(First a disclaimer: This guy Harvey Mansfield seems to me to be a classic male chauvinist pig, and it almost seems counterproductive to give him any amount of further publicity.)

Lynn Harris writes:

An outraged Broadsheet reader alerts us to today's "Good Morning America" segment on "Manliness," the book that, now that we've mentioned it once, we're trying really hard to ignore. But this we just can't: "They uncritically reported on the book, even citing statistics that say women are happier when their men provide for them," says our tipster.

Even citing statistics that say women are happier when their men provide for them!!!! I am just shocked. And I'm telling!

Seriously, is the author's inclusion of the quote from the tipster from whatever was said on television supposed to make some kind of a point? Any kind of a point? Who the &$%# wouldn't prefer that their partner provide for them?

And what kind of journalism involves a third party's commenting on a second party's interpretation of a media interpretation of an author, anyway? I think we know the answer.

Later Harris writes:

(Oh, I know what letters are coming. "But women do love bad boys!" "I'm a nice guy and women don't date me because I'm not a jerk!" etc. Enough. Yes, some women have a thing for cads. And some men have a thing for beeyotches. You know what? Some people make sketchy choices. It's not a gender thing.)

You know what? This paragraph ignores reality.

Men's preferring women with nasty personalities is not at all common. On the other hand, women's preferring "bad boys" is a widely observed and well-documented phenomenon, as least in dating. It's an unfortunate phenomenon*, and it would helpful to understand it well enough to make it go away, if possible. This won't happen if people dismiss it as a non-phenomenon.

I regret to say, dismissing truths when they happen to be inconvenient or contradict a certain "party line" seems to be all too common in Broadsheet entries. Broadsheet could be an influential force supporting women's causes, but that won't happen as long as its writers continue to ignore reality, logic, and the basics of good journalism.

_______________________________________________________________

* Another unfortunate phenomenon is men's preferring women with so-called good looks while ignoring other salient traits, but I digress.

All the criticisms of polygamy I have seen focus on specific cases that would and should be utterly condemned regardless of what kind of family they occur in.

These include being forced to marry with no choice in the matter, having this happen at a very young age like 12, being abused or raped within the marriage.

All of these (and perhaps I left some out) are needless to say totallly unacceptable under any circumstances. To the extent they occur, they must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law wherever they occur. (Wonder why news stories tend to shy away from questions about the extent such abuses occur.)

But for the kind of polygamous marriages that are like ordinary marriages but with more more wives, which some TV newsmagazines and magazine articles have addressed over the years -- why limit people's right to choose their own lifestyle?

Someday your eagerness to limit someone else's lifestyle will come back to limit your own lifestyle!

Ms. RIchards expresses her irritation with the argument: If little Mary can have two mommies, why not two mommies and a daddy?

Well, why not, Ms. Richards?

My biggest concern is, What happens to the unwed straight males when many of the women are already in polygamous marriages? Are they forced by statistics to remain bachelors? Or is their a darker reason that this plight does not tend to happen. (I wonder why I've never seen a news story about this question.)

I totally agree with what Mr. Tennis *did* say: Someone who is unambiguously disowned by their parents is under no obligation of any kind to re-establish contact.

Mr. Tennis repeated this fact too many times, without ever mentioning any alternative behavior for the letter writer.

To me it's obvious that with the voice message, the father was saying that I'm ailing, I could die soon, and I want to re-establish contact with you.

Yes, he was saying this in a cowardly way without mentioning anything about his culpability in the inexcusable act of disowning his daughter.

Still, this is his way of saying he wants to re-establish contact. If the letter-writer has any interest in same, she might communicate to her father that this is not out of the question, but that they will first need to address the tremendous pain that he & her mother caused her. It is possible that she will get what she shouldn't have to ask for -- a sincere apology.

A third possibility is for her to accept that this lame gesture on the part of her father is better than no gesture at all, and it may be -- given his personality -- the most he is capable of. In fact it may be a miracle that he was able to bring himself to make this lame gesture at all.

Another possible reason for the trend toward shaving down there is that these days, probably a lot of adolescents get some of their earliest sexual pleasure from watching porn videos (and the directors of those may have their own reasons for wanting the actors shaven -- as someone said, so the viewer can get an unobstructed view).

Once adolescents are deeply imprinted on what they see in porn videos, this is likely to create a preference for no hair down there. Too bad they don't know what they're missing.