The following is from the New York Times, in which Nick Denton said that "four or five years ago, no one was thinking about women", and after which the author wrote:
“And what are (editors note: women) readers interested in? This week, it was wedding trains big enough to require their own ZIP codes, shoes that cost as much as cars and loving loutish men who do a poor job of loving them back. Jezebel live-blogged the public premiere of “Sex and the City,” (in flip-flops no less, how very 2.0), Journal Women looked at the implications of combining cleavage and pinstripes, Glam went wall-to-wall with “Shoes and the City,” Shine had video interviews with the franchise’s four principals. SheZoom had a five-part deconstruction teasing apart the ethos of the show. Some sites sat out the hype, with The XX Factor preferring to focus on the tidy pleasures of a “Daily Show” spoof of the show and Divine Caroline, a West Coast site, focused on issues closer to home and office, such as, “Why do guys think it’s appropriate to adjust themselves in public?”
Um. What? No, I really wasn't a part of ANY of that. Didn't read anything like that. Didn't think anything like that. Not at least on my internet. The article continued:
I realize we are all, like it or not, having a moment with “Sex and the City,” (editors note: we ALL are? I mean, I want very much to see the movie with my grrlfriend but I really don't think we are ALL having a moment) no more or less frivolous than the Super Bowl. It’s just odd that while there has been a significant advance in sites by and for women, much of what is being produced replicates, rather than revolutionizes, the template set down by women’s magazines for decades (note to self: do they say shit fuck sucks hate and bullshit in Redbook?)."
“The lack of evolution is disappointing to me,” said Caterina Fake, one of the founders of Flickr.com. “Back in 1996, it was going to be this brave new world where women were finally going to take control of their stories, and to me, it is often more a crushing sameness (editors note: no sir? same? I see miles of differences between us broads every day but with the same kind of crazy different shit that makes us like each other anyway: I don't think that constitutes sameness).”
After so many years of being on the wrong end of what (male) media executives choose to dish up, women have taken matters into their own able hands. So far, it’s a shallow (editors note: really? shallow?) revolution, but one that carries deep implications. (Editors note: Oh, I'll show you implications.)"
This article was written by David Carr of the New York Times. His name implies that he is a man. I only point that out to, um... point out that he is a man and also to say that he has no fucking idea what women are really talking about. His one eyeball is filled with his lame and naive idea of women because of women sites including
IVillage, (ivillage.com), the mother of all mothers’ sites,continues to rumble along, with Glam (glam.com), a federation of gossipy blog sites in hot pursuit. SheZoom (shezoom.com) began offering a video portal this year, Slate has a subsite called The XX Factor (slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor), Yahoo grabbed magazine veteran Brandon Holley (Elle Girl, Jane) to produce Shine (shine.yahoo.com), Nick Denton’s Jezebel (jezebel.com) found immediate traction, PopSugar (popsugar.com) took the celebrity route toa girl’s heart.
Let me be the one to show Mr. Carr the way to a girl's heart: fuck you brother.
I think the reason most of us write or read on the big bad internet is because corporate America has failed us in so many, many ways (and also because we like putting fingers to keyboard). We don't see our selves on news stands or on TV, and please correct me if I am wrong, but we don't see ourselves on IVillage or other we've-researched-it-so-you'll- like-it sites like that.
I see myself here. And sometimes you come along.
So, Mr. Carr, if you want to know what women are really thinking and talking about please, next time, ask me. Because I got, what is it -- go see "WHAT TO WHEN NOT WEEDING" sidebar -- um, well, a big BUNCH of lady friends who are seriously not thinking about shoes.
12commentsBrilliant Person Wrote...
Amen sistah!
I haven't seen SITC and probably won't have the time or desire to. What with real life bearing down on us women and all. I will however, be dragged by my fingernails to see Kung-Fu Panda. Because the fates hate me.
Oh Christ. Gender issues aside, allow me a brief rant about the big fucking ego of The NYT and their view that whatever is relevant in that city is also relevant to the rest of the country. One of the big downsides to living in upstate New York is having to explain over and over to people elsewhere that no, I do not live anywhere near the city, and no, where I live is NOTHING LIKE the city. In fact, most people here hate NYC and everything it represents and won't even go there. I personally like the city itself, for short stays, but The NYT needs to get its head out of its ass and realize that the world does not revolve around what New York City dwellers consider important.
And frankly, I'm not at all surprised that a man felt it necessary to tell women what they should be thinking about. Shoes, my ass. The only shoes I think about on a daily basis are my rubber boots when it rains. What a prick.
Okay, done ranting now! Back to shiny happy thoughts!
I love shoes. Love them. In fact, I'm wearing very high heels, and I'd like to suggest either (a) where writers like that can stick them or (b) that perhaps one might choose to walk a mile or so in them before deciding to tell me what to think or worse, what I do think. Please.
Stands up screaming and applauding! Awesome, awesome post! No other words for you than FUCK YES!
FYI My friend Dave is way better looking than Clay. Way. Think gay soap star that isn't out of the closet yet. Glad you enjoyed the story!
Are these people on crack? Seriously? What's on my mind lately is real life. Like paying the bills in this God-forsaken economy. I could give a crap about Sex in the City. Never seen the show in my life.
Uh, I haven't paid a nanosecond's attention to Sex & The City. I've never watched an episode of it, I won't see the movie and the closest I've ever come to emulating any of it is drinking a cosmopolitan in an overpriced bar in Northampton. Feh.
I've been thinking about the elections, the Scott McClellan book and how to keep myself from losing my fucking mind. And not necessarily in that order.
Awesome post!
SITC doesn't interest me at all, unless I'm somehow the one involved.
dear lovely people and asshole NY Times writer:
um... see?
Screw SATC. Go see Indy and have frickin' beer.
Love the blog and that's for the post on my site. I'm both intrigued by you and frightened for what little manhood I have remaining. It's a living.
Rock on!
Visions of Johanna. Thanks for reading!
I suppose it a way it's also insulting b/c apparently anyone who likes SITC or even shoes for that matter - are somehow...less? Like Men who likes their toys, and tvs, and video games, and...I don't know...porn are any less different? If liking a movie and shoes makes me less of a women, or mother, or wife....I realize this isn't written very well....However, it irritates me . For the record, I've never seen SITC and I last pair of shoes I bought was a pair of Keds.
Now you... you, I like.
I found you through the Always Home and Uncool post (and would love to hear which part of the FC you're from ; Stamford in da house).
I like your take on life. And best wishes to your cousin; I hope she kicked cancer in the muthaeffin ass. My sister has stage 4 breast cancer, currently presenting its sorry self in her brain. Current tally: 8 tumors down, 1 to go.
No blog of my own to refer you to, but some time soon that will change.
Post a Comment