Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Sexist Advice Columnists Suck

1

Perhaps her prejudice is that it's always the man's fault, but more likely I think is that she buys into the notion that somehow you aren't responsible for your own phyiscal fitness but are responsible for your own psychological or emotional fitness. So the woman who comes to resemble a blanc-mange is not to blame for this, while the man who somehow ceases to satisfy his partner emotionally is somehow to blame. In other words it's ok to get fat and one's partner should be able to accept that, but it's not ok to become cold or uncaring, etc.
The problem here I think is not a feminine prejudice against men, but an over-intellectual take on what attraction really is. But it's probably the case that women are more likely to engage in this sort of thing. That's just a limited empirical observation though.

Posted by kinaidos | March 5, 2007 9:44 AM
2

Or she just assumes all her readers are women.

Posted by Travis | March 5, 2007 10:05 AM
3

Comment 2 wins. Thread over.

Posted by seattle98104 | March 5, 2007 10:08 AM
4

If all of her readers are women how does she get letters from men? Men wouldn't write her if they weren't reading her.

I would amend comment 2 to read: "She assumes all her readers are women are totally whipped men."

Posted by EXTC | March 5, 2007 10:18 AM
5

"...AND totally whipped men."

Posted by EXTC | March 5, 2007 10:20 AM
6

It's not that men don't read her column, it's that she probably assumes her primary audience is women, hence she slants her advice in that direction.

Posted by seattle98104 | March 5, 2007 10:22 AM
7

Wow. There needs to be an advice columnist for advice columnists. She sucks ass.

Posted by him | March 5, 2007 10:24 AM
8

Yeah, many advice columnists and TV personalities - Dr. Phil is another example - just know where their demographic is (married or looking-to-marry women) and know how to tell them what they want to hear. Props to you, Dan, for not tailoring your advice to reaffirm well-established cognitive biases.

Posted by tsm | March 5, 2007 10:24 AM
9

this dovetails nicely with mr. mudede's slog from last week - about the grand narrative of the straight man.

you fuck them till they come, then you fuck them till you come. don't mention fat, don't mention facial hair, don't mention feminine odors.

see, women are just too delicate to be able to handle the criticism they dish out. a ridiculous state of affairs

Posted by Max Solomon | March 5, 2007 11:46 AM
10
see, women are just too delicate to be able to handle the criticism they dish out. a ridiculous state of affairs

Some are, some aren't. Same goes for men. Most people who are happy to dish out criticism can't hear it about themselves, gender totally aside. The whole "never-tell-your-girlfriend-she's-fat" thing really does a disservice to both sides.


On the up side, this column made me realize that my guy (horrifically honest in all other ways) was never going to just tell me if I was getting too big for him. So I asked, point-blank. And got an honest, if somewhat discomfited answer. About time! So thanks, Dan! And I hope the show went well - Sue Johanson's an awesome lady.

Posted by wench | March 5, 2007 12:56 PM
11

You know what would have made the trifecta? If she had compared transgendered people to Freepers. That would have been awesome.

Posted by Oneiros Dreaming | March 5, 2007 2:00 PM
12

the golden aura vagina - sum,
men are so horny for sex they pay any price

gosh, Dan, so simple, can tell you are a true fag

the spell/quest of the vagina does not occur to you, or if so, not with the intensity which drives straight men to the edge

ask charles

gay men beat off and go to sleep

Posted by Grunfral | March 5, 2007 2:11 PM
13

dan, just for fun and the hell of it you should send this blog piece to val, and the comments too.

Posted by ellarosa | March 5, 2007 2:20 PM
14

Didn’t we just let Master Pastor Mark Driscoll have it with both barrels for implying that pastors’ wives’ fatness could cause their Gawd fearing hubbies to ride the baloney pony?

Granted he implied that the alleged fatness would push these hubbies into the arms of macho, macho men instead of their female glassy-eyed supplicants, but still. Consistency, please.

Posted by Original Andrew | March 5, 2007 2:37 PM
15

Dear Val is what the Columbus Dispatch used to replace your column, Dan, when they bought out Columbus Alive. There is no comparison, ergo, here I am, coming to the source.

Posted by amazonmidwife | March 5, 2007 5:12 PM
16

My reaction to the second letter is that many people assume that men and women have different reasons for cheating. Men supposedly cheat because they're not getting sex at home, they're no longer attracted to their wives, or because a hotter piece of ass came along. Women supposedly cheat because they're emotionally neglected.

There might be some truth to that logic (it's possible that many women require an emotional connection for good sex more so than men), but it's still bullshit to make excuses.

Posted by keshmeshi | March 5, 2007 5:44 PM
17

Another goddamn reason why I don't read the Sun.

Posted by Gloria | March 5, 2007 5:52 PM
18

this column made me realize that my guy (horrifically honest in all other ways) was never going to just tell me if I was getting too big for him. So I asked, point-blank. And got an honest, if somewhat discomfited answer.

This is all well and good, but what I don't get about women is why they even have to ask. I mean, unless you have some serious anorexia/body dismorphic disorder, the fact that you are wondering whether you are too fat means that you are probably too fat.

Why put both of you through the pain of making the poor guy say it? You know, he knows it. Either do something about it or don't. Sitting there and forcing him to admit just seems kind of cruel.

Posted by JC | March 5, 2007 8:49 PM
19

i don't get it -- someone refuses to have sex with their spouse for FOUR YEARS and never says why, and telling the partner to leave the non-fucking/non-talking spouse is sexist? since when??!!

also, i think the columnist has a enough sense to tell the reader what she wants to hear. if she wanted her husband back, she would be thrilled that he was paying attention to her again. but she started falling out of love and moving on at least four years ago. she was getting in shape in order to move on, not to move back to the not-fucking/not-talking lump. she sought "permission" from an outside source that was still another woman from her own generation. i think the advise was perfect, and the mode of delivery suited the audience.

the second one -- can't tell as much, you gave less info. but i think she was rightish too, his letter is all "i can't decide" and she says, look harder at yourself and decide.

i may not like her writing or share her readers' concerns, but she clearly knows her audience and is giving them the advice they want in a flavor they can choke down.

Posted by chuckles | March 6, 2007 10:31 AM
20

refuses to have sex with their spouse for FOUR YEARS and never says why, and telling the partner to leave the non-fucking/non-talking spouse is sexist? since when??!!

Was it not obvious that the "sexist" accusation here had to do with the columnist advising a woman that her husband's lack of sexual interest in her wasn't her failing but his, while suggesting to a man that his wife's sexual interest in other men WAS his failing and not hers? In the same column, no less?

Posted by tsm | March 6, 2007 12:00 PM
21

"in the same column, no less?" yes, truly shocking! horrifying -- mon dooo!

tsm: did you miss that dan said he'd never heard of her or read her column before? so two out of two doesn't really say much about anybody.

i still maintain she told each person what they wanted/needed to hear. she wanted/needed to hear "leave" and he wanted/needed to hear that he needed to grow up and decide -- he can't decide if she cheated and he can't decide what it should mean and the advice was, "figure it out/figure you out." you don't go around confronting spouses until you are sure you want to leave or have the big awful run through that will keep you together, it's not something to do in the navel gazing phase.

Posted by chuckles | March 6, 2007 3:42 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).