I don't know what the reasons are, but I have perceived a significant decline in the general quality of Salon.com over the past year or so. I've been seeing considerably less of the terrific social/political commentary and investigative reporting that initially drew me to this site, and considerably more of the kind of vacuous, gossipy stories about celebrities, entertainment, the latest "trends," or whatever, that one would expect to see in a publication like People or Us. Your "cheeky new women's blog" is the straw that broke this camel's back. I will not be renewing my Premium subscription.

-Krotos-

There are indeed women who have had children in their 60s. There are indeed 50-year-old women dating 25-year-old men. And there are surely attractive, accomplished men out there who would be thrilled to take Maureen Dowd as a wife.

The inescapable fact, though, is that these examples are very much exceptions to the rule. Men, in general -- i.e., the vast majority of them -- are sexually attracted to women whom they subconsciously perceive as capable of giving birth. That means women under about 30-35. Recent advances in fertility treatments and more enlightened attitudes about women's other roles in society are not going to change basic instincts that are the result of millions of years of evolution.

Women, in general, are sexually attracted to men whom they subconsciously perceive as capable of protecting and providing for their future children. That means men who give the appearance of being physically strong, or at least adequate (hence the difficulties in the dating game faced by short men, which I submit are at least as bad as those faced by older women), and who are financially stable. Since men are capable of having children much later in life than women, their age is not nearly as significant a factor. That's why there will always be more healthy, wealthy 50-year-old men dating pretty 25-year-old women than the other way around.

Is this "fair"? Of course not. I doubt any of us would choose this state of affairs. And yes, yes, there are exceptions.

But, in general, this is the reality. And you get nowhere by ignoring reality, as painful as it might be.

Is there a way for Premium subscribers to get their money back. . .?

The original goals of feminism -- giving women the same civil and legal rights as men, and removing artificial barriers to their progress in society and the workplace -- were all achieved (in America) by 1980 or so at the latest. Certainly there are still occasional cases of blatant discrimination against and harassment of women, but like blatant racism or anti-Semitism, these tend to be isolated incidents which, when brought to light, are met with immediate and widespread condemnation. It's a far cry from the bad old days of the 1950s, when, for example, Sandra Day O'Connor graduated third in her class from Stanford Law School yet was unable to find work as anything other than a legal secretary. When it comes to their position vis-a-vis men today, the women of the US and the Western world are indisputably the most liberated group of women in human history.

In their quest to stay relevant, feminists since the 1970s have gotten into the habit of seeing institutionalized sexism and oppression of women where there is actually little to none. In some cases, such as the gender wage gap or rape statistics, their complaints are based on false or misleading data. In others, they close their eyes to basic biological differences between the sexes, which absolutely include cognitive and psychological differences.

That there are more stay-at-home moms than dads is not proof that society is discouraging women from having careers. It is more likely a result of the fact that in our species, as in other mammals, evolution has designed females to be the primary caregivers for the young. That there are more men with PhDs in math and the hard sciences than women does not prove that society discourages girls from studying math and the hard sciences in school. It is more likely because -- as Lawrence Summers hinted -- men's brains are designed better for the kind of abstract analytical thinking involved. Scientific studies of the proportions of white and grey matter in male and female brains support this idea. That's not sexism. It's just a fact.

I was good friends with a first place winner in the Westinghouse (now Intel) Science Talent Search. She was as gifted at science and math as any man I've known. Feminism deserves credit for making it possible for her to develop her talents and have a scientific career. But feminism will not change the fact that she is a statistical outlier, and that the vast majority of scientists, particularly highly gifted ones like her, are male. Nor is entrenched anti-female discrimination responsible for this.

Feminists should celebrate their victories and stop trying to do the impossible: making women identical to, rather than equal with, men.

While I don't agree with everything he says, he is IMO quite correct about there being a double standard on this forum, and in American society generally, about how candid women can be in their opinions about men versus the other way around. Can you imagine how outraged some feminists would get about a show like "Sex in the City" if it had four horny guys instead of women? How about a T-shirt saying "Girls are stupid -- throw rocks at them"?

I too am looking forward to reading Norah Vincent's book. Kudos to her and other women who are able to support women's rights without dissing men. While the fundamental goals of feminism are worthy, a lot of its proponents are in dire need of a reality check these days.

-K-