Whining, womenfirsting, wailing, whimpering wankery.

Whether it's Erica Jong unable to understand why she cannot have every desire immediately satisfied at all times, Andrea Dworkin drivelling about how all heterosexual intercourse is rape, or Robin Morgan claiming that "'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act", it's all the same kettle of stinking fish.

I'm amazed that so many people here are shocked at the idea that it is reasonable to change rules in midstream. Democrats have been all about changing the rules to suit their whims for a long time now. After 2000, they started whining about the Electoral College, merely because its result did not serve their purpose in a particular election. Lately, they've been moving the goalposts on the Iraq War to serve their narrative of defeatism. They've been the biggest election-riggers and law-breakers for over a century now.

The article is therefore entirely in step with the Democrat contempt for the rule of law. It's perfectly sensible for the party to act as he recommends.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.