Media NYT Style Section does it again
posted by January 13 at 12:19 PM
onThis bizarre quote from this story on why women still buy with cash to hide their spending habits from their husbands:
…the age-old practice of women disguising personal indulgences by paying in cash persists even though the majority of women today earn a salary and, in an affluent age, families have more disposable income.
Which families are those?
True, a group of Americans are enjoying a new gilded age. But those who are not are more numerous than before. Even though the gap between the rich and poor gets covered in the main body of the Times, the style section still lives in a world of opulence for the masses.
Comments
Which families are those?
Why, the ones that read the NYT (and its style section in particular), of course. The standard formula of "NYT writer goes to cocktail party, notices some aspect of her friends' lives, and writes about it like it's a national trend" yet lives on.
Angela, you sure got up on the wrong side of the bed! Time for some shopping therapy. Don't forget to hit the ATM on the way to Nordys!
First of all, this is, by any measure, an age of affluence. Second--so what? It's the Style Section, not the front page.
While I don't agree that this is an "age of affluence" (It's more like an age of credit, home equity loans and blowing your inheritance) I don't see why the fashion section of the nation's biggest newspaper (which is also one of the fashion capitols of the planet) need tow a proletarian line.
The woman doesn't want her husband to know how much she spends on expensive clothes so she pays in cash and then appears in an article in the NYT (complete with photo). Genius!
I think we can all agree that, with the exception of the rural class, the lumpenproletariat or the american underclass, are by far the best dressers.
Toe the line.
With your toe. You're not bringing the line anywhere.
"lumpenproletariat or the american underclass, are by far the best dressers": SeMe, have you been in a Wal-Mart or K-Mart lately? You've got to be kidding.
I think we should take the line ... shopping!
Thank you for the correction, PDX. I always thought it was "tow" as in pulling the line along.
You learn something new everyday.
the inner city lumpenproletariat do not shop at Wal Mart Steph, they shop from the truck and buy swag directly. Granted, Seattle doesnt have that culture, but if u go to the outlet malls, or other places u see tons lumpenproletariats dropping serious cash. The poorest of the poor are sporting real LVitton, Tommy and some other nonsense which was mos def not bought at Wal Mart. What you see at Wal Mart is what I call the suburban-barely-working class and the rural clas. The pooorest inner city schools back east are at the vanguard of urban fashion. Sad, but true. In the end, fashionistas (sp?) are nothing but biters.
everyone can disagree about what is good fashion, but i think everyone can agree that people who use the word "lumpenproletariat" and think that outlet mall tommy hilfiger is top notch fashion, have got to be the worst dressers on the planet
oh burn!
totally off topic...am I missing something, or are there no more slog tip links. There was a big story in St. Louis about a missing kid being found alive after almost five years. I know it's not Seattle news, but it's still big...
Mike, the Slog tip link has a permanent home at the top of the page now, to the right of SLOG.
thanks Amy
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).