The American Psychological Association Journal of Personality and Social Psychology released a study earlier this year that showed that men who were told their partners scored in the top 12 percent of university students demonstrated “significantly lower implicit self esteem” than men who were told their partners were in the bottom 12 percent. If you needed any further proof that the current state of masculinity has decayed to a skinny jeans-wearing, over-emotional, self-esteem lacking embarrassment, there it is. There are few things more “beta male” in this world than taking an emotional hit when the person you supposedly care about most knocks it out of the park.
If you can’t tell already, I couldn’t feel more differently. Obviously I’m going to date someone I’m attracted to, but she better have more qualities than looks if she thinks she’s getting a ring. A girl who is smart, hot, and fun to hang out with is the Holy Grail, so the idea that this many men would be upset about having a girl with a brain is beyond me. Instead, this is why having a smart and successful partner should be the ultimate goal and not a source of stress induced erectile dysfunction.
1. A Smart, Successful Wife Helps Your Ego
You bet your ass that my future wife will be a success in whatever she does and you can guarantee I’m going to be happy for her. Hell, I’ll even brag about it. Your wife did some sort of yoga in a 100 degree room today? Mine saved lives. Your wife got her nails done? So did mine, in between landing major accounts. Your wife posted the hundredth picture of your dog on Facebook? Mine posted an article she wrote and it went viral. Your wife is there for her looks? Mine’s there for her brain and she’s better looking on top of it.
2. A Smart, Successful Wife Helps Your Career
Dumb arm candy might impress your boss with her hemline, but smart arm candy will impress your boss and more importantly, his wife. There are always girls who you can show off at events and dinners, but if a girl can’t show you off as well through her looks AND her impeccable conversation skills you’re not going to get that invite from the boss’s wife to his house for dinner, which gets you into the boss’s social circle, which gets you that promotion to the big leagues. Not to mention that if you’re in any sort of business, your wife’s company, coworkers, boss, PhD professor, and everyone in her social circle is a potential personal or business relationship. Married life is rough enough without the ability for your wife to throw great parties and cookouts that couples actually want to come to.
3. A Smart, Successful Wife Makes You Richer
The idea that I would be okay with working nonstop to provide a lifestyle to someone for them to only consume and leech off of my output is disgusting, and those men whose machismo is offended by the concept of a successful partner are nothing more than wimps. What kind of man are you if the very thought of your wife or girlfriend being smart or successful makes you sad inside? I’ll answer that for you: you’re an embarrassment. I’m going to be successful in life, so if my future wife brings in even more than me that doesn’t make me emasculated; that makes us filthy fucking rich.
4. A Smart, Successful Wife Is A Hedge On Your Future
After all, regardless of how much longevity you can buy, looks always fade. What remains for women or men is a finely tuned composite of character and personality that should be cultivated on top of external appearance, not in spite of or as a replacement for. Looks, brains, and personality really aren’t “either or” or “best two out of three” descriptions. On top of that, what do you think you’re going to be doing when you’re 70? You’re going to be spending every waking moment not on the golf course with this person. While they may have been able to get away with sucking, and sucking, before, you better hope they don’t suck when they’re old.
5. A Successful Wife Can Be Successful In Many Different Ways
This isn’t a knock on stay-at-home mothers or centuries-old chosen gender roles. There are many ways to define success outside of a career. My own mother even stayed home for 14 years to raise me and busted her ass to bring my siblings and myself up right, but she bookended that time with a Masters degree and a career. If you chose to be a stay-at-home mom, then be the absolute best at it and raise your kids to extraordinary levels. Don’t do it because you’re lazy or because your infant of a husband would cry himself to sleep every night if he wasn’t the main breadwinner.
I get that you can’t change the way an entire culture thinks and is used to seeing things overnight. But this isn’t good enough.
Listing 5 things that your wife’s success can do for YOU is still objectifying women. It still makes us a means to an end. How about celebrating your partner’s success because it is what they want and it makes them happy. I know we’re only human, but is it so difficult to think about something other than ourselves for five minutes?
The part that gets me is that the last line of the article is a huge insult: “Stay at home if you want. But you better raise a president and keep my house spotless.” You know what the message in this article is? “Work harder, honey. I’ve finally realized I need your help and want more of it.”
You know what a benefit of a smart wife is? Being able to ask her advice before posting passively chauvinistic articles on the Internet. Hey, hon, does it make you happy that I view your success as a stepping stone for mine?
If a woman wrote that her husband’s intelligence and success made her more likely to succeed in her career, people would say she can’t make it on her own. If a women said her husband’s success makes her more confident, people would say she’s co-dependent. If a woman said her husband’s income helps supplement her own to elevate their quality of living, she’s a gold-digger. And so on…
So if you expect that men saying these things will make them appear sensitive and enlightened…. Good luck finding a smart girl!
I know people who aren’t regular readers are coming to this article now, but honestly BriniG I would hope that the style it is written in and the language used would be a clue as to the level of seriousness it entails. Do I mean what I say? Sure. Is it intentionally over the top? You bet.
As far as “If a woman wrote that her husband’s intelligence and success made her more likely to succeed in her career, people would say she can’t make it on her own. If a women said her husband’s success makes her more confident, people would say she’s co-dependent. If a woman said her husband’s income helps supplement her own to elevate their quality of living, she’s a gold-digger.” I absolutely love that you caught on to that and commented on it.
Yeah, let’s talk about the style of language used here. Starting with calling women “girls”. That’s super scholarly of you.
“Obviously I’m going to date someone I’m attracted to” == “Obviously, you still need to be hot”. Very well placed sentence up at the top of the article, lest we forget that women should obviously be good-looking. That’s important.
Actually, let’s back up… starting with the title. And the whole premise of this article and talking about successful women as being “beneficial” wives is male-centric. Be smart and hot so you make a good wife and make me look good is what I am reading here.
God, everything about the way this is written, “There are always girls who you can show off at events and dinners”… yeah brah! But at some point you can’t put up with the “dumb” ones, you need a woman that can throw events so your (straight male, obviously) boss comes over with *his* “arm candy”. That’s really all women are to you, huh?
Talking about womens’ brains as a commodity vs their looks is still talking about women AS COMMODITIES and from reading this I’m pretty convinced you don’t know what intelligence means.
TBH this is one of the worst articles I’ve read all week. No, you don’t get a gold star for trying either.
Fuck off.
Hahaha this is laughably idiotic.
First of all, this is a humor site. It is not meant to be educational, scholarly, progressive, or anything other than marginally amusing takes on the “first world” struggles of recent graduates. So starting off, you’re a somewhat of a moron for even taking it seriously. The fact that you got offended by it is even more ridiculous.
As another commentator noted, the idea that a woman would have been torn apart if she wrote this about man but me writing it about women gets shared 30,000+ times is part of the amusement. Likewise, writing a “girl power” piece littered with chauvinism is also pretty funny to, it seems, a lot of people.
It is a great message (smart and successful women are better wives) delivered in an off-kilter way…because this is a humor site…and everything here is written in a specific voice for a specific audience.
Maybe you don’t find it funny, and that’s fine. Different strokes for different folks. But to come here and embarrass yourself with your “LOOK AT ME I’M OFFENDED” drivel is pretty terrible.
Further, this is objectively one of the worst comments I have read on this site or others. Re-examining your life should be in order.
No, that person’s right, you’re not advocating for smart, successful women. You’re saying again and again that “hot girls” are the only acceptable ones, but they still have to earn a ring with further notes and addenda. Don’t just be smart because it means they’re active and fulfilled, be smart to accessorize their roles as arm candy. How do you not see that? I can tell your intentions were better but the chauvinistic language got in the way. I’m an MBA with a lovely marriage of six years, and I think your shitty article explains why you’re still “dreaming of writing for a living.”
You don’t have to respond, I’m not giving you any more clicks.
It amuses me that you ask “how do you not see that?” when you obviously didn’t catch the tone of the article (or my signature line?) nor realize the intentions behind it. Frankly, my “shitty article” doesn’t need any more clicks from you. Check the tracker at the top - I’m good already.
I bet you get no dick.
to be fair…passively aggressive chauvanism (when it’s not overtly chauvanistic) is kind of the main male audience here. with varying degrees of self-depreciation that is.
My chauvinism is not passive aggressive! How dare you!
you’re a sharp cookie. but you’re onto something which goes much much deeper. Men are the default for everything…their weaknesses, their strengths, their struggles are looked upon with dignity and depth…often spun any which way they like. Most often woman’s achievements, weaknesses, struggles are seen as intrinsic to her gender…her feebleness. Gloria Steinem’s essay “If Men Could Menstruate” captures this concept perfectly.
I think it’s unfair to attack the author for not reaching this level of depth in the struggle for equal respect of the genders. I try to view each small “pro-female” attempt as gracious, given all the people out there who resent and hate women. While you’re technically far more correct…it’s not a method of shifting the nation to our side. They just don’t quite get it yet. Not even the women do.
Thank you, decathexisplexus
Envisioning Roger Sterling, the character, reading Gloria Steinem. Got a good laugh out of that one.
Why do crazies keep attacking TFM and PGP articles all of the sudden? Does that mean you guys have officially made it?
Am I the only one who thinks a smart wife would add to the attraction?
I mean, I did write an entire rant about it
You really hit home on all of the success angles. I’m talking about just the fact that you can have a conversation about any number of topics. Really does it for me.
You’d be amazed what all guys are afraid of: http://postgradproblems.com/why-dating-beautiful-women-does-not-have-pitfalls/
Insecurity starts with a small penis, and it just goes downhill from there.
Is that why guys wear the skinny jeans? To make it look bigger? Because it doesn’t work.
I wouldn’t be the one to ask, I’m no expert on the plight of the small-cocked male.
Oh I definitely am. Interestingly enough, however, it really hasn’t hurt my esteem at all.
Could have something to do with the “by the time she sees it, it’s too late anyway” mindset, though.
http://www.walgreens.com/q/penis-pump
^ Will not use it.
I agree with everything you said here, but “centuries-old chosen gender roles”? Please tell me you don’t think the man-bread winner/women-home maker roles were just chosen at random one day.
hah, fair.
This is the best thing I’ve ever seen. I hope this starts a trend of guys including intelligence as part of the whole package.
Ahem *points to column*
“RogerSterlingJr: contributing writer to TFM and PGP, and aspiring trendsetter.”
Oh please. I was “aspiring” back in highschool.
“RogerSterlingJr: contributing writer to TFM and PGP, aspired to be a trendsetter in high school and is still chasing that ambition.”
You just got demoted from the bullpen to the minors
Because I’m witty? C’mon, that’s counterintuitive to your column.
Promotion reinstated upon review
I’m very impressed. When you find her, I hope you two are an intense power-couple that completely runs shit.
That is 100% my goal
I’m right here. I golf, too.
I awkwardly tweeted it to the world. You’re the #1 draft pick so far
Marry me. No, follow me on Twitter.
decisions, decisions
I can’t believe you’re cheating on me like this. I not only golf, I write columns about it.
There’s more than enough of ole Roge to go around
A few have offered the criticism that the above post seems to imply that a man’s boss is always going to be another man. I get that the article is written half-jokingly (and I’m sure the author isn’t really expecting an all-male upper management team), but I think there’s another glaring issue here: treating a woman (or a man) as an object in general.
It’s great that men today are realizing they need to choose a partner who is smart and successful. But the point of doing this is not so that you can have “intelligent arm candy”- no one should ever be considered arm candy, male or female. The benefit of finding a driven, hardworking spouse is not so you can show that person off to all our your friends and colleagues - the goal is to find someone who challenges you to be better than you could be alone. It doesn’t matter if that person is a CEO or a full-time stay at home parent.
So, in the end, having an intelligent, successful spouse will help you get noticed by your boss - because your relationship will have helped you become a critically-thinking, competent worker who gets shit done.
While less amusing, this is incredibly true, so A+ for that.
Number 2. Please…. Impress your boss… and “his wife” ? How could you miss this? At least acknowledge that your boss just MIGHT be a woman who has, oh, I don’t know what, a husband, or a wife or maybe she doesn’t need to have someone to impress. Good start but where was your editor?
You realize that this site is only about half-serious, right?
THERE WILL BE NO SARCASM TOLERATED HERE
The editor was probably trying to figure out who taught you (or didn’t teach you, apparently) punctuation.
I am free to take stylistic liberties. Traditional structure has no sway over me.
I was talking about the initial comment.
Oh, there you go! See, one more benefit: “She has your back”
*golf clap*
What’s with all the golf around here?
Tons of golf. Tons and tons of golf.
i thought i was the only one. this is great
Only weak men are afraid of strong women.
Ahh, yes; this is one of those moments where I am happy to be a man who dates men. At 25, just thinking about how much money my partner and I make together gives me a fiscal boner.
This is one of best comments here by far. “What glass ceiling?!?!?”
Bravo, Roger Sterling, Jr. I actually took the time to register for this site so I can congratulate you! Wonderfully written. I’m not sure most men share your sentiment. But for those that do… I’m smart, successful, and single!
Thank you!
thank you. best of luck; you’ll find her.
You’re right that it’s great to have a smart & successful wife, but I’m not so sure about your reasons, lol. Point #2 a smart wife to impress your boss’ wife? A “stay at home mom” can have just as great conversation skills, and they usually have a very sweet feminine touch which can really impress you boss’ wife, who by the way is probably another “stay at home mom,” since her hubby already makes a fortune! As for your promotion, your boss will be judging you, and not your wife!
Point #3, is life really all about getting filthy rich?
Point #5, is there ever a woman who chose to be a “stay at home mom” because she was lazy? I dare you to try staying home for just a week raising young children, cleaning all of their mess, constantly watching them, trying to control their tempers, do all the cleaning, the laundry, cleaning “more” of the children’s mess, etc …. etc … and finishing everything on time so you can have dinner ready for your spouse by the time she comes home from work! I know people who are lazy and slack off at work, but I do not know of any lazy “stay at home moms!”
after some mouth breather of a sales rep just talked down to me like I was a middle school dropout for 15 minutes this makes me feel slightly better about life.
LOVE this, Roger Sterling, Jr.! So much that I registered for the site just so I could tell you that your passive-agressive message was well-appreciated.
Pharm.D. babes are the way to go. The typical CVS pharmacist with a couple years’ experience rakes in over $100k and might even get to pick her hours if she’s lucky. Jackpot!
Also… who better to help you raise smart kids than a smart spouse?
Well put
Great article. If you think it is stupid, as a women how do yo think I feel? I am automatically deemed an unsuitable partner, because I am educated, with opinions? As basic as the idea of having an intellectual partner may seem to you, it is not a universal ideas…. in 2013! So I commend you for writing the article and not living with such insecurities.
However, I hate to nitpick. It is a little sexist and presumptuous of you to make this statement, and the sentences that follow after: Dumb arm candy might impress your boss with her hemline, but smart arm candy will impress your boss and more importantly, his wife.
It is quite possible that his boss COULD be a women. I know it’s hard to write that in a sentence, hell it was for me, but it is possible. So, to assume his boss is a man and his wife is home waiting to cook dinner for him and his colleagues/employees is a bit… not cool. I think you could have left the genders out and refereed to his boss and their spouse. Just a suggestion.
Please keep writing I enjoy the content.
Zero bosses are women. Zero.
It’s meant to entertain, azellelui, but I appreciate the compliments and you not going on some horrible rant.
Hi. I stumbled upon your article after it was posted on Facebook by a friend of mine and couldn’t help but respond. I read articles like this all the time and I don’t seem to understand what you mean when you say you want a smart woman? My friends are always complaining that they can never find a girl smart enough for them. What does that mean? What is a smart girl?
Are you talking academically competent, witty or socially competent? Are women who are brilliant but socially inept considered smart? Is a woman who is well educated but lacking wit considered smart?
In regards to your reaction to the article, I think that this reaction is natural. In nature males are always the dominant sex. From a scientific standpoint I think that men are just naturally more competitive than women and by nature are always striving to be the dominant sex. You reaction seems very shallow? Yes I agree that they should be happy for their significant other but I think that level of insecurity they feel comes from animal instinct that stems from their subconscious.
There are tons of different types of intelligence, and the three you mentioned (academically competent, witty or socially competent) are perfect examples. Luckily, guys and ladies are free to make their own interpretations of what the term means for them and which aspects of “smart” they value the most. The concept behind the article is more about wanting someone who can challenge you at times, support you at others, but more than anything improve you through the relationship. “Dumb” girls, however they’re dumb, don’t.
While you may or may not be right on the level of competitiveness, I don’t think men being insecure about the success of their partner stems from nature’s plan or some inherent instinct. I think it stems from insecurity and self doubt in the individual male and it needs to be overcome.
Is there a reason you used Claire Underwood here? She is smart and successful, OK, but she’s SINISTER. Kind of a Lady Macbeth vibe.
This article would be perfect if you thought to include pictures of women of color. #WhiteWash
You have to be kidding me
This article should be shared to the all the countries prosecuting women(girls) for trying to be educated. It should also be shared in countries engaging in child marriages. Maybe if we can show smart women as a financial beneficial factor t the family, they can allow girls education.
Please share my columns with other countries.
This article is as asinine as the behavior it seems to condemn. It has contributed about as much to my understanding of men as listening to the idiots who married that stereotype who only gets manicures and goes to classes for glorified stretching on an overpriced doormat.
Who are these women anyway and whose dough did they inherit that they can afford not to build careers of their own?
Your assumption is that the woman is a form of accessory, an addition to the main event. The question you asked is “what can a beautiful woman with more than hot air between her ears contribute to my life”? Try asking “how can my wife and I build an effective partnership where we’re building successful lives together”?
But… Mr. Sterling Jr, I imagine that thought hasn’t penetrated all that pseudo-silvery hair of yours far enough to enter your brain. I imagine it got stuck in the breast pocket of one of your faux-50s suits or maybe… juuuuust maybe it saw your twitter handle and went running for the hills.
There has been a good deal of criticism in these comments (healthy, no?). I’ve been enjoying your responses to people who point something out that they find funky. But I’m finding a disturbing trend. You like to say that this website is only “half-serious” or intentionally “…over the top. You bet!” Now, I’m a huge fan of humor, but it’s important to realize that those pesky cultural beliefs that permeate our society (sometimes without our realizing it) are partially the result of what is proselytized through our humor. Jokes can normalize some pretty questionable beliefs and desensitize at the same time. So, it’s great that you acknowledge wide-spread sexism in American culture. But when someone questions whether or not you went far enough in that acknowledgement, it is far more productive for everyone involved if you take that criticism seriously, rather than say, “well, this isn’t exactly supposed to be serious/scholarly/etc…”, “this is laughably idiotic”, or “…rethinking your life is in order” (also, personal attacks are the worst way possible to promote reasonable discourse and reach an understanding).
For the record, though, I am in full agreement with folks like BriniG, asdf3x, and others who have called you out on objectifying women, but with different words. Doing so in a flirtatiously intellectual way isn’t necessarily any better. BUT, I think you stumbled on a wonderful (and, for some, a totally foreign concept) with number 4 in this article: love beyond attraction… why does your partner need to be beautiful to be cared for?
I love your un-PC way of ranting, it makes me happy!! My friend Dana put this on her husband’s facebook page with the message, “I hope and think that you feel like this.” I shared it with this message: “Love this guy: “those men whose machismo is offended by the concept of a successful partner are nothing more than wimps…you’re an embarrassment.” You tell ‘em Rog! I’m going to be enjoying all your posts from now on!
There are some subtle, but very fundamental problems in the framework of the article, and it’s important to bring it up because the same type of problems exists in other debates of a similar kind. The author disagrees with the science not because he thinks it’s flawed science, but because he’s offended by the conclusion.
But this how most of evolutionary biology is. It tells a story about human nature that’s sometimes ugly. It tells us our brains are built on some basically selfish - and in this case misogynistic - impulses that are contrary to our modern sense of ethics and happiness. There are hundreds of behavioral studies that suggest facts of this very same kind.
Many people unknowingly confuse “what is” and “what should be.” The story of how and even why our brains are wired the way they are is a very different story (and complex question) of how we should consciously act and feel in order to bring about more happiness or a more ethical society, or whatever it is we want. The study referenced in this article here is a study about the first half of the equation, about how our brains seem to be wired. The author gives some modern and well-thought out answers to the second half of the equation, about how we “should be.” But the overall tone and structure of the article suggests that he’s confused the two different questions. Scientists may have found that part of men’s sense of pride has misogynistic flavor to it, but that doesn’t mean these facts or the scientists themselves are trying to suggest that’s how we should act or feel.
It may seem like a small and irrelevant error to make, but it’s not. It’s not because it has broader implications for science at large. If we vilify or disregard scientific findings because we find the conclusions offensive or undesirable, we get ourselves in all sorts of shit. This type of small error, when extrapolated at large, is how you get huge numbers of people denying climate change or evolution. When we do this we are less likely to fund and support science, which in the case of human behavior and psychology, has helped us understand our basic brain wiring. And this is important because understanding our brain and our behavior dramatically improves our chances of altering behaviors or activities which modernity has told us is counterproductive to our own happiness.
So, from an argumentative/writing perspective, the article has kind of missed the goalposts. Well it’s more like it showed up to the wrong field. Instead of framing the argument that the science is wrong, the argument should have been – Ok, this is what the science tells us about our basic brain wiring, but here’s why there’s value to be had in X, Y, and Z.
I’m not sure I agree.
1. I didn’t feel the article was trying to do much more than scream “hey you losers who need stupid partners to feel better about yourselves…listen here”. It’s hardly got any breadth or real analysis.
2. I think there is a pretty vague understanding about whether this is actual wiring when it comes to masculinity needing to feel superior to the female partner. Some of what you might be referring to as basic brain wiring is more likely being wired before the age of 5 - by which time girls are already wanting to wear little mock wedding dresses and being frequently asked what kind of boy she’ll marry.
decathexisplexus hits the nail on the head again. You are awesome
Actually, the article was written to #1 Entertain and #2 Get people to click on it.
Since it has been shared this many times, it came on to the field and didn’t have to even notice the goalposts because it scored touchdown after touchdown and went for 2 after every time just to drive up the score.
Again, people taking this as serious literature is arguably more amusing than the article itself.
yeah, for sure this isn’t the ideal place to find articles wanting serious analysis or anything.
but underneath the humor it seems to me you’ve tried to make some meaningful arguments as they relate to gender equality and happiness, and unless you cared about these things I don’t imagine you’d write an article about it (but I could be wrong). And personally I find the positive/negative merits of those types of arguments just as entertaining as the humor itself. So it’s not really anything to do with analyzing the article as a piece of literature, just taking note of the strengths/weaknesses of the argument setup.
Not to sound like an ass, because you make only good points. I just think you missed the setup from an argumentative perspective…even though I know that wasn’t really your main concern.
Thanks for the interesting article and cheers
Exactly. These comments are beyond amusing.
Which is my biggest pet peeve. People fail to judge things for what they are! My gosh it’s an article that says what its says “5 BENEFITS of having a smart and successful wife” NOT 5 societal double standards of having a smart… NOT 5 hidden issues with the author’s economy and choice of words (not that I felt there was any).
I personally LOVE this article. Concise and honest. Your opening statement about indirectly hinting that you’re obviously going to like a hot woman, I don’t see anything wrong with that??? *confused and annoyed face*
This is exactly how power couples are born. And to a lesser extent, amazing marriages that produce greatness in all aspects of life. BOTH husband and wife mutually accept their successes and total packages that fit and work well for each other. I want a man like you honestly and y’all are truly hard to come about. Not to toot my own horn but I’m attractive, smart, athletic, out going, attend a Tier One university for the number one program in entrepreneurship…blah blah, you know the nice little well rounded resume.
The truth is there is a sizable pool of men like yourself with this very mentality and its just a bit hard to find one, but as a sophomore in college I am in no rush (would be nice to have drinks with one occasionally).
I read the article for what it was, loved it & didn’t analyze and deconstruct it as a social statement on the higher truth of sexism or of any metaphysical gah gah.
In short, great article. Great man. Great sense of humor. Kudos.
spot on with the main article. nice.
@txcolllegeatepackage….kind of sad that your pet peeeve is people trying to look more deeply at someone’s writing.who cares if the author didn’t mean it to be deeper?? it’s a good of time as any to talk about interesting topics. even though i disagree with some of the comments here, it’s beyond idiotic to dismiss someone’s criticism simply because it looks to you likes “metaphysical gah gah”
if you disagree with someone’s point, you should prolly just explain why you disagree, but u shouldn’t hide behind an insecurity - oops sorry, your “pet peeve” - of looking at possible underlying contexts of someone’s writing.
by the way, kudos to the author of article
I haven’t dismissed anyone’s comments. I found a couple to be amusing as I stated. Being amused doesn’t equal disapproval.
So my point exactly again. You just over analyzed my “pet peeve” by placing it in quotes and claiming it to be some sort of personal insecurity with deeper reflection into detailed insight. A pet peeve is something that causes one to be temporarily annoyed, which is what people who make things bigger than they really should be causes me personally to feel irked.
If RogerSJ was on a poetic posting site, or if RogerSJ was known for having some sort of Hemingway like or even slightly enigmatic writing style then I would probably be the first one here giving my two cents on the bigger truths or connotations of his statements. But its not that type of site and the author himself repeatedly has stated that in his comments to everyone’s responses.
So here I am, taking the time to explain to you why I disagree with your opinion and response. Feel better?
Lol you’ve gotten lost but u don’t realize it. please feel free to elaborate on the relationship between writing style and whether a piece of writing deserves to be analyzed for something deeper.So your argument is this?…only arguments which are written in a “poetic or hemingway-like” style deserved to be analyzed? and articles which are written on less-than-serious websites don’t?
again, you’re confused but you don’t realize it. the style in which something is written is a tool to help convey certain points or ideas. The style can be serious or not serious, and the conveyed points can be serious or not serious. a huge part of the basis of comedy is using humor to convey dark, sad, moral, or otherwise heavy topics. That’s not some new or novel observation I’m making thats been known for like, oh I don’t know, at least 2,000 years since the time of the greeks. i mean really, there isn’t much else you could have possibly said to suggest you know less about writing than to imply that only “hemingway – like” writing styles deserves to be taken seriously.to think this is an ugly disguise for laziness. one could only encourage you to attend some of the writing/literature courses your tier one university likely offers. best of luck
*SIGHHHHHHHHH*
Oh, @flixerGuy. Where did we go wrong? I won’t even try anymore honestly, because this could go on for a while. But I genuinely see your point and it’s a good one but I’m just stating what I stated before, that some comments were amusing and when people tend to make a big deal out of things these types of arguments arise. And this isn’t entirely a bad thing. Healthy debate means we’re thinking. Juices flowing. So yay.
I’ve taken some of these courses you’ve encouraged, currently am and will continue to do so until I graduate in 3 more years so there’s that. Not that they will stop me from being amused at what I find to be entertaining. I’m not saying what you just proceeded to argue above, but I see your point, it’s valid and I’ll just agree to disagree on how we see eye to eye on this simple little idea I am personally trying to express.
Thanks, and right back atcha.
“Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young argued that “ideological feminism” has imposed misandry on culture. Their 2001 book, Spreading Misandry, analyzed “pop cultural artifacts and productions from the 1990s” from movies to greeting cards for what they considered to be pervasive messages of hatred toward men.
In 2002, pundit Charlotte Hays wrote “that the anti-male philosophy of radical feminism has filtered into the culture at large is incontestable; indeed, this attitude has become so pervasive that we hardly notice it any longer”.
Sociologist Anthony Synnott argues that the reality of misandry is undeniable when one looks to cultural, academic, and media depictions of men. He states that “misandry is everywhere, culturally acceptable, even normative, largely invisible, taught directly and indirectly by men and women, blind to reality, very damaging and dangerous to men and women in different ways and de-humanizing.” He also criticizes modern scholarship on men as “dehumanizing” and lacking in awareness of statistical reality.”