Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« College Students Are Really Cl... | Watada Update »

Tuesday, January 30, 2007


posted by on January 30 at 14:36 PM

Pamela Sitt, Times editor Mike Fancher’s favorite girly-girl “about town,” writes in this week’s “edgy” new Sunday Styles section about what it means to be “good at” being single. When is Sitt at her “single best”? Why, when “eating pink-frosted cupcakes for breakfast” (gag) and “feeling smug about married people who are required to eat sensible meals,” of course! “After which I like to text-message a girlfriend and complain about getting fat.”

Wow. Smug, insecure, and compulsive—now there’s a girl who knows how to have fun!

But there’s a dark side to all that singly freedom. Namely, Valentine’s Day, when “I’ve decided that I’m too lazy to date. On the plus side, if I just stay single and it were a contest, I would win. This is a good time of year to be bad at being single, when you realize there is nothing good about February, and that has everything to do with Feb. 14. And the weather.”

Do grown women really still stress out about Valentine’s Day? Really? Because I do remember freaking out about it once, when I wasn’t sure whether to ask a cute long-haired boy named Eric to the Sadie Hawkins dance, and then I did, and he said no, and that really sucked. But that was in the sixth grade.

Fortunately, the rest of the column is a series of strung-together quotes. Unfortunately, they’re as unenlightening as Sitt’s pink-frosted Valentine’s Day dilemma.

Tune in next week for another edition of Sittstorm, where we’ll learn about why girls think science is icky, why boys are just soooo hard to understand, and why “retail therapy” is better than going to counseling!

RSS icon Comments


i thought her ass was canned! now i see they just gave her an equally vapid column to write.

Posted by terry miller | January 30, 2007 2:43 PM

THe "atleast I'm not" game is the biggest war against women purpetuated by women I've heard in a while.

I hope someone lets this bitch know that her archaic and superficial ideas are brought to you by capital-P-Patriarchy from start to finish. Does she feel good cashing their checks?

Posted by irritated and amused | January 30, 2007 2:45 PM

Ooh, ooh, ooh, the very best part is the tagline at the end:
"Seattle Times researcher Gene Balk contributed to this column."
Why on earth did that column need any research?

Posted by giantladysquirrels | January 30, 2007 2:50 PM

Speaking of counseling, did someone miss their appointment this week Erica?

Posted by GoodGrief | January 30, 2007 2:52 PM

ECB~ at first i thought you were just an uber-feminist, now i've come to the conclusion that you are more misogynistic than most men.

You really seem to detest being a woman, or at least the type of women most women are. Let's face it, more women read Cosmo than Bust, and men and "the man" aren't forcing them to. Loads of women love being a woman, a "girly" women.

Yes Women do get shit on in the pay department and society has a bit further to go in that department. But you seem to want to turn every woman into a

Posted by ddv | January 30, 2007 2:52 PM

Pam is cute.

Posted by You know it | January 30, 2007 2:53 PM

@5. "Let's face it, more women read Cosmo than Bust"

Sad but true. People like Pamela Sitt are the reason that Sex and the City is/was so popular. But that doesn't make them any less irritating/unidentifiable to women who DO read Bust.

Posted by Baxter | January 30, 2007 2:57 PM

If hating Sitt makes you a misogynist then me, my girlfriends, and all the women we know are misogynists. She's an idiot.

Posted by EXTC | January 30, 2007 2:57 PM

Actually, Erica, most of them do appear to stress out about V-D Day. You're unusual. Which may be a good thing.

I always try to buy choco for my friends who are girls and give it away to friends and acquaintances then - much better to get it from a random guy you know than get none at all from a bf.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 30, 2007 2:58 PM

Indeed, "you know it" -- judging solely from that little pic, Pam seems to be quite the hottie. And kudos to DDV for that post as well....

Posted by GoodGrief | January 30, 2007 2:59 PM

oh, and Bust is still better.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 30, 2007 3:00 PM

Will -- nice move! Random guy you know giving chocolates to the ladies who aren't getting chocolates from their BF's on VDay always earns some leverage.

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | January 30, 2007 3:07 PM

Face it, haters. You're just not part of the Times' demo for this "edgy, fun section."

From Fancher's Jan. 21 editorial, quoting features editor Bill Ristow:

"The energy of the section reflects the energy of the audience," Ristow said. "It's a Just Do It generation, whatever your age. I admire that. I just love it."

See? This author and her ilk are all about energy (and not the hippie renewable kind) and Nike, circa 1988. If that ain't you, just shut up.

Posted by frederick r | January 30, 2007 3:08 PM

oh my gosh if most women are like that i should end it all now. fortunately, i know that is not at all the case.

Posted by laurel | January 30, 2007 3:09 PM

Awww, I thought for a second, until my eyes focused on the headline, this was going to be an announcement for another "ShitStorm".

Whatever happened to that, anyway? Kiley?

Posted by COMTE | January 30, 2007 3:15 PM

I think it was ghost-written by Cathy Guisewite.

Posted by flamingbanjo | January 30, 2007 3:15 PM

I actually applaud Ms. Sitt for composing a relevant lede to a predictably lame interview with a reality-show-contestant-turned-author.

Posted by horat!osanzser!f | January 30, 2007 3:16 PM

"Most women" are not like Pam Sitts (or at least the Pam Sitts that is represented by her awful writing).

Most women (most people, in fact) are more complicated than Erica's "fans" are able to admit.

Y'all can suck it. I loved "Sex & the City" and I subscribe to BUST.

@ddv: you can enjoy being a woman and being feminine without giving up your mind and your self-respect, or conforming to an outside ideal.

Posted by Soupytwist | January 30, 2007 3:17 PM

The Times is out of touch with reality, film at 11.

Posted by Gomez | January 30, 2007 3:19 PM

soupytwist @ 18,

i totally agree with you that you can be a women and feminine without giving up your mind and self respect. but it seems that ECB will insist you've done just that if you like anything close to "girly": if you like shopping, or boys to fawn over you, or flowers, etc. then you are somehow less of a woman.

it seems that Pam and Erica represent the "extremes" and most women do indeed fall somewhere inbetween.

Posted by ddv | January 30, 2007 3:22 PM

Shitstorm got boring, and it was canceled. Maybe someday...

But re: Ms. Sitt. "In Seattle, where nearly 60 percent of women are living single, it is practically sport." I reaaaally doubt she meant to drop that article. Unless she's going for that stodgy/sassy vibe.

Posted by annie | January 30, 2007 3:22 PM

I've met Pamela and she's a nice person. Maybe some of her stories are about silly topics, but The Stranger writes silly stuff too. Who cares, turn the page.

Posted by Suz | January 30, 2007 3:37 PM

Last time I was at chop suey on valentine's, I saw Dan smash wedding rings and rip up photos. A good number of those indulging in this pseudocatharsis were "grown women". So... yeah.

Posted by Dakota Solberg | January 30, 2007 3:47 PM

I don't think Erica is opposed to being feminine, she's opposed to stupidity. While overgeneralizations about men and women can sometimes be true, more often than not they're insulting to those people that aren't complete idiots.

Posted by Kate | January 30, 2007 3:49 PM

ddv: there's a difference between being "girly" and "girly and retarded."

Posted by VD | January 30, 2007 3:55 PM


it seems that ECB will insist you've done just that if you like anything close to "girly": if you like shopping, or boys to fawn over you, or flowers, etc. then you are somehow less of a woman.

No, you're less of a woman when you define yourself by those things. I believe that's Erica's bigger beef with Ms. Sitt.

Posted by switzerblog | January 30, 2007 4:04 PM

Let's start at the beginning: WHO FUCKING CARES?

I say they settle it with a little "Foxy Boxing."

On the undercard:

The PI's Melanie McFarland vs. Cienna Madrid!

Proceeds can go to charity.

Posted by Jeff | January 30, 2007 4:09 PM

@24 - exactly. For example, Erica's more in the girly camp herself, if you've ever met her in person. She's not hatin' on girly, she's hatin' on the game of pushing girly as if it's the only choice, when there are many choices and everyone gets to fill their plate at potluck.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 30, 2007 4:34 PM

She's not single, she's secretly married to Adrian Ryan.

Posted by theydeserveeachother | January 30, 2007 4:41 PM

That column is not Pam's fault. She's the victim of a retarded leadership at The Times and an imbecilic request to write a column that purports to chronicle a Seattle woman's experience in the city. Come now. WHO could cover that topic and NOT sound lame? She's doing the best she can.

Posted by word | January 30, 2007 4:42 PM

you know, there sure is a lot of slog ink spilled on dissing other media in town. you guys sure are concerned about what the times, post-intelligencer, and seattle weekly do with their time.

it's really become tiresome.

Posted by kerri harrop | January 30, 2007 4:51 PM

it's interesting that many of the same people who think that ECB is a wrong-headed meany pants who doesn't like women, are also the ones who are associated Sitt being insipid, with Sitts being "more feminine".

ECB is, as 28 said, a woman who is fond of makeup and lots of personal grooming, what she clearly states she isn't fond of is women playing at being stupid in public for pay. Which is what Sitt is doing. She isn't just a goofy girl at the bar with her friends, she is a paid professional and part of her job description is exploring gender/sex who is paying her bills by either being an idiot femme-bot or playing at being an idiot femme-bot.

Posted by chuckles | January 30, 2007 4:54 PM

Kerri, please!

Newspapers take other people to task all the time. Politicians, businesses, artists--they all come in for scrutiny, much of it unwelcome and unflattering. Should papers be immune from similar scrutiny? It's healthy for newspapers to be antagonistic toward each other. We also reserve most of this stuff for the blog. We've done exactly two posts today out of 45 total posts on LineOut and Slog about other publications. That is by no means excessive.

And we're not the only folks doing it. Postman takes other papers to task on his blog at the Seattle Times (he also like to respond to the bloggers that take the Times to task), Joel Connelly loves to beat up on the Stranger in his column (and he loves to make shit up and stuff words in our mouths), and the Weekly gets in its digs (see the listing for Rocket Girl in the Weekly's Table of Contents this week). Sometimes papers take each other on over serious stuff (I would point to my bashing the PI over its treatment of the guy operating the crane that collapsed in Bellevue and ECB's smacks at Sitt's idiotic column), sometimes over stupid stuff (see the Weekly's TOC). But we all do it. We all should do it.

And if you find just two posts a day on Slog and LineOut tiresome, that's not a bad average. If you don't like 'em, scroll on by.

Posted by Dan Savage | January 30, 2007 5:23 PM

anyone who would make you eat a "sensible meal" over a cupcake for breakfast isn't worth marrying in the first place.

Posted by jen | January 30, 2007 5:38 PM

If you don't like 'em, scroll on by.

dan, i kinda thought the purpose of slog and its liberal commenter rules (no registration necessary, aliases welcome) was to foster dialog in our community.

my criticism of slog's practice of calling out other local papers seems to have hit a nerve.

Posted by kerri harrop | January 30, 2007 5:59 PM

No nerve, Kerri. I took the time to explain why we do it, and point out that others do it. And, again, we should. I'm not sure what you mean by this, though:

i kinda thought the purpose of slog and its liberal commenter rules (no registration necessary, aliases welcome) was to foster dialog in our community.

Did I attempt to shut down dialogue somehow, Kerri? I wrote a long response, yes, but it wasn't my intent to shout you down. We were, you know, dialoguing. Right?

Posted by Dan Savage | January 30, 2007 6:15 PM

Kerri, the failure of The Stranger to nitpick the PUget Sound Journal of Commerce's every little word is the reason they're no longer publishing. This is an essential service, keeping these competitors alive.

Posted by Fnarf | January 30, 2007 7:31 PM

Wasn't Kerri the one who originally suggested this post wasn't worth writing?

And I think I can clarify why Sitt's column is actually harmful and worth ECB's response, and not just something silly that rubbed her and Dan the wrong way, for those who don't realize it: the entire thing is based on the premise that being single is a challenge, something wrong that one has to grit ones teeth to get through until the situation can be rectified (meaning, in this case, until she gets a man). The line "being single isn't a competition" totally baffled me at first, but it means that it's something that she sees as difficult, like an illness, and that she prides herself on dealing well with such an awful situation. But this is exactly what's wrong with that: there's nothing wrong or right or difficult or easy about being single. It's unhealthy to see oneself as so dependent on being in a romantic relationship that being single becomes a hardship that one can measure ones performance at dealing with. And feeling a need to be with a partner has been a huge problem for women in particular throughout history. Much progress has been made in that not everyone feels this way anymore, but it is still an issue, for men as well as women (try joining a SeattleWorks team for a blatant example), and publication of Sitt's column is a step in the wrong direction because it reinforces that unhealthy dependence by portraying not being in a relationship as a huge problem to deal with.

And that's only one problem with the article - it's also vapid and boring.

Posted by Noink | January 30, 2007 7:34 PM

Noink: Spot fucking on. Hugz.

Posted by Gloria | January 31, 2007 4:19 AM

Well done, Erica. I thought I was the only one scratching their head at Ms. Sitt's writing... maybe she has some untapped potential, but everything I've ever read of hers is vacuous. Make you wonder if she's some head honcho's daughter or something.

Posted by rationale | January 31, 2007 10:23 AM

I consider myself a "girly" girl at times and Sitt's writing makes me want to vomit. It's as juvenile as a schoolgirl's note to a crush. "Do you like me? Check yes or no!" Or some lame girl's lockerroom gossip. "Omg! Josh is so DREAMY!"

I picture her typing up these goofy and uninteresting columns while smacking her gum and twisting her hair between her fingers, thinking about how hot Justin Timberlake is and how glad she is that he dumped Cameron.

I'm sure she's an intelligent gal who is just "dumbing it up" for a so-called catchy piece. But she's overdoing it! I'm single. I'm happy. I don't hate Valentine's Day. I don't think married couples should feel jealous of me if I want to eat dessert for breakfast. Hell, I don't even EAT breakfast!

I just wonder who she thinks she's making a connection with. Are there readers out there who actually think like this? If so, I'm scared for all you single men out there! Seriously, she's making us normal, single girls look like complete idiots.

Posted by Faux Show | January 31, 2007 10:56 AM

What happened to tv critic Kay McFadden?

Posted by Luigi Giovanni | January 31, 2007 12:29 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).