Today, I had some time to read the news and got so excited, because I'm a nerd like that. Sadly, the first three articles I read annoyed me so much that not only did I stop reading, but I also felt compelled to share them with you.

Hooking Up for Sex: Sluts or New Feminists?
The title alone should have made me stay away, but I took the plunge. I was so annoyed, I wanted to pull my hair out. 1) Please, let's stop talking to slut shamers, yes? 2) Let's also stop centering all these discussions on women. 3) Can more of these pieces be about societal expectations, sexual repression, etc.? 4) No, seriously, are we really still talking about this?!

Newsweek Still Wages Gender War, 40 Years Later
Okay, this article about women in journalism isn't actually bad, except this really confused me:

On the 40th anniversary of the revolt, much has changed for women, who have since forged sexual freedoms and broken glass ceilings in political life and in the workplace.

What the hell does sexual freedom have anything to do with glass ceilings, journalism, politics, etc.? Talk about out of place. In retrospect, it probably wouldn't have bugged me as much if not for the article I read right before it and right after. Which brings me to the winner of the bunch...

Do Open Marriages Work?
The intro alone suggests that she believes open marriages don't work, but since she laid it out as the good, bad, and "#$@%^!" I thought it was safe to continue. I was wrong.

What she labels "good" is written with such skepticism, it's less about the "good" and more about her judgment on what others find good. Also, major fail for bringing up pizza(???) as a comparison in a discussion about open relationships. Added fail for making it only about sex. I mean, did she do any research at all?

The "bad" is not about general challenges to open marriages; it's about her own problems with it. Which, okay, cool... but then don't mention anything about research in your article. Because research implies some sort of objectivity, no?

As for the "#$@%^!" section, all I can say is thanks so much for reinforcing stereotypes and using your own preconceived notions to speak for a community of men AND WOMEN who choose this lifestyle. This made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside:
By the end of my research, I firmly believed that open marriage is merely an excuse for getting away with behaving self-indulgently and recklessly. In my book "Prince Harming Syndrome", any man who wants an open marriage is what I call a Prince Harming.

I now see why she titled this section "#$@%^!" - she left me feeling a little like that myself.

Though I must say I laughed at:
It was surprisingly difficult to find statistics on whether open marriages work. Ironically, open marriage isn't something we talk about all that openly.
Yes, it's SUCH a surprise given how open-minded and non-judgmental people are about it! I've never encountered any resistance to it! Certainly not in your own piece, heck no!

I'm done ranting, you can carry on now.

(cross-posted at Feministe)

0 comments:

Post a Comment


feed me! yummy!

Jump off the Bridge

the archive

what I blog about

communities & stats

trophy case

brillante weblog award