There are a lot of debts that won't attach to the spouse, and there are a lot of assets that you don't have to split if you split. You've got a point, but you're oversimplifying it. You're also ignoring the tax advantages.

Dehumanizing people, for any reason, is not a good road to go down. Once you decide a person or group of people is less than human, all sorts of terrible things become justifiable.

I understand a lot of the HFCS hate, but what exactly is gross about it? How is it any grosser than cane sugar or beet sugar or honey?

Why do you think it makes me happy? What in my comments has led you to believe I think it's a positive thing that you can fire employees for shitty reasons? I'm an attorney, I occasionally deal in employment law, and this is my understanding of the law.

But if the real reason was the hair, and not the color of her skin, then it wouldn't be racial discrimination.

Well shit, that sounds like a pretty reasonable system.

Anyone can be fired at any time for any reason, except for an improper reason (race, age, national origin, familial status, disability, and maybe something I'm missing.) Also, many states recognize exceptions for public policy, implied-contract, and bad-faith. Sooooo, especially in states that recognize all three…

It's not equal, especially among less-skilled employees. Systems that favor employees heavily also have drawbacks, as can be seen in France and Greece. What's the scheme in Australia?

Why is at-will bullshit? It's just the default, anyone can negotiate a contract if they want. It allows employees to walk away from a job they don't like, and employers to walk away from an employee they don't like. Also, all states are at-will, some just recognize more exceptions than others.

You are not understanding this story. She did sue him, it went all the way to the Iowas supreme court, and she lost. She has no further recourse. Te legislature could try to craft a new law to prevent this type of thing in the future, but that won't help this woman.

The standard isn't that a decision can't be in any way related to gender in a specific situation, it's that it can't be because of gender in general. Presumable, he would not have fired a woman who he did not find attractive. Attractiveness is the defining characteristic here, not gender.

I more or less agree with you, I just wanted you to admit that sex is different, at least for some people. I'd go a step further and say that differentiating sex from other physical acts is a legitimate point-of-view. In other words, I don't think people who hold that view are illogical, or backwards, or need to catch…

If sex is just like any other use of your body, should we then dispense with the crime of rape, and just lump rape in with battery?

Carburetor? Do you have a time machine?

What is this "don't be sleazy" thing? It's totally okay to be sleazy in certain situations.

Agreed, but I see a lot of women whose range spans from their age and 10-15 years younger. Not nearly as bad, but I'm always like - seriously, not even a single year older than you is acceptable? Picky Picky.

How come whenever someone says "you should see the awful comments on Gawker/Jezebel/Deadspin," and then I go and look, I don't see much? The vast majority of the comments over there are supportive of these girls and women in general.

I actually knew that, but I'm not sure where to draw the line between what is purely learned, and what we are predisposed to but that we still need to learn. Does that make sense? Anyway, I get your point.

I actually appreciate why feminists are at times quick to anger, and I don't take it personally or let it deter me from discussing issues. Sometimes I'll ask "why are you angry" as a disarming tactic. It makes it clear that I am not angry, and it encourages the person who is angry to reflect on their feelings and…

That's okay I'm always giving people 'tude too.