Saturday, February 10, 2007


Steven E. Landsburg is a misogynistic idiot.

Read this article at your own risk. Yes, women are chokers. It is our standard m.o. for dealing with idiots. I cannot even properly consider how to argue this article without becoming violently angry. And before someone snidely says, "I'm choking," may I remind you: I am a vampire, do not need to breathe, and will bite your jugular to make your blood spray in a pretty Kill Bill way.

Or beat you senseless with a tennis racket. Whichever.

What the fuck is Slate thinking by publishing this fool's articles? It seems this isn't the first incredibly stupid thing he's written that demeans women and women's issues.


Blogger Happy Villain said...

I read about two sentences, saw where it was going and then I, too, choked. Proudly. Because I don't define success as finishing something just because I started it. Success, to me, is enjoying what I'm doing now. It's the journey, not the destination. And I'm not any good at faking it. I think men in general measure success by crossing that goal line, and that's why so many are lost once they get there. Now what? I believe that men and women approach things differently, but we'll never agree about who is right and who is a big, fat jerk. If they want to fight with me about it, I'll walk away. Is that choking? Nah. It's priorities. Life is too short.

(I apologize if my comment is off from the purpose of the article. As I said, I didn't bother with it.)

9:22 PM, February 11, 2007  
Blogger Vampire Librarian said...

No, HV, your comment is valid. The article is cursory with a lot of inflammatory speech. He offers two poorly done studies as evidence that women 'choke' under pressure and thus cannot make good executives. He doesn't consider the very apparent sexism still prevalent throughout big industry (as he is reinforcing with his article) and offers very little evidence to support ANY of his claims. (Two studies is NOT ENOUGH.) He doesn't consider or suggest that women may have different goals, and he doesn't even reference a previous article he'd written about a study that showed that the earlier women bore children, the less money they made over their career, which seemed like a very interesting and well thought out study, which could have direct bearing on why women do not make CEO. But again, he doesn't reference that article at all. He just pulls these two seemingly random studies out of thin air and extrapolates that women do not make it to corporate executive status because they 'CHOKE'. God, I'm beginning to really hate that word.

11:11 PM, February 11, 2007  
Blogger J said...

Definitely dumb studies. There are a ton of studies out there about male/female performance under pressure that are performed under controlled circumstances, that lock out extraneous factors, etc, and depending on the type of pressure, men and women perform differently. *gasp*

But what does this guy do? Pulls out two very poorly constructed studies (which aren't directly aimed at women-stress reactions) and bases an entire article on them! Idiotic "research".

7:24 PM, February 12, 2007  
Blogger Katya said...

The article about daughters causing divorce was equally aggravating. He cites countries that are all known to pretty much have cultural biases against girl children, yet the only one he admits has this bias is China -- I guess because that's really impossible to ignore. He also suggests that daughters are a liability in the market for a husband because women with daughters are less likely to remarry than women with sons, not even considering that maybe the women with daughters don't need to remarry because they already have their girl child.

7:48 PM, February 13, 2007  
Anonymous gardenbuzzy said...

I'd like to see a man (particularly this Steven Landsburg character) deliver a baby the size of a watermelon out an opening the size of a quarter, after carrying it around for 9 months, without "choking." And women do this every day of the year.

3:18 PM, February 16, 2007  
Blogger Wild Librarian said...

I rather enjoyed the comment on the article left by Ian T. Ellwood. I believe that he sums up everything.

5:35 PM, February 16, 2007  
Blogger Vampire Librarian said...

Thanks Wild Librarian for the pointer to Mr. Ellwood's excellent response. When I initially looked at the articles and their responses, all I found were comments that agreed with Landsburg's articles. I didn't know if it were censorship, or if the general readership really did agree him.

9:05 PM, February 16, 2007  
Blogger Spike said...

This Landsburg person is learly suffering from Small Dick Syndrome.

12:42 AM, February 19, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home