"I mean, a woman who is really enjoying life, who doesn't withhold anything from herself, a woman who recognizes what she wants and takes it? To quote Posh, that's major. But the assumption that women are only trading one feeble attempt at attracting men (deprivation in order to be or stay thin) for another one (circumventing former vegetarianism in order to get a date) is just fucking sexist bullshit."
I have long had a blog-crush on Weetabix, and this post from her paid gig at Elastic Waist made me love her even more. It's based on a stupid, stupid, stupid article from the New York Times that I'd seen on my own last week and quietly fumed about, because it's all about women overthinking everything and contorting themselves in yet another way to make themselves attractive to men, and men judging women on some ridiculous crap that means nothing, and women doing a right-back-atcha move on the men. (The walkaway quote in this story made me want to stab myself in the eye. I was thisclose to getting away with feeling all superior about how no self-respecting woman would ever judge a man that way, and then... yeah. Thanks, Brice, freelance design writer.)
The way the article was written infuriated me too. And the Internet dating angle. And that weird undertone about sex that's in there also, about what women want and how they get it, and aarghghgh I'm so irritated. This has totally, like, harshed my Wednesday-night post-yoga buzz, man. Read this.
5 comments:
Doh. I read that article last week, too. I honestly don't know if it has ever occurred to me that what I order could make a difference in anything else around me. I mean, sure, I've thought about the cost of what I order, and often choose things that are less expensive if someone else is paying... but not the content of the meal itself. Although, I do have to say that Todd was pretty impressed when I ordered a steak medium-rare at the beginning of our relationship. He was also impressed with my Old Bay addiction. :)
*flames...on the side of my face!!* when I read that article. Everything you and Weetabix say are true. I'm so entirely sick of vegetarians being declared as fussy and women who eat salads as being dismissed as somehow less sexual. And it horrified me that the vegetarian they quoted in the article is Sloane, my writer-friend from college. The thing that makes me most itchy about the whole mess -- and maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist, but oh well -- is that I'm sure the beef industry slipped someone a wad of cash to start spreading rumors that they're sexy and women won't be able to nab a man unless they eat steak. Maybe it's not so clear-cut as that, but you catch my drift. YUCK!
(Hi Anne S. -- I just realized I forgot to link to you on the side. That is rectified and you no longer have to cry yourself to sleep at night.)
I can't believe that is your friend Sloane. I would love to know if the author of that article was as big of a douchebag in real life as the article made him sound. I'm thinking... yes. I completely buy that conspiracy theory about the beef industry, by the way.
Alissa, I pay attention to the money too, even when it shouldn't matter -- THAT would be a more interesting sociological study, I think.
Bah! We don't get to read it unless we upgrade to Times Select. How lame.
There's a lot of "old thinking" that continues to pervade. How do you profit by homing in on a few little tidbits and agitating yourself over them? Do any of your friends or relatives think in those ways that were described? If so, then they serve as points of contrast for you to reflect upon. If not, then it's a non-issue. Please resume your yoga high.
Carl! That sucks -- stupid NYT's archived articles and are no longer free after a week. I'd offer to copy and paste it for you, but it's not worth it.
And I think getting agitated is good for you sometimes. It makes you think outside your comfort zone, so to speak, and yoga as a whole would approve of that. :)
Post a Comment