it has its uses.

Anonymity is not a bad thing for people who have been hurt a few times; It gives one the feeling of being able to assess the potentials before getting too involved.
Introvert people do not like to go to the usual "meatmarkets" searching for that special someone, and many have found it easier to start a bit slow by exchanging e-mails first.
The chances for a succesfull relationship still depends on the level of commitment and perseverance the individuals wish to expend.
What gives it a bad name is the sharks who will say and do anything for a sense of conquest, leading to a quick abandonemnt.
No point blaming the venue for what happens however you happen to meet up with those parasites.

online dating

My second marriage started through dating online and it has been a pleasure, (lots of sex) compared to my first marriage which was a disaster that was precipitated through local community involvement and a church. This article fails to mention that online dating was preceded by the dominance of dating in bars not schools, work and family. Bars suck, I would not want to date someone at work, and my family has a lousy track record.

because it's all about ME.

"I've never received such beautiful poetry as in texts and e-mails. And they're with me, on my cell phone, all of the time. They provide me with instant gratification and fuel my, and most other young people's, dreams of long-term love."

I think you mean they fuel most young WOMEN'S dreams of long term love. However, just because I don't know a lot of men who swoon over their girlfriend's poems on their blackberry doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

As for David Brooks, I don't like him either. He was most detestable when he passionately advocated for the invasion of Iraq:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/david-brooks-no-apologies_b_93265.html

However, he does raise a serious issue here, and I don't see anywhere in the article where he blames feminists. People don't know how to commit now. We need to change the system from one where marriage comes with a mandatory pre-nuptial agreement. Also, the courts award the child or children to the mother almost always.

Or there could be stiff penalties for people who divorce...maybe a fine of $100,000 each? No matter how you look at it, there just ain't no easy out. And that, my friends, is the crux of the dilemma. We all want the easy out. When things get rough we all wanna bail. Sorry, but Brooks has some valid points. Feminists are losing sight of the larger issue, the fact we all belong to a larger universal and organic whole. What we do to another, we do to ourselves. By claiming Brooks is 'patriarchal' you advance the agenda of the non-committal and promiscuous. You dismiss his arguments because some of what he says doesn't jibe with third wave feminism. ME ME ME TAKE TAKE TAKE.

Funny how it's always the

Funny how it's always the feminists' fault and never the masculinists' fault.

"We need to change the

"We need to change the system from one where marriage comes with a mandatory pre-nuptial agreement."

The mandatory pre-nup is imposed by society as a whole. Few people understand the ramifications until after it's over. The mandatory pre-nup needs to be written into the marriage vows.

I should have written "to

I should have written "to one where marriage comes with a mandatory pre-nuptial agreement", and not "from one". My error.

I agree with you jwstewart, but the problem is, I don't know if women will go for it. I told a friend of mine this idea and his response was: "You'll never get married if you ask for a pre-nup. She'll think that you don't love her."

Is that true ladies? Right now, upon divorce, you get 50% of the loot. Not a bad haul. Some would call that legalized robbery. I met a man last year who put his life savings into a house he designed and built himself. After his divorce the court awarded the house to his wife. Now he lives in a basement suite. She played no part in the financing of said house. They both had jobs, she had her own income. He said she hosts wonderful dinner parties there. *No pre-nup*

What no one seems to want to address is the fact that relations between men and women is a real and actual war. This is not something abstract. It is a concrete, measurable power struggle. Both sexes pursue strategies that will produce wealth, prestige and respect. It is no different than a chess game. David Brooks is not 'blaming feminism', as so many women claim he is. He is referring to a simpler time, but makes no allegations at one particular group.

I have no problem with equality. In fact, it could be a blessing to me. But today's woman makes no attempt at equality. Men have silently borne the brunt of trudging off to work each day to support their families. If you want to join this drudge-fest ladies, have at it. By all means, pick up that hammer and drive those nails into the two by four. I have no problem staying at home, preparing meals and bonding with my children. Ah, you see, this is where the games begin -the war games. Equality to a woman means MEN still do the hard, dangerous work. (Go to war, work construction, commit the suicides, rot in prison, alienated from the kids).

Ladies, if you do 50% of the really crappy, physically arduous labour, and agree to mandatory pre-nups -you got a deal. Then I would be all for equality.

to paraphrase a famous feminist...

It is no longer necessary for women to ask anyone's permission for equality...

Perhaps some of you haven't noticed, but the majority of women in Canada work outside the home (as well as in the home, the so-called 'second shift'.) Much of it could certainly be construed as the "really crappy" labour...In any event, there is no majority of women staying at home with the kids.

I would wager that many women as well as men don't understand the full ramafications of marriage beforehand...that it is a social contract. More than a pre-nuptial agreement will be needed to change this...equality is a precursor.

Evidence and Data are a precursor

It may not be necessary for women to ask of anyone's permission for equality. However, that does not mean you are entitled to respect. You must earn this. You are entitled to equality of opportunity, but you are certainly not entitled to equality of outcome.

You mentioned that the majority of women worked outside the home as well as did most of the work inside the home. However, you provided no evidence to back this up. Where is the hyperlink? I would believe it if this were 1969 and not 2009, but in all honesty, in today's world, you must provide evidence. I simply refuse to believe the 'second shift' you make mention of. Additionally, IF this is indeed true, that women are doing 80% of the housework to a man's 20%, how do we know each and every couple's unique circumstances?

What if, for example, we take a couple. The husband is TEMPORARILY working overtime at work so that the couple can buy new furniture, or a car. The wife, knowing that the husband is working overtime, is doing most of the housework, because she is only working her regular 40 hr/week shift. She knows it is temporary, and they do need a new car and sofa. After they buy said items, he begins to work less because they also have a prior arrangement whereby she will be giving more hours at her place of employment, because she knows she needs to so that she too can climb her career ladder. Now the husband begins doing the majority of the housework.

The above scenario is more likely the one happening in 2009. I would have to read thoroughly any study who's thesis was that women do most of the housework ALL THE TIME. How can we reduce the unique psychosexual chemistry of each couple to a statistic? Maybe the woman cannot sleep at night unless new wallpaper is put up? Maybe the husband knows they can't afford it and yet she insists it must get done and she is putting it on the credit card. No study can determine these things. Unless you can prove otherwise, VivianLea, your 'second shift' argument is bunk.

Finally, you and Vanessa only factor in gender as a mitigating circumstance with regard to equality. You make no mention of class. I would submit to you that any woman who is dumb enough to marry a man who makes her do most of the housework deserves what she gets. I'm sorry but that's capitalism. If you married a bum, do you really believe he will turn into a prince? (rhetorical) Again -equality of opportunity, not outcome. If you married a lazy man - tough. Go ahead VivianLea, go to any university in Canada and find one man, just one, who expects a traditional family with a wife at home baking cookies. Good luck with that.

So VivianLea, it is not enough to claim, as you do, 'equality is a precursor'. That and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee at the worst greasy spoon in Vancouver. State exactly what you mean. Where do you feel women are not given equal opportunity? Facts. Hyperlinks. Data.

Good night.

the sweetness of the song...

Oh scorn! Oh bitterness! Oh hellish visions of romance! One could make a tightly-reasoned critique complete with scholar-approved citations, but one fears that it would not make a dent in the miasma of anger floating about these threads. No, one sees that a spell is required...

by the sweetness of the song
by the beauty of the dance
by the softness of warm rain falling
by the hum of green and growing
begone, foul vision.

(Thaks to Jeni Couzyn for inspiration)