I'm going to respond to your last comment as if it is a legitimate question. I think it is but am not sure.

It's snarky when it's the same generalized and vague complaint, often with sarcasm, and usually premised on reading into the Broadsheet article or other's comments implications that just are not there.

Many of your comments are also based on logical fallacies. This subject had a good example -- Broadsheet commented on a study about grandmothers, but you inferred hostility or intentional neglect. The poster that said just because you say you love your Grandma doesn't mean you don't love your Grampa was right on. To say X is important does not necessarily imply that Y is unimportant. Saying that grandmothers have an evolutionary role to play does not equal grandfathers don't. The fact that many readers here look favorably on signs of women's empowerment does not mean they look disfavorably upon men's. It's not a zero sum game.

If someone does say "Men suck" or "Men suck because they are stupid", go ahead, call them out on it.

When I said "put it out there" I meant it. Bring it, dude.

(if you are a dude, I make no assumptions).

The article link you posted was interesting, provided another perspective, and relevant to the topic at hand. I wish you'd linked to it first, or given a quick summary. That's what I meant by put it out there. Then the discussion might have been about our perceptions of old age, the development of evolutionary theory, how evolution influences people different by gender...anything but how Salon's inadequate for publishing an blurb about a study that was related to older females.

I speak only for myself here, but I enjoy reading opinions that differ from my own. Hell, I know what MY opinions are, I want to hear others'. I esp. like reading something that makes me rethink my own opinions or prejudices. Things that make me go 'Hmm, interesting' even if I don't exactly agree. But the almost ritual accusation from you (and other posters) that accompanies almost every article that clearly, by writing about [fill in the blank], Broadsheet writers and readers are hostile malicious men-haters is tiring, not likely to interest many, and very unlikely to change anyone's mind. It's tiring to be constantly accused of subscribing to a whole set of mean-spirited, hostile-to-men ideas that I do not in fact subscribe to, and I'd guess most others here do not subscribe to, just because I'm a Broadsheet reader or a feminist or female.

Maybe you don't post for any of those reasons. But I wish you would, because you're obviously smart and know a lot of things. There could be a lot of lively discussion. That would be a great thing. Please.

But a lot of times I skip comments with your tag because even though I know there might be an interesting part, or some fact I didn't know in there, I just don't want to drag through another 'Broadsheet/feminists/women/whoever sucks' set of comments to get to it.

If you object to my comments because you genuinely believe that Broadsheet is doing just that -- writing off an entire gender or reversely discriminating etc., -- or I'm doing that -- then address the specific comments that do that. But please don't just fling out a generalized 'you're all hypocrites' comment on every post.

Others' mileage may vary, that's just my 2 cents.

they would regularly post articles touting some male trait or achievement, with the snarky implication that men are superior to women.

You think Broadsheet BSers would not lodge formal protests against such blatant pro-male, anti-female articles?

I am marginalized all the time for pointing out that men get beat up regularly in the media by supposedly non-man-hating women.

I did not know trying to make the media play fair was such a fringe pursuit for men.

Just asking.

Everyone apparently, at least everyone who votes Republican and isn't rich must think we all can. What other rational explanation could there be for such voting behavior?

I don't see it when I look at my own mom - 69 and still working.

Not full time anymore - she can't take it. But old nurses are pushed out, which is what happened to her. So, she fills in here and there and collects social security and pays her mortgage.

Retirement? You know, not the kind where you shrivel up on the rocking chair, but the kind where you get to have some leisure to do hobbies, time for family, live a little more healthily? Not in her future, nor in mine either.

I don't think it is a reality for most people.

And I most definately do not see older people valued - especially women. Who seem to start on the devaluation track after 35.

How many of us can really work as Walmart greeters anyhow?

She is 60, and a great-grandmother now, and there will be no 'retirement' for her. She will probably be working until the day she dies. So, Anonymous 2:13, I don't know if you're a real person or not, but there are certainly people like the persona you have adopted. My mother spent 18 years raising my sister and me while my father worked full time and made his way through college and then graduate school. When he left us, she had a high school education and no job experience for the last 18 years. Now she works as a gas station clerk and a driver third shift, seven days a week, and has a second-shift job five days a week cleaning offices. While her grandchildren think she is groovy, our society does not respect, admire or venerate her for her wisdom, let alone reward her for decades of working her butt off. Her creditors seem to like her, though. They call her a lot.

Could the Anonymouses number themselves, perhaps, if even only per article? You don't want a regular name, that's cool, but I'd love to know if there's one person posting a million times per article or the other way around. Just a request, don't freak.

As for 'oddly coincidental', Broadsheet is a column in Salon. It's not the Exhaustive Investigative Journal of Research of Eveything That Also Covers Every Possible Opinion on Same.

Since I tend to notice articles about gender and anthropology, gender and evolution, etc etc ad nauseam, I can tell you that pretty much all of the ones that make their way into mainstream media (that I've read) are either pointedly reinforcing stereotypes or pointedly contradicting them. My guess is the polarity emanates, ultimately, from people themselves, but I won't get into that here.

This article was actually fairly neutral as far as that goes. Neither the study nor the Broadsheet article said, or even implied that 'Wee! This is it! Women DO kick ass and Men Suck!'.

If you know of contrary evidence, put it out there. If you have additional information of interest, put that out there. If you have reasoned objections or alternative interpretations to articles or comments, put those out there. But throwing out generalized snarky observations about women, feminists, Broadsheet writers or Broadsheet readers is just...snarky.