"Now, I don't understand--when articles criticize men relentlessly, you say they are bad. If the articles criticize the criticizing of men, you say they are formulaic and just want to get more clicks. Apparently they can never win?"

This is a false statement. One paragraph was reserved for the criticism of the criticizing....given as a personal opinion. Why not provide the data that is readily available on the subject ? As if the opinions of the writers of this column would hold any water on the subject of the importance of men. Please.

"Well, in principle, all articles in all paid blogs want to generate clicks--is that so bad?"

If given as a false headline for what was purportedly inside.

"Ms Williams did do a piece criticizing herself for having been immature with respect to her husband. And you consider this bad? Would you rather she had not criticized herself?"

I think this is irrelevant.

"I still have to see a non-formulaic article. They all start with an introduction setting the problem, mention of (some of) the available discussion on the topic, and close with an opinion and arguments in favor of it. Do you think the editorials at Time and Newsweek are, in terms of structure, that much different?"

Two sides to the story requires research on both sides, not referencing all the material that supports your ideology and then closing with a personal anecdote. Where is the mention of the available discussion of the importance of fathers ? You don't see this glaring omission ?

"Look, Ms Williams' post supports the idea that fathers are important--that's what she said. The fact that some other people think differently is not her fault; in fact, she is criticizing them. Where is the ideology? Why all the outrage?"

Because her personal opinion holds no water. There is a mountain of data that supports this particular opinion, but BS as a whole, and this column specifically continue to ingore it.

"Again, if you get angry when they do and angry when they don't, there's no way they can ever win. That's not a fair game."

Your the one not playing fair. What I am looking for is honest debate. That includes providing the information that may not support your ideology. This is more lying by omission......propaganda.

PS....I dont get angry at this stuff.

I know we don't always agree, but that was a brilliant post.

I'll keep it simple since your having a hard time "understanding". There is a mountain of information available about the positive aspect of males on their children. There is not one case where this mountain of data has been referenced in Broadsheet. Understand ?

Really boring.....

"Got it. Let me keep it simple too: you're therefore not actually criticizing this article, but a general tendency in BroadSheet (i.e. to avoid talking about the positive aspects of men), and you could have posted your comment to the letter thread of any post (because it's a statement about a general tendency, not anything about a specific article), but you decided to do it in an article that supports the idea that men have positive aspects -- because of what, again?"

Because of multiple references and passages that don't support men (you did see those ?) with one single personal anecdote at the end....are you having a problem seeing the lack of balance ?.....or do you continue to drill until you have gotten the last word ?

"The way you put it, you could have made the same objection to any other post. Why indeed select the one that actually does not ignore the positive aspects of men? An article that defends a viewpoint you agree with? Just because the evidence is not linked to? (Cf. my description of the post as an op-ed, and how easily you yourself could have provided the missing links.)"

See previous posts....ad nauseum

What I see is a feminist apologist who is so close to the trees he cant see the forest.

This is a woman who believes men are not capable of love.....only sex drive. Which is really disjointed, because in her view, I cannot love my parents or my kids, either.

Why is it impossible for Rebecca to write an article without insulting males ? I love Ruth Bader Ginsburg as much as any feminist, but did it slip Ms. Traister's thorough reporting that David Souter, John Paul Stevens, and Stephen Breyer also were in the minority on the Gonzalez vs Carhart decision ? Are they also part of the lousy alpha male bench ? Is it a problem to let facts get in the way of a good story ? Rebecca should stick to Broadsheet or Feministing, where her anti-male rants are welcomed.

instead of referring to the MAJORITY of the court as lousy right wing justices, or lousy republican justices, she described the court "lousy with alpha males". It was unnecessary to couch the description in terms of gender, but once again, that is completely acceptable at salon.

The NBA has been subsidizing this league since it's inception. It could never make it on it's own. Just let it die, it doesn't have the fan base to support it. I think boys high school basketball is more exciting than the wnba.