Maybe it’s the deja vu all over again that’s got me cranky, but I want to nominate Kate Mulvey for twit of the week. In an article rife with barely warmed over 70’s retro-angst, she comes up with this irony-berift statement:
Having grown up with successful women such as Margaret Thatcher and Madonna as role models, and with popular culture awash with fantasies of all-powerful women, from Lara Croft to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, men are not so uncomfortable with the woman in control. This value system recognises the trend of female supremacy, which while not as yet the norm seems to be pointing the way for future relationships.
Having come of age in the midst of the 70’s feminism and seeing the same navel lint-picking continue to this day on ostensible feminist blogs (“oh my, can I wear lipgloss and still be an authentic feminist?”), I see Kate as nothing more than the stereotyped-chauvanist male in drag. How so?
Because a good deal of the ‘feminist’ movement is about identifying the “male role”, co-opting it, then declaring anything outside of it as lesser than — or beta.
Take Kate’s opening lament:
Last week I went to dinner with an eligible doctor. As we were finishing the main course, I struck up conversation with the owner (Marco) in Italian – I speak five languages. My date nearly choked on his linguini and spent the rest of the date mute. I had committed the worst dating faux pas: I had outshone my suitor.
Not once does it occur to obviously superior Kate that maybe her date was less put-off by her shininess than by her rude behavior in carrying on a conversation that deliberately and publicly excluded him.
Yet it would seem I am not the only woman who is wondering whether it is time to hang up her brain and turn into a Stepford Datee. In America research shows successful young women are hiding their accomplishments for fear that their academic achievements and financial kudos will scare off potential suitors.
Ah! Straw-choice …. check. Claim of “studies show” with no sourcing …. check
Kate, like many an older (yet not wiser) feminist before her frames relationships as conflict
Self-help guides exhort us to flatter the male ego; don’t talk too much and let him make all the jokes if you want him to like you. Well I would rather skewer my eyes out than change my personality.
So what is the answer? Someone has to surrender in the sex war.
and then points out what a superior female must do
The second-generation feminists – that is, women in their twenties and thirties – have found a new way to solve the alpha-beta paradox. [...] They map out their life plans early: rise to the top of their chosen career, get the smart house, the cute kids and curl up in bed with a loving beta male. [...]For young women this shift in economic power has given them new choices. But what about the men? While it is true that many older men seem stuck with the “man as success object, woman as sex object†idea and would never contemplate marrying a ball-breaking alpha earner, men in their twenties and thirties seem to be redefining masculinity.
Kate’s relationship cluelessness does again reveal what passes for enlightened thinking on the left side of the aisle. These are the people, males and womyn, who write/cajole/lecture us lesser beings on “equality” and “tolerance” yet will immediately use whatever “beta” activities we are engaged in as “proof” of our inferiority.
Kate is the flipside of her feminist sisters who eschew marriage altogether as an institution of The Patriarchy(tm) and celebrate any news of its [longed for] demise. Kate wants a mate, not a partner. She wants to be celebrated as a ball-busting alpha and have a beta pet to serve her needs. What makes for a truly successful relationship eludes her.
But that would take maturity and the wisdom that hopefully accompanies it.
A virtue sorely lacking in the left-feminist movement.
Comment by Kevin on 10/7 @ 3:26 pm #
“So what is the answer? Someone has to surrender in the sex war.”
Bah. She’s got other choices. She could remain alone all her life. She could marry a closeted homosexual. She could find a man as pompous as her and they could have the ‘war marriage’ that she believes is the norm.
Her choices are almost endless!
Comment by Dan Collins on 10/7 @ 3:41 pm #
Why doesn’t she just share a pad with Dowd?
Comment by happyfeet on 10/7 @ 3:42 pm #
Her son is going to be a lucky guy. For sure he’ll never have to redefine his masculinity.
Comment by Dan Collins on 10/7 @ 3:46 pm #
Just goes to show that appeasement never works.
Comment by JHoward on 10/7 @ 3:47 pm #
Kate wants an appliance. If the purpose of life is spirit, I suspect this is a mite limiting.
These days Kate also has incentive to act like said appliance herself. If it “doesn’t work out” she’ll simply be paid handsomely to devour the carcass.
Comment by happyfeet on 10/7 @ 3:50 pm #
Buffy could never hold on to a man either, if you remember.
Comment by Sean M. on 10/7 @ 3:59 pm #
Plus, she had, uh, dead guy issues.
Comment by Dan Collins on 10/7 @ 4:11 pm #
I think we should put out an internet call for this doctor, and get his version of events.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/7 @ 4:11 pm #
If I had been that eligible Doctor, I think I might have performed in situ open heart surgery on “Marco” to drive home the point.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/7 @ 4:36 pm #
Also, I am confused, because the Feminascists are always going on about how awfully immorally Patriarchial it is for a man to seek out a “helper” woman. But now, it seems that those same people think it is OK for “high earning” women to seek out “helper” men. This seems to be a contradiction, but I’m sure there is some gap in my feminist knowledge that makes both ideas perfectly consistent.
I saw Kate’s picture, and let us just say that one hopes, for her sake, that she is a butterface. Anyone else think this whole meme of “I date all of these guys and none will do” is really a backdoor way for Kate to preemptively state on the record an affirmative answer to the dubious proposition that men are actually interested in her? Like, you know, Kate really just imagined “eligible Doctor” and “Marco, the Italian interlocutor,” and the truth was pizza and Steel Magnolias for the umpteenth time?
Comment by tanstaafl on 10/7 @ 5:29 pm #
Yet it would seem I am not the only woman who is wondering whether it is time to hang up her brain and turn into a Stepford Datee. In America research shows successful young women are hiding their accomplishments for fear that their academic achievements and financial kudos will scare off potential suitors.
Sounds pretty frickin’ dumb to me.
Back to the Stone Age.
Besides, the lack of equivalence (or equality) in intellect or other stuff would tank the so called relationship eventually anyway.
(I didn’t read beyond that point)
Comment by Kresh on 10/7 @ 5:40 pm #
_”Buffy could never hold on to a man either, if you remember.”_
That’s because she kept dieing on them. Kinda tough to hold relationships together when she keeps expiring and then coming back.
Comment by guinsPen on 10/7 @ 5:46 pm #
How do you say twatwaffle in Italian?
Comment by Kimberly on 10/7 @ 5:50 pm #
Attitudes like Kate’s are so full of sheep dip they could be used to fertilize a garden.
I have a Ph.D in a statistics-related field. I number among my friends at least 25 women who have either masters or Ph.D.’s in computer-, statistics-, or health-related fields. I can speak from personal and vicarious experience that your average healthy straight man has NO problems whatsoever with a smart, ambitious woman. But straight men recognize rudeness, pretentiousness, haughtiness, braggadocio, and bitchiness when they see it, and they are quite right in refusing to deal with a woman who is so sure she is outshining her date in every possible way and who whines when her specialness is not appreciated at every turn.
Oh, and I also work with medical doctors. There’s not a one I can think of who would be awed into silence by a woman speaking Italian. I concur with the commenters who say that he found it amazingly rude that she carried on a conversation in another language (Miss Manners would agree) and he probably wondered if she was trying to flirt with the owner right in front of him.
Comment by Pablo on 10/7 @ 6:01 pm #
Bingo. And, as a caveat, I regularly appreciate specialness, but I don’t care to have such appreciation demanded of me, nor do I require it in return.
Comment by Pablo on 10/7 @ 6:04 pm #
I’ve gotta tell ya, Kresh. Reanimation is pretty fucking special.
That’s hot!
Comment by Pablo on 10/7 @ 6:18 pm #
BTW, here’s the other side of the story, and it’s hilarious.
Great Moments in Golddiggery
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/7 @ 6:29 pm #
Maybe Kate Mulvey’s dad should have bought her “Podkayne of Mars” when she was a wee slip of a girl, like I did for my daughter.
Maybe she’d have realized that women are just as noble and worthy as men are.
Or not.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/7 @ 6:30 pm #
One more thing: my wife and I just had our 28th anniversary.
Love is bigger than your ego, Kate.
Comment by Dan Collins on 10/7 @ 6:32 pm #
Congrats, NOB. Many happy returns.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/7 @ 6:46 pm #
“BTW, here’s the other side of the story, and it’s hilarious.
Great Moments in Golddiggery”
I don’t mind women having an eye towards economic/fiscal success in a man; I think it is only fair that they would want that kind of support for themselves and their babies and independence from parents and such. But, of course, setting a floor at 500K, which may not be megabucks – but is several times “successful” is a bit much.
Comment by Pablo on 10/7 @ 6:53 pm #
But don’t you see, Alec? She’s totally hot! Therefore, she’s entitled.
It’s the response that priceless.
Comment by Pablo on 10/7 @ 6:54 pm #
Congrats, indeed, NOB. My sister just had her 25th, and she’s the only sibling to get anywhere near that. It’s a beautiful thing.
Comment by Jeffersonian on 10/7 @ 7:10 pm #
“Depreciating asset.” Beautiful.
Comment by Patrick Carroll on 10/7 @ 7:14 pm #
I think the guy could see he was going to lose his head after mating. He made the smart decision to find something a little less predatory.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/7 @ 7:31 pm #
“But don’t you see, Alec? She’s totally hot! Therefore, she’s entitled.
It’s the response that priceless.”
No, I definitely see her the way that you do. I’d also bet my left stone that she considers herself some species of feminist. No doubt, other feminists of one sort or another would support her in this pursuit.
Back to the matter at hand, I find it fascinating how self-unaware these modern feminist types actually are. “Gimme, gimme, mine, mine!!!”
Comment by maggie katzen on 10/7 @ 7:35 pm #
BECAUSE I’M WORTH IT!!!
oof.
Comment by Q30 on 10/7 @ 7:38 pm #
I wonder who paid for her date?
As the aggressive alpha woman, surely Kate sprung for the check first?
Comment by Roman on 10/7 @ 7:51 pm #
Damn, what about love?
I would only want her to speak 5 languages when we’re doing it like they do it on the Discovery Channel.
Comment by The Lost Dog (El Pero Perdido) on 10/7 @ 7:59 pm #
Comment by guinsPen on 10/7 @ 5:46 pm #
“How do you say twatwaffle in Italian?”
Ya know, I was going to expound on this bim, but after seeing guinsPen’s comment, there is really nothing left to say.
Bravo!
Comment by Esteban on 10/7 @ 8:05 pm #
The real issue is this. The writer wants to have children, but she values her career as such that she wants to continue it without a hitch. So, she wants a manny, a man who will stay home and sacrifice his own career so she can continue with her. I’ve run into several women who have expressed this desire, which is fine. But it’s not the man’s fault if he can’t respect himself when wearing an apron.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/7 @ 8:40 pm #
“But it’s not the man’s fault if he can’t respect himself when wearing an apron.”
You flunk feminism 202. He is on the hook for not rejecting the “Patriarchial paradigm of domination and harmful, socially constructed gender roles that restrict womyn’s choices.”
Of course, I know someone who demands to have the absolute right to make any choice at any time, express any preference at any time, and to have his every wish granted. He is three, and his world doesn’t have much impact beyond hotwheels, Thomas, and Spongebob.
Comment by JD on 10/7 @ 8:57 pm #
This guy is likely not returning her calls, and she is pissed. She cannot imagine that this doctor could not love her as much as she loves herself. He is likely using her as the butt of a joke when discussing nightmarish dates.
Comment by McGehee on 10/7 @ 9:12 pm #
She wants a “beta” male?
Ask Sony how well “beta” worked out for them.
Comment by thor on 10/7 @ 9:25 pm #
I’d skewer my eyes out if I woke up naked and found her in my bed.
Don’t go changing, to try and please me,
I’ve never skewered my own eyes out before,
Don’t imagine, you’re too familiar,
Now that I don’t see you anymore.
Don’t go trying, some new fashion,
Don’t change the colour of your hair,
I’ll always wear my, darkened glasses,
Although I’ll always seem to stare.
I don’t want clever, conversation,
I never want you to work that hard,
I just want everyone, that I talk to,
To know just how much a bitch you are.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 10/7 @ 9:45 pm #
Sounds like her needs would be satisfied by a gay shopping buddy and a vibrator, no?
While it is true that many older men seem stuck with the “man as success object, woman as sex object†idea
Hmm… you’ll notice that she’s dating doctors rather than convenience store clerks. Looks like it’s not just “older men” who are hung up on that idea, huh?
Comment by andy on 10/7 @ 10:19 pm #
“Because a good deal of the ‘feminist’ movement is about identifying the “male roleâ€Â, co-opting it, then declaring anything outside of it as lesser than  or beta.”
Which ‘feminists’ say this?
Comment by Darleen on 10/7 @ 10:27 pm #
Andy
read St Amanda on “marriage” as a conspiracy of The Patriarchy (to keep womyns in the beta role of breeder and sex slave), read her snide and sneering statements on other female that dares say maybe promiscuous sex (the “male” paradigm) is not such a good idea. Recall Gloria Steinum said, when asked what she thought of Jeane Kirkpatrick’s appointment as the first woman ambassador from the US appointed to the UN, “Who said she was a woman?”
You know, Gloria “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” Steinum?
Son, I’ve been around this block with left-feminists since the 70’s. If you think they have any respect for SAHMs and breeders as “equals” to the Kate’s and Mandy’s, then I have this neat bridge in Alaska I can let you have cheap.
Cash only, small bills and not in sequence, please.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 10/7 @ 10:34 pm #
Congrats, N. O’B. My folks will have their fiftieth this December 7th. (We’ve heard the jokes.) We celebrated this summer when we could all get together.
And comparing the author of the article to my parents…it can’t be done. She wants a live-in servant/gigolo, and anyone who is at her level of education, etc. to fulfill her intellectual, etc. needs isn’t that.
She wants a Stepford husband, and those who are that shallow…
Comment by Darleen on 10/7 @ 10:36 pm #
NOB
Congratulations!
My parents celebrated their 56th this year. And while the marriage may have looked “traditional” from the outside, it was the equality of their mutual love and respect for each other and the acceptance of their differences that have allowed them to grow all these years.
Comment by Synova on 10/7 @ 11:50 pm #
andy, it’s done all the time. Women need to smoke, because men smoke. Women need to be in organized and professional sports because men do sports. I pick these two examples because they’re arguably negative things that are portrayed as utterly vital simply because men do them. Emotionally detached sex should be on that list, too. Okay, maybe organized sports aren’t negative but they aren’t… necessary either, yet they’re portrayed as vital for our daughter’s futures. What men do defines good. The sort of hyper focused dedication to work and career, the sort of thing that gives men heart attacks, ulcers, and steals their family life… that is the picture of the successful, professional, woman.
I think the whole alpha-beta thing is garbage anyway. The men who *really* want a subservient wife are men no one in their right mind would want to marry. This isn’t *alpha* behavior. It’s more like gamma or something… essentially weak personalities who require dominance. Women who want to be the boss go in that category, too. The rest of us? Well, no one respects a doormat. And way back when… finding out I was smart meant more interest, not less, when guys found out. I can’t think of a single guy past junior high school who didn’t like that I was smart. I will say, though, that sometime around junior high school I figured out that guys didn’t like to feel like they were in competition with me. If *I* cared who came out on top then *they* cared who came out on top. The problem isn’t being smart or accomplished or interested in a wide variety of things. The problem is framing it all as a competition.
I also determined, early on, not to take relationship advice from anyone who hadn’t been married longer than me (or parenting advice for anyone with less children than I have). I’ve been married 20 years now… to a man smarter than I am who thinks I’m smarter than him.
Comment by Synova on 10/7 @ 11:54 pm #
Also… a few words in a language is nice. A conversation deliberately excluding your date? It’s no surprise that someone who doesn’t know why that is rude would make up some other reason a person reacted badly to it.
And only proves that a person can be smart enough to know five languages and still be a bubble headed ditz.
Comment by Dr. Rock on 10/8 @ 12:46 am #
Bleh. The writer doesn’t realize that her putting so much thought into the male/female dynamic is making her a slave to it. I wish her the best of luck out on the market…she’ll need it, if she is going to avoid becoming a barmy cat lady by the time she hits menopause.
Comment by 21 on 10/8 @ 1:15 am #
Perhaps our doctor friend with his trusty rusty latin understood:
“Sono puttana”
Comment by bour3 on 10/8 @ 3:59 am #
There’s no substance to the woman’s movement presently. I second your nomination of Kate for twit of the week. There have always been examples of powerful women, her two real and two fictional examples are simply not cogent support for her theory about, what is it again?, oh yeah, males generally being more available for beta roles? Is that it? Beyond that, when it comes to women who treat men as pack animals or automobile repairmen I treat with a stick with poo on it.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 10/8 @ 5:05 am #
Actually, Beta worked very well for them. If only they’d been smart enough to license the technology, VCRs would not have been so much teh suck.
But you probably meant financially. Point is, Beta was miles better than VHS.
Comment by RiverC on 10/8 @ 6:25 am #
Phew. Is it me, or did some women actually not get taught what femininity is? Isn’t that the root of the whole problem? Masculinity and Femininity complement each other. If you’re having trouble finding a complement, it’s because you’re not the Yin to the Yang, etc. It’s assumed that the ‘Yang’ in this case must be the Possessive, Dominating, Violent Male. Which is a false dichotomy, I think. For a woman, the best thing would be to teach her what it is to be a woman, not to tell her what men have done and try to make her to do it. If they haven’t figured it out yet, they’re buying into their own paradigm (as someone said) and thus the troubles of it come to them and they wonder why.
Anyhow, anyone know how miserable – love-wise – the life of the most successful women was? I can’t speak for Cleopatra or Hatsupshet, but Elizabeth was a virgin Queen. They will have to aim somewhere in the middle – otherwise they’ll end up cold and alone at the top. For men this is the same. Since boldness and success of this sort have always been the providence of men, the understanding of how to work being a man of success and have love has been well known.
The happiest successful men aren’t necessarily the brightest shining stars – because they have to balance their lives. Can’t avoid it.
Comment by andy on 10/8 @ 7:20 am #
“read St Amanda on “marriage†as a conspiracy of The Patriarchy (to keep womyns in the beta role of breeder and sex slave), read her snide and sneering statements on other female that dares say maybe promiscuous sex (the “male†paradigm) is not such a good idea. Recall Gloria Steinum said, when asked what she thought of Jeane Kirkpatrick’s appointment as the first woman ambassador from the US appointed to the UN, “Who said she was a woman?—
I’m really curious for links, because I don’t quite see the co-opting of the male role.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/8 @ 7:33 am #
“I’m really curious for links, because I don’t quite see the co-opting of the male role.”
andy,
They claim that there isn’t a “male role,” and that such things are “social constructs.” Males adopting the “male role” are evil enforcers of the Patriarchy, but women adopting the male role are “subversive,” and thus acceptable.
You really could just cruise the femblogs for an hour, and you’ll get all you can handle.
Comment by JD on 10/8 @ 8:20 am #
Alec – Andy is not actually interested in debating this with anyone. He is more concerned with playing dumb, or just being dumb, intentionally missing the point, mischaracterizing your positions, and then calling you a racist, sexist, etc …
Pingback by The Reciprocal Post to Darleen's from Yesterday [Dan Collins] on 10/8 @ 8:20 am #
[...] stuff from Christopher Taylor, that supplements Darleen’s post from yesterday. Both of them deserve Instalanches, IMO. Posted by Dan Collins @ 8:20 am | [...]
Comment by Slartibartfast on 10/8 @ 8:39 am #
Of course they’re social constructs. The very idea of a role is a social construct. This whole conversation we’re having? Social construct. But, so’s every opinion that you have about anything, as well as the entire lens you look at the world through. The notion of social constructs is a social construct. Meanwhile, though, in the objective world, things continue being the way they are, independently of labels.
Which is not to say that labels are useless, mind you, just that the analysis of labels is inherently navel-gazistic. Getting too wrapped up in the labels themselves is a distraction from what the labels signify, if I can use that word here.
Comment by Matt, Esq. on 10/8 @ 8:42 am #
This “femnist” attitude is confusing woman and men. It puts both in impossible positions in terms of relationship compatibility – my personal feeling is that this is one of the primary reasons why the divorce rate has skyrocketed in the last 20 years.
Its simple- at their core, men are the hunters and woman are gatherers and child bearers. Thats how we’re made (or evolved). That doesn’t mean that both must fullfill those roles but ultimately, its biology. Now, however, woman are told they can do anything as well as anything a man can do (which is true) but where does that leave the man ? What role does he fullfill?
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/8 @ 9:15 am #
“Alec – Andy is not actually interested in debating this with anyone. He is more concerned with playing dumb, or just being dumb, intentionally missing the point, mischaracterizing your positions, and then calling you a racist, sexist, etc …”
Frankly, I was being cordial and waiting for him to start throwing his monkey-poop about.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/8 @ 9:23 am #
“Of course they’re social constructs. The very idea of a role is a social construct.”
I disagree, in that by “male role†we mean the things that human males do by virtue of being male. I would say, for example, that male Lions or male Gorillas fulfill a “male role†in each species, but only a fool would argue that the same are social constructs, you know, because Lions and Gorillas do not have societies in the way in which we mean “society†or “social.†Unless you submit that at some time a group of male Gorillas got together in some secret meeting and smoked cigars and decided “hey, let’s make all of the female Gorillas bang us, and hang around with the Gorilla babies, and gather up all of the delicious ferns and nuts and stuff, and straighten up the jungle after us,†you would have to admit that a lot of what the male Gorillas do that is different from what the female Gorillas do is something essential to them and natural. A “norm†if you will.
Comment by Old Texas Turkey on 10/8 @ 9:33 am #
Great Moments in Golddiggery
I think the response was fine, altho the chap did leave out a viable third option. The pre-nup.
Marriage with a pre-nup = fractional ownership.
Kinda like the executive jet or time share in Florida. except that with the wife its hot in the morning and (much) colder at night and the fractional re-sale is not pretty.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 10/8 @ 9:34 am #
What we mean is a social construct.
Essential, maybe. Natural, certainly. But pretending that we know why it’s (“it” being The Way Things Are) there simply because we’ve pasted a label on it: no. A more honest answer would be something like “because it’s a system that worked, and it’s worked for a long time” rather than “because we live in a patriarchal society” or whatever the current drivelish term for it is.
None of which is to say that some of us can’t build convincing and intricate rationalizations of social constructs, or of why labels are good and right. It’s what we do.
Comment by malaclypse the tertiary on 10/8 @ 9:41 am #
I think there’s a specificity of language issue around “social construct.” Do such constructions happen as a result of conscious manipulation (a la the “Patriarchal Conspiracy”)? I don’t think so.
I think a perusal of the theories of Evolutionary Psychology and Dual Inheritance Theory are illuminating in this regard. These male and female roles seem to me best understood as organic responses to the environments in which they are born. I don’t think sex roles are somehow transcendentally normativeâ€â€IOW they didn’t get dropped on earth by God or something. However, as I said above, I don’t think sex roles were consciously created per se eitherâ€â€not whole cloth anyway.
I submit that this is why libertarian and classical liberal economists are always going on about unintended consequences. Hayek is most informative on this matter. The processes which create these roles are stochastic and take timeâ€â€which isn’t to say they can’t be influenced by conscious action, but rather that they can’t be altered in a top-down way by fiat because there are way too many variables to create an effective model to guide such an adventure. In this way, it is like climate science, or market behavior, etc.
I don’t have a problem with Kate’s experimenting with statistically marginal concepts of sex roles. I only get exercised inasmuch as she and others like her seem to suggest that her experiments are normative. And, luckily, this comments thread and the one on her article demonstrate that she and her ideological bedmates haven’t subverted the organic process that created the roles as they exist and that continue to modulate them now and in the future. Now if they start trying to pass legislation, that’s another story.
Comment by Theresa, MSgt (ret), USAF on 10/8 @ 9:46 am #
Woymn like this idiot make me sick. They do more harm than good by perpetuating the sterotypical ball breaking feminazis. I’ve had to deal with the fall out from bitches like her my entire life.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/8 @ 10:03 am #
“What we mean is a social construct.”
Well, I have always interpreted “social construct†to mean it in the way that those who wield it as a sword mean by the term – something inorganic and imposed upon humans, which is neither necessary nor desirable, and which did not exist before the formation of organized society. This is the way that Feminists mean “social construct†when targeting the “Patriarchy,†but at different times the definition expands to be nearly limitless and therefore useless. What, exactly, under this second sense of “social construct,†is not a “social construct?†The Laws of Physics? That humans tend to live on flat, arable earth near water rather than on desolate, frozen mountain tops? Missionary position sex? Familial relationships? Walking upright?
Of course, we understand that “social construct†is one of those slippery, leftist “empty vessel†jargonized terms whereby you slip exactly what you want to pour out of it in to it for the limited purpose one discussion.
Comment by Ian S. on 10/8 @ 10:30 am #
Slart: actually, Beta’s higher quality meant it (and it’s digital successors) became the broadcast standard world-wide for 25+ years. Sony made a *lot* of money selling the gear to TV stations/networks and show producers (and not licensing it meant they got all the money). Any time you see a news reporter out filming something it’s probably on a descendant of Beta. During the pre-DVR era when people were taping shows on VHS, it was often originating from a Beta tape at the station.
As for the twatnozzle on topic, I can’t believe the doctor didn’t just get up and leave.
Comment by Big Bang (Pumping you up) on 10/8 @ 10:42 am #
- There are 8 million ways to say “I can’t get no-ho…sa-tis-fac-tion.” This has been one of them. – Jack Webb
Comment by Slartibartfast on 10/8 @ 10:47 am #
Alex: no quarrel. The problem I’ve always had with that sort of analysis is that it’s composed almost completely of rationalization. It’s just about as scientific as what Rousseau (completely wrongly, it turned out) cooked up for pre-technology man.
Ian: cool. I owned a Beta, but I had no idea that it had any kind of niche market once Beta rentals pretty much closed down.
Comment by frosty on 10/8 @ 10:48 am #
I think she wants a wife.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 10/8 @ 10:57 am #
Being a minimalist, as well as being lazy, I probably would have posted something like:
But styles vary.
Comment by McGehee on 10/8 @ 1:47 pm #
Well, okay. I’ll walk back on the Sony thing and try again:
She wants a “beta” male?
She likes ‘em buggy and prone to crashing?
Comment by Matt, Esq. on 10/8 @ 1:56 pm #
*The men who *really* want a subservient wife are men no one in their right mind would want to marry. *
I think subservient may be too strong a word, though I understand your point. Personally, as a type A, my ideal woman is someone who doesn’t necessarily feel the need to challenge every decision I make- for example, if I say “lets take the SUV to the grocery store” I dont want to hear a recitation about how our other c ar gets better gas mileage and is more environmentally friendly. I want us to get in the car and worry about discussing important stuff, like what to buy to eat. Its frustrating for someone with a strong personality to be forced into arguing/discussing every little thing. My ideal is a woman who’s opinion I value and seek out, not one who, in the interest of being independent, feels the need to interject something into every conversation.
People have to “fit together” to be happy in a relationship- if both persons have a strong personality (or both have a weak personality), it seems to me there will be more problems then a couple who meshes together, understanding each other’s personality and accepting it.
Comment by kelly on 10/8 @ 2:26 pm #
It’s simple, really: avoid polyglots as potential mates. Sheesh.
Comment by kelly on 10/8 @ 2:28 pm #
“My date nearly choked on his linguini and spent the rest of the date mute”
Would it have killed her to try a little Heimlich on the poor chap?
Comment by kelly on 10/8 @ 2:30 pm #
After all…she does speak five languages.
Comment by kelly on 10/8 @ 2:34 pm #
Also, did she pick out the wine with dinner? Alpha. Very Alpha. Those Super Tuscans can be real brutes. To say nothing of a youthful Barolo.
Comment by kelly on 10/8 @ 2:38 pm #
And, lastly, was she able to divine the Patriarcahl Hegemonic constructs of Marco’s wielding of the blow torch around the tiramisu? Nothing speaks of the oppression of the phallus like a blow torch.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/8 @ 6:45 pm #
The evil genius of feminism was not making the personal political, it was making the political personal, and making enmity between men and women in relationships.
Comment by andy on 10/8 @ 8:47 pm #
‘They claim that there isn’t a “male role,†and that such things are “social constructs.‒
Thats a different story than what we have above.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/8 @ 9:24 pm #
“Thats a different story than what we have above.”
Could you just get on with it and reveal yourself and your true intentions?
Comment by Pablo on 10/8 @ 9:37 pm #
Alec, meet actus. And the answer to your question is “No”. Not his style.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/8 @ 9:44 pm #
“Alec, meet actus. And the answer to your question is “Noâ€Â. Not his style.”
andy . . . andy . . . come out an git your whoopin’
Comment by Synova on 10/8 @ 9:47 pm #
Matt, “I want us to get in the car and worry about discussing important stuff, like what to buy to eat. Its frustrating for someone with a strong personality to be forced into arguing/discussing every little thing.”
I have a question related to the “type A” thing… As a type A, do YOU argue and discuss every little thing? I don’t think that arguing or discussing every little thing is related to leadership tendencies. I think it’s just bad habits. And annoying.
Oh, I used “subservient” on purpose to distinguish it from having a cooperative and helpful attitude. Which men ought to have as much as women, really, if they are going to get along long term.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 10/9 @ 4:42 am #
Sorry, that just gave me a http://www.badmovies.org/movies/beneathapes/beneathapes8.jpg“>flashback.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 10/9 @ 4:43 am #
Well, crap.
Comment by andy on 10/9 @ 5:38 am #
“Could you just get on with it and reveal yourself and your true intentions?”
I’d like a link to a feminist co-opting the male role. I suspect what they’re doing isn’t quite ‘co-opting.’
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/9 @ 5:44 am #
“I’d like a link to a feminist co-opting the male role. I suspect what they’re doing isn’t quite ‘co-opting.’”
You’re not paying attention.
Trackback by Spot Cash Market on 10/13 @ 9:00 pm #
Spot Cash Market…
0…
Trackback by Statistics Of Second Hand Smoke Arizona on 10/23 @ 3:18 pm #
Statistics Of Second Hand Smoke Arizona…
The tobacco industry has worked All, Afric, ALL, AR, Argen, AZ. aged 12 t…
Trackback by Cheap Cruises Alaska on 11/3 @ 4:59 am #
Cheap Cruises Alaska
Save up to 70 percent on your Alaska, Bermuda, Bahamas, Caribbean. Alaska, Panama Cana
Trackback by The Nut Gatherers Small on 6/30 @ 6:09 pm #
The Nut Gatherers Small…
Texan Nutshellers- manufacturer of the best darn products for th…