That is true, LH, and that has been part of my issue with Kirsten Anderberg. She sees and uses part of an issue.

Poverty in the US for example finds 70% of the 'poor' population to be female. When the argument for rights stops there it then means that the other 30% are ignored. Her agenda figures that that's OK because the other 30% are men.

Kirsten is an activist, so she puts it on the line--for which I admire her. However, when people follow blindly after only half the story, they are little better than the folks they listen to who gave only half the story.

I have read many of her articles and I too agree with much she writes and thinks. However, often her presentations are one-sided, and she loses me there.

When her wrist was broken in a demonstration in Seattle, I felt a certain sympathy and maybe even a solidarity with her and the 500 who were protesting an injustice. BUT, nowhere in her articles could I find reference to the fact that some of the protest folks had burned an American flag. Did that seem to PO the cops? Well, duh, yes!

Her remarks about welfare mothers having a very terrible time on the pittance they receive from government is just and true. I would have been more impressed if she had said mothers and fathers. That she had issues with her father has affected her outlook. So she slams men. I can see that as being justifiable from her perspective. But he mother was no angel either (if what she wrote is accurate), and she chooses to slam only her 'dud' (as she calls him). That is her choice, but when I read it, I have choices also. There are enough REAL issues for poor people without having them shunned--and she contributes to that.

I think Anderberg is bright enough to get her point across by presenting both sides of an issue. I wish she would.