Hooooooo boy. There is no way for anyone - of either gender - to read this, take any of it to heart, and not end up bleaker than when you started. Unless, of course, you can pull back the curtain.

1) If you read XOJane or Jezebel you get what you deserve. These are journals of small-minded snark whose pageviews are generated largely by controversy. None of that controversy will be at the expense of the audience. It will always be at the expense of the other.

2) There exist women who will marry wifebeaters, divorce them, then cheat with them on their new wives after the wifebeater gets out of prison. These women are tragic, these women are unfortunate, these women show poor judgement, and dollars to donuts, neither you, me, or anyone but "Henry" wants to date them. This may not be obvious to someone who doesn't work for a state mental hospital but trust me - back when CorrLinks had an unofficial facebook page, you could see the sort of people who would take to social media to complain about the prison email system. It was not an assemblage you'd wish to add to your dating pool. Simply put: lots of lonely losers are single because they're picky. And that isn't a bad thing.

3) Men objectify women physically. Women objectify men socially, financially, emotionally and physically. I have no doubts that twice as many MIT grad students are virgins as are high school seniors. I also have no doubts that there's a correlation between "have you used a weapon in a fight" and "how often do you get laid." Fuck, marry, kill. How many older women can say things like "I cashed the 40 for a couple 20s?" Yet we joke about it. Can you name anyone besides Madonna who ever took a "trophy husband?" Those MIT grad students will have social status, wealth and security in 10, 15, 20 years that the average high school senior can only dream about. In fact, one might surmise that the dedicated MIT grad student has reasons not to be weighed down by the pursuit of chicks. Sure, we all want tail but a lot of those guys who get a lot aren't really pursuing anything else. They don't have a grad thesis weighing them down. The reality is this: there are people who are attractive in the short term, there are people who are attractive in the long term, and there are people who are not attractive. Do not presume you are the last. You might be the middle. And to someone, you might even be the first.

But the primary thing to take to heart is this:

Only an idiot lets the generalists of the Internet determine the specifics of their love life. Both sides aren't debating humans, they're striking out impotently at ideas and the cardboard cutouts that present them. The staunchest defenders of both sides are the least happy humans who interact with the opposite sex on the rarest of occasions. Arguing about loneliness on the Internet subjects you to worse than an echo chamber; it traps you in a feedback loop that can only cull you from the gene pool. I mean, really - who THE FUCK is going to give useful, measured discussion to someone who thinks "men's rights activists" have eliminated the ability to gripe about being lonely? Why would you EVER have that discussion on the open, unbounded Internet? How is that line of questioning NOT going to attract the bitterest of haters? I mean, we know the Internet. We've seen it. We've been on it. Ostensibly, it's a network that connects human beings from far-flung corners of the world. So why are we astonished every time something good happens but drearily expectant whenever it reveals the lowest common denominator of human behavior?

Honestly? This whole discussion is an argument about which is worse: anthrax or smallpox. THEY'RE BOTH BAD. Clever people avoid both of them. Happiness lies in NOT bathing in weaponized agents, in NOT asking the violent, other-hating masses why you, the other, are violently hated. A group that identifies via exclusion will NEVER provide viable, reasonable, useful discussion about the excluded.

You engage them at your peril.

Dude, Henry clearly has lots of trouble with women.

I am, beneath all the cursing and rage and hate, a nice person. I have actually been gently turned down because, essentially, I was too nice somehow. (This is the guy I had a crush on and made cookies for, if anyone remembers enough about my love life that far back.)

But, despite Being Nice, I have never thought being nice was enough of a reason to get a boyfriend, or even a date. In fact, as a neurotic nit-picker, I have always been able to think of lots of reasons why I couldn't get a date. I have then had to calm myself down and remind myself that I am lovable, and I have been loved. At the end of the day, what makes me think that I'll be loved again is the fact that sometime before, someone loved me. If someone could love me once, someone can love me again.

Being loved or even liked has so much more to do with the person doing the liking or loving than with you.

The problem with people who say "I am nice, why can't I get with a person?" is that not only do they think that if you are nice, you will attract a person, but that they lack the self-reflection (and maybe the insecurity) to look at themselves, perceive how they are flawed, and realize there are probably lots of reasons any given person might not want to date them.

Do not assume you are date-able and then ask why no one will date you. If no one will date you, odds are, you are not date-able. When all the evidence disagrees with your hypothesis, you need to ask if your hypothesis is wrong. Not why none of your experiments turned out the way "they were supposed to." Not why some other guy's experiments are yielding the results that you wanted your experiments to yield.

In closing, any argument which relies on the idea that "if things were fair, I would have this," is not only idealistic but stupid as well as lazy. Nothing is fair. It is useless to argue that you would have a thing if only you lived in a utopia when you do not live in a utopia and never will. If grass was blue, then I would have blue grass - but seeing as grass is not blue, then I will never have blue grass, no matter how much I would like it. Saying, "I deserve this thing, and because I think I deserve this thing but do not have it, I am going to get very loud and upset about how I don't have it" and then getting very loud and upset is a waste of energy that would be much better spent in attempts to somehow become a person who has the thing that is deserved. But that is scary and that requires work as well as self-reflection. That requires the idea that one is NOT perfect as one is, and one does NOT deserve - well, anything.

The real question is, would Barry want a single one of the girls willing to date Henry? And the answer is, if he is in his right mind and as well-adjusted as the article says he is, dear god no. He should reject all of them. They are not stable. They need therapy, and lots of it.

Alright. I'll bite.

Why is this a gendered issue? Nice people are single, while horrible people have plenty of relationships. There's many facets to how people of both genders choose partners, "niceness" is just one of them.

Is the point that men who whine about being single are attacked while women are allowed to bemoan their status?

If that's the point he's making, its mostly because he is saying he "deserves" to be in a better situation then Henry. I rarely see women say they deserve more men then another women. If anything, I see them discuss deserving a good caring partner. See the difference? "Why do other people have what I don't have" comes off very differently then "this is what I want". One is about jealousy, the other is about personal goals.

TLDR: Of course he is allowed to whine, but just like most self-pitying diatribes online (male or female) they tend to not be well received.

Bonus Note: Also comparing normal dating to abusive partners is beyond ignorant but I don't have time to write a well sourced piece on that right now. Maybe I'll add it later.

I see two key problems with this... treatise? Missive? Manifesto?

First, he is lonely. But believes the sole answer to loneliness exists in women. That men do not play a role in alleviating loneliness, etc, for other men. He further reinforces this myopia through his google searches for terms. I know of a wide variety of men's groups, clubs, hangouts that have been happening since the mid-1970's (aka: BG, or Before Google), and still thrive to this day.

Loneliness is a stink like piss. It makes you an energy suck, rather than an energy source. So people who exude this lonely vibe get shut out... thereby becoming lonelier.

I guarantee you that Henry has guy friends that he goes out with on a regular basis.

Second problem, women are a two-dimensional construct to him. They have no agency, will, desires, needs... they are just wireframe models.

What is he offering to them? Why should they spend time with him? What value does he bring to their life?

Maybe when he gets a deeper appreciation for women as whole beings he might be able to find one interested in what he offers.

So what you're saying is that it's about ethics in feminist journalism?

1. Many like "Dan" feel that they are entitled to earn the same amount as that of their bosses. I can relate to the hard-worker character but it is true what the doctor said, he thinks these titles were given on a silver platter but he never (not once) had the urge to ask whether they struggled through school. Bosses are there because they also had to go through what he's going through. I don't deny that there are kids that do get everything from mommy and daddy. There are many that have never felt the hard-work kind of style.

2. This wife-beater has an inane way of coming off. He has no remorse for his title and the women he's married are sadist. They leave him (and kudos!) but they come back, why? For the pleasure of the bad boy persona? As the doctor states that he's a nice guy and why was it unfair. Many women go for the bad boy because it brings excitement and they thing of spontaneity. Many women don't see that the nice guy has those attributes due to the fact that most "nice guys" don't really show an extroverted side.

3. Again with the "nice guy" tactic. These nice men do have a lack in their step. They expect sex as an exchange for a kind demeanor. Genuinely nice people don't expect anything back and that's a big difference. Yes, many women pass the nice guy, but it's because he shows a lack of pep to his step. Women like to be cooed and to be shown different perspectives, not to see her own perspective being repeated out of someone else's mouth. These nice men just sit and watch rather than to take the bull by its horn ( I am using many analogies...).

All in all, things don't seem fair if you don't step outside the box. Those that go through a whole routine of what's supposed to happen tend not to get what they want. Attaining what you want comes with excess effort. Things may be handed to you on a silver platter but what fun it that?

For my own amusement, and because it's what we're doing in Philosophy class right now, I'm going to analyze the issue using Kantian ethics.

1. The assumption that being nice should lead to sex or relationships goes against the categorical imperative: humans are an ends, not a means, and their dignity as such should be respected. When saying being nice should lead to rewards, one disrespects oneself by seeing personality as a means to an end. One also disrespects others by ignoring their human dignity and seeing their existence as a mean to an ends (in this case, sexual gratification).

1.1 Another wording of the categorical imperative is that our maxims should only be those maxims which work perfectly well if they were the categorical imperative (i.e. universal). On the face, this may look like the Golden Rule, but the Golden Rule is consequence based. Saying that the assumption is wrong because then almost everyone would thindk they deserve sex (most people seem to think they are nice), which would lead to the exact same issue as currently (i.e. people who should not be in relationships, like Henry, are, but now it's even morally right) takes the same consequence-based approach. Kant might say it is wrong because applying that maxim across the board would not be rationally motivated but motivated by desire only, and therefore corrupts the rational categorical imperative.

(Note: Kant thought the two wordings of the categorical imperative were equivalent. No one else can really figure out why. Maybe one of you can. I've got sown ideas, but they're just barely budding.)

2. However, that doesn't necessarily make the assumption, or actions based on the assumption immoral. When we are acting on goals and desires, we are acting solely as animals, not rational beings. As we cannot choose our goals, we cannot truly be held responsible for actions towards them. It is generally agreed now that sexual preference is not a chosen trait, and so having the goal of sex is not a choice. Just like cheetahs cannot be blamed for eating the gazelle or a ball can be blamed for falling, humans cannot be blamed for trying.

3. At the same time, looking closer at the issue suggests maybe it isn't all about desires. While humans cannot be held morally at fault for simply pursuing goals, means and motive matter for Kant. A person has an obligation to use their rationality to approach their actions. Also, as rational beings, we have a duty to follow the categorical imperative, only for the sake of that duty, i.e. doing right. And rather than just pursuing sex through being nice, the assumption of getting sex from being nice shows an attempt at rationality. In effect, it is a strange and incorrect attempt to usurp the true categorical imperative arrived at by Kant. And rational choices are morally judgeable. So, Kantian ethics would (likely) say the assumption and any actions resulting from the assumption are wrong. Of course, Kant said all sex outside of marriage was wrong, so the issue has a simpler answer. But Kant isn't modern, and almost certainly never thought about nice people thinking being nice was enough to be in a relationship.

"When you react, the event controls you. When you respond, you're in control."

Had a prepared statement here, but eh.