Woggle Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 Thoughts on this article? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/fashion/20love.html
sweetjasmine Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 Thoughts on this article? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/fashion/20love.html It's jumbled and weird, and it reads like prose poetry, not an article.
Thaddeus Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 *yawn* Yet another article by a woman who's living under the delusion that she knows what men are all about.
Isolde Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 That's seriously one of the more poorly written things I've seen in the NYT. The author should have stuck to narrating her experiences for what they were rather than making up this ridiculous theory about guys vs. men.
sweetjasmine Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 That's seriously one of the more poorly written things I've seen in the NYT. The author should have stuck to narrating her experiences for what they were rather than making up this ridiculous theory about guys vs. men. But she wasn't even outlining her theory about guys vs. men. She just rattled off a few things without explaining what the f she was talking about. It reads like prose poetry, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was what she was going for. I wouldn't take it as an article whose purpose is to propose a theory or make an argument.
Isolde Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 But she wasn't even outlining her theory about guys vs. men. She just rattled off a few things without explaining what the f she was talking about. It reads like prose poetry, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was what she was going for. I wouldn't take it as an article whose purpose is to propose a theory or make an argument. It's too incomplete to be a theory, and too deadpan to be poetic. Not a successful piece at all IMO.
sweetjasmine Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 It's too incomplete to be a theory, and too deadpan to be poetic. Not a successful piece at all IMO. Agreed. It just came off as a bunch of gibberish.
Island Girl Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 I find many things wrong with her definition of what constitutes a man verses a "guy". Her writing is muddled and confused (such as the state of her mind obviously) - I think she is an idiot. The sad thing is she says she is professor. I can't imagine what she is teaching anyone.
Thaddeus Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 She's a poet and a professor of English at Rhode Island College specializing in feminist literature. Cathleen Calbert
BUENG1 Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 Thoughts on this article? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/fashion/20love.html I don't really understand the point of the article. It is very scatterbrained. First she seems to say that "men" are strong, level headed, reasonable always in control. Then she spends the rest of the article her alcholic, abusive nut case father as the perfect representation of a man.
aerogurl87 Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 I was lost, and when you can get lost reading an article (and not in that "caught up in the article because it was so good" way) then to me that says that it is horribly written and someone should've did another revision to make it a bit more clear.
Sam Spade Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 The Wall Street Journal would never publish crap like this . Long-winded self-congratulatory articles, cheep-ass intellectual snobbery. No, thank you very much. Bitch is irrelevant, just like the NYTimes as a whole.
Hkizzle Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 Wow I can't believe they published that crap, I could barely follow it. But it does say that she's a poet.
Trialbyfire Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 I think her point is that while a man protects, you can't get close to him and he's an island unto himself, lord of all he surveys, uncaring about softer and more positive emotions. With a guy, you can have emotional intimacy, more touchy-feely things, where he's willing to show you who he is inside. He won't take care of you but he will connect with you. So her premise is that the latter "guy" is who she prefers. I don't agree with her though. I think her foundational years have given her an inaccurate perspective, based on a tiny sampling.
Isolde Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 I think her point is that while a man protects, you can't get close to him and he's an island unto himself, lord of all he surveys, uncaring about softer and more positive emotions. With a guy, you can have emotional intimacy, more touchy-feely things, where he's willing to show you who he is inside. He won't take care of you but he will connect with you. So her premise is that the latter "guy" is who she prefers. I don't agree with her though. I think her foundational years have given her an inaccurate perspective, based on a tiny sampling. Where she REALLY lost me is when she said males in academia were "guys," not men. WTF??
Trialbyfire Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 Where she REALLY lost me is when she said males in academia were "guys," not men. WTF??As I don't agree with her premise for qualifying "men" and "guys", I can see why this doesn't make sense.
Sam Spade Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 I think her point is that while a man protects, you can't get close to him and he's an island unto himself, lord of all he surveys, uncaring about softer and more positive emotions. With a guy, you can have emotional intimacy, more touchy-feely things, where he's willing to show you who he is inside. He won't take care of you but he will connect with you. So her premise is that the latter "guy" is who she prefers. I don't agree with her though. I think her foundational years have given her an inaccurate perspective, based on a tiny sampling. In other words, just another boomer (the worst generation ever) rebellion against their parents (the greatest generation ever) . That's what's been keeping the NYTimes afloat for 4 decades. Anyway, 'guys' like her and her hubby are the kind of parents that surely aren't going to raise 'men', we know that much . As for 'guys' in academia - at least one study of testosterone concentration across different occupations has ranked academics right up there with the most agressive professions like lawyers and doctors. And more generally, those guys are the most overbearing, forcefully-opinionated, self-righteous, inconsiderate, paternalistic pains in the azz you can find anywhere. (Trust me, I'm one of them ). (Of course, none of that applies to her sample of effeminate, birkenstock-wearing, minimum-wage earning PhDs in english whose only affordable pleasure in life is feeling understanding of, yet oh-so-superior to everyone else . And I rest my case .)
Trialbyfire Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 Anyway, 'guys' like her and her hubby are the kind of parents that surely aren't going to raise 'men', we know that much . I don't disagree with this, if their entire marriage is one where she has full responsibility/control and he just runs around goofing off, being touchy-feely but taking no responsibility for the family. Her definitions appear to be based on a flawed Iceman v. Peter Pan. Cartoon characters.
ReturnToSender Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 Where she REALLY lost me is when she said males in academia were "guys," not men. WTF?? It took you that long to get lost? You are doing way better than me...I was trying to figure out WTF?! from the get go! This "article" was total trash IMO. Her experiences, as sad as they are, have left her with a very warped perception of men...it was more of a psuedo-poetic rant than anything. Would make a decent entry in a blog as random musings, but certainly not NYTimes material. Can just anyone post an article on there?
New Again Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 I didn't think it was too bad. If we're making gross generalizations, it kinda reminded me of real men - like John Wayne, who's grooming consisted of a sh*t and a shave - versus metro men (who have feelings and junk!! and get manicures...and stuff).
Isolde Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 Her experiences, as sad as they are, have left her with a very warped perception of men... I agree completely.
Author Woggle Posted September 22, 2009 Author Posted September 22, 2009 It seems that in her world the only type of men that exist are rigid oppresors and irresponsible overgrown kids. She needs to realize that there is more to the world than what she saw growing up.
Pyro Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 It seems that in her world the only type of men that exist are rigid oppresors and irresponsible overgrown kids. She needs to realize that there is more to the world than what she saw growing up. Sounds like some great advice that certain people should follow.
Citizen Erased Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 Sounds like some great advice that certain people should follow. Good point!
Recommended Posts