Responses to The Weaker Sex

5 Responses to The Weaker Sexmy blog for March 8, International Women’s Day.

There seems to be no way  of keeping the comment stream open below a WordPress blog.  These comments are worth sharing, both on the original article and on conditions for writers at The Atlantic Monthly, a magazine I have held in high esteem, but which I will now take MUCH less seriously!

  1. Curmudgeon Bludgeon says:

    Well, that’s forty minutes of my life that I’m never going to get back.

    I could comment here, but I find that much of what I might say has already been said for me by commenters on the Atlantic’s site:

    “cjvannette
    In an alternate universe, this could have been an interesting piece about the way that shifting gender roles and mismatched expectations make 21st century heterosexual relationships difficult to navigate. Instead, we get straw-feminist caricatures sipping chardonnay and complaining about the number of carbs in risotto. One does not get the idea that marriage is a failing institution because of social trends. One gets the idea that these women are incapable of sustaining a lasting relationship with another complex human being because there isn’t enough air in the room for anything but their egos.”

    “Odysseus
    Men–young men, men who would like to be in a relationship with a woman–would do well to read this article carefully. Not for enjoyment of the narcissistic drivel, but to recognize a type all too prevalent, especially on our coasts.
    This sort of woman, and her Whole Foods/hot tub friends will destroy your life and emotional health if you get near her. Her most fleeting whim is more important than anything in your life. There is no partnership. You exist only–only–for what you can do for her. After you have been utterly emasculated, you will be tossed aside. The minute she finds a better alternative, you’re gone. God help you if you invested your money and yourself in trying to build a life with her.”

    “abUWS
    My first warning was “Annette is a working warrioress, a high-level administrator who makes mid–six figures at a major foundation.” How on earth do you even start an article about the state of men/women relationships with a woman earning some normative salary of $300-600,000 for working in a non-profit world??

    Isn’t this a story then about the 5-10% of women in the 1% world who are the major earners? Are we to learn something from a fictional illustration of the life of some .1% of all women?”

    That last issue, the class angle, being perhaps the most essential and the most rage-inducing. But what do Sandra and Co. care? The hot tub is waitng . . . full of salty, bitter tears, lol.

    A textbook instance of an often-observed fact: in the Web 2.0 World, successful “opinion journalism” frequently amounts to little more than saying the most obnoxiously stupid thing possible and then letting the commenters storm in to provide the real content. It’s shameless and disgraceful, but look, it generates traffic!

    There’s lots to be said about improving the condition of women in various parts of the world, and lots more to be said about the disastrous state of marital relations here in the west, but you ain’t hear it from Sandra Ding-a-Ling and the DPMs of the Atlantic.

    • I agree with you! I took this as satire, like reading Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal. If marriage is in difficulty as an institution, it is not the fault of those who want gay marriages, but that of the ridiculous women who give so little and want so much! Look t the TV sitcoms about “real” housewives, or any of the bridal-themed “reality” shows.

      • Curmudgeon Bludgeon says:

        Well, maybe, Motley D. On the other hand, if it’s irony, it’s irony of the cheapest kind, and unredeemed by any hints of insight pointing past the surface of suffocating narcissism to an understanding of the real-world problems that lie below. Really, it’s all surface as far as I can see, chokingly thick, but surface still, right down to the bottom.

        The Atlantic should be ashamed of itself for publishing such drivel. LOL, the smug complacency of the increasingly irrelevant “print” media. YouTube kicks its ass.

  2. Curmudgeon Bludgeon says:

    Update, lol: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/201331116423560886.html

    Which naturally raises the question, was Sandra paid for her article? Did an eager editor woo her with ponies for the kids? Who footed the bill for the hot tub? Or was it all just the fevered imaginings of a starving writer slaving over her lonely bowl of Kraft Dinner?

    Maybe she’s one of the “exposure” slaves, who knows? But lest we feel tempted to feel sorry for her in that case, one last imponderable: is it worse to debase yourself by spewing narcissistic idiocies when someone’s actually paying you for it, or should you just do it for free? LOL

    pic related: Slaughter’s article, featured on the cover in the al-Jazz article, is on point to the larger question here. Probably a better read too.

  3. Curmudgeon Bludgeon says:

    LOL, update to the update:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/03/nate-thayer-atlantic-charged-with-plagiarism.html
    http://jeremyduns.blogspot.se/2013/03/nate-thayer-is-plagiarist.html

    If plagiarism won’t feed my f*cking kids, maybe copy-pasta will? (Emphasis on pasta, lol.)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s