As if being from Ohio wasn't bad enough after last year's election.... Jean Schmidt is my Representative. And now I learn that her "coward" remark was actually a message relayed from my state representative Danny Bubp, who practices law in my hometown.

Bubp is known for his platform of God, Guns, and Good Government, and was the lawyer for Adams County for the Ten Commandments, an organization that was trying to get the Ten Commandments placed on school property in Adams County, Ohio. How unbelievably humiliating!

I guess I'm one of those men who "feel threatened" by women seeking power. Surprising myself, I happen to agree with Brooks' major points. Unfortunately for Traister, I don't fit the mold of the man threatened by powerful women. My mother has been the major breadwinner in my family since I can remember. I consider myself to be a feminist. I would love to marry a woman with more earning potential than myself and would welcome the chance to work at home (I already do this anyway, raising organic vegetables). I dream of the day when we have a woman president, though I could never vote for Hillary "Flag Burning Amendment" Clinton.

As I see it Traister missed the point of Brooks' article. Brooks was commenting on Hirshman's piece, whose major thesis was that choice feminism had failed. The problem with radical feminists like Hirshman is that they think the women's movement is not successful until all careers are filled by women and men 50/50. They can't allow for gender differences, be they social, cultural or biological, to influence career decisions.

Unfortunately many careers out there are not just dominated by men -- they are defined by men. Whole areas of work are designed for males with their cultural and biological proclivities. Forcing women into those career paths amounts to "masculinizing" them. That's not to say some won't choose those paths and it's fine if they do. But the problem is not that there aren't "enough" women in positions of power. The problem is that, in addition to discriminating against women in some very real ways, society does not appreciate traditional more "feminine" careers and roles. Corporate CEO or lawyer is much better than garden tender, child-rearer or community builder, even by radical feminist standards.

Luckily, most women see through this utter bullshit. Climbing the corporate ladder; seeking only wealth and power and influence; constantly trying to outdo everyone ... Very unattractive to a lot of women (and some men like myself). The cubicle farm can leave you drained and unsatisfied with life, as I quickly found out.

Brooks ends with a very important point: "The big problem is not the women who stay there but the men who leave." Women's roles are still so undervalued that almost no men will choose them voluntarily. And, as Tierney suggests, even if men would want to choose such a life (speaking of myself here), for some reason women do not come busting down their door with marriage proposals.

Isn't this really the same issue we're now facing with gay marriage? Is there any reason the government should be able to tell us who we can and cannot marry? It's a religious and/or cultural union. The government shouldn't be involved for a number of reasons, including separation of church and state. Polygamy, gay marriage, goat marriage, who gives a flying f#ck.

Sure women are fans ... of male sports. Where are the women's football leagues, women's MLB etc.? I know there's a WNBA, but for the most part women's sports are viewed as either a joke or they are admired from a distance.

"Ironically, after all the acid and rebellion and strangeness, they may simply go down in history as a generation, in the words of the Chinese proverb, that was lucky enough to live in boring times."

Let's wait and see. The way things are going, I think the Boomers could preside over a crisis the likes of which we have not seen in a long time. They will probably be judged by how they react to what's is now unfolding, while the "acid and rebellion and strangeness" will be all but forgotten.

Of course this guy is an idiot for forcing a false dichotomy of "manly" vs. "sensitive." But I have a theory as to why confidence and sensitivity aren't found together in many men (or women for that matter).

Jerks tend to be confident, perhaps over-cofident, and horribly insensitive. Given the number of jerks and bullies in our society (maybe 50% of us), it's not surpising that most confident men are also insensitive jerks. Shy and introverted people (maybe 25% of us), on the other hand, tend to be sensitive, but lack in the confidence arena.

It's not that sensitivity and confidence are mutually exclusive -- with so many jerks and introverts running around, they're just hard to find together in one package. So, unfortunately, some women are going to have to make compromises when choosing mates ...

Please choose us introverts ;)