This letter is more of a response to other people's letters rather than the article itself. I've noticed recently that whenever Ayelet Waldman or Rebecca Traister publish articles, their articles incite a flurry of letters to the editor. Many of these letters often talk about how irrelevant much of what these writers say is, and how Salon shoudn't bother publishing such ridiculous/irrelevant material.

And yet, these writers seem to garner more letters to the editor than others. Topics such as parenting, gender, sexuality, etc. seem to be getting people talking more. People write in and say "But what about Iraq? The administration? Salon should be concentrating on these issues." But honestly, those articles don't gather the same kind of action. Obviously, Salon is going to publish pieces that get more reaction, whether its negative or positive.

I really feel like if you honestly felt like much of what these articles said were so irrelevant or ridiculous, you wouldn't be writing in. I agree with other letter writers, I think these topics must be striking a nerve to be creating such a huge amount of activity on these message boards. If you really feel like these topics are so ridiculous and crazy, you wouldn't bother reading them are writing in. The huge amount of activity tells me that people such as Traister, Dowd, and Waldman must be touching on something that is speaking to people. I don't agree all the time with everything they say, and sometimes I may disagree with a lot of what they say. But I think the articles are still meaningful nonetheless. Marriage, family, and relationships between the sexes are fundamental to how we lead our lives, and these things are changing rapidly in our society. These writers are addressing such issues, and that's going to be uncomfortable for a lot of people. And so, when they say things that strike a nerve, everybody and their mother writes in with their opinion.

I'll believe you all that you think these writers are so irrelevant when their articles fail to inspire letters to the editor.

I always appreciate Rebecca Traister's courage in tackling the important issues of our times.

First, and for the record, let me note that not only am I myself single but I have never really been able to maintain successful relationships with women for very long. This is not because I harbor any animosity toward women in general, it's just that I haven't gotten along very well with the particular women I have known. That said, almost all of my friends have been subjected to long discourses from me on the topic of how it's good to be single and how being single gives me the opportunity to pursue my true interests in life without compromise and how as a man I do not have to aspire to be a caretaker for a woman or a family. I can be my own man, independent and free. I can be a modern, self-aware man in charge of my own destiny. I don't need a family.

Of course, it's all a lonely lie I tell myself and friends to make it seem like I am comfortable with the fact that unlike everybody else on the planet Earth I alone seem to be incapable of forming meaningful long-term relationships. Being single for life is symptom of a larger problem.

In other words, what Maureen Dowd is saying in her book is the sort of thing all chronically single people say to themselves as a way of dealing with their suspiciously single status. Maureen Dowd's book seems to me to be an exercise in trying rationalize a personality disorder by pitching the whole issue in terms of vague generalizations about gender. What she writes is the sort of schtick you will hear in any singles bar anywhere in the world that caters to successful-but-lonely 30-and-40-somethings, i.e. people who have missed the boat in love.

The fact that Maureen is in her 50's is what gives her writing such verve because if she cannot frame the whole issue of her inability to form a meaningful life-long commitment in a broader philosphical context, then she will be little more than an aging woman left alone with the conclusion that she is indeed suffering from a personality disorder, i.e. that she is single because there is something wrong with her.

Being single for life is difficult and dangerous for alot of reasons. For example, when you get old you will be alone because you have not spent the many years building up a family that will take an interest in your well-being. This agon with the sad truth is why Maureen Dowd's book is so interesting. Philosophy is an evasion.

The main thing I would say about being single for life is that if you do not live with another person for many many years you will miss out on learning alot of things about yourself that you could not otherwise know. Relationships with the opposite sex ought not to be seen primarily in a philosophical light from the vantage point of gender-politics or feminism. Being too philosophical or too political about love is itself a kind of personality disorder.

There is a kind of love that a person can only experience in all it's many facets by forming a family and making a commitment to a life-long partner. Not that I know that for a fact on a personal level, because like I said I have never really had a successful long-term relationship, but that's what I have heard from other people. Reading her book it comes across very clearly that in fact what Maureen Dowd has is a socially acceptable personality disorder and not a real philosophical problem.

Finally let me say that it's obvious from reading her book that for Maureen writing is symptom and not a cure. It's nice of Rebecca Traister to indulge Maureen's symptom.

The prize for most inane statement about gender politics in memory has to go to Dowd's claim--made in her Times piece last week--that she would be more popular with men if she were a maid instead of a political columnist.

Think about that for a minute. Refer to, if it helps, the list of men she's dated, or who have pursued her, that appears in every article about her. Look at her picture. Read the anecdotes about her lifestyle. Picture, in contrast, the likely life circumstances of a maid today.

Oh, yes, you can dismiss Maureen Dowd's views on dating.