on male bodies and muscularity in the media, and the recent rise in body dissatisfaction, protein supplement abuse, steroid use among men.

ARTICLE - Evolving Ideals in Male Action Figures

Objective
We hypothesized that the physiques of male action toys - small plastic figures used by children in play - would provide some index of evolving American cultural ideals of male body image.

Method
We obtained examples of the most popular American action toys manufactured over the last 30 years. We then measured the waist, chest, and bicep circumference of each figure and scaled these measurements using classical allometry to the height of an actual man (1.78 m).

Results
We found that the figures have grown much more muscular over time, with many contemporary figures far exceeding the muscularity of even the largest human bodybuilders.

Discussion
Our observations appear to represent a male analog of earlier studies examining female dolls, such as Barbie. Together, these studies of children's toys suggest that cultural expectations may contribute to body image disorders in both sexes. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Int J Eat Disord 26: 65-72, 1999.

On including men in the abortion discussion: I'm all for it, as long as it doesn't interfere in the woman's right to determine a) whether she gets the abortion and b) who finds out about it. I never really thought about this issue before this past year, but in that time, two of my close guy friends' girlfriends have had abortions. One of the girlfriends is also my best female friend. In the case where I was not close to the girlfriend, the guy joked about it incessantly, to the point of throwing a "dead baby party." He just couldn't handle it. They split up soon after. In his more somber moments, he would admit that he didn't really know how to feel, that he didn't know how to admit that it was a big deal and so he would rather just act like it wasn't. I actually felt worse for him in some ways than I did his girlfriend; he was just totally lost. If he had actually been raised in a culture where guys are encouraged to think about these things and get in on the discussions about abortion, instead of being told that this is totally a "woman's thing," I think more guys would be able to be the supportive partners that women want them to be, instead of reacting like children.

The other guy I'm more conflicted about. His girlfriend, like I said, was/is my best friend. In their case, it was her who didn't have any real difficulty processing the situation, while he would get quiet whenever she brought it up, which she felt it was her right to do, as crassly as she wanted, whenever she wanted. I ended up telling her to stop a few times, as the way she was so casually talking about aborting their baby was visibly upsetting him. She got mad at me, but I could tell that he felt like he was supposed to shut up and feel bad, because it was "her" abortion. If I hadn't said anything, she would have blithely continued to step all over his feelings, never realizing that it wasn't really her right to do so.

I realize there are loads of potential problems if we start overconsidering guys' feelings on this issue, but I don't think we have to do that to realize that they've been left out of the discussion for too long, and that their voices are being stifled where it's not really necessary.

Anyone else have any strong feelings about this one way or another?

I read this appalling (and a little confusing) article today that I thought I'd add:

No help for naked, unconscious woman on Mumbai local

I'm responding to Courtney's article about men's involvement in abortions. On the whole, I agree with the general premise that it's a good idea for women to include their male partner in on the abortion discussion. However, I believe the women who don't tell their boyfriend/husband about it often have a good reason not to - whether it be abuse, an anti-choice attitude, etc. If a woman has a good relationship with the man, then chances are she will probably talk to him about it anyway (of course there are always exceptions, but generally). This is why I find requiring a woman to disclose the abortion (or heaven forbid, ask "permission" for it) to the man to be completely ridiculous and unnecessary (same reasoning with parental disclosure laws). I fear that this argument will only be used against women in the advocacy of such anti-choice regulations.

It bothers me that none of the pictures at the Adipositivity site show the modles' faces. It reminds me of those videos on the news that show random fat people walking on the street, and cut off at the neck to obscure the person's identity, and I don't like it.

natalie902: I understand the fear. It's a fine line to walk -- if we discuss it too openly, there's always the chance that it will be seen as a "chink in the armor." But I don't think that should keep us from discussing it openly, here.

The great majority of men have real difficulty discussing abortion at all, and it's usually only when their partner brings it up as a possibility, or actually has one, that they realize: "Hey, this abstract thing actually has an impact on me, too!" They're light-years behind women when it comes to discussing this stuff; they don't even know what the parameters of the discussion are. The guy who threw the "dead baby party" actually asked me: "Am I allowed to have my own feelings about this? Or is this just all about her?" I thought he was joking, but he was serious. If men were included more, I don't think we'd see this kind of bewildered "Wha-huh?" response so often.

Maybe I'm just splitting hairs here, but one part of Courtney's article (re including men in the abortion discussion) is a little incorrect...
this part:

"...a majority of men would like to accompany their partners throughout the procedure. Most clinics don't allow men beyond the waiting room, something Shostak says is evidence that many think of men as "coat holders and drivers.""

As more of a response, though: I worry a lot about even having the conversation about responsibly including men in the discussion (and decision?). I know it needs to happen, I just have a really hard time picturing HOW it could happen without slipping straight into the messy consent/notification bullshit.

Like she said, there's got to be a way to have that conversation without it descending into that mess. But...how?

Jen: Carefully, and individually. One man at a time.

"As more of a response, though: I worry a lot about even having the conversation about responsibly including men in the discussion (and decision?). I know it needs to happen, I just have a really hard time picturing HOW it could happen without slipping straight into the messy consent/notification bullshit."

What about the cases in which a pregnant woman or teen girl wants to know whether or not she'd have the father's support in childrearing?

If she thinks something like "I'd rather have a baby with him than get an abortion, and I'd rather get an abortion than be a lonely single mama or give a baby up for adoption," does she need to slip straight into the messy consent/notification bullshit to tell him that?

Re: Actresses taking it off.

I noticed this a lot lately, that while a lot of up and coming young actresses will strip down for Maxim and those other lad mags, more established actresses get a "pass" for this when they do it for magazines like W and Vanity Fair because it's seen as "artistic". I didn't like the Tom Ford VF cover last year either, having two naked women with a fully clothed man just seems completely out of whack (I don't care that he's gay, it still seems almost exploitive)and unfair.

Though, I will say that living and working in Hollywood it goes without saying that there is tremendous pressure for women to always be "hot". I've worked on two different television shows in the last year and almost every single casting decision for an actress came down to, "But is she hot?" and the male writers would go on to discuss the actresses body and hotness in great detail, (and even some female writers joined in). It was very sad that this is what it's come down to, talent be damned.

Continuing with that train of thought, for actresses like Nicole and Maggie, if they want to reach a male audience (and thus, more money) then yes, they have to be sexy. However you have the men catching up in that regard. There was one time when I was out to lunch with a few of my executive bosses and we were discussing how magazines and how men's magazines are starting to influence men on how they should dress and how "hot" they should be. One of the other male assistants didn't like that men were catching up to women in the whole body image regard, and I and the other female at the table basically went, "Them apples don't taste so good when you have to eat them, now do they?"

There was a silence at the table to say the least.

To EvilPotato:

Agree. Part of what I love about the feminist movement is the ability to talk about all different aspects of the issues, and to question ideas/principles that we may take for granted as a given. I just get a bit hesitant after seeing the anti-choicers and the "mainstream" media spin, over-dramatize, and take things out of context for the millionth time. I feel if this issue is "dealt" with it all, it should be by women and couples amongst themselves, NOT by the government or legal system.

It's funny that you brought up about it being hard for men to talk about abortion, because I just had this discussion with my boyfriend two nights ago. He is a Democrat and is pro-choice, but we started talking about the dreaded "what if it actually happened to us" scenario, and his responses were not what I expected. Funny how that works.

Re the abortion thing:

It sort of depends on how you evaluate the risk.

Right now, it seems that most men are not included in abortion decisions--anyone disagree with that? There's no question in my mind that there are SOME men who should not be included; we know who those are.

But I think that the "bad" men are a relatively small contingent of men overall.

More accurately: I suspect that a movement (as opposed to a legal requirement) to notify/discuss would have more benefits than costs. Most women who thought it was safe to discuss it would be right. Those women (and their partners, and their relationships, and--if they didn't abort after having the conversation--their children) would all benefit from greater inclusion.

This is sort of the opposite thought from a notification LAW. Because in my admittedly limited experience, most people know about an abortion. And the ones who don't probably shouldn't ever find out (which is why notification laws are problematic.)

They just don't talk about it. So a movement that basically says "if you trust them enough to tell them, and you trust them enough to have had sex with them in the first place... consider having an open conversation about your decision" seems like a relatively low risk.

realityfighter: A couple weeks ago me and Male Roommate rented a season of Penn and Teller's "Bullshit"; I made him skip the episode on legalized prostitution because they were presenting it as empowering, but with an obnoxious undertone of "Really we just feel entitled to film prostitutes in the shower, but don't tell the girls! wink wink"

I loved Penn & Teller until that episode. Of course, I wasn't too surprised - 99% of the time, even the most "liberal" guy is a complete woman-hating asshat. Did you see the one on the Boy Scouts of America? Near the beginning they interviewed a gay guy and he said that BSA discriminates against "LGBTQ, athiests, and women." Then they went on to COMPLETELY IGNORE WOMEN for the rest of the hour! Because, you know, women don't count.

Oh, and fuck Barbies.

Sailorman: There's no question in my mind that there are SOME men who should not be included; we know who those are.

The only person who gets to decide who "should" be included in the decision is the woman contemplating the procedure.

And as for "'bad' men"... let me tell you something. I have never met a man who considered women to be fully human. Never. Even my current S.O., who I have been with for almost two years, but last week had to argue with for almost half an hour about Penn & Teller's Bullshit "Prostitution" episode that realityfighter first mentioned (see last post). You need to recognize that your opinion that "... the "bad" men are a relatively small contingent of men overall" is colored by your male privilege. Women live in a world where "good" men turn "bad" at the drop of a at. Just look at the statistics on acquaintance rape.

"I suspect that a movement (as opposed to a legal requirement) to notify/discuss would have more benefits than costs."

Right, because women - especially women made even more vulnerable by unplanned pregnancy - don't already feel immense pressure to cow to the wishes of the men in their lives. More benefits than costs... to whom? We live in a patriarchal society. Get real.

"... if you trust them enough to tell them, and you trust them enough to have had sex with them in the first place... consider having an open conversation about your decision"

Wow. I suppose if we lived in a perfect world where men didn't routinely coerce/force women to have sex with them, and where birth control never failed, and where women's worth wasn't based on their ability to sexually please men, this statement might make SOME sense. I wonder, what exactly do you mean by "open conversation"?

Oops, that should be "drop of a hat."

Derrp, where have you been all my life?

Sailorman, legislation requiring pregnant women to "consult" with their boyfriends/husbands/one-night stands/rapists before getting abortions would be extremely misguided and dangerous.

What is the goal? What is the point?
Additional laws are not going to change relations between men and women or men's attitudes about abortion.
In the case of "notification laws" - what then? OK, she had to tell him. And? Now what? "Consent" laws are simply cruel and anti-choice. If a man and woman disagree about the proposed abortion, who gets the final say? The only point of "consent" laws would be to give the man the final say. It's got to be 100% HER decision, otherwise she basically has no say and he has all the say. When two parties are involved, if they disagree, the decision has to fall to one of them. "Consent" laws serve no purpose other than to give men control over women's bodies.

In the majority of cases, women DO tell their partners they're pregnant and considering an abortion. They DO make the decision as a couple. The women who don't notify their partners usually have a very good reason(s).

I have never met a man who considered women to be fully human.

Errr...I'm sure you'll find someone on a "men's rights" site who says the same thing, genders reversed. If this is indeed the case, I truly feel bad for you.

The power dynamic inherent in a patriarchy, JaneMinty, is what distinguishes the two scenarios. And no one is exempt from the influence of the patriarchy. Think about the men in your life - can you honestly say that you've never come up against ingrained sexism/male privilege rearing its ugly head? My boyfriend "came around" after we had the discussion about glamorizing prostitution and what constitutes "choice" in a patriarchy, but his unconscious default was the patriarchally-enforced meme that women aren't people. No one is exempt.

SarahMC, to be fair, Sailorman wasn't suggesting legislation, but rather a subtler form of gender-based coercion. A social movement to help us women make better, more *inclusive* decisions about what to do with our own bodies.

This is sort of the opposite thought from a notification LAW. Because in my admittedly limited experience, most people know about an abortion. And the ones who don't probably shouldn't ever find out (which is why notification laws are problematic.)

Oh, I almost missed this gem! Notification laws are problematic, in Sailorman's opinion, because the *bad* men who *shouldn't* find out *WOULD*. Not because as citizens of an ostensibly free country, woman have a right to personal bodily sovereignty. Oh wait, that's right - women aren't people.

Sailorman, you're making this way too easy.

In a matter related to the HPV vaccine, I wonder if anyone else has come across negative implications from the connection of cervical cancer with HPV? Someone I work with recently referred to the effects of HPV (indirectly then, cervical cancer) as "the price of having too much fun in college". It bothers me greatly that women who suffer from cervical cancer may end up facing judgement by the community due to negative perceptions regarding their past sexual activity. We know that HPV is carried by widely and is particularly easy to catch but the fact that people may view it in this way has the very uncomfortable ring of "she should have been more careful". Women are seen then to be paying the price of their sexual choices. Perhaps I am being a bit sensitive but while the vaccine will help many women, increased public awareness of the link without additional education could quite easily end up being negative for women and the judgement they receive upon revealing their cancer.

--Someone I work with recently referred to the effects of HPV (indirectly then, cervical cancer) as "the price of having too much fun in college".--

Just reading that, I am shocked to the point of speechlessness. I can't imagine what I would do if someone actually said that to my face.

Re: the Chinese needles. China is going to have a big problem in a few decades cause of the widespread preference for boys - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6346931.stm

hoo boy.

Sarah, I wasn't talking about legislation. Which is why I said, for example, "this is the opposite thought from a notification LAW."

So before you switch into demonizing-mode, read the post, hmm?

(rest of post deleted after some thought. If you're coming from the "not a single man on the earth thinks women are human" perspective, further productive conversation seems unlikely.)

RE: Facebook banning nursing photos.

I find it a little amusing that there is HUGE bashing of nursing women-by FEMINISTS no less, both groups I identify with, in a previous post (See hte Applebees Nurse-In post) and then the issue of Facebook banning nursing photos is brought up in the weekly reader.

Is it just me or is there a wee bit of DOUBLE STANDARD going on once again? First a good maority of you tell us nursing (ahem feminist) mothers to stop "whipping it out in public-go home or bottle feed" but then the issue of sharing photos with people in our networks and having that banned is addressed. Adjectives fail me.

realityfighter and derrp:

I'm with you both about Penn & Teller. I can't watch the show anymore. Pretty much almost every episode involves objectifying women in some way.

If you think the episode about prostitution was offensive, check out the episode about breasts. In one scene, they have a doctor poking a prodding a woman's breasts and her head is actually cut out of the shot. Later, when the hosts are bored, they say "Let's cut back to the shot with the headless topless chick!" Ugh. Also, they were interviewing a woman who is very much opposed to baring breasts in public (including for breastfeeding), but rather than focus on attacking her arguments, they actually just zoomed in on her breasts and made comments about them. I just couldn't watch more than half of that show without feeling sick.

What really sucks about this for me is that I am a part of the skeptical movement, and yet it is full of typical liberal male bullshit about empowering women through objectification. I love the fact that Penn & Teller are trying to bring skepticism to the mainstream, but I hate their tactics.

--------

First a good maority of you tell us nursing (ahem feminist) mothers to stop "whipping it out in public-go home or bottle feed" but then the issue of sharing photos with people in our networks and having that banned is addressed.

I didn't see a majority of actual feminists in that thread decrying public breastfeeding. It was mostly Trash Queen and a few of the regular antifeminists and privileged dudes that come in here to provoke us. I think it's pretty unfair to say that a "good majority of us" are against it.

My apologies in my choice of wording. It seemed to me that those that did object in the first post for the most part were feminists. You corrected that and I thank you.

Next issue: why are they here then? grrr.

I went to a women's college (Salem college if anyone's interested), and I definitely feel that doing so gave me an "edge" in leadership over students from co-ed schools.

The atmosphere is just so different than at a co-ed school. You are given so many more opportunities for leadership that naturally translate into the world outside the college. I don't have the statistics on hand, but although women's college graduates make up only a small percentage of college graduates, they make up a very high percentage of women in power.

Not that leadership and power are everything! I just think that a single sex college experience allows you to really develop yourself apart from social constraints.

There is plenty of interaction with other universities to give you "real world" (A.K.A. with men) experience, and none of us left delusional about how the world treats women, but we did leave with confidence in ourselves.

I'm not advocating mandatory sex seggregated classrooms, but I do think that all female institutions play a very vital role in the promotion of women.

Next issue: why are they here then? grrr.

Good question. I don't know why anyone would come to a feminist blog to spew patriarchal rhetoric or other stuff that would've been covered in a Feminist 101 class. It's one thing to have a lively feminist debate, and it's another thing to have to defend and explain basic feminist beliefs.

------

I'm not advocating mandatory sex seggregated classrooms, but I do think that all female institutions play a very vital role in the promotion of women.

For me, the main issue of sex segregation is the fact that it's being tested out in public schools. I have nothing against private colleges or institutions that do it, but I don't want my tax money going towards a system I view as discriminatory. Usually, such classes promote stereotypes saying that boys and girls learn differently (i.e. boys do more physical activities, and girls do more emotional activities).

(On a side note, big surprise that No Child Left Behind actually condones sex-segregation. Link here.)

That BBC article on the issue of male over-population was shocking! Oh the MEN are going to have big problems are they? They can't get married? Oh excuse me if I find rousing immediate sympathy within me difficult. How the hell do they think it feels to be one of only a few girls in a class of boys? When the whole country (apologies for this crude generalisation but i hope you get me) prefers the opposite sex? How does it feel to know that foetuses of your own gender are aborted just for that reason?

Dorry derrrp, I stand by my opinion. Saying that all men don't consider women fully human is not at all constructive, and alienates the good men in our lives. To boot, such sentiments are fuel for nutbags on the opposing team.

I just wanted to second Jane Minty's last comment.
Personally, I know quite a few men who honestly value women and think of them as fully human. I wouldn't considor these guys to be my friends otherwise. And I certainly wouldn't have a male SO, if he didn't feel this way about me and women in general.
Actaully, I think it would be fair to say that for every male acquaintance who sees men as more able than women, I probably know a woman who feels the same way about her own gender. And I say acquaintance because I wouldn't consider any of these people to be friends. And yes I have certainly met men who truely do feel contempt for women and see them as inferior in all ways. And I avoid such people at all cost.
It is totally unfair and incorrect to say that all men have unexamined, misogynistic attitudes.

Sorry, derrp, saying that all men are affected by living in a patriarchal system isn't the same thing as saying men don't think women are fully human.

As for sex-segregated schooling, I think it can very easily slide into separate-but-not-equal--echidne's blog has had several posts discussing some of the arguments raised by some advocates (girls can't handle abstract math! Boys need to read manly tales of heroism! etc.) and they convince me there's often more at play than the general desire for a good education.

Dorry derrrp, I stand by my opinion. Saying that all men don't consider women fully human is not at all constructive, and alienates the good men in our lives. To boot, such sentiments are fuel for nutbags on the opposing team.

Huzzah for Jane Minty!

"As for sex-segregated schooling, I think it can very easily slide into separate-but-not-equal--echidne's blog has had several posts discussing some of the arguments raised by some advocates (girls can't handle abstract math! Boys need to read manly tales of heroism! etc.) and they convince me there's often more at play than the general desire for a good education."

If they had the general desire for a good education, then they'd think more about the financial implications of a suburban or rural area essentially running two school districts when it has barely enough students and taxpayers within commuting distance for one school district...

Slate's look at political crafting was interesting, but their projects (and the way they classified them as Democrafts and Republicafts) were a little off. (Although I am seriously considering making a version of their "RATIONAL SECULAR HUMANISM CONDONES THIS MESS" piece, minus the cross in a circle with a line through it.) This part in particular annoyed me greatly:

"DemoCraft No. 2: RU-486 Carrying Case
Don't leave home without it. Especially if you're a lady who's sexually active and stylish. Shown here in sleek silver with white rickrack. Or say, "Hello, Sailor!" with fun summer colors. Let the world know who's in charge of your uterus. Thank goodness life begins not at conception, but at endometrial implantation."

Uh, excuse me? I can see at LEAST 3 things glaringly wrong with that right off the bat, sarcasm aside. The Department of Homeland security blanket was interesting, although I prefer my versions of the reproduced Terror Alert Chart, and the Homeland Security Blanket concept. (To see my versions, click on my user name.)

I'd read that COYOTE disliked the Nevada brothels, but I'd heard that the major reasons were for things like enforced curfews and scheduling.

Saying that all men don't consider women fully human is not at all constructive

Actually, that's not what she said. She said she's never met a man who considers women fully human. It all depends on your life experience. If I still lived in the shitty little town I grew up in, I probably would have had the same experience. But luckily, the city I live in now actually has a reasonable number of guys who are into women's rights. I think I've also been really lucky to fall into a group of activists where there aren't a whole lot of the typical woman-hating liberal men. They're progressives in the true sense of the word, but I've also lived around the country and the world, and I know that it definitely isn't like that in many other places, including supposedly super-liberal cities. So while I'm sad to hear about Derrp's experience, I'm not about to accuse a woman of lying about her life experience, and I truly hope she does meet some decent men someday -- you're always welcome to come party with me and my friends if you're ever in Minneapolis, Derrp!

Ugh! I can't believe you would take Melissa Farley's "research" seriously. While I do not approve of the Nevada brothel model for legalized prostitution (for the same reasons shiftercat attributed to COYOTE in the post above) I think Ms Farley has once again produced some highly dubious results for her study.

I would believe her contention that some women were miserable working in the brothels if she admitted even a single claim of being happy working in one. While the women I have known who worked in brothels didn't like all the rules and fees, they liked the work well enough to continue working in them on and off for a year or more, and stay in the business after moving to another state.

If Farley omits any testimony that contradicts her agenda, then her entire study belongs in the garbage. She does this in every paper she writes, and her work on prostitution does not deserve credibility.

Well, I went to a co-ed high school, college & grad school -- but we had an unusual cadre of smart girls in our high school, and we really stuck together on a lot of things, but not because we considered ourselves 'feminists' -- but because we just knew we were smarter.

Specifically, there were a bunch of us that took AP chemistry together (in 1976!) such that we outnumbered the boys in the class 4-to-1. Calculus and physics were both an even split, and several of us were in the first official girls varsity track. This was the first year of Title IX, which could have had something to do with our feelings of total empowerment. As far as we were concerned, boys that wanted to get in our way could just plain go to hell.

Laurie went on to a 6-year medical program right out of high school, "the two Kates" went into environmental science, Anne and Susan went on to Computer Science degrees, I went to Engineering school, "the two Marthas" (we had two Kates and two Marthas) went on to major in mathematics and economics respectively. Oh and we absolutely dominated the computer club and the Mathletes competitions, too.

Now nobody in an official capacity DARED to say or do anything even remotely sexist in the late 70's -- much the opposite, I was positively encouraged by my mechanical drawing/industrial arts teacher to go to engineering school, for example -- but as soon as Ronald Reagan got elected in the middle of my sophomore year at college, it started going downhill FAST. There was one girl, Emma, whose EE prof consistently "lost" the homework she turned in. Partial credit on exams was a bad joke to the point that the administration instituted a practice of having us put our student numbers instead of our names at the tops of our exams to ensure that partial credit (the only kind you normally get on engineering and physics exams at highly competitive schools) was awarded without prejudice of a female or male name at the top of a paper. Attrition of female students in the engineering school shot up to double the attrition of male students, due to family pressure (boys are supposed to be successful and demonstrate "character" in tough programs whereas girls are supposed to be "happy" with their studies; boys are told that "C's get degrees, and nobody asks you what grades you got in college when going for your PE license, whereas girls are assumed to be incompetent if they don't get A's, etc.), loss of scholarships and so forth.

Anyway, I think that because I got a taste of single-sex education in my female dominated AP chemistry class in high school, I would advocate single sex schools with one caveat -- that they be attended by choice, and that when we have a chance, we lend a hand in making sure that the all-female schools have computer clubs and competitive math teams -- as schools like MIT basically require to see what your scores are on national mathematics exams in order to even apply.

In the face of the backlash of the 80's and 90's, I am really heartened to see young women such as y'all here at feministing insisting that the ground lost must be reclaimed -- and I would suggest that one thing we can do, if we have the time, is volunteer to coach girls high school sports, mathletes competitors and help out with -- or start -- computer clubs in single sex high schools for girls, particularly the public magnet schools for outstanding (and often underprivileged) female scholars. This would prevent them from being turned into schools of home economics. Exposure to even one or two avowed feminists can change *everything* for girls, and y'all can really empower like minded teachers and administrators who often have an uphill battle on their hands.

Oh, and I had to literally put my fingers in my ears waiting for the plane the other day while a couple of female junior execs of some stripe standing behind me in line were discussing which partners in their firm they were "seeing." Made me want to puke, and I do not get airsick. What would their mothers say.