(no subject)

[rm]

I've probably a lot to say about this, just not right now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/02/opinion/02dowd.html?hp

Especially the issue at the end -- about how women like to watch movies about men, but men don't like to watch movies about women, and the vague assertion that women a) like watching movies about men for the eye-candy and b) should stop watching movies about men to make a point.

I think I've heard this one before, and it's called "woman write about relationships, men write about ideas" and is usually said to imply "women's writing is trivial".

Surly.

Meanwhile, am experiencing random anxiety _and_ randomly burst into tears listening to the Moulin Rouge soundtrack (despite what you might be inclined think, this is rather freakish for me). Granted, I was reading about the Ukraine election situation at the time (why this makes anything make more sense, I am not so sure).

Comments

[sethg]

I believe that by starting with the vague assertion at the end, you have followed the wrong chain of inferences. You should have started with the byline at the beginning, and used this column as further proof that Maureen Dowd's writing is trivial.

(Maureen Dowd is, I presume, a woman, but as far as I can tell, that fact is incidental to her triviality.)