This section of Salon has a female slant. It's written by women about women. Do you want equal play here? Do you expect equal play here? Should I also expect a feminist slant at Maxim?

Why not start your web magazine with the other men who spend so much time here and say, "But what about men?"

As I've posted in other threads, I think a lot of, "But what about the men?" and "But what about the women?" is really, "But what about MEn?" and "But what about woMEn?"

If you spend your time reiterating positions on a website instead of intervening on behalf of your gender, your assetions should be suspected.

For example, a man who works in a cubicle and asserts, "But hey, men mine coal!" and tries to claim that as his misery would:

A. Be in great danger if he went to a mountain bar in Kentucky and tried to cozy up to coal miners.

B. But steel in his words if he devoted his life to unionizing coal miners, to force better working conditions and wages.

And don't believe any tale.*

A storyteller is a butcher, whacking at fat and bone to deliver a piece of meat that we can swallow...and want to swallow. Imagine a butcher. See the bloody apron? The bloody fingers? They're shared by a storyteller and especially a storyteller who puts herself in the tale.

*Which isn't to say that you shouldn't enjoy those tales. Do, do!

**Which is necessary and if you don't believe me, listen to your Uncle Al tell a tale, the Uncle Al who will leave no detail untold.

If the personal is political, then post here AND get personal with other men. There is misery everywhere. I can't walk about town without seeing someone who needs assistance. If an alleged feminist can pass a struggling woman without offering aid, she's phony. Likewise, MerelyMortalMale, if your political interventions are limited to posting on Salon and you never directly and personally intervene, you're a phony.

And further, any person, male or female, who limits their aid to their gender is sexist.

They remind me of the poem about the blind brothers who touch different parts of the elephant and come to different conclusions. For example, the one who touches the tip of the trunk declares that the elephant is a pig! Each brother swears that HE KNOWS what the elephant is, although all are wrong...and are all partly right.

So it goes with us Salon readers and all readers and all who react.

And all who tell stories, like Ms. Bauer.

I really, really like your final paragraph.

And when one can cyber-friend one so easily, you're right: it dilutes the word.

I hate when some women shoves her diamond in my face. I think, "So, a black man toiled for that diamond, who gave it to his white overseer, who sold it your white guy, who gave it to you, and now I'm supposed to gush?"

To be frank, Mr. Franklin, it's painful chatting with you.

Witness:

"While we're on the subject of missing the obvious..."

"...(what I thought would be) obvious..."

"...let me spell out for you..."

"See?"

You make some good points (I especially like the one about men being portrayed as incompetent cleaners discourages equity.), but, ooooh, you're pointy as a porcupine!

You could just talk to me, instead of spelling it out for me and emphasizing (times two) that I'm missing the obvious and ending with "See?"

But, the lesbian slant does equal the number one ranking for Salon stories today! And hooray for that, for more readers means more ad revenue!

Editoranne is the world's smartest person.

When I read what Esh wrote, I imagined her as Linda Blair, head spinning and spewing vomit.

As regards the hate, it often works the way it's worked in this thread. Folks will crowd on the hate side of the ship until it starts to tip too far that way and then folks will rush over to the love side of the ship until....

Thank you, gentleman!

You ask, "If this is really the case (and the old research didn't show this to be true, and I have read the new one) why do gay men so often choose a "male" or "female" role?"

I once wondered the same thing and I posed the same thing to a friend and she replied, nonchalantly, "Because it works."

It is specialization that allowed us to build cities. Perhaps it is also specialization that allows couples to build a home and family.*

*I know this is feminist heresy.

Oh, so much nastiness in so few words.

You're a wag with no wag in your tail.

Oh, and you're humble too. We could be friends. Are you really an editor? You remind me of my editors, in your frankness, humility, and wisdom.

One editor responded to copy I submitted, "Is this really the best you can do?"

I've come to love that sort of frankness and she could back it up by nudging me where I needed to go.

She's also humble enough to admit, "I can tell you what you're doing wrong, but don't ever think that I can do what you do."

I take it back. You're no wag. A wag has wit.

"Fabulous"?

You aren't arch. You're archaic.

If pi is infinite, its last number is infinitesimally small.

Thus, it's apt.

But here, here (hear, hear? Does anyone know?) for the brides! As I posted in another thread, let them now hire themselves for relationship courses in those red states, which, as we all know, lead the nation in divorce. Hey, they could tutor McCain in fidelity! Then McCain could return to his only true wife (according to Jesus, whom McCain alleges is Lord)!