I am beautiful when I'm angry

Friends of Jack & Hill Nancy and Amy have both sounded off today with some righteous fury about a recent trend in journalism: the wronged or disappointed woman who takes it upon herself to speak on behalf of all women (one of Nancy's commenters labeled this unpleasant creature "JournoBroad"), complaining about the boorish behavior of men, the imperfection of men, or the general disappointment they as post-feminist women feel at not being able to have it all and eat cake, too.

All of this gratuitous self-pity put me in mind of a story: I once worked for a very bad man, who was universally reviled by all who shared the misfortune of reporting to him. Many of my female colleagues would routinely say of him, "You know what his problem is--he hates women." My response to that was always, "No, I think he pretty much hates everybody." In truth, I had seen this man denigrate as many men as women, and I was pretty certain that he did indeed hate us all equally. I also felt that labeling him a sexist gave him the courage of conviction--where I believed he had none; I was pretty certain that his vile behavior stemmed from a nascent, reptilian awareness of his own inadequacy. In other words, he was a garden variety bully. No more.

When people promote biological or even cultural determinism in matters of race, it's called racial profiling, and it's unethical. Why then is gender profiling so socially acceptable that it's positively in fashion in the pages of the Atlantic and the LA Times? Is it really considered cute when women hate on men? Enough already with these shrill, reactionary screeds about how "men" supposedly "are". We ought to be better than this. Our level of discourse ought to be higher.

That, or maybe the Atlantic can hire me to write a serious treatise on how it's true that blondes really do have more fun. Pshaw! Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Comments

[nancy]

... right after they hire me to write "In Defense of Men."

[Dallas]

I always enjoy your "regular programming," but in this post your articulated so many things that I have always tried to put into words. Perhaps my anger towards that kind of writing made me a bad writer in the way these women's anger does theirs.

Anyways, well put!

I also enjoy your new look, by the way.

[Amy Alkon]

"Gender profiling" -- perfectly put.

[Cadence]

I agree with you. I have several friends who get together and the discussion falls into the standard negative 'husband/man' profiling. After eight years of marriage, I know my husband's flaws but I don't blame his gender. I've made it clear to these women that I don't participate in those types of discussions. Amazingly, the level of discourse does change. It is more positive, honest, and intelligent! Thanks for the thoughtful introspection!

[michele]

intelligent and true. good post.

[Philip Littell]

amen sister

the one pleasure of this election season is watching us all founder on obama/hillary (confounder?) and where/how we identify and to what we owe fealties/allegiances? And how weird we are in our responses even to ourselves... for example, liking obama more, I cast my vote for hillary because I woke up that morning saying aloud, "I just can't do that to her."

and who knew that obama would stub his toe on ... class?

and don't heads nod silently when I say, "Don't get me started."