No, I don’t think I’ll ever let go your textbook example of literal gynophobia anytime soon. At least, not as long as you still keep trying to sell gender norms for women that went out of style about four hundred years ago.
Ross Douchehat, The New York Times is a Worthwhile Newspaper and Other Jokes:
The Daughter Theory
Holy fucking shit, first Bobo and now Douchehat with awkward apologia for think tank bullshit.
Did Krugthulu stomp around the NY Times office delivering smackdowns with a Cluebot 9000 or something? Because all the usual fuckwits seem to be licking their wounds about the fact that they are lifelong wingnut welfare hacks who wouldn’t know real science if it bit them on the taint.
And huzzah to that brave soul, whoever it was, that has them smarting so visibly as it’s at least got the cradle-to-grave shills to at least acknowledge the vile mess they’ve been leaving on the carpet and at least make some sort of half-hearted response.
And while, neither blow was wholly successful, they both seem to have left their share of psychic damage, reducing Bobo to a bizarre Two Face re-enactment as he tried to dodge self-awareness.
As for our favorite “Chunky Reese Witherspoon-fearing” gynophobe, his response is well…
Shorter (or the last port before Jungle):
- Are we complete hacks who cling to our think tank pseudoscience as if it was a life raft? Well, you love it when your so-called “real” science proves your point, so clearly this think tank piece I’m being asked to pimp arguing that everyone are stereotypical TV dads is super science and will make everyone a conservative and prevent us from ever having to drop our war on women so there!
Stupid? I think I’m going to go with stupid. But desperate would definitely be a close second.
FOR our age of wonks and white papers and warring experts,
Awww, he wants to pretend that the media debate between “think tanks” and actual scientific inquiry is a “debate” among equals.
That’s so self-delusional, it’s downright cute.
there ought to be a word — something just short of, though not shorter than, schadenfreude — for the gentle thrill inspired by a social-science finding that mildly unsettles one’s ideological opponents.
Being a complete hack?
I mean, yeah, I’m a giant fucking nerd who geeks out over interesting sociological research on the nature of social justice movements, or a fist-bump worthy queer theory or feminist theory paper, or hell, just a cool new development on mitochondrial DNAs affects on senescence and ageing.
But that’s because I care about genuine science. And view actual science as being more important than fighting an ideological “battle”.
In fact, that’s the case for most liberals in general. We want to accept the science and reality as it is rather than what would make it the easiest rhetorical argument. Whether that is the fact that queer people exist in a greater diversity of experiences than photogenic white people who want to marry in the suburbs with 2.5 children and a dog. Or the fact that catastrophic climate change isn’t just a nice round-the-year even increase in local temperatures but a massive clusterfuck of weather effects that adds up to an increase in “unusual” and “holy fucking shit is everything shifting around in a bad way”. Or even the fact that evolution doesn’t print a nice fat copyright on the side of each nucleus saying “no, there wasn’t a fucking God involved so shut your ignorant mouths”.
Reality isn’t ideologically convenient. It doesn’t fit nice little preconceived notions that don’t overly startle the gazelle-like sensibilities of privileged wankers. It’s a messy filthy mess that only becomes more intriguing and satisfying the more you morass yourself within its multitude of facets.
So no, most liberals don’t actually “thrill” to have a hack piece reinforce their preconceptions about conservatives or create a piece to make conservatives sputter.
It’s merely a happy side-effect of conservatives becoming increasingly aware that they can’t just stamp their little feet and make reality stop being so damn liberal just because they want it to.
And we already have a word for what observing that elicits. It’s schadenfreude.
I’m thinking of the satisfied tingle a liberal might get from a study that suggests high taxes are good for economic growth.
You’re just as bad as we are! Sure, your economic models are actually proven accurate again and again, whereas our fantasies collapse every single time they are tried, but uh… you’re just as bad as we are!
Or the spring added to a libertarian’s step by a report that environmental regulations hurt the poor.
This has pretty much been Douchehat’s dominant tactic since he was hired to be yet another wingnut affirmative action hire at the Old Grey Lady. Pairing off a complete fantasy of an IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION with a very mild example of “conservative bad behavior” so as to argue that the true reality lies smack dab in the “middle” which just so happens to be whatever bit of sex-phobic nutjobbery his Church wants him to pimp this week.
I’d act shocked that people are paid 6-7 figure salaries to do work this shoddy and hacktastic, but I think I’m just numb to the insult by now.
Or the pleasure that I took recently from the headline: “Study: Having daughters makes parents more likely to be Republican.”
Why pleasure? Well, because previous research on this question had suggested the reverse, with parents of daughters leaning left and parents of sons rightward.
Well, what do you know, a “study” that’s not actually from any accredited university, but rather a think tank with a nasty habit of ignoring reality in order to defend the status quo disagrees with what the actual genuine sociological research on the subject says?
Well, that’s how you totally know it’s real and not just a smear piece designed to muddy the waters of discourse so that talking head hacks like you can tut-tut people who actually know what the fuck they are talking about for the benefit of the five or six people who still trust any news source outside of the Colbert Report and maybe Rachel Maddow.
I mean, fuck, he’s not even trying to hide the complete fail of this appeal to think tank. Straight up admitting that he’s latching onto it because it says what he wants to hear rather than what science has already concluded.
I don’t think I’m asking for much, when I ask that our hack overlords at least try to hide being willing to straight up fuck with our national understanding of science and academic research in order to score cheap ideological points.
And those earlier findings dovetailed neatly with liberal talking points about politics and gender: Republicans make war on women, Democrats protect them, so it’s only natural that raising girls would make parents see the wisdom of liberalism …
You know what?
So it’s an inaccurate puff piece on a bit of think tank hackitude. That’s just how it works in these rock and roll shows, by which I mean on pretty much every page of the New York Times these days.
So instead of ripping apart yet another carefully chosen “counter-factual” bullshit story for aging octagenarians to angrily send to their kids, let’s just focus on the fact that even if you grant his ludicrous bullshit study as valid, his argument is fucking monstrous on its face.
I mean, fuck, look at his construction here. He is literally arguing that the idea that parents (and you know by parents, he is solely thinking “dads”) can love their daughters and view them as people who deserve to be treated as such is a liberal fucking talking point.
Which, hey, maybe that really is the sad reality we live in, but you’d expect like the barest glimpse of a smokescreen about it rather than a gleeful concession.
But the new study undercuts those talking points. Things are more complicated than you thought, liberals! You can love your daughters, want the best for them, and find yourself drawn to … conservative ideas!
You may think you love your daughters and want them to experience a life where they don’t have to fear that one broken condom could be a literal death sentence because of what a bunch of wanna be rapists think of the role of women in society, but HA, my made-up bullshit says you are naturally a sitcom dad nervously fingering a shotgun and aching to ban all sexuality in the hopes that it’ll prevent her from ever discovering kissing! TAKE THAT LIBERALS!
You’ll hate the filthy she-creatures as much as I do. YOU’LL SEE! YOU’LL SEE!!!
Especially if you’re highly educated, which is where the effect was strongest! Better dust off a different set of talking points — maybe something about the family as the source of all oppression and how deeply internalized patriarchal norms make parents subconsciously inclined to tyrannize their female offspring and then we can argue about that!
Yes, I’m afraid this is actually the kind of internal monologue that comes with arguing about politics for a living.
A) Yes, if your study was real rather than the wishful thinking of a bunch of sexists, then yes, it would be a sign of a deep patriarchal rot that infantalizes and diminishes daughters and still views them as property instead of full human beings.
It would be a sign of a deep sickness in our very culture where women were regularly betrayed by their own families because loyalty to a disappearing system of gender norms was trumping the very notions of empathy and love.
So yeah, that would be a big fucking discussion point, Douchehat.
B) Maybe if you actually listened to the argument of those evil feminazis who apparently run in internal monologue in your head, instead of wondering how best to twist the argument to temporary rhetorical advantage, maybe you could take the first step to deconstructing your massive issues with sex and women and could begin the first step of becoming someone who was capable of friendships, much less love or humanity.
But let me make a more limited, more personal argument on the subject. The next round of research may “prove” something completely different about daughters and voting behavior. But as a father of girls
Oh fucking Bob, he’s a parent…
I don’t think any fact has ever filled me with such horror and empathetic pain as that in my entire life.
Those poor poor children.
Also, shock of shocks, paid hack latches onto made-up research that tells him that the way he is is totally the norm that everyone should be naturally.
NO ONE COULD HAVE PREDICTED!
and a parent whose adult social set still overlaps with the unmarried,
Wow, if that sentence was any more mangled in order to achieve maximum prudery, it’d be the hunk of wood jammed right up your ass right now.
I do have a sense of where a daughter-inspired conservatism might come from, whatever political form it takes.
It’s not narcissistic to assume everyone is exactly like me, right? Cause Jesus said some shit about being humble and I don’t want to get into trouble.
It comes from thinking about their future happiness, and about a young man named Nathaniel P.
This character, Nate to his friends, doesn’t technically exist: He’s the protagonist in Adelle Waldman’s recent novel of young-Brooklynite manners, “The Love Affairs of Nathaniel P.”
But his type does exist, in multitudinous forms, wherever successful young people congregate, socialize, pair off. He’s not the worst sort of guy by any means — not a toxic bachelor or an obnoxious pick-up artist. He’s well intentioned, sensitive, mildly idealistic. Yet he’s also a source of immense misery — both short-term and potentially lifelong — for the young women in his circle.
“Contrary to what these women seemed to think,” Waldman writes of Nathaniel P.’s flings and semi-steady girlfriends, “he was not indifferent to their unhappiness. And yet he seemed, in spite of himself, to provoke it.”
Well, if random fiction books support… actually I don’t know what the hell this is supposed to support. Is this Nathaniel guy supposed to be a parent here or just the disaffected and romantically unsuccessful emo hero of pretty much every manic pixie dream girl story ever written?
He provokes it by taking advantage of a social landscape in which sex has been decoupled from marriage but biology hasn’t been abolished, which means women still operate on a shorter time horizon for crucial life choices — marriage, kids — than do men. In this landscape, what Nate wants — sex, and the validation that comes with being wanted — he reliably gets. But what his lovers want, increasingly, as their cohort grows older — a more permanent commitment — he can afford to persistently withhold, feeling guilty but not that guilty about doing so.
Wow! Not the idea presented in the mess of this paragraph, because that’s the same bullshit chestnut that evopsych con artists have been trying to push ever since the sexual revolution let the cat out of the bag about how women enjoy sex just as often and as much as men do. Men only want sex and women only want marriage because we’re hoping if we repeat that transparent falsity loudly enough everyone will kindly go back in their boxes and pretend the last 50 years of advancements for sexual rights never happened.
No, rather just how hilariously he tries to obscure his archaic gender norm argument by plumming the depths of his thesaurus and pulling out all his “one page argument into five page paper” essay writing tactics.
It’s just such a wonderful train wreck of mediocrity failing ambition that I can’t help but applaud it for its raw gumption.
Waldman’s portrait of Nate’s romantic life is sympathetic enough to have earned her fan mail from young men. But it’s precisely because Nate is sympathetic rather than toxic that the “Nathaniel P.” phenomenon — or what Rebecca Traister has dubbed “the scourge of indecisive men” — is a hard problem to escape.
I’m sorry, but I’m a little younger than your argument, so I have a hard time believing that the “scourge of indecisive men” was ever a serious problem, much less a problem that a meaningful number of women or men my age give a fuck about.
This is an era where no one blinks if you’ve been dating 5 years with no current plans for marriage (or even no plans on marrying ever), but chokes on their tea a little bit if you start talking about tying the knot without even dating for a year.
Everyone is getting the “sex for free”, i.e. not giving a shit about a particularly unromantic view of marriage as a duty one performs for gender norms and not worrying overly much about what a bunch of vagina-phobic prudes think is “proper”.
Indeed, it seems like one of the hidden taproots of well-educated women’s work-life-balance angst, and one of the plausible explanations for declining female happiness in a world of expanded female opportunity.
Well, if made-up bullshit think tank pieces and afactual evopsych “research” says it’s so, who are we to argue?
Clearly, all the women are unhappy because Mr. Right (because all women are heterosexual or they get the hose again) is dithering too long on the ring because of all the sex he can get if he’s not tricking a woman into an institution she hates and…
Yeah, seriously, who do you even think you’re going to fool with this garbage. It’s 2013. You’re not going to get your fictional 50s society back no matter how much you beg the Sky God.
And lurking in Waldman’s novel, as in many portraits of the dating scene (ahem, Lena Dunham, ahem), is a kind of moral traditionalism that dare not speak its name
Any form of media is going to beholden to demands to cater to media tropes, many of which are far more archaic than the general pulse of the population.
Look at abortion for instance. By media depiction, it is a horror show and everyone is against the barbaric practice. By movie depiction, it is an option very seldom considered and when it is, it is always rejected because no director has the ovaries to stand behind the reality. And the reality is that 1 in 3 women get an abortion in the course of their lives. It’s just another routine surgery that a bunch of bigots decided to turn into a battleground in the hopes of turning back the clock and making women back into house slaves.
And it’s the same for relationship tropes. Look at actual instances of open relationships, BDSM practices in the bedroom, open dialogues about sex, non-normative gender norm dynamics and then look at what dominates our media representation of what a “husband and wife” looks like. How they have “sex”. What their relationship “looks like”.
What we see is often something that no one is.
But that doesn’t stop conservative idiots like you, unable to distinguish between media narrative and reality, from pointing to this bullshit narrative as if it was the way everybody be.
— or that can be spoken of only in half-jest, as when the novelist Benjamin Kunkel told Traister that the solution was “some sort of a sexual strike against just such men.”
Because Kunkel is right: One obvious solution to the Nathaniel P. problem is a romantic culture in which more is required of young men before the women in their lives will sleep with them.
Very true. I imagine it would solve a lot of problems if a man had to demonstrate a strong understanding of consent and basic respect for their partner’s autonomy before ever being allowed within 50 feet of anyone’s sex organs. Hell, if that was true for everyone without regards for sex. It is appalling that in this day and age, there are so many people who seem wholly ignorant and even hostile to the notion of consent and-
Oh… you mean some bullshit about being super fundie Christian and being the type of complete dick who’d freak out a prospective sexual partner because she was respectful enough of herself and her romantic partner to ensure that there was proper barrier protection instead of risking STDs and pregnancy so that repressed closet cases could pretend they’re “clean” for sexy shirtless Jesus…
Well, okay then. I’m sure that’s nice too, I guess…
To the extent that parents tend to see the next generation’s world through their children’s eyes, that’s an insight that’s more immediately available through daughters than through sons.
I don’t even know what the fuck he’s trying to say here. But hey, that’s probably already more thought given to this paragraph than Douchehat ever did.
And no matter what the next study says about your likelihood of actually turning into a Republican, once you’ve flirted with that insight, you’ve tiptoed a little closer to something that might be described as social conservatism.
Okay, fine, you’re right, damn you, it’s a transparent hack job so I can fuck off for Christmas an extra day early. And sure, it’s a meaningless think tank piece that does nothing to change the reality that surrounds us or make my fantasies into reality, but we can pretend can’t we?
That everyone is going to wake up one morning and realize they’ve been conservative all along and we can have the permanent Republican majority we were promised without ever ever having to change with the times?
We can do that, right?
Even if you live in Brooklyn.
Oh holy fuck, I might have to get a real job sometime in my lifespan…
I think I just wet myself.
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. ~Bring your daughters to the slaughter!~ We are aware of all Internet traditions.™