Who was that blonde woman talking about Viagra for Women? She made comments about male sexuality being a 'blunt instrument' and all male sexuality was in their pants, whereas women's sexuality was more complex, etc. etc. I found her comments insulting and just lain wrong. How can she know about male sexuality? Is she a tranassexual? How could she say what it is like to go to the moon, for example, having never gone herself? The backlash against male sexuality is finally making it's way into the news media, it seems, and the guests that you have on your show. I find the show only mildly amusing and informative. Your guest was offensive to many males. Sex is not just physical for men OR women. It is all in the mind, as is erectile dysfunction. Though I cannot speak from personal experience about erectile dysfunction, as I have never had it, I CAN say with authority that if a man is not turned on by a woman (meaning his mind, emotion, etc.)viagra may make his 'blunt instrument' workable, but the desire to make it work isn't there...meaning it is all in a persons' head, MALE or FEMALE. That woman was clearly sexist, or has sexuality issues, veiled by her wannabe educational nonsense, which really was not educational at all. Shame on you for letting her get away with the comment about 'airs' when you were about to defend male sexuality.

Regarding your segment on female sexual disfunction, and in particular, the comments about male sexuality made by the woman you interviewed at the end of your segment.

Please pardon the fact that I am infuriated, but I have every right to be. Sometimes I wonder about the boundaries of human ignorance.

Are we still stuck in 1950? I am flabbergasted by the assumptions made and propagated by some of the people who have a voice in our media. Are these people simply big-mouthed and small-minded? People, please *think* before you speak publicly, and perpetuate false and harmful stereotypes in our society.

Here's a wake-up call to the woman you interviewed, and to all similarly ignorant people who like to generalize about the sexes. Take note: there is no GENERAL way that men or women behave, unless you buy into the common ignorant and inaccurate stereotypes.

Male sexuality is far more than 'a blunt tool'. Anyone who believes this has NO understanding whatsoever about males, and obviously does not understand people in general. Males are not stupid, males are not beasts, and males don't 'generally' think or behave the way that many of you simple-minded generalists assume that they do.

The woman you interviewed is like a caricature of the simple, old-fashioned, out-of-touch people of the 1950s. It seems like her perceptions of men are based on the chest-beating Tarzan symbols of the 40s and 50s.

When I hear comments like this I wonder if our society has any hope in the near future. My only hope is that people like her will read this post, and learn something from it.

Yes, some males do fit her pattern, just as some females fit their stereotyped patterns. But they are not the majority, and it is continually destructive to enforce the stereotypes.

And beyond that, do you really think that the stereotypical big, insensitive, and (stupid) aggressive men really represent the majority? Fortunately, they make up the minority of men... although such men (and women) unfortunately seem to have the majority of influence in our world, politically and corporately. Now there's something for you to think about.

Maybe apply a little bit of Darwinian common sense to your observations, juxtaposed with the stupidity of our pop-culture and our pop-media, your over-generalizations, and you might begin to see what some of our real problems are. How about giving that subject some serious media time? We need it.

Regards,
Mark T.

PS: Mark Kelley, I wish that you and all other journalists at CBC would have the common sense to briefly repeat the name and claim-to-fame of the people you are interviewing, at the end of the interview. Did it ever occur to you that viewers might have missed the information at the very beginning of the interview? Pass it on, please.

Jen,

Long time fan, first time caller ;) Like the new Connect show and the new digs. As per your commentary today on the wiki leaks regarding 9/11...I've scanned certain time frames before the second plane crash..the last one is quite interesting.

From Wiki Leaks 9/11
From 9 AM:
2001-09-11 09:00:13 Metrocall [0409953] A ALPHA
NORTHWEST WIND 10 TO 15 MPH.

2001-09-11 09:00:33 Metrocall [1280451] A ALPHA
Live life!

2001-09-11 09:00:33 Skytel [007663772] D ALPHA
(1/1) CONFIRMED PLANE CRASH AT 2 WORLD TRADE CENTER. EMRP, 38ST, HAZMAT RESPONDING. // CC 595-6777

2001-09-11 09:00:37 Arch [0901509] B ALPHA
Palne hit 5WTC Tim

2001-09-11 09:00:42 Skytel [005041254] B ALPHA
All - Plane crashed into WTC, our staff at 5 WTC is presently recorded safe details to follow. ?s call 1000

2001-09-11 09:00:48 Skytel [007663769] C ALPHA
(1/1) CONFIRMED PLANE CRASH AT 2 WORLD TRADE CENTER. EMRP, 38ST, HAZMAT RESPONDING. // CC 595-6777

FYI...
8:46:40: Flight 11 crashes at roughly 490 mph (790km/h or 219m/s or 425 knots) into the north face of the North Tower (1 WTC) of theWorld Trade Center, between floors 93 and 99. (Many early accounts gave times between 8:45 and 8:50). - Wikipedia

9:03: Flight 175 crashes at about 590 mph (950 km/h) into the south face of the South Tower (2 WTC) of the World Trade Center, banked between floors 78 and 85.[3] By this time, several media organizations are covering the first plane crash—millions see the impact live. - Wikipedia

Notice how the last pager "Confirms" plane crash at 2 WTC at 9:00:48 AM when the plane crashed at 9:03. Explain that one.
SL Sheehan
Montreal