Rhinocrisy

Maureen Dowd chronicles the extent of the backlash in this week’s New York Times Magazine, in a piece titled “What’s a Modern Girl to do?” Depressing stuff. It has scary Halloween bits for boys AND girls:

At a party for the Broadway opening of “Sweet Smell of Success,” a top New York producer gave me a lecture on the price of female success that was anything but sweet. He confessed that he had wanted to ask me out on a date when he was between marriages but nixed the idea because my job as a Times columnist made me too intimidating. Men, he explained, prefer women who seem malleable and awed. He predicted that I would never find a mate because if there’s one thing men fear, it’s a woman who uses her critical faculties. Will she be critical of absolutely everything, even his manhood?

and:

Having boomeranged once, will women do it again in a couple of decades? If we flash forward to 2030, will we see all those young women who thought trying to Have It All was a pointless slog, now middle-aged and stranded in suburbia, popping Ativan, struggling with rebellious teenagers, deserted by husbands for younger babes, unable to get back into a work force they never tried to be part of?

It’s easy to picture a surreally familiar scene when women realize they bought into a raw deal and old trap. With no power or money or independence, they’ll be mere domestic robots, lasering their legs and waxing their floors - or vice versa - and desperately seeking a new Betty Friedan.

Good reading, and it certainly raises my respect for Ms. Dowd (about whom I know next to nothing - a favorable first impression).

I think it’s neat how blargs are forcing interactivity on more traditional media.

Ha’aretz, for example, started putting comments on all their articles. They’re not especially informative, but they are a remarkable juxtaposition, with the measured journalism of the paper on one side and the hotheaded rants of Israeli/Palestinian society on the other.

Or consider this salacious science article about the effect of make-up on attractiveness. The comments aren’t especially enlightening in and of themselves, but they do say a little something about how (and what) people ingest when they read. This article, for example, describes a study whose essential conclusion was, (a) beauty is a strong cue for fertility, and (b) make-up can compensate for lack of beauty. The responses, mostly from women, run the gamut:

Natural beauty has always been that “natural” and beautiful, but at what point will women realize themselves, without looking at the latest magazine or model to pattern themselves after.

Great article, hopefully the light bulbs start glowing for some.

- Cath, Canada

or:

Make-up won’t help an ugly woman; if she’s ugly, no amount of make up will help. Make up is only there to enhance features.
…
- Jennifer Fletcher, London UK

My favorite doesn’t even address the substance of the article, but undercuts the assumptions of the person who wrote it:

“It is the most important part of a woman’s day.”

Words fail me about how offensive that opening statement is. It belittles all the other contributions and accomplishments that women make to society and their families and friends during the day, whether at the office or at home or elsewhere. Putting on make-up may “set the stage” for the day for many women, but it’s hardly the most important part of the day.

- Anne, USA

I’m actually starting to expect it, now. The other day I was reading an article about two new moons discovered orbiting Pluto. I immediately thought, “How do they know these are actual moons and not Kuiper Belt transients? I better post a comment acting about it.” It was only after I began searching for the comment link that I remembered, “Oh. Right. You can’t do that everywhere.” Yet.

While I was gone:

1. Someone bombed Delhi.

2. Bush appointed a strong conservative with an extensive judicial record. Simultaneously, Democrats released talking points about how the new nominee is really Samael.

3. Paris rioted.

4. ExxonMobil posted third-quarter profits of $9.9 billion.