You can rate this post. Register or login now and tell us what you think.
Dana does a pretty good job eviscerating David Brooks' silly new column on female pop stars both on his argument and the niggling little matters of, you know, fact that Brooks is wont to ignore. I have to say, Brooks' columns on anything relevant to people under 35 are just so awkward and wrong-headed it makes me feel embarassed and uncomfortable just reading them.
I'm glad I read Dana's blog post because, to be honest, I wasn't offended when I read Brooks' column this morning. My guess is I'll always be a good deal less sensitive to sexist remarks or feminist bashing than, say, Dana Goldstein because I'm a white male (granted, a white male who tends to read Brooks with a skeptical eye but a white male nonetheless).
I'll throw a bit or two of that unoffended white male perspective - which I think is valuable to have since it's probably the majority of Brooks' readers - on the table here. Dana and others see Brooks as attacking feminism, sexual liberation and getting married at a later age than is typical. (Just so you know where I'm coming from, my mom was the executive director of Women Organized Against Rape, didn't get married until she was 36, and gave me her last name instead of my dad's.) I agree that some of the phrases Brooks uses (e.g. “formless premarital life and the anxieties it produces,” "nobody knows the rules," etc.) seem nostalgic for the good ol' days before the Sexual Revolution led to a "cold-eye age of divorce and hookups." I am not particularly nostalgic for those days, but I think Brooks can be read in a more charitable manner which doesn't make him out as an unabashed sexist.
His op-ed seems more of a straight-up social commentary than an attack on female independence and reproductive rights as one commenter on TAPPED suggests in an argument I still can't quite follow. Indeed, much of what Brooks writes could hardly be interpreted as sexist rhetoric as much as a critique of “hookup culture.” For example, Brooks claims that “cellphones, Facebook and text messages” create “fluidity, drama and anxiety.” True or not, Brooks’ aim here seems to be noting a social phenomenon, not suggesting women shouldn’t be using online social networks and talking on the phone late at night. Speaking of which, it is very late at night. (Check out the post date on this comment.) I’ll check back in the morning and hopefully add the rest of what was floating around in my white male noggin.
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
I'll throw a bit or two of that unoffended white male perspective - which I think is valuable to have since it's probably the majority of Brooks' readers - on the table here. Dana and others see Brooks as attacking feminism, sexual liberation and getting married at a later age than is typical. (Just so you know where I'm coming from, my mom was the executive director of Women Organized Against Rape, didn't get married until she was 36, and gave me her last name instead of my dad's.) I agree that some of the phrases Brooks uses (e.g. “formless premarital life and the anxieties it produces,” "nobody knows the rules," etc.) seem nostalgic for the good ol' days before the Sexual Revolution led to a "cold-eye age of divorce and hookups." I am not particularly nostalgic for those days, but I think Brooks can be read in a more charitable manner which doesn't make him out as an unabashed sexist.
His op-ed seems more of a straight-up social commentary than an attack on female independence and reproductive rights as one commenter on TAPPED suggests in an argument I still can't quite follow. Indeed, much of what Brooks writes could hardly be interpreted as sexist rhetoric as much as a critique of “hookup culture.” For example, Brooks claims that “cellphones, Facebook and text messages” create “fluidity, drama and anxiety.” True or not, Brooks’ aim here seems to be noting a social phenomenon, not suggesting women shouldn’t be using online social networks and talking on the phone late at night. Speaking of which, it is very late at night. (Check out the post date on this comment.) I’ll check back in the morning and hopefully add the rest of what was floating around in my white male noggin.