By the time you get to the byline, one detail will not surprise you

—The author is a screenwriter (single) who divides his time between London and Los Angeles

Thanks (I think) to RPG for the link, who was incoherent with rage. This guy is the poster child for Arsehat Central, and the shame of it all is that he actually does know how to write, and women not doing enough to beautify themselves according to his personal standards is what he chose to write about (and when they do take the high maintenance route, he finds them lacking in conversational skills). Perhaps he ought to make up his mind which he really finds most important: grooming or conversation? And consider just for a moment whether he actually give the women he meets sufficient motivation to be interesting and fascinating for his benefit anyway?

Still, charitable of him to advertise so clearly to the women of the two continents on which he resides that he is an objectifying, judgemental twerp.

Categories: gender & feminism, relationships

Tags: , , , , ,

11 replies

  1. The author will remain single for some time, unless he has a very large fortune to attract the ‘career wife’ type of female.
    I may not make enough of an effort for his liking, I’m probably not naturally attractive enough for him either, but I’ve got plenty of conversational skills, and I’ll be keeping them for the entertainment of the bloke who doesn’t care that I’ve got our son’s snot on my top.

  2. ah, yes. another young hipster dude who thinks it’s oh-so-funny to write like a misogynistic buttmunch and present it as sarcasm/ parody. isn’t that sooooo edgy?!
    i love how, in order to be worthy of him, a woman must be starving herself and spending $700 per month on her appearance; yet these women are expected to throw themselves at him because he “puts on a clean shirt, shaves, and brushes his teeth.” no double standard, eh?
    also, it’s really charming how once a woman fails to live up to his standards of beauty, she becomes a “thing.” because, of course, women can’t be human unless they’re visually acceptable.
    i don’t even want to see the majority of responses to his article, because it’s all going to be the whole “can’t-you-feminazis-take-a-joke” nonsense. time to get out the anti-feminist bingo card . . . 🙂

  3. ladoctoria, I only read a handful of responses, but most of them seemed pretty turned off by his attitude.
    What I found really telling was the way that he addressed issues of female bonding– it’s acceptable for women to bond over insecurities, by going to the beauty salon together, but it’s completely unacceptable for us to support each other by being positive about clothing choices and diverse body types: it really illustrates the way that patriarchal culture boils down to turning women against each other.

  4. I hope it’s satire but even if it is, it’s not funny satire. It’s not even close to Sacha Baron Cohen or Stephen Colbert playing fictional bigoted jerks in order to make fun of said fictional bigoted jerks.
    I had to laugh because most of the articles about “American women” whine about how we’re all fat, old, ugly, lazy, money-grubbing, materialistic, whiny, demanding harpies and American men are better off marrying Asian/Eastern European/other nationality. (Though as an Asian woman myself, I’ve always known that the “women of x nationality are all hotties and sex bombs” is BS.)

  5. hey beppie, i’m glad to hear it. i guess i should have more faith in my fellow humans. 🙂 also, such a good point about the portrayal of what’s acceptable or not in terms of female bonding/ interaction.

  6. diverse body types.. code for fat lazy flesh mountains..You keep telling yourself that.and have another chip

  7. Oh Oigal, it’s so cute that you’re worried about us. But really, there’s no need, you just direct all your attention to getting over yourself sweetie.

  8. UK girls, in my opinion, are the greatest natural beauties in the world . . . when they’re 17 or 18 years old.
    Oh ick, a new John Derbyshire. although Derbs still takes the prize, I think his limit for attractiveness was 15, wasn’t it.

  9. Hmm, let’s see…
    *Googles IMDB*
    OK, so the guy has THREE credits to his name.
    The Magic Roundabout (computer animation remake of the old kiddie show), 2005, billed as “additional material” (and you have to click down a level to get to his name – it’s not even on the page.)
    The Long Weekend, 2005. Tad actually wrote this one. Blurb: A comedy about two brothers, uptight Ed and playboy Cooper. Ed has a weekend to save his career, but Cooper has other plans for the weekend; to help his stressed out brother get lucky with the ladies. Because nothing would help anyone save their career like a major distraction. This goes some way to explain why Tad has not yet set the world on fire.
    Doogal, an adorable candy-loving mutt who goes on a mission to save the world… (Please, the bucket, somebody!) Again, we must click down a level to find our hero, one of nine writers, although a cinematic masterpiece of this towering magnificence could hardly require less, I guess.
    So the guy essentially wrote ONE screenplay for a straight-to-DVD B-grade comedy back in 2005.
    WHAT a catch.

  10. I guess that level of screenwriting success shows why he’s decided to court infamy by being provocative for The Times. He needs another string to his bow.
    It’s worked to the point that it’s being blogged about this week, I guess. It’s going to be a hard act to sustain: he’s already alienated most women readers with a pulse, and unless he can provide equally provocative schtick regularly he won’t have any staying power, because once he’s predictable he won’t be controversial any more, he’ll simply be tedious.

  11. Ah, the ‘it was ironic’ response.
    Nah. Irony, satire; their target is (should be) those who are powerful enough to oppress others, and it should encourage the oppressed.
    I don’t see it.

%d bloggers like this: