Unless Justice Ginsberg considers herself and her income level "middle class," she's wrong and mischaracterizing who will suffer if abortion is made illegal.

I was alive and sexually active when abortion was illegal, and when in college saw the difference between those of us in the lower middle or middle middle class and those in the upper middle class.

At my dinky state college, I was clued in to a pipeline for illegal abortions (done by God knows who), which I'd made up my mind to take advantage of if I became pregnant, no matter the aftereffects. College was a way out to the world for me, and I would not have given it up, but would have been forced to, if pregnant.

On the other hand, I met an uppermiddle class (or wealthy) student from a private college, whose boyfriend had flown her to Puerto Rico for her abortion (masked as a "vacation.")

The rich are different from you and I, and their women won't die or be maimed.

The rest of the economic classes will have to take their chances with back alleys.

James Watson *should* have retired when it came out that he and his fellow double-helix Nobel winners had stolen the groundbreaking (and Nobel winning) research from Rosalind Franklin.

Most everything I've ever read by/about Ginsberg has made me feel good in some way. Also, the exerpt from the Jensen novel - great. I'm really interested in criticism/writing/discussion/study/etc. of masculinity. I think it's a branch of feminism that needs more deveopment. If so many of women's issues are created by partriarchy/conventions of masculinity, we need to examine them in order to examine women's issues.

KATIE: "James Watson *should* have retired when it came out that he and his fellow double-helix Nobel winners had stolen the groundbreaking (and Nobel winning) research from Rosalind Franklin."

My understanding is that they didn't "steal" anything - they saw a conference talk she gave and were given an unpublished manuscript she had written. Also, they offered her a role as co-author on one of their primary DNA publications.

"On names and gender connotation AND boys don't cry"

Wow, those looks like a great classroom activity for showing how social pressures divide the genders.

"On masculinity and public displays of male dominance."

I think this article really highlights the arms race that guys face on a frequent basis. When a guy tries to assert dominance in an argument, physically, etc., by backing down that just let's him get away with it. But by escalating the matter, that just reaffirms that intimidation is an acceptable tactic. It can be a no-win (and very stressful) situation.

UCLA SAID: "Also, they offered her a role as co-author on one of their primary DNA publications."

Oh wait, after a little googling apparently it was Maurice Wilkins they offered authorship too, not Franklin.

In any case, damn, what a way to go out.

Way to link to an article on the openly anti-Semitic site counterpunch.org.

What next... an analysis of queer theory found at kkk.com?

Think before you link!

I want to say that 75 foot buffer is not good enough. If you really want to send a message to anti-choice protestors that violence, harassment and intimidation won't be tolerated, then prohibit any anti-choice protestor from coming within one-third of a mile of where the women's health clinic's property ends.

...BTW, to be more specific about Breast Cancer Awareness Month -- this is a month solely for women as men are very unlikely to get breast cancer. I'm the exact opposite of the conservative media. I always remember that this month was Domestic Violence Awareness Month only. But, I don't even know that October was Breast Cancer Awareness Month. At least The (Columbia) State newspaper knows that it is DV Awareness Month.

I think I might have to pick up Jenna Bush's book. It makes me happy to know that at least one Bush isn't completely evil and has at least half a brain.

Jenna Bush is the smart Bush. Too bad she ISN'T president.

Way to link to an article on the openly anti-Semitic site counterpunch.org.

Actually, that's not correct. You see counter-punch is against apartheid and genocide.

If you must defend genocide and apartheid, you can argue for those things on their own merits. It is extremely dishonest to redefine the term antisemitism to refer to opposition to apartheid and very harmful to victims of antisemitism.

"You see counter-punch is against apartheid and genocide. "

Are you seriously saying that Israel is committing genocide?

And let me guess... you are far more incensed over Israel than you are over Darfur, or of Turkey's real genocide of the Armenians and Kurds, correct?

Do you even think before you regurgitate such talking points?

"You'll change your mind," they--friends, and even mere acquaintances--would say. (Funny they--the "they" who always seem to have something to say--never say, "You'll change your mind," to girls who say they desperately want children.) "Why don't you think you want kids?" they'd ask, as if I weren't sure. Someone once even suggested there must have been psychological trauma in my childhood, or a strained relationship with my mother, to explain my apparently unusual disinclination toward motherhood.

Yes, yes, gods yes! I get this so frakkin' often and then the look on people's faces when I point out that they never question any woman who says she wants kids (because of course that's what you're supposed to do or at leas is expected of you). But I'M expected to change my mind at some point (unlike the women who have kids and then regret them, and at that point they can't change their minds).

Whenever I get that BS I always tell them it's better to regret not having kids than to regret having them.

I'm also one of those women who come from a great family with great relationships to my parents so the fact that i don't want kids, nor am I particularly fond of marriage confuses the hell out of people.

I want to say that 75 foot buffer is not good enough.

I have to agree. At the Planned Parenthood near where I work, there are protestors creating a traffic hazard at the clinic driveway. The limit in my town puts them right at the only entrance to the clinic property.
Some days I want to get a slingshot...

Wisconsin courts consider whether transgender inmates have a right to continue taking hormones while in state custody.
So nice of them to put a moral spin on our lives. What next? Withholding insulin from diabetics? Abrupt hormone withdrawal is F**ing dangerous.
I'm glad that that lawyer has taken the case. What worries me, is his relative lack of expertise. I hope he educates himself, and I hope he wins.
It seems trans women constantly have to fight for our humanity. Sigh.

Are you seriously saying that Israel is committing genocide?

They are killing plenty of Palestinians and right-wing Israelis and Americans clearly don't want to give up land. Perhaps ethnic cleansing is a more accurate term, but most Palestinians will die if the right has its way.

And let me guess

Your guess-based approach to political analysis has failed. I think it is outrageous that the U.S. refuses to recognize the Armenian genocide.

Do you even think before you regurgitate such talking points?

Speaking of which, our dialog began with you claiming that Counterpunch is openly antisemitic. Since I know you wouldn't thoughtlessly regurgitate a talking point, can you please provide evidence that Counterpunch is not only antisemitic, but is actually openly antisemitic?

I look forward to reading your reply.

Married without children-

I am so glad she wrote this. I have never, in all 37 and a half years of my life, wanted to reproduce my genes or raise a child for any reason. I, too, have a great relationship with my mom, I don't believe that has anything to do with it. I've just always known I never want to go through that. My biggest sigh of relief was when I woke up from the tubal ligation two years ago. Fortunately, no one's ever really hassled me about it, but I have plenty of logical arguments if they do. I say it's better to know your limits than to bring an unwanted child into the world. Gods know there's enough of those already.

I regret sounding so much like the rest of you who've posted so far on 'Married Without Children,' but I feel the need to echo your sentiments.
Kristen Tsetsi has become my new hero. The women of my family are all very close and have really great relationships. But we still have varying opinions on things. I confess that it shocked me when my grandmother told me I needed to find a husband soon because she couldn't wait for me to have children. I told her, "Well, gram, maybe that's not really meant to be. I don't really want kids." Her response?
"Oh, well I thought you'd gotten over that... we'll give you a few more years, huh?" My grandmother, one of the people I admire and respect the most, doubts my ability to decide whether or not I want to reproduce! You could criticize me and say that I'm young and shouldn't be deciding just yet, but why then should I be looking for my husband? At 21 years of age, I've made many important decisions.
I graduated high school, chose my own college far from home after filling out all the paperwork on my own, paid for nearly all of it, I've investigated my spirituality and decided to turn away from the tradition I was brought up with, I came out to my close friends without any big drama... I'm a well educated woman about to graduate with honors and headed towards my doctorate degree. I'm living the fulfillment of my life without a man or children and consider myself more of a woman because of that.

I was talking to my 12 year old sister today on the phone about her hideous cramps (it looks like we both have primary dysmenohrrea) and mentioned that it's what we go through for the ability to have children. She immediately said "But I don't ever want children" and I said "Well, that's a big decision to make when you're only 12" (I never tell her she'll change her mind, but she is also only 12) and she gave me the most amazing response. She said "No, it's a big decision to have children, it's not a big decision not to have them". I'm completely amazed that she's apparently mature enough to have figured this out when I know grown women who haven't, and I'm just about positive that it means she really won't ever have children. She'll just get to be a wonderful aunt to mine.

I'm also just about positive that the girl's going to get herself a tubal ligation the minute she has the money and a doctor willing to perform it. We get the nasty kind of cramps, that advil and birth control pills don't stop, they only help to keep us functioning. I put up with it with the help of Seasonale because I want babies one day, she's clearly on a very different page.

I want to say that 75 foot buffer is not good enough. If you really want to send a message to anti-choice protestors that violence, harassment and intimidation won't be tolerated, then prohibit any anti-choice protestor from coming within one-third of a mile of where the women's health clinic's property ends.

Better idea. Read the First Amendment.

Face it - a lot of people have legitimate concerns about abortion. If the CONDUCT of the protestors is problematic, then complain about that and prohibit the CONDUCT. Do not, however, protest the speech, which is their Constitutional right. It's actually in said document that people have the right to free speech, while the document is silent about killing your unborn child.

You're only making yourself look like a zealot. What, is there now a right to get an abortion without so much as encountering a single person who may protest what you are doing?

Do you think that you should be able to give up the right to protest something you don't like, simply because the other side wants the warm fuzzies? What goes around, comes around.

----

70% of people who have kids wish that they never had them or waited longer to have them. A lot of people have them for the sole purpose of having someone to take care of them in old age or to fit in socially. IMHO, the best thing for both women and men is to understand their motivations for having children and their capability to love and nurture them.

There are some NASTY comments on that Popular Mechanics article. Apparently, their target is men, and women are just stupid for not knowing that men are supposed to protect us.

Seriously, how is it possible to be so stupid and yet think that you're so smart?

Oh, yeah, about Popular Mechanics:

I change my own oil. I fix my brakes. I'm going to fix my fuel filter once I get a chance. I do a lot of my own computer work. I know how to sail. I've taken First Aid courses.

Apparently, then, I'm not a real girl. Sigh.

I know, PrairieLily -- plus their advice on securing your computer (#2) is actually really shitty and ineffective -- I posted a comment, but I think it's too long to get through (apparently Popular Mechanics readers aren't smart enough for comments longer than a few sentences, or for good computer advice for that matter). I'll just post it here so that the lovely readers of Feministing can reap the benefits of knowing how to really secure your computer! I would also add using Firefox with NoScript and McAfee SiteAdvisor to the list, BTW.

Okay, if Popular Mechanics doesn't realize that women make up more than half the population, they're just digging their own grave by throwing out any possibility of getting our subscription dollars.

Also, the securing your computer advice is actually pretty crappy -- versions of Windows before XP didn't come with a firewall that you can enable in the Control Panel, and even with computers that have the Windows firewall, it's extremely ill-advised to use that as a permanent solution, as it's a terrible firewall. (ZoneAlarm is one good solution.)

Also, #2 should have included editing your host file, disabling remote access (unless you need it) and getting an anti-spyware program that offers real-time protection, which Spybot doesn't do. Also, CCleaner isn't really an anti-spyware app, but more of a system optimizer -- I'm surprised a security expert would describe it as such, unless the reporter misquoted him. Also, and this is debatable (but my A+ certification instructor agrees) Avast is probably a better bet for anti-virus than AVG. It's faster and has fewer bugs, and finds the same amount of viruses.

Of course, your best bet for securing a PC would be to use Linux -- Ubuntu is ridiculously easy to install.

"Better idea. Read the First Amendment.

Face it - a lot of people have legitimate concerns about abortion. If the CONDUCT of the protestors is problematic, then complain about that and prohibit the CONDUCT. Do not, however, protest the speech, which is their Constitutional right. It's actually in said document that people have the right to free speech, while the document is silent about killing your unborn child."

i don't think anyone is saying they can't protest at all...just that they should keep off the property. no, we don't have the right to do anything w/o opposition, but a woman does have a right to reproductive health care w/o being badgered and intimidated. it's a HEALTH CLINIC.

and i would think that a regular poster here, like yourself, would know that a lot of people don't consider it "killing" or and "unborn child". before you go calling anyone a zealot, maybe you should check the harsh way you just over reacted.

keeping protesters off of the property of abortion clinics is a tremendous idea, for the safety of the staff, patients, and everyone involved. also, many times women going to these clinics are going for services other than abortion. in that case, yes, i think a woman has a right to see a doctor w/o facing a bunch of thoughtless angry protesters. the first amendment doesn't say anything about the right to badger someone going to see a doctor.

"70% of people who have kids wish that they never had them or waited longer to have them. A lot of people have them for the sole purpose of having someone to take care of them in old age or to fit in socially."

really? b/c i would like to see some data on this 70% of the population who wish they never had them or waited longer. and on the ones who only want to fit in socially? i am not trying to be snarky here...but i really question that statistic.

i don't always agree w/ what you say here, but i have never seen you so harsh and judgemental.

This is OT, addressed to GENNY. Genny, as a fellow sufferer of the cramps from hell that no Advil **or even birth control** could ever help, I wanted to tell you that I've now had four pain-free periods in a row (after regular monthly agony since the age of 13). Five months ago, I a) stopped eating sugar, b) stopped eating grain, c) started eating flaxseed, at least 1 tablespoon, every day. One of these must be responsible, although I don't know which and I'm unwilling to narrow it down because that would mean running the risk of reincorporating the culpable food.

Anyway, I can't tell you how fantastic it is to NOT spend 3-4 days every month in agony, loathing my body for the pain it's inflicting on me. If your cramps are as bad as mine were, it may be worth a try for you to add in flaxseed, and if that doesn't work, to cut out sugar and grain too for a while. I seriously feel as though my relationship to my body has been transformed by this small -- okay, no, rather LARGE -- miracle. Seriously, I feel like shouting it from the rooftops for all my fellow suffering sisters. :)

oenophile, so you're saying that 1,760 foot buffer zones is a violation of the First Amendment? What we are talking about here is not banning protesters completely, but to keep them from harassing and intimidating women and the doctors. Some of the counties in the US are so large in size that anti-choice protestors could still target women and doctors. And many of the women's clinics in cities that have fewer than 100,000 people were forced to shut down because of anti-choice terrorists.

Do you see people protesting the misogyny at hospitals with maternity wards? No. And it is simply because that hopsitals and lawmakers have combined to destroy protesting at hospitals' maternity wards and OB/GYN places. So why should a women's health clinic that provides abortion and other reproductive services and that has much more services than most OB-GYNs and all of the nation's hospitals be treated any differently?

Oenophile-- it's not a question of the protesting. If someone wants to organize a massive march across town protesting abortion, that's fine and should be fine. The only problem arises in that they harass the employees and the patients, they will damage property, they will follow women who leave and identify them. You say we can just prohibit the conduct but with anything as charged as abortion you have to think about the safety of the patients and the staff, and the best way to do that, IMO, is to not let them protest within view of the clinic, so they can't see who is going in and out of it.

That's not to say they can't protest, and I would even argue that they should be allowed to leave their materials in the waiting rooms of the clinics provided the materials do not contain graphic and emotionally disturbing images.

One's constitutional rights are important, but if their exercise of those rights will put another person in danger, the rights should be restricted.

A note on the cramp issue: If you're experiencing terrible cramps, a tubal ligation won't do anything. Just like on birth control, you're only NOT OVULATING. Everything is working as normal otherwise.

What you need is a hysterectomy in that case, so there's no uterus there to cramp up.

I'm not sure what's wrong with continuous birth control--maybe many women feel weird not having their periods ever--but it's been my best option, and while I'm not thrilled to death with being on hormones all the time, it's not a huge deal.

"Are you seriously saying that Israel is committing genocide?

They are killing plenty of Palestinians and right-wing Israelis and Americans clearly don't want to give up land. Perhaps ethnic cleansing is a more accurate term, but most Palestinians will die if the right has its way."

...etc.

Sorry if I'm adding fuel to this fire, but as a Jewish individual myself I would like to ask: how is expressing one's opinions against Israel's military actions anti-semitism? I know that's been a popular stance, but it certainly is not how all Jewish people feel. Being against war is not an act of hate.

“but as a Jewish individual myself I would like to ask: how is expressing one's opinions against Israel's military actions anti-semitism?�

Well meegs, clearly, you are a self-hating Jew!
/Sarcasm

On the bumper issue: People are allowed to get restraining orders against people who are likely to commit acts of violence against them. Isn't this much the same? I thought we all agreed restraining orders are good and constitutional.

My mother picked a gender-ambiguous name for me (Kendall) so that when I "grow up and become a lawyer, people looking you up in the phone book don't discriminate against you for being a woman."

I hate the name, but love the intention. Thanks, mom!

Ponies and Rainbows said:

"...getting an anti-spyware program that offers real-time protection, which Spybot doesn't do."

What's a good one? Preferably something with a free edition, as I'm kinda broke.

"What, is there now a right to get an abortion without so much as encountering a single person who may protest what you are doing?"

Why not? The 1st Amendment grants the right to speak, not to harass. You can speak your mind without getting in someone's face. I do it all the time. And I would think people also have a right to believe what they wish without having to actively defend those beliefs to any who disagree before they're permitted to act on them.

Here's an example for you: Lots of people think it's morally wrong to eat meat. Yet we don't expect those who disagree to run the gauntlet past a hoarde of angry vegans in order to get the the meat counter of the supermarket and buy a steak. We don't ask Democrats to navigate past a crowd of militant Republicans screaming about how liberals are destroying America in order to vote. Yet that's what we ask of women seeking abortions--or even just going to PP for advice or a PAP smear. To me, that seems rather extreme and unfair.

I entirely agree with you about the choice to have children. People choosing not to have children are often questioned about their decision, but people who do are rarely asked why. That's just odd, because obviously the choice to have children will have far greater repercussions than the choice not to, and as such should be the choice that calls for greater deliberation and introspection.

There's a free downloadable program called Ad-Aware that removes spyware and the like, made by Lavasoft. The main disadvantage of the free version is you have to run it yourself--it won't actively scan and remove spyware for you. Still, not bad if you're on a budget.

http://www.lavasoftusa.com/products/ad_aware_free.php

Has anyone read Robert Jensen's book "Getting Off?" (He wrote the displays of masculinity article).
Or does anyone know any good titles regarding masculinity and pornography? I'm really interested in the correlation between pornography and masculinity right now.

The only problem arises in that they harass the employees and the patients, they will damage property, they will follow women who leave and identify them. You say we can just prohibit the conduct but with anything as charged as abortion you have to think about the safety of the patients and the staff, and the best way to do that, IMO, is to not let them protest within view of the clinic, so they can't see who is going in and out of it.

You bloody fascist.

I'm serious.

Look, babycakes, if someone isn't blocking access, they have a RIGHT to do it. Constitutional RIGHT. If that makes women sad, boo freakin hoo.

Guess what? If someone doesn't like the fact that I occasionally shop at Wal-Mart, they have EVERY RIGHT to set up shop on the sidewalk in front of it and hold signs about the atrocities of that store.

Look, you fascist dimwit, let me set you straight:
If the protestors are committing a crime, STOP THE CRIME.

If the protestors harass women, INCARCERATE them.

If the protestors block access to the clinic, ARREST THEM.

Do not, however, remove the quintessential Constitutional right to free speech in a public forum because some women who are about to have their baby's brains suctioned out don't want to get the sniffles.

I'm sorry, but here's a quick lesson in Con Law for you:
1. Abortion is not mentioned in the document; even liberals think Roe is crap law.
2. Free speech, however, is. Part of that is speech that pisses people off. Speech that gives everyone the warm fuzzies doesn't need protection.
3. Sidewalks are the quintessential public forum. That's sacred ground.
4. Restrictions on free speech must be "narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest." Removing protestors from the scene isn't "narrowly tailored;" it's unconstitutional. Imagine trying to protest an action by Congress from fifteen blocks away in DC. Imagine strikers trying to protest a company ruling from 15 blocks away. No one gives a care.
5. "Narrowly tailored" means, essentially, that the restriction can be no more restrictive than necessary.

The law you are proposing is facially unconstitutional. Now, it might seem to be all ponies and rainbows and sunshine now, but one day, someone you disagree with will be in power. That person will be able to use laws like that to make your life a living hell. So you want to protest their actions? Well, no, I'm sorry, you can't do that on the sidewalk in front of the State House; you can't do that in view of anyone who might actually have the power to be affected by it; you can't do that near a company that exploits its workers or a frat house known for raping women. In fact, the gold standard will be that anyone targeted by a peaceful protest will be entirely unaffected by it.

Once that day comes, you'll see that I'm right. All of a sudden, a few people who stand outside of clinics with signs won't seem that bad.

A random question, my little fascist: what is so bad about having the protestors ACROSS THE STREET? Clearly, they won't be blocking anyone from entering the clinic.

Oh, no, that might actually let women see that they are doing something morally abominable. Goddess forbid.

(Eye roll.)

Face it - if it were about ensuring access, you would only advocate for across the street and/or not within a certain distance of the entrances/egresses. It's not about that, though - it's about ensuring that the opposition is silenced. Fascist.

Oeno, what's with the name-calling? Specifically, the gender slurs? You just called someone "babycakes." I don't know if you think it's cute, or what, but you called someone "babe" last week, too. I think I can safely say that there are no babies here, only men, women, and possibly teenagers. Do we need to have a nice long chat about why, as feminists, be they left-leaning or right-leaning feminists, we don't turn misogyny against other women?

And last I checked, "you fascist dimwit" pretty well qualifies as an ad hominem attack.

Oenophile,
Sometimes when I'm on the fence about a contentious issue I step back and look at the people who are most vocal in supporting each side of the issue. And I ask myself, "Who seems more reasonable? Who seems more unhinged? Who would I least like to associate myself with?" It often helps me to clarify my position.

You might want to do that sometime. Look at the people who are on your side. Ask youself why they hate real science so much. Ask yourself why they spend so much time lying about basic medical procedures. Ask yourself why so many of them are afraid of extending any kind of reproductive freedom to women. Ask yourself why they think it's OK to harass and threaten private citizens. Ask yourself why they only want to defend personal liberty when it suits them, and don't care about it the rest of the time.

Well, maybe you don't care about any of these issues. From the tenor of your last post it really doesn't seem like you do. But you sound a lot like them to me right now and your argument is like a high-buzzing noise in my ear. It annoys me and makes no sense whatsoever.

I think I'll avoid the people who advocate infringement of some people's personal freedom and privacy in favor of their own freedom to make women in crisis miserable. That's me.

oenophile, your argument would be more convincing if you could dial down the condescension ("babycakes"? Seriously?) and acknowledge the reality of the situation outside many clinics. That reality isn't just "a few people who stand outside clinics with signs." Volunteer escorts wouldn't be necessary if protesters were merely standing around holding signs.

Your gross oversimplification of the emotional and moral turmoil that women who seek abortions face (making a woman sad, "getting the sniffles) does nothing to help your argument.

And, as others have already pointed out, clinic protesters don't put away their signs and shut up when a woman who needs a pap smear walks down the sidewalk--they target everyone who walks through the door, regardless of whether they're actually seeking the services you find so abominable.

"Guess what? If someone doesn't like the fact that I occasionally shop at Wal-Mart, they have EVERY RIGHT to set up shop on the sidewalk in front of it and hold signs about the atrocities of that store."

First of all, the name calling and patronizing tone really isn't necessary.

Secondly, the abortion clinic protestors are not merely standing on a sidewalk shouting at people as you suggest with your Walmart comparison. They are putting their hands on patients, assaulting them, and spreading their personal information on the internet for further harrassment for just a couple of examples.

You have a point about the legalities of banning protest. But you're ignoring a whole lot of other actions taken on by anti-abortion activists. Babycakes.

Let's see, Facist, dimwit, babycakes...

Oenophile, that's a really transparent attempt at being confrontational and insulting rather than have an sort of meaningful dialog. I do think you've shown you're too smart to think you'll convince anyone of of the validity of your point by insulting them. So what gives? Why are you here?

You constantly use belittling and inflammatory language while demanding others respect your views. You hurl insults then claim moral superiority.
You're ignore some pretty important facts like how the Bush administration, which you might remember is currently in power, arrests dissenters that aren't in "protest" zones several blocks away from where the President is speaking.

It's like you're our very own little Ann Coulter, and much like her, the schtick has gotten old.

"Guess what? If someone doesn't like the fact that I occasionally shop at Wal-Mart, they have EVERY RIGHT to set up shop on the sidewalk in front of it and hold signs about the atrocities of that store."

First of all, the name calling and patronizing tone really isn't necessary.

Secondly, the abortion clinic protestors are not merely standing on a sidewalk shouting at people as you suggest with your Walmart comparison. They are putting their hands on patients, assaulting them, and spreading their personal information on the internet for further harrassment for just a couple of examples.

You have a point about the legalities of banning protest. But you're ignoring a whole lot of other actions taken on by anti-abortion activists. Babycakes.

“It's like you're our very own little Ann Coulter�
Heh! I like that! You should have read her going on and on about how Ann Coulter is smart and awesome and that’s why feminists hate her. I am sure Oeno looks up to Coulter as a role model.

"what is so bad about having the protestors ACROSS THE STREET?"

I think it's been made pretty clear. If not..."it's about ensuring that the opposition is..." (not silenced) but threatened and emotionally attacked for a choice NONE of them have a freaking right to have a say in. Get it? NONE. ZERO. It's the woman's choice, and she doesn't owe you or any other protestor any consideration in the matter. The potential for physical harm has also been described quite a bit, so forgive me for not falling for your ignorance on the subject.

I love this: "that might actually let women see that they are doing something morally abominable" because, you know, women are such dimwits they can't possible comprehend the choices they are making.

Your tone and personal attacks make you sound desperate and pathetic.

Ahhh, recalling the Ann Coulter is smarter than ALL OF YOU people thread...it gave me and my friends a hearty laugh. Cuz, you know, an alphabet soup after a last name is like, the shit yo!

Was it necessary to mention "Aung San Suu Kyi's non-violent struggle" as being "non-violent"?

It's a small and insignificant-seeming point, but would her struggle be any less righteous or any less relevant to women if she advocated self-defense against the Burmese military?

I feel like making an issue out of "non-violence" just reinforces the notion that women should only be praised in politics when they are that mythical "civilizing" influence of "non-violence", which in turns minimizes the contribution of women to legitimate self-defense movements. How many revolutions have relied on women to fight and then shoved them to the side the moment it was all over? I don't think it's necessary to reinforce that.

Aung San Suu Kyi is bad-ass and needs no qualifying adjectives.

Shiftercat, there's actually nothing wrong with Spybot -- it's good enough at what it's meant to do, and I'd keep using it if you already have it. As Vervain mentioned, AdAware is another good option, but again doesn't offer realtime protection, and it's always best to prevent infection rather than fixing it afterward. I'm not on my Windows computer at the moment, but here's a rundown of what I've all got on it that I can remember -- and it's all free! I went to www.download.com to get mine, but I think PC World also has them.

1. Spyware Blaster -- makes changes to your computer that help prevent spyware from being installed.

2. Windows Defender -- Made by Microsoft, it performs scans much like SpyBot and AdAware, but also helps prevent programs from being installed on your computer without your knowledge.
You have to be running a valid copy of Windows -- it'll check to make sure, but you don't get in trouble or anything if your copy isn't valid. :P

3. WinPatrol -- I really like this one. Download.com makes it sound like you have to pay for it, but really all that happens if you use the free version is that you don't get access to a database that makes it easier to research viruses and spyware. It looks for suspicious behavior on your computer and alerts you to it, blocking the behavior until you tell it whether or not it's okay.

I think those are the main real-time things. I also have AdAware, the free version of ZoneAlarm firewall on my XP Professional computer, I NEVER use Internet Explorer, and I have a program called CWShredder that gets rid of a browser hijacker called CoolWebSearch, just in case I ever get it. I also have AVG Anti-Rootkit just in case I ever get a particularly nasty type of virus known as a rootkit and can't connect to the Internet.

Oh! I almost forgot! I also have Hijack This. If your computer's acting super-weird, you can have it generate a report of things that might be wrong with your system, and then you can go to some computer-geek forum and post the log, and the people there can (hopefully!) tell you what's wrong. You'd only use it once in a blue moon, but it's handy in a pinch -- I've never used it because the only time I would have needed it, I didn't have it and it was already too late! (Amusingly, that computer is the very one I'm using right now -- I wiped the hard drive and installed Linux on it.)

With all that said, though, the best way to prevent viruses is just to be a smart Internet user -- you probably know most of the drill with that, but things other than the usual include always having a strong login password and, for Windows 2000, XP and Vista, only running as the administrator when you need to. Otherwise, create a Limited Privileges account under User Accounts in the Control Panel and use that for everyday browsing, word processing, etc.

I actually have most of that stuff (though I found that ZoneAlarm caused more problems than it solved), but I'm always on the lookout for what's newest and well-reviewed. Thanks! :)

SpyBot doesn't offer real-time protection, but they do make TeaTimer which monitors your registry in real-time. It alerts you to registry changes and allow or deny the change I was shocked at how many times changes to my registry are attempted when I am just surfing the intertubes (I shouldn't have been surprised, I do use IE).

Ponies and Rainbows: I would like my next PC to use Linux/Ubuntu, but I am worried that I am not computer-savvy enough to run it!

KATIE: "James Watson *should* have retired when it came out that he and his fellow double-helix Nobel winners had stolen the groundbreaking (and Nobel winning) research from Rosalind Franklin."

UCLABodyImage: My understanding is that they didn't "steal" anything - they saw a conference talk she gave and were given an unpublished manuscript she had written. Also, they offered her a role as co-author on one of their primary DNA publications.

Read Sayer's biography, and Watson's own The Double Helix: the admitted facts of the case are that Franklin's co-worker of equal rank, Watkins, used his pass key while Franklin was out of the country to let Wilson and Crick into her lab and remove her X ray crystallography from a locked drawer in her desk.

Franklin had only averred to this research once, in the kind of annual internal "what I'm doing for research this year" blurb report. Neither her report, nor her own photographs were referenced or attributed -- but Watson, Wilkins and Crick published Franklin's photos in Nature without attribution.

When confronted with the low ethics of the manner in which they obtained data, Watson Wilkins and Crick first tried to dismiss her as a lab technician with some kind of a low-level bottle washing job. She certainly was not -- she did her PhD in chemistry under Nobel laureate Bragg. The best Watson could do to diminish her very significant contribution was to wonder aloud, in his book The Double Helix, why she didn't "do something more interesting with her hair."

They may have discussed the structure of the DNA molecule with her, but if you read Watson's own account of it -- he describes her as "angry" and "impossible to get along with."

In short, the usual shit we've seen time and time again. So, KATE- you were right. UCLABoobyAwareness--you have your head up your ass.

Shifter, it sounds like you've got it under control, then! :)

Shelby, Ubuntu is actually really easy to install, more so than any other Linux distribution I tried; it's just a matter of clicking buttons. Plus, it comes with most of the software you'd ever need. Making changes to Firefox works exactly the same as in Windows, but where I'm having issues is installing programs -- I can't tell where Ubuntu is putting my installed programs, or whether they're even installed!

I think the best thing to do is install Ubuntu on a computer you don't really need and use it for learning Ubuntu, and have another one that has Windows where you can do your everyday work!