Letters to the Editor
-
Banal
Banal
I've noticed that whenever studies come-out showing differences (or similarities) between the sexes, and if a variety of adjectives can be apply to interpreting the results, the editorial preference is to pick the most negative possible adjective to apply to men and the most positive adjective to apply women.
Yep. And what's really sick is Salon marketing as hip. i.e. it's kewl to have negative stereotypes about men and a raving paranoid worldview, where everything is interpreted as you describe. It's "sassy" and "empowered" or something.
The women and men, who read Broadsheet tripe and don't see the problems, people have a lot of gender baggage they're looking to have confirmed, and they're probably not doing so great in their careers, let alone physical fitness and other reflections of mental health. It's a good guess many are overweight, or socially lacking, or have other issues they need to rationalize.
Skilled professional women are in demand in many workplaces, especially in high tech, science, medicine, and other top professions. There are few "misogynists" in those industry in this era, and many others who actively seek out women employees for gender balance, so if anything the bias is slightly affirmative action and pro-women which is fine with me.
The type of people who go into soft subjects like "women's studies" are usually not the most capable students or thinkers. Like majoring in English, it tends to attract slackers. There are exceptions, but slackers are the rule.
Broadsheet (and increasingly Machinist) are moronically simplistic pages.
Salon has become rather neurotic attempting to straddle the spectrum from occasional quality journalism, to the daily garbage. No wonder subscriptions are down and Salon is financially in the toilet. It's hard to find and read the good stuff when it's embedded in so much garbage.