A Legit Response to Marek's Post

Ok.  Here's what I have to say in response to 'ten ways to get a guy to commit' and Marek's article on 'why you're not married'.

Here's my gripe(s):  How come it's ALWAYS women who need to work on getting men to commit?  And, how come the question of 'why are you single?' is always directed at women?

I feel like, back 30 years ago, people weren't as monogamous when dating - and it was men who were pursuing women and trying to get them to commit.  Now the tables have turned on us.  Fellow women - I ponder aloud - WTF?  How come we never hear 'how to get a girl to commit'?

Also, how come men are never asked why they're single?  I know this has been beaten into the ground, but how come single men are viewed as free and single women are pitied?  Men are never embarrassed to be single - they are often proud of it.  Case in point - I was talking to Marek earlier.  I asked him why he wasn't married.  His response:  why be tied down with one when you can be free and date many?   Oh Marek.  The ladies' man.

Why are things this way?  Or, I guess, more aptly - what can be done to fix it?  Ladies, we need to take back some control here I think.

Follow Up on an Article

So loyal reader Marek posted an article for my 'review and comment'.

In short - why are you not married?

Dear Marek:  which of the six reasons applies to me?

I look forward to a response.

As a Blogger, I Live for This....

The other day, I wrote a post about newspapers.  I got a response from "anonymous".  Special sidenote - I have a couple guesses at who this "anonymous" might be.  However, the one thing that confuses me is, although I know many who might say something like this, ALL would sign their name to it.  Hmm. 

Anyhow, anonymous says:

"Print newspapers are a dying breed. Coverage of the G-Rod arrest is a perfect example of how print news has little use anymore.

He was taken into custody on Tuesday around 7 AM. If you learned of this news via the Wednesday morning paper, you are probably living in an area which not only doesn't have internet or TV; you probably don't even have electricity."

All right.  Ding, round two....

There is definitely a point that news happens more than once every 24 hours.  Newspapers probably aren't the best when it comes to 'breaking the news', but this isn't new.  Yes, the radio, tv, internet, etc. are probably all better at this.

However, a newspaper's sole purpose isn't 'breaking the news'.  There is something tangible, real and lasting about a newspaper.  At one time there was a certain buzz and excitement after a big event about 'seeing the headlines tomorrow' (yes, anonymous, headlines of stories about events that people were, indeed, already aware of).   Whether or not that buzz still exists is another argument entirely, however, I do know this - the day after Obama's election, there was a huge rush of people in line to get a copy of the morning after's paper (and I HIGHLY HIGHLY doubt it was to find out who won the election).  I know a lot of people were interested in preserving their copies and keeping them for years to come.  I question if these same people were printing up blog headlines and putting them in a safe place.  

Anyhow, one can most definitely question the future of newspapers in today's world, however, as I see it, there is undeniably something newspapers bring to the table that other forms of news media do not.