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.

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.

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 masculism is not the only opposition feminism has. Sexual egalitarianism is also an opponent of goodie grabs for girls.

The author of this Salon article is a sexist pig and a moron. That's par for the course on Broadsheet. Good work!

Let a hundred men die horribly in real life and none of them care, except in that they can use it to badger some politician they do not like. Let one image of a woman appear to die in a video game, and Tracy Hyphenated-Lastname is on the case!

Salon women like damnthatxanadu are more obviously insane than the rest as they openly fantasize about doing evil things to men (and no, I don't think you are fantasizing about doing that in the video game, you quasi-simian moron), but almost all of them are willing to overlook any harm to a man if there is a woman they can decide to care about instead.

Human goddamned garbage, and Salon panders to them. May God strike them dead.

Every time, I think Tracy Hyphenated-Lastname has bottomed out. Every time, I think she's surely written the dumbest thing she possibly can.

Wrong, every time!

See also "Author's Big Mistake":

http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2001/03/02/authors/

"I was just reading something about, like, how Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson didn't get along [on the set of "The Other Boleyn Girl"]," says Leighton. "Why don't they say that George Clooney and Brad Pitt don't get along? It's always the girls."

Because it wasn't true?

Oh, wait, it's Broadsheet. Here, truth is not a defense against failure to commit libel.

Congratulations, Annsley. You've chosen to board the dumbest bus in the entire short-bus fleet that is Salon.

I don't understand why you think the author can't defend her work?

Are you asking or telling?

I said nothing about Traister defending her work. I think the manner in which she chose to defend it stank.

In any case, your web link is completely irrelevant - "david sugarman" wasn't giving Traister a fair, unbiased, critical review.

Few reviews meet that standard, and that's not the point Fussell was making. The point is that when the author starts acting like an ass and flailing about in butthurt and shame, she only makes herself look worse. There are good ways to deal with crap critiques like Sugarman's. Traister didn't choose one.

I also can't help but think that Salon might benefit from moderating its comments better.

Be careful what you wish for.

I'd bet you've been waiting for a stridently anti-way movie that will somehow seduce millions of Americans into watching it and agreeing with it. You want attractive propaganda for your preconceived notions.

Thus far, all of the attempts to do this have failed. So will this one.

Five words say it all.

I'm looking forward to the ooze of sympathy for the LW from all the same respondents who condemn any male LW who admits to wanting something that his female partner does not.

And that's a bunch of crap. The vacation she needs can be had at any county jail, and she won't need to bring a thing.

Imagine the uproar if it was a man doing the hitting.

Even before I watched the video, I knew Joan's statement was going to be condescending, falsely sympathetic trollery. The facial expression in the video frame said it all. It's somewhere between a sneeze and a whine, and it speaks louder than words.

Not that your words didn't speak loudly enough of your continued support for Zombie Hillary. You just keep going and going, don't you, Joan?

Speaking of which, you think of the Energizer Bunny as an inspiring image, but let's consider that. The battery-driven rabbit continues mindlessly along a predetermined path, its trajectory determined by the unwise hands of others, until it finally runs out of juice or it meets an unavoidable obstacle.

It's hard to say whether that analogy applies better to Hillary or to you.

Hey, Traister, remember this?

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/04/14/obama_supporters/

When you apologize for the racist reference to "Obama boys", you can call for apologies from others.

Until then, you'd do well to leave it be, racist.