Tyler continues: "It’s because men like superheroes, men wish they could be superheroes, and it’s men who see superhero movies and read superhero comic books." Pissed off? Just wait! There's more!

Wonder Woman may be a girl, but her audience was never really comprised of women… Catching bad guys is not a common female fantasy. Ask most women which movies they’re most looking forward to in 2009 and odds are that it’ll be something starring Julia Roberts… There’s nothing wrong with that. Men and women simply have different interests. Men are interested in action movies with heroes blowing things up and saving the girl. Men are interested in imagining themselves as ass-kicking heroes. Women are interested in movies about relationships and romance and love. Women are interested in imagining themselves finding the right guy and dancing till dawn. Little boys play with guns, little girls play with dolls. Neither version of play is superior to the other, it’s just different. Nobody is out there trying to force men to get interested in movies about romantic weekends in Paris, so why are we so dead set on forcing women to get interested in movies about beating people up? There’s something unintentionally sexist about it, it’s as if we’re saying women’s interests are somehow inherently inferior, and to be validated they must instead find ways to be more like men.

Okay, okay. Now your head can explode. Shall we begin?

First: I'm a woman who hates Julia Roberts. I hated that hooker with the heart of gold movie, found it to be condescending and nauseating, and I am not looking forward to seeing anything she does in 2009. By the by: Selling yourself on a street corner while waiting for Prince Charming? Not cute.

Second: I loved Wonder Woman when I was a kid. I had Wonder Woman underoos! A Wonder Woman swimsuit, which I wore with roller skates! I wanted to spin around and have my outfit change, I wanted to chase bad guys and kick ass, and I still do. I love Coffy, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, The Fifth Element, Resident Evil, Underworld and all kinds of stories in which a female — possibly wearing tight leather pants — is powerful, gorgeous and super-human in her strength and ability to drop-kick a fool.

Third: There's nothing sexist about wanting a female superhero; there is something sexist in assuming that all women only want to see Sex And The City-type movies, that women are a monolithic block who all act the same way and want the same things. Women are multifaceted with varied interests. I never played with dolls as a child and I know I am not the only one. Why can't the next generation look up to Wonder Woman, Catwoman or She-Ra the way my sister and I did? Why is Carrie Bradshaw the only acceptable alternative? And since when is it a man's place to tell women what they do and do not need? Dude. Give me my goddamned Christopher Nolan-directed Catwoman and shut the fuck up. Is anyone with me?

We Don't Need More Female Superheroes [CinemaBlend]
Earlier: It's Time For A Female Superhero Flick

The answer is no, she can't have it all. Not in the least, according to Grove. "Having it all (as a life-plan) is a chimera," Grove says, usually because real life interferes. Of the 20 women who appeared in the original book, some of their marriages have ended up failing; some feel guilty for not having spent more time with their children as wee ones; some think not that much has changed in the intervening thirty years.

"As for having it all - perish the phrase," Grove now writes. "I would never write that book today, knowing that women who appear to have everything sewn-up still have moments - or years - of guilt and self-reproach, of feeling stretched and torn in too many directions. Hence the high-powered women who give up on the career. My interest in this subject has dwindled to the point where I go along with Margaret Drabble (mother of three): 'If I get into a railway carriage with a child in it, I get straight out.'"

How over child-rearing is Grove? She ends the essay with a sober note about how women end up alone anyway, so in the long run singletons may be better off. "The most liberated woman is the singleton: independent and free of anxieties about menfolk and offspring," Grove reasons. "Children are hostages to fortune: the larger the family, the more hostages for fortune to play with."

Jesus Christ, fatalistic much? Children are "hostages for fortune to play with?" I mean, I understand arguing for fewer than three children — for a working couple, attention resources can be stretched mighty thin when you have a passel of rugrats — but she's basically arguing that life is wretched and bringing children into this cold, hard world is pointless. I can get behind her notion that "having it all" is an illusion, but damn, woman, our prospects are not so bleak.

How Did Seventies Feminists Fare? [Times of London]