Another Stupid NY Times Article Supposedly About Feminism.

Here goes. Ok, so here not goes, since the link doesn't work because the NYT--wants to sell another one of yesterday's papers? Has no taste for the internets? Never mind. It was a crappy article in any case. Here's why.


Imagine writing about Betty Friedan's most well-known book and making a mistake about its title. Imagine making another mistake about a basic concept from her most well-known book. Imagine writing about "The Feminist Mystique" and thinking you're making any sense at all.

Somebody finally edited up Patti Cohen's bizarre creation, and had the mistakes she made in my home-delivered paper copy fixed by the time I went to the New York Times online this afternoon, but, oy--what's wrong at the Gray Lady? Now that we've heard of poor John Tierney weeping at there being just too damn many college-educated women, & now that we've read that rich, well-educated young women have more than enough damn money to be able to choose to whether to stay home or to go to work, one must ask--so, hey, which New York Times shill's putting down feminism now?

That would be Patti. Contrary to current revisionist historians such as Patti, ye olde-time women's libbers were perfectly well versed in, and supportive of--choices. Choices for men, and choices for women.

What part of that is so hard to follow?

Patti states, "But reality, of course, is messy and confusing. It's not clear what should give when women are still responsible for a disproportionate share of the housework . . .'

Uh, hello, DUUHH. What, are you kidding me? How stupid can one get?

That's the part that's hard to follow?

The part that suggests a 50/50 gender balance in jobs at the New York Times, all across the board? And elsewhere? A 50/50 balance in housework, and suchlike?

Is that what sticks in their gender-bent corporate craw? Yo.

With apologies to the Everly Brothers: Wake up, little Patti. Wake up.




New York Times
feminism
Tierney