. . . when the percentage of female college students is 57% heading toward 60%, and the percentage of male college students is 43% headed toward 40% ?????

Can you wrap your minds around the fact that there is no way to use casuistry to explain that away?

The author writes:

Lately the so-called boy crisis in public schools has become every lazy media outlet's topic du jour, fueling the perception that girls get better college preparation than boys.

I read a lot and listen to a great deal of media news, and funny how I haven't noticed this being any kind of "topic du jour". Au contraire, it was picked up around six months ago and has been ignored ever since.

But what is your problem with acknlowledging that just maybe females are not the only members of society who encounter problems?

As a matter of fact, a high percentage of Broadsheet writing suggests quite directly that males have many problems that Broadsheet writers wish they didn't have. But when someone suggests devoting any resources toward helping to end some of the problems that males have, Broadsheet writers are more or less unanimouslly opposed.

This reeks of sexism -- exactly the kind of sexism that Broadsheet writers have devoted column-miles to combatting.

When it's clearly to their advantage to end sexism, that is. The rest of the time, forget about it!

If a guy asks a woman to join him for a meal, there is a distinct possibility that he means it as a way to initiate what he hopes may turn into a romantic relationship.

If I were the guy, my preference would be to know in advance what the situation is.

I can't see any reason that the letter-writer should wait until they are having lunch to clarify things with the guy -- and there's no reason for her to worry about coming across as arrogant, if she chooses her words diplomatically.

Suppose a guy asks her "Care to get some lunch?" or "Wouldja like to get together for lunch Thursday?"

She should just say, while smiling: "Sounds good! But -- full disclosure* -- I should mention that I'm already taken, couple-wise."

*Or: ". . . -- just to head off any possible misunderstanding -- . . ."

Because she has already accepted the offer first, and phrased the "disclosure" in a casual, informal way, I doubt there's any risk of her being thought arrogant.

The guy might be disappointed to learn that she's taken, but he'll be happy she accepted his invitation for lunch, and will have no illusions about what the lunch represents when he gets there. (Further, his ego will be pleased her phrasing suggests that if she were not already taken, there might have even been a possibility in that department, too.)

Mr. Tennis *might* be right -- that the letter-writer is just in a "slump". We all know that if someone appears bitter or frustrated or overeager, that tends to drive away potential romantic partners.

But maybe it's something else.

* One issue that wasn't mentioned in the letter or in Mr. Tennis's response is whether other males in the same city roughly the same category (age, etc.) as the letter writer tend to experience the same difficulty. Perhaps they do.

IF this particular city happens to have significantly more men than women, the frustrating situation this male is experiencing could be explained just by that.

* Or, maybe this letter-writer has some other characteristic that is particularly unappealing. Does he make himself look as attractive as possible? Does he take the utmost pains to have impeccable personal hygiene? Etc.

The author of this Broadsheet article writes of O'Reilly:

His suggestion that a woman would have, or even want, a post-viability abortion because she is feeling a "bit blue" is both condescending and absurd, as if a pregnant woman just wakes up one day and says, "you know, I don't feel like having this baby after all."

Huh?????

I've never heard any Bill O'Reilly quote that leads me to conclude his IQ is above room temperature.

But O'Reilly aside, many women who are pregnant are All. The. Time. agonizing over whether they want to have the baby. And sometimes they do, indeed, wake up and decide the answer is No.

And well they should, if that's how they feel, because the world has far too many unwanted children.

There is no reason to call this decision a "whim" -- even if Bill O'Reilly does so.

But only if you've been living on Mars your whole life.

Next thing you know, we'll be reading that men sometimes exploit women as friendship and love objects.

Rebecca Traister writes, as usual, without being bothered by pesky logic or facts:

The product's slogan is "Quorn: It just might surprise you."

Actually, I strongly doubt that it would.

But you don't know, do you, until you try it?

Joan Walsh, just in case you ever read your own publication: Do you have any standards of journalism that you try to maintain for Salon ? Any whatsoever? Any? Whatsoever?