How Conservatives Despise Women


The exchanges betwen a Brooks and Collins are so light-hearted, self-deprecating, and excrutiatingly polite. But there’s one thing that unequivocally sets Collins off — messing with women — a regard reflected in her best-selling, When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to a Present.

This sets a theatre for a contretemps in a Times between these dual even-keeled, collegial, sarcastic jousters around Facebook CEO Sheryl Sandberg’s book, Lean In: Women, Work, and a Will to Lead.  The word “lean in” has turn an present meme: it says to women “don’t wimp out — we know you’ve got a lot on your plate, yet we merit to lead a world,” or somesuch.

A lot of women have objected to Sandberg’s assured — not to contend cocky — thought that women can do it all.  After all, Sandberg can marshall a lot of assistance in support for her lifestyle and pursuit from her corporate tower.

Brooks stepped into this ravel with glee, ostensible to find in it an event to diss women — generally dogmatic women — we know, like Collins.  Note his clever prhaseology — and his totally ignoring Collins’ madness throughoout their exchange:

David: Somehow we feel I’m traipsing onto somebody else’s territory if we wade into a Sandberg discuss and start revelation women they can’t have it all. we contend this even yet we am rigorously unchanging on this matter. The really clarification of conservatism is: You can’t have it all. No matter who we are, we can’t have it all. The star is privately structured to forestall this. Still, this feels like an intra-female debate. 

[Translation: Cat fight!  But, anyhow, conservatives know that tellurian beings have a miserable lot in life.  Well, solely for a few succcessful media stars like msyself — yet we don’t flourish it!] 

Gail: If “having it all” means fame, fortune, happiness and ideal physique tone, afterwards apparently you’re right. But when it comes to women, “having it all” has historically referred to being means to have both career and family. And if we conclude career as going for a tip of your contention – C.E.O. or law organisation partner or presidential claimant or whatever — it’s still generally most harder for women to mix that with lifting children. In college, a guys aren’t worrying about possibly they’ll be means to pursue their career dreams and still have kids. . . . 

Just observant “you can’t have it all” is like observant “there’s no problem here.” we can’t buy that as prolonged as a United States Senate is usually 20 percent womanlike and a organisation of Fortune 500 C.E.O.’s is done adult of usually about 4 percent women C.E.O.’s. 

[Translation: You’re possibly nuts or some wag regressive if we don’t see that women continue to be denied a same entrance to energy and success as men, that is what we’re discussing, jerk!] 

David: we would usually supplement from a neutral Swiss viewpoint that a whole Sandberg discuss reminds me that while feminists have been rooting for womanlike success for decades, many writers in that stay never seem to like specific females who are indeed successful. 

[Translation: Far be it from me to enter into a brawl among a satisfactory sex!  we will contend that feminists explain they wish women to be successful, afterwards they resent like ruin when another lady is successful — those cats!] 

Gail: David, we have been to 10 million gatherings of feminists celebrating successful women. Ten billion. This thought that women who make it are objects of scorn is totally crazy. There was a cover on Time this week with a design of Sheryl Sandberg and a title “Don’t Hate Her Because She’s Successful.” That’s ridiculous. You can impugn somebody’s ideas but criticizing their achievements. [emphases added] 

Translation: You’re crazy, we pig.]

 David: The other thing I’d note is that there is no self-righteousness so destructive as a self-righteousness an upper-middle-class author adopts to impugn a out-of-touchness of an top category writer.  The inability to means a second home seems to be regarded by some people as a symbol of their possess God-like purity. Not that I’m interfering in this fracas. Not me. Strictly neutral. 

[Translation: Intellectual women writers — we know, like we Gail — are jealous of Sandberg’s wealth, success, and bestsellerdom.] 

Gail: Someday maybe there will be a fairer and some-more ideal star in that a media devotes some-more time to eviscerating a work of catastrophic writers and a argumentative ideas explored in their unpublished books. 

[Translation: Drop dead, David — we impugn books that are removing courtesy since that’s where a movement is.] 

Relax, dear reader: This seasoned integrate will soon — has already — regained a change as they poke artfully and good-naturedly during one another about easy topics like wars, a economy, schooling, and electoral politis. 

Follow Stanton on Twitter

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • email
  • StumbleUpon
  • Delicious
  • Google Reader
  • LinkedIn
  • BlinkList
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • HackerNews
  • Posterous
  • Reddit
  • Sphinn
  • Tumblr
  • Tumblr
  • Tumblr