OK. I write my first letter about levels of discourse not being intelligent enough and I'm apparently too dumb to post it under the right story... *laugh*

I can't speak for Mr. Ross's choice of phrases in framing his retort nor can I actually say that I've read Ms. Dowd's book. I do, however, find it more then amusing that anyone is surprised males are offended by the title "Are Men Necessary". The book is clearly trying to stoke the battle of the sexes for the sake of publicity.

What few points of Mr. Ross that Rebecca Traister references in her column don't seem to be crafted with politically conciliatory tones in mind but they do not seem to be incorrect.

The social dynamics of gender relations is governed by game theory. That's it. Each gender has different (and sometimes conflicting) modes of social interaction and set of drives that they are trying to satisfy. The conflict is most evident with mating drives. The moral and ethical rules of most civilizations normatize toward the female social dynamics because they're more sustainable in high population density areas that experience resources scarcity. There's been a wealth of fMRI studies in recent years that demonstrate the sometimes astounding differences in male and female neurology that causes them to think and behave differently.

Birth control is radically changing a lot of those equations, although disease and our evolutionary predilection toward pair bonding and heartbreak still have a strong influence.

Physiological attraction has an incredibly strong foundation in mating. That's not its only purpose, of course: It's great to have a lifetime friend and partner, but the romance aspect of the romantic relationship is about the chemistry; physiology that's evolved over millenia toward a key objective of sustainable reproduction.

I shouldn't really be surprised at how low the waterline is in debates regarding the war of the sexes, but I would love to hear more of the very-well-established science play a role in the discussions where both sides accept their limitations and codependencies.

Throwing feces is great for ratings but doesn't do much to raise the levels of public discourse.

I just spent Thanksgiving snowbound for five days in a house with SIX boys, ages 10, 5, 5, 2, 2, and 8 months. I am now DEAF. That's why I have to SHOUT.

All we parents and grandparents present tried REALLY HARD to interest our little boys in play activities that were CLEAN, QUIET, AND UNLIKELY TO RESULT IN BODILY HARM. No dice. Principal activities, once the snow fell and covered up the DIRT, included BANGING ON STUFF, turning all toys no matter how benign (like a flute) into a GUN OR SWORD, attempting to steal the actual KNIVES out of the kitchen, and pretending (sounds good so far) to be LARGE PREDATORY ANIMALS, like bobcats, tigers, bears, and mountain lions.

The four-family disciplinary meeting was held on day two.

I asked the five-year-olds what they like to do at recess, and they said, "Spy on girls." "What are the girls doing?" I asked. "Playing house," they said.

Girls play house, and we want to change that?

My eight-year-old son loves to cook, and I've been wanting to buy him an EZ-Bake Oven, but they only come in pink. He doesn't believe that cooking is only for girls, but he *knows* that pink is for girls.

Jeffrey, maybe you're right about girls being the only ones who want to get married, keep a home, and breed. Maybe we should encourage them to grow up and marry each other so they can perpetuate the human race without interrupting the men's need to fight fires and wreck race cars. It makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

I work in marketing. I have worked in advertising. And the one little factor about marketing to children that nobody has mentioned is that CHILDREN HAVE NO MONEY. There is a gatekeeper -- Mommy/Daddy. We used to plan for this explcitly in our media buys -- the strategy was called "the nag factor." In this case, the product was one of those insanely expensive little motorized jeeps, which cost several hundred dollars. And the only way to sell it -- or anything -- was to get the child to bug the parent until the parent caved. But there was a constant, extremely serious problem with all this. The parent could just say "no." If the parent's don't cave, no sale. You don't have to let your children watch television. Leaving toy catalogs lying around is nuts. You cannot market to a five year-old without including the parent, and if the kid's mind is filled with crap, it's the parent's fault. I think if you just let kids be kids, boys will play with trains and girls will gravitate to Barbie. But the parents have a big role in what the kid actually sees, and experiences, and have to bear a lot of the blame.

I am so glad that you all brought this up. I have a 14-month-old daughter, and I am horrified looking at catalogs like PBK's. They have pink kitchens and vanity tables for the girls, and truck-themed things for boys. Not that I'm against "girly" stuff. I've still never gotten over my mother, the 70's feminist, not letting me have Barbies. But for these major chains to be so retro is appaling. My daughter happens to be obsessed with trucks at the moment. I would kill for a pink shirt with a glittery truck on it. Then she could wear a truck shirt, and I wouldn't be asked if she was a boy. Heaven. Pink truck sheets! Pink trucks! It's not that she needs more pink things, but couldn't there be even a smalll acknowledgement that girl toddlers like trucks too?

And that's my rant on that.

In response to the letter writer who said that you can't market to 5 year olds, I must say my personal observations are quite different. My 4 year old boy loves to study toy catalogs, muttering "I don't have this, I don't have this, I have this" to the pictures he studies. I swear I didn't teach him this, nor did I force upon him the trucks and trains he loves so deeply. I'm not going into the nuture v. nature debate, but I do want warn against the idealization of childhood as somehow outside of or impervious to broader social attitudes.

And to add to what Katha Pollitt was pointing out, I don't know how many times I've seen little boys being told they didn't want something they were asking for in a store because it was "for girls." I think offering a range of choices to kids and then letting them set their own course is a decent course to follow.

And with regard to the Toys R Us pages, it surely is in their best interest to at least suggest that both boys and girls like a range of toys. Why close off a potential demographic?