This is just the usual disgruntled woman ragging about how men must be spoiled, immature, selfish, dysfunctional, manipulative, ad nauseum....just because they don't do exactly what she wants them to do. Frankly, heterosexual men are one of the last targets where sexist stereotypes and misogyny are considered acceptable. It gets way old. And some of the most ardent practitioners of this sexist bashing are American women, perhaps the most liberated, and patronized, segment of the entire worldwide spectrum of femininity. Never have women had so many opportunities, so much equality, and so much automatic respect for even the most routine accomplishments - like playing soccer, being a park ranger, or holding down a job. Gee, you go girl. Chicks rule.

First off, I don't think most women feel like "Thinking". I think most women are a lot smarter than her. Second: A LOT of men find older women wildly attractive. I personally find young chicks kinda hot, in a mindless, can't-drive-the-fast-car-they've-got kinda way, but that's about it. Gimme 40-plus any day. There's a difference between men's feelings, and your projecting of self-doubt. Third: Your denigration of prospective mothers as 'breeders' is pretty ugly sheeit. I'd suspect you have children yourself, meaning you were a 'breeder' who had your day previously.

Lastly "Thinking": See a therapist. The problem isn't men, it's your baggage about men. That'll be a tough mountain to climb over for any sensitive, caring, supportive man who finds you initially attractive. Being constantly accused of crimes you were never guilty of gets really, really old. Men aren't running around trying to oppress you or cheat you; They've got lives outside of your expectations. And then there's that whole question of why you had three relationships in a row that repeated the same pattern. Better ask yourself a few tough questions there. But "everybody knows" women like men who treat them like dirt, right?

It gets tiring when 'elite' athletes, get pissy about the masses ruining their sport. Even high school varsity types with a decent winning record are almost always the product of sheer genetic luck, then early positive social reinforcement, later augmented by hard training. The truth is, most people can eat, train, and strive 24-7-365 an never win a competitive event...although they'll get much, much healthier in the process.

Granted, narcissistic celebrities like Oprah, and their attention-starved antics, often come across with all the appeal of biting down on tinfoil. However, high level competitive sports are every bit as narcissistic as any Oprah stunt, but with much less outreach. 'Look, I shaved .02 off the world record! Bemedal me with gold, endorsements, and adulation!"

Sports are - or should be - about participating in healthy activities, not worshipping the lucky and talented. If you weren't born tall and thin, with a genetically high VO2 max, then the 'fancy equipment' of good running shoes and decent clothing help move sweat, decrease joint stress, and get you out running/jumping/excercising more often. I have a very hard time seeing a problem with that.

While McClelland writes well and touches on some interesting points, for the most part he's just displaying the typical subject 'conceit' necessary to capture the attention of magazine editors. It's basically the cynical manipulation of reader emotions. Effective, yes, but not relevant to any real issue.