Ladies' Worst

I'm going to write a book called How to Hunt for a Wife.

It's going to tell men that they should seek out women who are average looking (less likely to cheat), younger than them (more likely to idolize), and are willing to cook and do the dishes (a matter of practicality). I'm going to dub the search for these kinds of women a "hunt" because that's a stereotypically male activity. Then I'm going to call the network morning shows and see how many of them are willing to invite me on for a friendly chat about the book -- as opposed to inviting me on to sit next to a very angry member of the National Organization for Women and defend my status as a cultural pariah.

What do you think? How many of these shows would want to see their gregarious hosts yucking it up with me on national television about the obvious merits of my marriage advice for men?

Before you answer, consider this: Last weekend, Janice Lieberman, self-described "shopping expert" and objectively described Upper East Side cliche, appeared on NBC's Today show to hawk her new book, How to Shop for a Husband. It features the same recommendations I just offered in my own fantasy best-seller, only aimed at women and in reference to men.

On Today, a pretentious and patronizing Lieberman didn't face anyone offended to the hilt at the jaw-dropping insipidity and shallow opportunism apparently on display in her book; didn't have to defend herself against a couple of pissed off guys wanting to know where she gets off; wasn't confronted by somebody wondering how she felt about setting the women's movement back about 60 years. Nope, all she got was an unfortunately ingratiating Jenna Wolfe, giggling like a girlfriend sitting across a table littered with empty cosmo glasses while the older, more "experienced" woman holds court.

By now it's a given that 90% of what network morning shows book as segments is frivolous garbage; it's worthless at this point to specifically target Today or Jenna Wolfe (whom I happen to like and who seemed to be trying to bury the fact that, as a pretty tough woman, she was somewhat uncomfortable with the whole thing). But I'm curious as to why this particularly vile brand of sexist horseshit -- and yes, it is sexist -- is still allowed to be injected into the pop culture bloodstream undeterred and, what's more, promoted as harmless whimsy that everyone should just accept as "girls being girls." If the roles were reversed and it were supposedly just a case of "guys being guys," it would at best be relegated to the pages of some buffoonish magazine like Maxim, or at worst be held up for angry debate and indignant ridicule on the very same outlets that embrace nonsense like How to Shop for a Husband.

Women shouldn't be let off the hook for pushing shameful sexual minstrelsy just because they're women. It's no more acceptable when they do it than when men do -- and no more painful to have to watch and listen to.

Follow Chez Pazienza on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chezpazienza

Comments

[neoprimordial]

I believe it was Devo who put forth this lyric:

Freedom of choice is what you got.
Freedom from choice is what you want.

People want to be led and taken care of, men and women both. The book is fluff that, even as a bestseller, would very likely have little impact on the psyche and behavior of the overwhelming majority of Americans. (I wouldn't even have known about it if you hadn't written of it.) Oprah won't be calling. Women will read it, maybe follow it a bit, then forget it.

Why even publish a book like this? Because there are lots of men and women out there who are clueless about relationships. So a Janice Lieberman puts out a book like this to basically shepherd the lambs; for the women to conform to, as you put it, its "jaw-dropping insipidity and shallow opportunism," and for the men to consider positioning themselves consistent to that vision. Of course the actual conformity to Lieberman's standards will be minimal, but may be enough for the publisher's bottom line in the way of book sales.

I guess it comes down to what it usually comes down to: profits--the commoditization of relationships (is this even a practical possibility?).

[itolduso]

I'm not offended by 'garbage' because I don't wallow in it....simple as that...change the channel, don't buy the book.

[zombie fairy]

It boggles my mind that some consider this book to be feminist in any way. Sexist, yes. Feminist, no.

I don't think this does damage to feminism because, IMO, feminists aren't likely to buy into the garbage this woman is putting out there. This book is obviously aimed at women with a marriage fantasy, who believe that having a husband is the only way to validate their existence, and would be finally be happy if they got that one special day. That's weakmindedness, not feminism.

[dinglebe]

Any woman who claimed to be a "shopping expert" would not get the time of day from me.

[PatchyWarrior]

Women are not all alike any more than men are all alike. Anyone claiming that "this is what women are" is just as idiotic as claiming that "this is what men are". Personally, I hate the whole concept that there is some magic methodology to snag a partner, and I really hate the consumerist overtones of this particular title (haven't read the book, but I don't "shop" for people because I don't wish to "own anyone". I share my life with my husband because we've been lucky enough to find each other interesting and beautiful, that's all.

I think this does damage feminism, of which I count myself a staunch supporter, because too many people view feminism as a plot to subjugate and devalue men (revenge, I guess you could call it if you think that way, for centuries of repression), but to my mind this is wrongheaded and entirely misses the point. To me, feminism is about the freedom to make autonomous choices and not be penalised (ie. lower salaries etc). Of course this is a simplification, and there are many other issue about objectification etc., but these issues are not resolved by women like this author writing ridiulous shallow drivel encouraging other women to be ridiculous and shallow. She was - of course - free to make the choice to do so, but please don't imagine the rest of us agree.

[S1m0n]

What was sexist about it?

[philistine]

A quote from the introduction to Warren Farrell, Ph.D.'s book, "The Myth of Male Power:"

"WHY FEMINISM HAS INTENSIFIED THE NEED FOR STUDYING MEN

Feminism suggested that God might be a "She" but not that the devil might also be a "she." Feminism articulated the shadow side of men and the light side of women. It neglected the shadow side of women and the light side of men. And neglected to acknowledge that each sex has both sides within each individual."

That seems to me to be a very good point to start a discussion.

[gulopartisan]

One of the most disappointing elements of Feminism is that it turned out to be about making women the equals of men -- which is to say, crass, shallow, and materialistic. Those of us males who participated in "the Movement" thought in was about elevating our culture; it turned out to be just another demand of another "minority" for a place at the trough.

[Jeffreygeez]

Allow me to enlighten you on this subject: There is a double standard that women use to their advantage since the beginning if time.

Women apply it because it works. Men find it easier and much less expensive to remain silent than to argue against this obvious hypocricy that is inate in all women.

It is common knowledge that most women are habitually constipated, however this does not mean that they do not have rear exits

Men are whipped. The demand is greater than the supply. Simple.

[RadicalRepublican]

I'm sure Immanuel Kant would appreciate your enlightened statement. However, I cannot locate the double standard which women use to their advantage within your post.