Another Broadsheet debacle. Of course, lower standards are part of anything tainted by womenfirsters -- women's studies departments especially -- but you'd think that, as bad as the rest of Salon is, Broadsheet could at least maintain an equally poor standard.

And then, as now, we're laughing at you, not with you.

Your chosen example of a feminist humor movie stank in spades. Your taste is as bad as your political savvy, Traister. Find something else to suck at.

Because Salon women are mostly man-hating human garbage.

Of course, they like to deny this. They sniff that we clearly didn't read what they wrote, while pointedly refusing to expand on that non-answer. The plain truth is, we read what they wrote and we understood it just fine. They don't care about men's problems, but demand that men solve their problems.

To hell with Salon misandrists. A shorter lifespan is exactly what they need, although four percent is just a start. Let's get it up to fifty.

If you're going to claim (entirely falsely, by the way) that you respect men, don't assert that "men are not a different and lesser species" is false.

That, or learn to think clearly about what you are saying.

Either way, you are definitely one of the Salon women who are misandrist human garbage. Thank you for identifying yourself so conveniently.

Men don't have it great in all respects. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you might rise above being human garbage.

For women who do not ignore or hate men, men's health is not irrelevant and it's not "incoherent". Salon women are generally human garbage who systematically ignore men's issues, whether because of self-righteous self-centeredness or because of psychotic misandry. They whine that this forum is for discussing women's issues, while ignoring the fact that Salon has no forum for discussing men's issues.

If Salon women realized that men are human too, they might be able to make a connection to the issue discussed in this article. Women's declining health may be in part connected to the fact that women are increasingly taking on roles formerly restricted to men. Working for a living isn't generally a healthy lifestyle. If women were performing the really dangerous jobs in the numbers that men are, the effect would probably be even more pronounced.

Of course, that would require Salon women to acknowledge two uncomfortable truths: Men don't have it all that great in all respects, and men are not a different and lesser species. That's not going to happen.

It's not that Women's Studies is dead, it's that it should be dead. There is no academic department with less rigor and insight anywhere in academia. It's a dumping ground for women who think that shitty attitude is a substitute for competence.

How unsurprising to see Broadsheet defend it.

What studies? You've cited no studies. You've made some vague claims based on crap you saw somewhere, sometime.

You're about as reliable as Karl Pilkington and the Monkey News. Go sell your crap elsewhere.

Leave the "Moi?" to Miss Piggy. I'm sure that's an appropriate enough parallel, in its way, but it's just a cutesy way to duck out of having to act like an adult.

As for my comment about women, take a look sometime at who files the vast majority of divorces, and on what grounds. Not what you saw on the Lifetime channel, but the actual facts. Get back to me when you have done that.

Ah, yet another feminist urban myth trotted out by the Salonista crowd. Do you believe that women are stupid, then? That they mindlessly pursue marriage despite the fact that it is supposedly so bad for them?

The market tells the truth. Your urban myth is a lie.

That was rather my point, actually.

Women like to get married, but aren't particularly good at doing the work to make a marriage last.

Take your condescension elsewhere, and next time read what you're replying to with a little more care.

Right. So, women's magazines don't have any material in them about how to get a man, preferably husband material? Books like "The Rules" didn't sell?

I agree that women are not particularly good at keeping a marriage going. All too often they concentrate on the chase. That doesn't contradict my point.

Yes, women are fashion-obsessed, especially when they're spending someone else's money. That doesn't explain the peculiar appeal of bridal magazines.

Your whole article is based on a few anecdotes. Get a clue, Traister: The plural of "anecdote" is not "citation".

Traister, you're a racist piece of trash. "Boys"? Don't even try that one.

Any Hillary supporter who lets this slur stand is complicit in racism.

The truth is, it's women, by and large, who fantasize about and push for marriage. It's men, by and large, who have decided that it's a bum deal and are not weighing themselves down with a wife.

Don't believe it? Go to any magazine stand and count the bridal magazines. Then count the groom magazines. One of those numbers will almost certainly be zero. The other will almost certainly not be zero.

The market can't afford to lie, but Salon women certainly like to lie to themselves.

Where does one start? With socalgal, who is proud of dumping the poor guy she conned into supporting her worthless self through her "higher" "education"? With mad cartoonist, always a reliable source of misandry, who pretends that education and competence are the same thing? With syrimne1's TL;DR spew about her bad romantic choices?

Whining about women's expectations that men will earn more than they will as if that were an anti-female thing is pretty self-centered and stupid. These qualities are common among feminacentrists, of course.

Oh, and LW: Free this man from the burden of your presence. He shouldn't have to put up with your condescending crap. Nobody should, really, but you'll find enough sob sisters in these responses to make yourself feel better than you deserve to.