“Fashion tends to attract girls suffering from estrogen poisoning.”
Imagine a magazine article about soccer, golf, cosmetics, art, literature, tennis, finance, or…well, let’s say fashion, that included a phrase suggesting women’s interest in it was related to “estrogen poisoning”.
Unthinkable. Ghastly. Unforgivable. There would be an immediate call for its author to be fired. An immediate, prolonged Twitter riot, a festival of shaming. The author’s name and home address would be leaked, the author would get death threats. Demonstrations in front of the magazine’s offices would begin. Calls by celebrities, business leaders, fashion editors, newsmakers, politicians, and perhaps even the president of the united states, for the publisher of the magazine to step down, publicly apologize, or both. Advertisers would flee. It would be the hot topic on news programs and talk shows for days, and days.
But write an article that includes a phrase like that in a New York magazine, in reference to boys, about sports? No problem. Here’s the actual quote:
“Football tends to attract boys suffering from testosterone poisoning.”
I kid you not. I looked for evidence he was being ironic, self-aware, or humorous. Not there. Dude is serious. As most of us have heard it, when said by women, it’s tongue-in-cheek, a shot at male obsessions, like cars, or cigars, or boats, not exclusively about sports. Or, in an unguarded situation, when no men are in the room, I imagine, more at liberty to be frank, hostile and demeaning. Free to refer to the normal condition of being male as “poisoned”.
Since when do men say this? About boys?
Perhaps after years of exposure to it, Chait internalized the phrase, detached from any resemblance to humor or playful overstatement. Is this how liberals talk to other liberals? With a straight face?
Courtesy of Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine readers can endure a lecture by an insulting, sanctimonious, sexist, long-winded liberal, aimed at other misguided liberals, about sports. He thinks you don’t understand football. And he’s here to mansplain’ things.
Wait, there’s more. Imagine, if you will, a sentence like this in a respected New York magazine:
“Interior design channels girls’ misandristic hysteria into supervised forms, shapes them within boundaries, and gives them positive meaning. These virtues, like those often attributed to the fashion industry, can feel like clichés imported from an earlier era.”
Think I’m exaggerating? Here’s Chait’s actual sentence:
“Football channels boys’ chauvinistic belligerence into supervised forms, shapes them within boundaries, and gives them positive meaning. These virtues, like those often attributed to the military, can feel like clichés imported from an earlier era.”
There are other choice quotes, but you can read the whole spectacle here. But readers should know, the author a male. He is uneasy. And he wants you to know it.
For RealClearPolitics, Cathy Young writes: Last weekend’s horror in Santa Barbara, where 22-year-old Elliot Rodger killed six people and wounded more than a dozen before shooting himself, unexpectedly sparked a feminist moment. With revelations that Rodger’s killing spree was fueled by anger over rejection by women and that he had posted on what some described as a “men’s rights” forum (actually, a forum for bitter “involuntarily celibate” men), many rushed to frame the shooting as a stark example of the violent misogyny said to be pervasive in our culture. The Twitter hashtag #YesAllWomen sprung up as an expression of solidarity and a reminder of the ubiquity of male terrorism and abuse in women’s lives. Most of the posters in the hashtag were certainly motivated by the best of intentions. But in the end, this response not only appropriated a human tragedy for an ideological agenda but turned it into toxic gender warfare.
“…Most of the posters in the hashtag were certainly motivated by the best of intentions. But in the end, this response not only appropriated a human tragedy for an ideological agenda but turned it into toxic gender warfare.”
For one thing, “misogyny” is a very incomplete explanation of Rodger’s mindset, perhaps best described as malignant narcissism with a psychopathic dimension. His “manifesto” makes it clear that his hatred of women (the obverse side of his craving for validation by female attention, which he describes as so intense that a hug from a girl was infinitely more thrilling than an expression of friendship from a boy) was only a subset of a general hatred of humanity, and was matched by hatred of men who had better romantic and sexual success. At the end of the document, he chillingly envisions an ideal society in which women will be exterminated except for a small number of artificial-insemination breeders and sexuality will be abolished. But in an Internet posting a year ago, he also fantasized about inventing a virus that would wipe out all males except for himself: “You would be able to have your pick of any beautiful woman you want, as well as having dealt vengeance on the men who took them from you. Read the rest of this entry »