Indeed, let's not make this a war between the sexes. But looking around, looking at the many complaints from both sides, looking at the scars that come up even in places like this letter thread--is there a way to avoid it? Maybe the next generation. Maybe after people stop feeling confused by the idea and (still clumsy) practice of gender equality. But right now? Maybe unavoidable.

My hope is that kryptogal and closetnerd are right--that most people do eventually grow mature and figure this stuff out, while those who keep complaining remain an immature minority. I sometimes wonder, though.

Nice post anyway. Keep up the good work!

If everyone was like you we could avoid these long Broadsheet arguments full of confessional prose and personal angst.

Please understand. Logic is not the point here.

I'm a married guy. Like many married guys, I've had moments of doubt about my decision to marry.

That said, what's with all the bitter divorced men who act like marriage is a giant scheme to strip them of assets that wasn't revealed to them until it was too late? Divorce has been common for four decades in the United States. There is nothing new about alimony or dividing your property up with the ex. There is nothing new about custody arrangement usually favoring the mother. Them's the rules. Most men still benefit from the fact that their spouses shoulder more of the housework than they do, so when you talk about life not being fair, that goes for both sexes.

As for the Peter Pans described in City Journal...as usual, the analysis completely ignores class and geography and assumes everyone is a college-educated 21-35 yr old professional in a metro area. Strange, because this isn't Cosmopolitan or even New Woman...it's a conservative journal of ideas. Half of men today still marry having had six or fewer sexual partners. Divorce rates are lower than anytime since 1970. We have an economy that absolutely depends on the contributions of emancipated women--we can't compete internationally by rolling back women's lib (not that I'd want us to). China has more twice as many men as we have people total...and Chinese women aren't all home taking care of the one child permitted. What's the point, really, of blaming women's liberation? What does Kay S. Hymowitz propose the U.S. do? And why is economic Darwinism just fine, but every other kind of Darwinism problematic? Conservatives have such a fraught relationship with Darwin.

Being post #115 in a thread is much like being a "nice guy": nobody gives a shit what you have to say because the entertainment is elsewhere. Nonethless:

@ 646hedgie - I agree with everything you say. Most people choose not to believe there's a difference between what is and what ought to be. You focus on what is, and I commend you for it; it's a great asset in your (and my) line of work. Out of curiosity, how old were you when you "reformed" as a nerd? I was 29; there was a moment - literally one, single "I can't believe what an idiot I've been all my life" moment - when I promised myself I would change. Better late than never.

This all seems like a steaming pile to me, and hell, I'm one of these beloved-friend of many unrequited-loves guys that this article is apparently talking about. I'm also lucky enough to be able to consider many smart, kind, all-around amazing women close friends. Without exception they're all either engaged or married, and without exception it's to a kind, generous 'nice guy'.

How about the fact that like attracts like? How many whole, together people do any of you know that are with complete tools? (being superficially together, but being a mess of psychological problems underneath doesn't count).

Is having morally loose, superficial, shallow and selfish women shaking up with morally loose, superficial, shallow and selfish dudes that big a loss to either men or women?

how about dropping the 'his fault, her fault, your fault, their fault' pretense that always accompanies anything about this topic (from any standpoint) and address what the issue really is? I mean, to me the issue being skirted always seems to be that rejection, especially continual, sucks (for dudes and ladies alike), hell, you could go so far as to say that it can cause serious psychological and emotional damage, you could probably back it up with fancy charts and graphs. There are no answers, there's no blame to put on anyone or any group. Life is what it is, sometimes its trying and unfair, sometimes its perfect. sometimes there's light at the end of the tunnel, sometimes there isn't. sometimes there's no darkness at all.

Why not just admit that it isn't 'players' or 'sluts' or 'new men' or 'enlightened women', we're all just afraid that we won't find love (however you would define it), and those of us that have don't want to admit that a lot of it is probably because of blind luck.

. . . is that straight people are funny. Is this all some form of subtle irony? Or, are straight people really trying to get the world to feel sorry for them because of how "complex" their dating game is? Because if they are, well, that's about as myopic as it comes isn't it. It's like evangelicals in America trying to convince the rest of us that they are "oppressed" or something. But I digress.

If you ask someone who is a member of a sexual minority about complexity and challenges, you may just get an interesting answer. Heck, you might even learn something genuinely important about sexual identity, social dynamics, and the politics of cultural change.

Really though, straight people ARE funny. I don't think they really know that there are people different from them anywhere in the world. It's like they live in a bubble of their own careful construction. Straightsville, as it were.

Fausty | zoo@fausty.org

The Salon culture is shallow.

This is all about the vagaries of getting laid or not getting laid.

These shallow waters are polluted with dead and dying fish.

What about love?

LOVE!

Hello!

What about love?