Rescued from Caperton’s Recycling Bin: “Catcalls are not a feminist issue. Apathy is.”

Periodically, I get around to clearing off my desk and flattening out crimped magazine clippings and saying, “Huh. Look at that.” Today: Harper’s Bazaar features an essay from author and better-than-you person Elizabeth Wurtzel telling you you’re a lousy feminist for not being as pretty as she is.

“Looking Better at 45 Than 25,” Harper’s Bazaar, September 2012 (or, as Jezebel put it, “Why Are You So Ugly, Dear Reader? It Makes Me (And Feminism) Very Sad.”)

I tried to write a post about this. It didn’t work. There was nothing I could say about it that was anything worse than Wurtzel’s own words. So here they are, starting with her tales of growing up in low-income 1970s New York, where her mom put on lipstick and heels to do the wash–“[a]s a matter of self-respect.” Because “even if all you are dealing with is a box of Tide and a bunch of junkies, without a coat of Revlon’s Cherries in the Snow, a real woman does not step out the door.”

And, of course, Mother knows best. Which is why I am horrified by the onset of slovenliness. In my experience it is actually not so difficult to not be a complete pig. I am 45 and in the physical shape of someone about half my age. I realize this is obnoxious to say,

Absolutely correct. That is obnoxious to say.

but it just takes discipline. I do Gyrotonic sessions three times a week for an hour at a time, and nothing more. I also don’t eat meat, and I take resveratrol. But I have a Mister Softee every day, and when I eat out, I always get the dessert du jour. But I walk everywhere, eat tons of leafy salad and green vegetables, and, above all, I try to be happy and work hard. Even if I am just running out with my dog first thing in the morning, I rub on some SPF 30 cream and Fresh Sugar Rosé lip balm.

So if, like Wurtzel, you spend $200 a week on personal training, work at home as a writer, have easy access to fresh produce and a safe space to walk, have fallen for some laughably “sciencey” anti-aging pill, and buy $20 Chapstick, you’re allowed to eat dessert in public without criticism.

Wurtzel goes on to note that the “current state of slovenliness is a sign of a nation in decline and of a despairing and distaff population” and namechecks Michelle Obama and Sarah Palin as women who are both working mothers “in amazing physical condition” and having “striking personal style and coruscating charisma” as well as money and home gyms and largely image-focused jobs. (I might have added that last part.)

When I look at the meticulous style of these women and then walk around Manhattan — New York City, the international capital of fashion and beauty — and see women in their twenties who have already given up, my heart breaks. I am not a mean person, but the sloppiness angers me because it is about a wounded world.

Mean?! No! She tells you you’re not good enough because she cares.

Even with my Harvard degree, when I ran out of money while writing my first book, I was happier to serve cocktails in high heels than to get money from my mom. And now I walk miles in Marni’s five-inch platform T-straps.

Another reminder: She went to Harvard, she’s a published author, and she wears $900 shoes, and while that doesn’t appear to have anything to do with the rest of the piece the important things is that all you slobs could all be like her if you weren’t so fucking lazy.

And construction workers still whistle, which is nice: Catcalls are not a feminist issue, but apathy is.

Right.

“Elegance is refusal,” said Coco Chanel, which is to say that a woman of style is stubborn and strong.

Actually, Chanel there meant that elegance is about resisting the urge to throw on another accessory or another coat of mascara or, say, a smear of red lipstick and a sense of superiority in an effort to look stylish. Or, y’know, presentable.

I long for the impossible standard of female beauty as a daily chore for all, not because I want the world to look better — I want it to be better. I want everyone to try as hard as I do to please be gorgeous, because it’s not that hard, girls. Looking great is a matter of feminism. No liberated woman would misrepresent the cause by appearing less than hale and happy.

Feminism is about women working hard each day to meet a standard of beauty they will, by definition, never be able to meet. The world is better if everyone in it is pretty. Feminism is about being gorgeous and happy–so goop on some mascara and smile, dammit, ’cause you’re making us look bad. I mean, come on. It’s not that hard, girls.

Full article available online

153 comments for “Rescued from Caperton’s Recycling Bin: “Catcalls are not a feminist issue. Apathy is.”

  1. moviemaedchen
    October 16, 2012 at 12:15 pm

    Jesus Christ, my eyes are bleeding after reading that. I can’t even pick out a section to quote and rail at, because it’s all so horrifically nauseating. Although that last bit might be the winner. I mean, she wants us all to strive to maintain an impossible standard, and this will make the world better!? Has she ever heard of anxiety, depression, or self-hatred? For starters.

    For fuck’s sake.

    • Jess
      October 16, 2012 at 4:37 pm

      Ironically, yes. In fact, the book she was writing while serving cocktails in high heels is most likely “Prozac Nation”, which, while entertaining and showcasing her capacity for an interesting turn of phrase, is also a 400-page exercise in wallowing in privilege. (Spoiler: her main thesis seems to be that Prozac saved her life, but the rest of us should not have it prescribed–uh, sorry, overprescribed–to us, and should instead buck up and pull ourselves out of it.)

  2. pheenobarbidoll
    October 16, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    I wonder if she’s aware that her hair length, over plucked brows and garish lip color ages the fuck out of her.

    /end snarky on her level remarks

  3. SamLL
    October 16, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    Yeah, “huh, look at that” is about the only thing one can coherently say without wanting to rage out and flip a table, isn’t it.

  4. Donna L
    October 16, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    Well, I’ve got her beat; I have no doubt that I’m a better-looking woman at 55 (my age when my avatar photo was taken) than I was at 25. (Not that that would be difficult, considering what I looked like at 25!) And I have no beauty regimen whatsoever. It’s mostly in the genes.

    (Obviously, I think her entire piece is ridiculous; I’m just kidding around.)

    • pheenobarbidoll
      October 16, 2012 at 1:29 pm

      I can’t even come up with a serious response, her article is so fucking ridiculous.

    • Donna L
      October 16, 2012 at 1:49 pm

      Me either. Before somebody gets annoyed with my comment, maybe I should go ahead and explain the joke: if I’m a better-looking woman at 55 than at 25, it’s because I wasn’t a woman when I was 25. At least not visibly.

      • pheenobarbidoll
        October 16, 2012 at 1:59 pm

        heh

      • Djuna Tree
        October 16, 2012 at 2:06 pm

        So much win, I can’t even. <3

      • Amelia the Lurker
        October 16, 2012 at 3:49 pm

        FWIW, I got the joke. :)

    • Amelia the Lurker
      October 16, 2012 at 3:40 pm

      I think my least favorite line in the article is “without a coat of Revlon’s Cherries in the Snow, a real woman does not step out the door.” It makes me just want to flip my screen a double bird until my fingers fall off. And I think I know why. Because it’s so fucking transphobic, it’s not even *meant* to be—that is to say, it doesn’t even have the decency to acknowledge non-cis women. “Real women” is a fucked up statement to toss around when comparing trans women to cis women. It’s even worse when you’re comparing cis women to cis women, because it completely erases trans women.

      • Amelia the Lurker
        October 16, 2012 at 3:42 pm

        Oh yeah, forgot to add that the name of the lipstick sets my teeth on edge because it’s ridiculously white-centric—not only it is impossibly twee, but I’d bet that the metaphor is that of cherry-red lips set in a snow-white face. Am I overthinking this? Maybe. But I’m not going to give anybody the benefit of the doubt right now. Now Wurtzel and now Revlon either.

      • October 17, 2012 at 9:41 am

        I always assumed it was called “Cherries in the Snow” to indicate that it’s a cool pink rather than a warm one.

        It’s a shade that could flatter a variety of skin tones, from very light to very dark. It could work for anyone who likes jewel tones.

      • Amelia the Lurker
        October 17, 2012 at 3:19 pm

        I wasn’t implying that the actual color only works on pale skin—I was just talking about the connotations of the name. But it’s possible that the “snow” part refers to the color being cool, yes. I just had rage-vision and everything sounded stupid at that moment, including the name of the lipstick that is required wearing for all laundry-doing “real women” (I still think it’s twee, but if that were a problem I’d have to hate the name of every OPI nail polish ever made).

  5. October 16, 2012 at 12:34 pm

    How did the word “feminist” find its way into her article?

    • moviemaedchen
      October 17, 2012 at 10:13 am

      Seriously. Feminism: that word does not mean what you think it means, Wurtzel.

  6. October 16, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    • onetinythought
      October 16, 2012 at 2:11 pm

      Incomprehensible!

    • onetinythought
      October 16, 2012 at 2:14 pm

      Sorry, I meant Inconceivable!

    • im
      October 16, 2012 at 2:16 pm

      She also seems not to understand the prisoner’s dillema as it applies to costly signalling (i.e. status symbols)

      • Katerina
        October 18, 2012 at 5:46 am

        Could you elaborate? I haven’t heard of the prisoner’s dilemma in this context before.

      • Erik
        October 22, 2012 at 9:38 pm

        It is the fact that only a relative advantage in physical appearance matters as far as attracting mates or other attention. You only win if you stand out. So if all women, for example, took more effort to obtain fancy shoes or to look nice (presuming they all could, to the same degree), as a whole they wouldn’t be better off than if none of them had expended that effort. So those who choose to “betray” (in this case, to expend resources to appear pretty) gain an advantage, but this advantage disappears if everyone chooses to betray, and everyone is worse off for it.

  7. Radiant Sophia
    October 16, 2012 at 12:42 pm

    I’m having trouble reconciling this article with the year 2012. Fostering self-hatred is not “representing the cause”.

  8. Grace
    October 16, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    I long for the impossible standard of female beauty as a daily chore for all, not because I want the world to look better — I want it to be better…Looking great is a matter of feminism.

    And here I thought feminism was about respect, autonomy, and social, legal, and economic equality. If only I’d known that lipstick and high heels would magically end violence against women worldwide! I wouldn’t have worn my dirty boots to work today!

  9. tlfk
    October 16, 2012 at 12:47 pm

    That article was full of numerous highlights, I’m surprised you could contain yourself to what you quoted above;). She seems to attribute her adherence to a makeup and heels routine to “Oh, I don’t know, I guess I was just brought up with parents who instilled a work ethic in me”. B/c if you dress in jeans or flats or don’t wear makeup, it is b/c you are lazy? One might read this article and think the conclusion is that how a woman looks is the sum of her total worth, which doesn’t sound that much different from pre-feminist movements, actually.

  10. samanthab
    October 16, 2012 at 12:50 pm

    Hmm. Would it be so impossible for someone to be the “face of feminism today” and also legitimately feminist? Also, as someone who’s got a predilection for clothes, I’m pretty sure it’s possible to find attractive shoes that aren’t sheer torture. Tavi Gevinson isn’t slovenly, by any standards, but she doesn’t need 5 inch heels to look spectacular. What Wurtzel is talking about clearly has something to do with inviting the male eye- she spells it out when she use catcalls to validate her un-“slovenliness.” She isn’t asking that women use clothes for the sake of self-expression and creativity- she’s asking us to live our lives with the paramount goal of male dilatation.
    It’s not that it’s “hard” or not, “girls.” It’s that it’s constraining and boring and often painful and invasive. When I was younger and prettier, it evidently made me target of a lot of fucked up behavior. If you are perceived as a trophy, it doesn’t leave much room for your own subjectivity. Men would make creepy comment after creepy comment, follow me home, and give me free things I hadn’t asked for- apparently I was supposed to sleep with dudes who gave me a free coffee? Um, no.

    I don’t think I’m now slovenly by any means- unless you count my bathroom floor- but I do feel like I get a lot more respect now that I’m less dewy and not so conventionally attractive. Men treat me better, not worse. Wurtzel’s not living in the same world that I am. I like my planet better.

  11. Kxx
    October 16, 2012 at 12:53 pm

    and see women in their twenties who have already given up, my heart breaks

    Given up? Who the hell is she to decide who’s ‘given up?’

    I’ve gone from being a teenager who was terrified to leave the house without make up to the woman in my twenties who couldn’t give a rat’s arse what strangers on the street think of my looks. I’m glad I was able to do that. I was a miserable teenager, but I’m a very happy twenty-something.

    Given up? All I’ve given up on is the idea that I need to base my sense of self worth on some ridiculous standard of what someone else thinks I should look like. Given up on the idea that I need to spend stupid amounts of money on junk science products to keep me looking young, and make up to hide my imperfections. Given up on the idea that if I walk past a load of construction workers and they don’t harrass me that there must be something wrong with me. Given up on the idea that I ought to hate myself a little bit every time I eat cake.

    That, to me, is what feminism is (or at least, a little bit of what feminism is). Not telling everyone else that if they don’t try to live up to an impossible standard and then hate themselves when they inevitably can’t.

    Looking great is a matter of feminism

    No. Looking however the hell I want to look is a matter of feminism.

    What a ridiculous person.

    • Partial Human
      October 17, 2012 at 11:07 am

      I’ve gone from being a teenager who was terrified to leave the house without make up to the woman in my twenties who couldn’t give a rat’s arse what strangers on the street think of my looks.

      This. Except um, thirty five!

      As an ugly kid my teen years were hell. Had nice hair, which had to be perfect, clothes had to hang a certain way, makeup on right, or TOTAL FUCKING FREAKOUT.

      All the way up until a few years ago. I’d spend hours getting ready to go out, and then hide out in my room/my house. Didn’t want to inflict my “hideous” self on the public, only for them to take the piss out of me.

      Then the realisation – I’m never going to look amazing, be a size zero, or even stand out enough to attract mockery. I realised I was a good person, that trying to live up. to impossible standards was getting in the way of that, and killing me from the inside out (thank you EDs and SI!)

      So yeah, I’m trying hard to let being happy and not stressed to death be the thing that makes me look better.

      So yeah, bollocks to impossible standards and to wasting time caring about what everyone else thinks.

      • October 17, 2012 at 11:41 am

        PH,

        You are so incredibly brave, I’m in awe.

        I had sort of the opposite journey, going from deliberately unkempt because I’m fat and ugly anyway, to struggling towards being as well-groomed as I can – still no makeup because I hate it and can’t apply it properly with my hands anyway – because damn it, my body, my home, and imperfect and broken as it is, I still want to treat it as well as I can. I’m so, so far away from that goal, though, that I really look at your comment as bodylovespiration (because fuck thinspiration, seriously). All the love!

      • Partial Human
        October 17, 2012 at 2:53 pm

        I’ve been through phases of depressed self-neglect too. I hate, HATE, that my parents, the media, and society made me feel utterly worthless for so many years.

        What with the enforced heterosexism as well, then religion on top of that. it was impossible to value myself. It’s a wonder I managed to make it this far!

        My partner helped me change. She loved my fat imperfect body, she saw nothing but beauty and value in it. Hating it felt like I was betraying her and rejecting her love.

        No doubt your wife has inspired something similar in you too, changing what’s long been a source of pain, into a vessel to carry love, as sappy as that sounds!

        So I’ll raise my glass (of pop, haha, not mixing booze with pain meds!) to our collective beauty, to the transformative power of self respect, love, and a growing awareness that it’s the system that’s broken and worthless, not us.

        That goes for everyone. One day (like me, like Mac), you might learn that life can be painful and soul-destroying enough, without adding to it with self-loathing and shame.

        You’re not to blame if you don’t look like a movie star, if you don’t have flawless skin, “perfect” proportions, and gravity-defying breasts. What you see in films and magazines are lies, your genetics are immutable, and anyone who says that their miracle product or diet can change you and your life, is a fraudster.

        You’re amazeballs as you are. I hope that one day feminist and social justice activism can kill the toxic “beauty” monster.

      • October 17, 2012 at 8:02 pm

        You’re amazeballs as you are.

        Dude, you bring the wibblesquee! *cheers PH on*

        No doubt your wife has inspired something similar in you too, changing what’s long been a source of pain, into a vessel to carry love, as sappy as that sounds!

        This is six kinds of NOT SAPPY but true, where I’m concerned! ^__^

      • MrRabbit
        October 18, 2012 at 10:33 am

        Big love to macavitykitsune and Partial Human. Loved these comments.

  12. Drahill
    October 16, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    Well, if she went back and re-read Prozac Nation, which dealt with what she was doing in her 20s, I don’t think it should be very surprising at all that she is probably in better shape now. A decade of self-abuse can tend to make one worse for wear. Stopping such bad habits probably does in fact result in feeling and looking better. But why should that be a point of pride that deserves a full article?

  13. Alexis
    October 16, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    God this pisses me off. I am almost entirely blind and even with that fact my mother–and other people in my life–have always been on my case to care more about how I present myself to the world. Because that’s truly what matters, right? I don’t care about fashion or makeup because I can barely see those things. So does that make me less of a person? Does it make me apathetic? Slovenly? Unhealthy? I guess it does, in the eyes of Ms. Wurtzel.

  14. October 16, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    I don’t even…

    Because really, this is…

    Aw, screw it, this article makes no sense. How is trying to force women to adhere to Patriarchal standards of beauty, and asserting that looking better means being better in any way feminist as opposed to the direct antithesis of feminist?

  15. doberman
    October 16, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    No liberated woman would misrepresent the cause by appearing less than hale and happy.

    Hmm… Sounds pretty similar to what you guys say about women who don’t shave enough or whatever in those feminist 101s I’m always directed to? In the end, a matter of degrees I think.

    • October 16, 2012 at 1:18 pm

      Well, we’ve already established that your reading comprehension is questionable at best, so I’m not surprised that you would think this.

    • Kxx
      October 16, 2012 at 1:24 pm

      Are you saying that writers/commenters here accuse ‘women who don’t shave enough’ of being bad feminists?

      I know I’m by no means a frequent commenter, but I am a frequent reader and that… doesn’t really seem likely.

    • im
      October 16, 2012 at 2:26 pm

      what are you saying, dog? I don’t even…

      I think most feminists are anti-compulsory-shaving, even if they are OK with people often doing it. Where are you even coming from?

      • catfood
        October 16, 2012 at 3:33 pm

        Trolling. That is all.

    • EG
      October 16, 2012 at 2:29 pm

      Sounds pretty similar to what you guys say about women who don’t shave enough or whatever in those feminist 101s I’m always directed to?

      What on earth are you talking about? Do you even know?

      • shfree
        October 16, 2012 at 3:59 pm

        I’m pretty sure that the stereotypical feminist is one who doesn’t shave, so I don’t get the “don’t shave enough” reference, so…I’m confused and not at all getting where he’s coming from, here. Or is he talking about his opinion regarding the frequency of shaving? I’m baffled.

      • doberman
        October 16, 2012 at 6:42 pm

        Sorry, my comment is not the best worded. What I meant was that from the bit I quoted, it shows that Wetling cares about the face of the movement. Of course this seems a bit silly; part of the point of feminism is that it shouldn’t matter. But that’s not the real world. In the end, feminism is going to have to appeal to men.

        To me it looks rather similar to how modern feminists fervently disassociate themselves from feminists who don’t shave. Except she’s taking it to more of an extreme here.

      • EG
        October 16, 2012 at 6:53 pm

        In the end, feminism is going to have to appeal to men.

        Feminism may have to. Feminists don’t.

        To me it looks rather similar to how modern feminists fervently disassociate themselves from feminists who don’t shave.

        I don’t know any feminists who do this. I know lots of young women who are afraid to call themselves feminists who do.

      • October 16, 2012 at 8:34 pm

        Doberman: reminding people that not shaving is not a requirement to be a feminist is not the same as running away from the unshaved in the movement.

        And as EG says, the men who are only interested in feminism because they think feminist chicks are hot are not feminists, and will never be the ones who fight for the cause. There are a lot of reasons feminism as an ideology may be truly appealing to guys, but most of those reasons require those men being something other than completely self interested.

        Also, part of feminism is that we’re all sock of having the social discourse center on men anyway, thank you very much. So telling us we must change the movement’s principles because the men won’t like it kind of goes over like a lead balloon round these parts, kiddo.

      • October 16, 2012 at 8:35 pm

        sick, not sock. Oops. We’re all sick of having the social discourse center on men.

      • MrRabbit
        October 17, 2012 at 9:41 am

        EG, I’ve heard quite a few feminists say they’re not like those hairy feminists and how gross it is. It does happen. As a nonshaving feminist I find it really annoying. I haven’t seen it on here, though.

      • Partial Human
        October 17, 2012 at 11:51 am

        . In the end, feminism is going to have to appeal to men

        Hahahahahah. Yeah, whatthefuckever. You know yesterday, when I said you can go and fuck your free market, libertarian, Randroid, Chicago School bullshit? That. Again. While you crawl bare-legged across a landscape of scattered Lego pieces

        Feminism isn’t a product or a gimmick. All it is, from top to bottom, is the staggering (apparently for you) notion that women are fully human.

        Women of colour, trans women, women who sleep with women, immigrant women, disabled women, poor women, non-neurotypical women. Equal humans, sharing the same rights and privileges and power given to men.
        Same for non-binary and genderqueer people who don’t identify with either gender, or switch fluidly.

        Any man who won’t support feminism if we’re not pretty enough, thin enough, coddling his feefees, deferring to his status, playing nice as our rights are stripped, or for any reason whatsoever, is free to piss off and say what fucking b*tches we are, and snuggle up in his nest made of privilege blankets.

        We don’t need, er want, arsehole ~allies~ who only support the causes of marginalised people as a way to get laid, get cred, and insist on being treated as awesomely enlightened beings for reaching the minimum standard of human decency.

        There’s no room for them. If they’re so delicate that being called on their privilege makes them cry or get angry, then what the fuck are they doing on a battlefield?

        Oh, and you still haven’t clarified if you’re a man. Can’t be bothered to go through every garbled comment you’ve ever made.

      • EG
        October 17, 2012 at 12:02 pm

        PH, I know I’ve said fucked up ablist things that have hurt you, and I’m trying to do better now. I hope it will be OK with you if I say that I fervently love this comment and it is an example of your awesomeness.

      • Partial Human
        October 17, 2012 at 3:01 pm

        Thanks EG! Dogman has sparked my warrior rage in a big way today. Biiig.

        Clean slate for ya. My memory buffer can only hold the most egregious offenders these days. Dogbot is filling most of the slots TBH.

      • Kxx
        October 17, 2012 at 3:56 pm

        But that’s not the real world. In the end, feminism is going to have to appeal to men.

        In the end it’s alllll about the men, rite? I mean we all know they’re the only ones who matter, so who the fuck are we kidding?

        Oh wait, doberman, you’re not a raging sexist? Huh.

      • doberman
        October 17, 2012 at 5:16 pm

        Hmm, fair point actually. I guess there’s no point in having allies unless they actually agree with the cause in full.

        But then the question becomes, is it possible to change the minds of men (and women who are anti-feminist) in this way?

      • MrRabbit
        October 18, 2012 at 10:38 am

        Partial Human’s response to the dogman wins best comment in thread award.

      • October 18, 2012 at 2:54 pm

        Another day, another fabulous post by Partial Human.

      • October 17, 2012 at 12:14 pm

        Partial Human, you just said what I wanted to say, only so much better!

      • Partial Human
        October 17, 2012 at 3:08 pm

        Thank you!

        The rage inspires me. So. Much. Rage!

    • igglanova
      October 16, 2012 at 8:24 pm

      I think, if a Doberman could talk, it would certainly come up with something a lot cleverer than this.

      • moviemaedchen
        October 16, 2012 at 9:51 pm

        Ok, you made me LOL.

      • Partial Human
        October 17, 2012 at 11:16 am

        Yep. Dogtroll gives canines a bad name.

        Dogs aren’t sexist idiots who claim the status of OMGULTIMATEFEMINIST because their mommy was in the “real” feminist movement back in the day.

        Also, dogs are not libertarians, don’t wank off to Atlas Shrugged,and dogsplain compulsively as if they’re founts of knowledge, even though they actually just babble like a damaged Furby

      • Bagelsan
        October 18, 2012 at 10:29 am

        Dogsplain: “Yanno, cats, you really aren’t licking yourselves right.”

      • MrRabbit
        October 18, 2012 at 10:39 am

        “Dogsplain.” Win!

    • October 17, 2012 at 11:27 am

      I completely agree, doberman.

      Personally I find feminist Christians who go about with hairy legs and armpits to be THE WORST. I mean, Jesus shaves, why can’t you????

      • Radiant Sophia
        October 17, 2012 at 3:20 pm

        Uh, oh! I am a feminist christian with (moderately) hairy legs and armpits.

      • October 17, 2012 at 3:37 pm

        You’re clearly irredeemable. Didn’t you read the Ten Commandments, Wimminz Edition? It says so right there in number 3. Thou shalt hold thy body sacred, if by sacred we mean shaped meticulously to arbitrary standards of unattainable beauty norms.

      • Bagelsan
        October 19, 2012 at 3:22 pm

        The 10th Commandment is “why are you able to read??” That’s how the fuzzy Christians getcha. *nod nod*

  16. miga
    October 16, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    If the only time I got catcalled was when I dressed up I’d never wear makeup or shorts again. But alas, I just have that natural “Je ne sais quois!”

    And honestly, I prefer to get 30 minutes more “beauty sleep” than to roll out of bed and apply a full face of makeup to cover up my sleepy eyes, thank you very much.

  17. Lolagirl
    October 16, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    Elizabeth Wurtzel is the very same insufferable elitist who wrote that ridiculous article about 1%er houswives and why SAHPing was the worst thing in the world a few months back.

    Anybody else notice how every, single, article, she writes includes a reference to her being a Harvard alumna as well as her ridiculously high socio-economic status?

    • Tamara
      October 16, 2012 at 3:35 pm

      I will definitely not be buying a copy of her collected essays.

    • amblingalong
      October 16, 2012 at 4:30 pm

      Anybody else notice how every, single, article, she writes includes a reference to her being a Harvard alumna as well as her ridiculously high socio-economic status?

      That’s undergrad, right? Because honestly, while going to Harvard for most of their grad programs is legitimately impressive, doing an undergrad there is pretty damn meh.

      • Lolagirl
        October 16, 2012 at 5:39 pm

        I mean, even for undergrad it’s pretty impressive to this alumna of a small Catholic (all-women’s) college. But mentioning it over and over again, with that ridiculous air of self importance, like she’s got the name dropping gotcha that ends all debate as to who is the most awesome and important person in the room (and possibly the entire UES of Manhattan)?

        It may not make her the awesomest women in Manhattan, but it may just make her the most obnoxious.

        The funny thing to me as well, is that the few people I know who did graduate from Hahvahd are actually kind of sheepish about it. Like they expect people to roll their eyes and find it annoying. After reading some of Wurtzel’s drivel I can understand why they would be so embarrassed to associate themselves as a fellow alum of hers.

    • piny
      October 17, 2012 at 12:18 pm

      Look, Harvard is very expensive.

  18. im
    October 16, 2012 at 2:09 pm

    WHAT THE FUCK?

    Incidentally, an argument against constant adornment is that you can be noticed when you DO clean up. Like the expensive melons in Japan.

  19. EG
    October 16, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    I’m so sick of Elizabeth Wurtzel. I was sick of her when Prozac Nation came out, and I’m sick of her now. I hope HarperCollins (I think it is) wins its suit against her.

    Given up…or have better things to do?

    • Lolagirl
      October 16, 2012 at 2:45 pm

      Cosigned!

  20. AMM
    October 16, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    What Wurtzel is talking about clearly has something to do with inviting the male eye- she spells it out when she use catcalls to validate her un-”slovenliness.”

    Actually: inviting the conventionalized “male eye.” Actual males have a wide variety of tastes.

    Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that a particular woman thinks it worth going to some trouble to invite the gaze of some “male eyes,” she’ll find that pretty much anything she does short of meeting every male who looks her way with a double-barrelled shotgun and death threats will seem “inviting” to some.

    She’ll also find that trying to be conventionally pretty won’t stop men from insulting her appearance. Men insult women’s appearance as a kind of dominance and male bonding behavior; whether they actually might find her attractive is usually beside the point.

    Tl;dr summary: conventional ideas of female beauty have little to do with actually attracting a male (whether in the form of catcalls, dates, or whatever) or avoiding male criticism and everything to do with garnering social status and approval.

    • samanthab
      October 17, 2012 at 11:44 am

      Yes, I’m in total agreement. It makes me sad to read her; she’s just so clearly bought into a maladjusted worldview.

  21. TomSims
    October 16, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    I agree, this lady is nuts!

    • moviemaedchen
      October 16, 2012 at 9:58 pm

      No, she’s heterosexist. Can we avoid ableism here, please?

  22. JK
    October 16, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    I have given up. I have given caring what anyone who is not me thinks of my appearance. (Excluding professional situations.) It’s pretty awesome.

  23. Kasabian
    October 16, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    This is a joke, right? Or satire of some sort?

    It just seems too over the top to not be a joke. Or maybe some form of high-tier trolling.

    • Tamara
      October 16, 2012 at 3:37 pm

      I wondered that too, but since it was published in Harpers Bizarre it is most likely genuine.

    • PrettyAmiable
      October 16, 2012 at 3:48 pm

      Could it be satire?

      • October 17, 2012 at 11:19 am

        I’m pretty sure a thousand years from now this is exactly the question that future!historians will be asking about the entire 21st century. D:

    • SamBarge
      October 16, 2012 at 7:57 pm

      I thought it must be a joke too because of all the references to product names. I mean, between the casual dropping of “Harvard grad” and “published author” she makes sure to tell us the product name of her lip balm, shoes, etc? Really?

      Okay then,I thought as I typed on my Toshiba laptop, with my Blackberry close at hand, next to the discarded DoubleDecker wrapper and my Sea World mug full of organic coffee…

  24. October 16, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    Ack. She’s gotta stop it. No way I could read all that drivel, thanks for the obnoxious slices of her solipsistic view.

  25. Bagelsan
    October 16, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    And now I walk miles in Marni’s five-inch platform T-straps.

    Yes, because when I see a woman walking for miles in 5-inch heels, the first thing I think is “how happy and hale she looks!” :p

    • DouglasG
      October 17, 2012 at 1:06 am

      The first thing I think of is how well she might or might not walk at 75 (not that I know about shoes, but her tone suggests that those aren’t the sort of shoes worn thirty years by the senior women I know who are still playing tennis and golf).

  26. shfree
    October 16, 2012 at 3:52 pm

    Oh, she can bite me. And she doesn’t even recognize her luck to not have to wear a damn uniform for her workday, whether the uniform is a literal uniform, or a dress code that must be followed. Then maybe she would realize WHY women go around in comfortable clothes, because uniforms suck. I know mine does, and I’m often in my jammies unless I have to go outside on my days off of work, just because I’m not compelled to wear clothes I wouldn’t wear normally on said days.

    Also, looking hale and happy doesn’t equal hale and happy, so I guess she missed that memo too. From what I undersood was that feminism wasn’t about putting on a fake smile and pretending nothing is wrong with one’s world, but wanting an end to patriarchy.

  27. October 16, 2012 at 4:21 pm

    Sadly my real name is Marni, but I don’t buy $900 shoes. As for the young women giving up … boy, do I get how courageous they are. Think about this, lady. I am 45. Every day of my younger life I was strongly encouraged to ‘make myself gorgeous’. It was clear that if I did so, the rewards would be endless, and if I did not, the punishment severe. Every day, that is the choice. If a young woman takes the hard option, every day, she is fighting in this war, and GOOD FOR HER!

  28. msgd
    October 16, 2012 at 4:28 pm

    Kind of reads like satire. I get the feeling this isn’t her inner monologue, even if she is presenting it that way for the sake of money.

  29. Kaija24
    October 16, 2012 at 4:41 pm

    Good gravy…this topic hits me close today as I’ve just spent the last week trying (again, for the 64,000th time) to my mother that my lack of interest in fashion, shopping, and “dressing up” is NOT due to a lack of self-esteem but a complete lack of interest. I will adhere to the politeness/manners of dress that accompany events like weddings, funerals, and interviews, but the rest of the time I prefer to dress comfortably and inexpensively in jeans/T-shirts/sweatshirts, athletic/dance wear, and whatever I feel like on any given day that does not include the aforementioned obligatory events. Not all women dress/act/appear the same and thank goodness for that! Anyone who judges my “self” on how I dress or my interest in fashion is an asshat; I prefer to please myself…and I applaud other women who do the same, even if they prefer to adorn themselves more/less/differently than I do! I thought feminism was all about “there are as many ways to be a woman as there are women”…Wurtzel should be fined for misappropriation of a word :P

    • samanthab
      October 17, 2012 at 11:58 am

      Oh, come now. Women might be happier if we put our own tastes and needs first. That’s just a wacky definition of feminism. you have right there.

      • EG
        October 17, 2012 at 12:05 pm

        “Women might be happier”–see, there’s your mistake right there, thinking that women’s happiness is some kind of priority for feminism. Obviously, looking conventionally attractive is the highest good to which a woman can aspire, so it has to be the ultimate point of feminism. Or the point of ultimate feminism.

      • moviemaedchen
        October 17, 2012 at 12:16 pm

        No, it’s (ultimately) the ultimate point of ultimate feminism, obviously. Sheesh.

        ;P

  30. Vidya
    October 16, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    No liberated woman would misrepresent the cause by appearing less than hale and happy.

    I didn’t realize that being fat, chronically ill, and sometimes depressed meant that I would have my ‘liberated’ status revoked. (And who still uses ‘liberated woman’ these days, anyway?)

    • samanthab
      October 17, 2012 at 12:02 pm

      I’m heading over to take back your “liberated” lady card. It’s just going to take a while because I’m walking in 5 inch heels.

  31. smoketree
    October 16, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    “Looking Better at 45 Than 25”

    I feel like the title they really wanted to go with was “Elizabeth Wurtzel has discovered the secret to reversing time IF YOU READ THIS YOU WILL NEVER GROW OLD AND DIE” but this is the best they could do.

  32. Brennan
    October 16, 2012 at 11:43 pm

    Ummm . . . that was special.

    Leaving aside her horrible, horrible ideas, how is this person a “published” anything? If she’d turned that article in as a high school essay, any teacher worth her salt would have handed it back covered in red ink and told her to do it over again. I can see the comments now:

    “‘Onset of slovenliness?’ If you make a claim like that, you need to support it.”

    “No, that’s the wrong place to discuss your beauty regimen. If you want to set yourself up as a positive counter-example (keep in mind that this can alienate your audience) you have to first frame the negative example.”

    “Really, though, I don’t like this part at all. It’s meandering, defensive, and self-aggrandizing. Just cut it.”

    “Lay off the product placement unless it’s relevant to your argument. Which it doesn’t seem to be.”

    “The bit about Michelle Obama and Sarah Palin is out of place and seems to run counter to your argument.”

    “‘Wounded world’? Once again, *support*! How is it wounded? Where’s the evidence that young women have ‘given up’? Have you anticipated counter-arguments?”

    “Don’t patronize your audience, honey; it’s not as effective as you think.”

    “Your grammar is pretty good and your vocabulary is decent, but this article lacks any form of rhetoric. You say that women should adhere to a beauty standard that you admit is “impossible” and “a daily chore,” but you fail to provide any evidence for how it benefits them. The closest you get to supporting evidence is that (1) your mother told you it was something women had to do and (2) it made you desirable to men who came to rallies in the 90’s. I strongly recommend that you choose a different, more defensible topic. However, if you insist on defending this position, you can start from scratch. This time, OUTLINE your argument, provide SUPPORT and cut the extraneous details.”

    But, apparently, they don’t teach you how to write at Harvard.

    • Storyphile
      October 17, 2012 at 1:03 am

      I lol’d

      • igglanova
        October 17, 2012 at 4:44 am

        As did I.

  33. Annaleigh
    October 17, 2012 at 12:17 am

    Can I get a big fuck you for Elizabeth Wurtzel?

    I am someone who likes to have a beauty regimen of some kind…but I haven’t had one in forever because I’m fucking *exhausted* all the time these days. I am my mother’s primary caregiver and I have disability issues myself. I gave up college and my job at the college because I needed to be home more often. I am doing several times the amount of housework and the caregiving stuff and yet I have the same amount of energy I’ve always had, which is very little. These days my concerns are whether my mom is eating well and that her blood sugar and blood pressure are OK, that her doctors are listening to her (which often doesn’t happen, hello jampacked Medicaid clinics!) that I have my medications that I need and am not sliding into despair, doing endless errand runs day after day and fighting anxiety on evenings when I am running errands after dark because I am paranoid about being stranded and have legitimate fears of sexual assault and or harassment, or that I will be at the wrong place at the wrong time and violence breaks out. I have given up college, crafts, most in person contact with my friends and I still can’t seem to find time to go to the gym one a week or even once a month. Those care concerns, Elizabeth Wurtzel, not whether I’ve applied moisturizer and lip balm. I would be so delighted if that was my big problem.

    • Annaleigh
      October 17, 2012 at 12:18 am

      That last sentence should read, “Those are my concerns, Elizabeth Wurtzel…” Gah!

    • MO
      October 17, 2012 at 9:40 am

      I applauded.

    • MO
      October 17, 2012 at 9:48 am

      And I totally get where you’re coming from. I take care of a disabled parent on an admin’s salary. I’m an only child, so no help there. I also have Fibro, so I’m pretty much in constant pain and exhaustion. I don’t wear most makeup because of either the smell, the chemicals, or the time it takes to put on. I dress ok for work, but I haven’t worn heels in at least 10 years because they hurt so much. I really miss being healthy and going hiking, but now I have to choose between having the energy to cook a full dinner or vacuuming the whole house that day.

      My college degree (in Women’s Studies, no less) is just as valid a piece of paper as Miss Prozac Nation’s even if it came from a state college. My book of poetry is available for sale and has an ISBN, even if it’s from a POD publisher. So Wurtzel can kiss my exhausted, hurting, chemical-sensitive behind.

      Oh, and I DESPISE being called a “girl”.

      • October 20, 2012 at 2:09 am

        Sorry to hear you’re in the same boat. It’s hard, isn’t it? As long as I’m holding things together, I’ve learned not to care about these things that Wurtzel seems to think are most important…

  34. Storyphile
    October 17, 2012 at 1:06 am

    What a massive privileged wankfest.

  35. LotusBecca
    October 17, 2012 at 3:32 am

    Is feminism coming back into style or something? For the longest time, there’s been a lot of women who clearly had feminist values but refused to self-identify as such because of the bad rap feminism had gotten. But right here we have a woman who is not a feminist by anyone’s definition of the term and yet is saying she is. A very superficial woman at that, who is clearly only concerned about image. Is feminism fashionable now or something?

    • igglanova
      October 17, 2012 at 4:21 am

      Who knows. My guess was that she adopted the ‘feminist’ moniker so she could at least pretend she was too hip for something as pedestrian as the status quo. Even as she penned a ringing endorsement of the status quo.

      It’s all very confusing.

      • Bagelsan
        October 18, 2012 at 10:38 am

        I think the patriarchy loves women who are willing to co-opt the whole “feminist” thing to serve said patriarchy. They’re the only ones who get a pass on being feminist because everyone secretly knows they aren’t the icky hairy-legged angry kind of feminist! They’re the pretty coiffed subservient kind of feminist who hates the former kind almost as much as the patriarchy does! Totally legit feminism, y’all, a dolled-up woman said so!

      • Bagelsan
        October 18, 2012 at 10:40 am

        It’s a little like the white female/sexism version of the PoC the Republicans trot out every election year: “look, we’re not racist, a black person said so!”

      • Attackfish
        October 18, 2012 at 10:54 am

        This. I think she’s the “feminist” equivalent of a fox news liberal, you know, a conservative who comes out saying how liberal they are, right before spouting the Republican party line so that everybody else can pretend that they’re being bipartisan because a “liberal” agrees with them.

    • Lolagirl
      October 17, 2012 at 9:33 am

      I’m coining a new term, caviar feminist, to describe Wurtzel. Her brand of feminism is about going to a super elite university, getting a glamorous job, and living out her Sex and the City fantasies of high fashion. There is no actual substance to it, other than to criticize and tear down other women who are not so fortunate to have the connections and access to the upper echelons of NY society to help them out like Wurzel did. Clearly, she only cares about issues that make her wealthy and stylish, and has no concept of how the other 99% live their lives or the real-life challenges they face on a daily basis.

      • Past my expiration date
        October 17, 2012 at 9:46 am

        There is no actual substance to it, other than to criticize and tear down other women who are not so fortunate to have the connections and access to the upper echelons of NY society to help them out like Wurzel did. Clearly, she only cares about issues that make her wealthy and stylish, and has no concept of how the other 99% live their lives or the real-life challenges they face on a daily basis.

        But, Lolagirl! Elizabeth Wurtzel, Katie Roiphe, and Naomi Wolf must be typical, average New York residents, because otherwise there wouldn’t be any reason for us to constantly get to read about their lives!

      • DonnaL
        October 17, 2012 at 9:53 am

        Why, oh why, do all three of them have to be Jewish? Not all — in fact, not many — New York Jewish women are like that, I promise!

      • Lolagirl
        October 17, 2012 at 10:02 am

        Well, it is true that the Upper East Side and Park Slope are microcosms of American life.

        Amirite?!

      • DonnaL
        October 17, 2012 at 10:05 am

        Perhaps I’m being oversensitive, but I should also point out that not all Jewish women in New York City live on the Upper East Side or in Park Slope. I don’t.

      • Lolagirl
        October 17, 2012 at 10:55 am

        Sorry, Donna, I apparently hit post on my comment after you did. I was referring to the tendency among Wurtzel and her ilk to act as though their little world in the UES or Park Slope are emblematic of the entire U.S. Clearly, they are wrong, but that doesn’t stop them from proceeding from their very insular and uninformed premise(s).

      • EG
        October 17, 2012 at 11:00 am

        Wurtzel is Jewish? Now I feel contact embarrassment. Not quite as badly as when I found out that Malcolm McLaren was Jewish, but enough to annoy me.

      • Lolagirl
        October 17, 2012 at 11:04 am

        I gotta say, I had no idea that any of these women were Jewish, not that it would have any affect on my opinion of them anyway.

        Then again, I spend most of my life living under a rock. I just figured out who Honey Booboo was about two weeks ago.

      • October 17, 2012 at 11:23 am

        contact embarrassment

        EG I love you. I have never heard that phrase before, but it is so damn perfect for how I feel about so many things!

      • EG
        October 17, 2012 at 11:34 am

        Right back atcha, Mac! Seriously, I was about to post my love for you in response to your comment to Tired Old Radfem in that other thread. It’s a mutual lovefest!

      • October 17, 2012 at 12:16 pm

        A few corrections (not necesarily directed at the people I’m quoting)

        Perhaps I’m being oversensitive, but I should also point out that not all Jewish women in New York City live on the Upper East Side or in Park Slope. I don’t.

        Katie Roiphe lives in Boerum Hill, or at least that’s the impression I got from that article she wrote that got posted here a while ago.

        Wurtzel is Jewish? Now I feel contact embarrassment. Not quite as badly as when I found out that Malcolm McLaren was Jewish, but enough to annoy me.

        McLaren was only Jewish if you’re totally hung up on the matrilineal thing (his mother’s mother was Jewish, and his step-father as well, but he was never a practicing Jew.)

        Bernie on the other hand was a Jew, and one we can be proud of.

      • EG
        October 17, 2012 at 12:21 pm

        Biggest OT in the history of Feministe:

        Oh, I have love for Bernie, definitely! But I thought McLaren was Bar Mitzvahed and everything? Here’s a photo.

        Wasn’t Mick Jones’s mother Jewish too? There was a whole book about this, wasn’t there? The Heebie-Jeebies at CBGBs, or something like that.

      • October 17, 2012 at 12:24 pm

        Oh, I have love for Bernie, definitely! But I thought McLaren was Bar Mitzvahed and everything? Here’s a photo.

        Wasn’t Mick Jones’s mother Jewish too? There was a whole book about this, wasn’t there? The Heebie-Jeebies at CBGBs, or something like that.

        Oooh, I stand corrected. And yes Mick’s mother was Jewish and I don’t think he knew his father and he was raised by his Jewish grandmother. This is referenced in the BAD song ‘Beyond The Pale’ (from No. 10 Upping St,)

      • Lolagirl
        October 17, 2012 at 1:19 pm

        Katie Roiphe lives in Boerum Hill, or at least that’s the impression I got from that article she wrote that got posted here a while ago.

        Oh, Boerum Hill you say, well that changes everything!

        Phhhtttt.

        I know your wanking about Steve, but seriously, it’s becoming such a cliche that any article with a Feminist bent to it published by the NYT/Harper’s/The Atlantic et al will be all about life lived in some swank NYC neighborhood and extrapolating it to all of womankind in the rest of the U.S. That the neighborhood is either Park Slope or the UES is just more cliche to further flesh out the clicheness of whatever article.

      • Donna L
        October 17, 2012 at 1:31 pm

        Bernie who? Bernie Rhodes?

      • October 17, 2012 at 1:38 pm

        Bernie who? Bernie Rhodes?

        that’s the Bernie…

      • EG
        October 17, 2012 at 5:35 pm

        Yep! Refused to loan the Sex Pistols the Clash’s equipment when the Pistols forgot theirs because the Pistols wouldn’t take their swastikas off, which resulted in Sid Vicious calling him anti-semitic names from the stage, kind of proving his point, if you ask me.

        There’s a great interview with the Clash in the early ’80s where Rhodes, who had been running around frantically telling anybody who would listen that he had invented punk rock, had passed out in a chair, and Joe Strummer got sick of interviewers’ questions, gestured to him, and said “Why don’t you ask him? He invented punk rock. It’s clearly all been too much for him.”

        I loved Joe Strummer deeply. Still do.

      • Amelia the lurker
        October 19, 2012 at 10:37 am

        Knew Wolf and Wurtzel were Jewish, had no idea about Katie Roiphe. Anyway, in response to Donna, I doubt that anybody whose opinion is worth taking seriously would judge all New York Jewish women because of these three idiots!

      • samanthab
        October 17, 2012 at 10:31 am

        Donna L, I think you could put Candace Bushnell in that group, and she’s not Jewish.

    • samanthab
      October 17, 2012 at 10:27 am

      I think the assumption is that it’s a get out of sexism-free card. It’s not!

      • Past my expiration date
        October 17, 2012 at 10:55 am

        Whose assumption?

      • samanthab
        October 17, 2012 at 12:37 pm

        Hers, and maybe the editors’? Sadly, some readers’,I would guess. I mean, that’s what this piece is really, deft ad copy to sell crap. And advertising works.

  36. October 17, 2012 at 4:52 am

    i don’t know if i should laugh or cry!

  37. Iany
    October 17, 2012 at 10:49 am

    Argh! The entire thing galls.
    Also, I don’t know what it was like when she was there, but Harrrrvarrrrrd has its fair share of slovenly people. And it’s just a damn school, how is it at all relevant in this facile discussion about women needing to look nice???

  38. Angie unduplicated
    October 17, 2012 at 11:11 am

    The woman stinks of privilege. Does the woman who cleans up after her have to be teased, stained, and polyurethaned? How about the women who deliver babies, unload stock at her grocery store, and pick the produce she eats? Do they have to wear heels and hairspray?
    I work in fifty-cent Ts, dollar scrub pants, and whatever running shoes happen to be five bucks at the local garage sales. When my work is done, I go shopping if I need to, dressed in the same attire, and my hair looks like it’s been combed by Brer Rabbit’s home and hairdresser. I have a cute purse and absolutely precious grocery bags, but none were expensive, nor are they on her list of must-consumes.
    If she doesn’t like people like me, she can go home and do without our services. All of us. Seriously. She’s a feminist like I’m a Park Avenue resident.

    • Lolagirl
      October 17, 2012 at 1:45 pm

      I might be going out on a limb here (although not really, who are we kidding) but I expect that the folks cleaning up after Wurtzel aren’t really counted in the “people who matter” category as far as she is concerned. Certainly not people who matter to Feminism, or humanity in general, because there is no room for them in Wurtzel’s particular school of I Got Mine Feminism.

      • Past my expiration date
        October 18, 2012 at 1:18 pm

        I expect that the folks cleaning up after Wurtzel aren’t really counted in the “people who matter” category as far as she is concerned.

        Which, really, is surprising, given that she walks (for miles!) in other people’s shoes. Or, at least, one other person’s shoes — somebody named Marni.

  39. MJ
    October 17, 2012 at 9:33 pm

    Why is anyone paying attention to this fool?

    I have been around the sun over fifty times, and that time has taught me that no “real woman” would be caught dead in clothes that she can’t muck out a stall in, let a cat knead on, do some impromptu gardening in, get covered in chalk when she’s teaching, split wood in, throw her jacket over to meet patients, write in, or get splattered with paint. Real women do things.

    • October 18, 2012 at 9:40 am

      Agree mostly, but there are a lot of women who can’t muck stalls or move around in front of a classroom and still are “real women.” It’s a pretty broad category. I do understand what you’re getting at, though.

    • Donna L
      October 18, 2012 at 12:58 pm

      I’ve been around the sun more than fifty times as well, and that time has taught me that all women are “real women,” no matter what clothing they wear. It’s also taught me that I despise the term “real women” no matter who uses it, because its use always implies that there are non-real women out there.

      • Donna L
        October 18, 2012 at 12:59 pm

        Slight correction: its use always seems intended to imply, etc.

      • Amelia the lurker
        October 19, 2012 at 10:33 am

        Yup, that was my reaction to the phrase as well.

      • October 20, 2012 at 5:42 pm

        Yes yes yes to this. Real women are whatever real women want to be. I’ve always thought that was the point of feminism, actually…

  40. Xexyz
    October 18, 2012 at 9:54 am

    Ok, I read that article. We’re sure ‘Elizabeth Wurtzel’ is an actual person and not an alias of Ann Coulter? Maybe it’s her sister or they were in a sorority together?

  41. October 18, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    I am 45 and in the physical shape of someone about half my age. I realize this is obnoxious to say,

    I don’t get what age has to do with physical shape unless she is talking about her heart/lung or other organ function. In terms of body shape, well, that Honey Boo Boo’s mother is half Elizabeth Wurzel’s age, so for me, the comparison seems less ‘obnoxious’ than ‘completely meaningless.’

    • Lolagirl
      October 18, 2012 at 1:09 pm

      Right, it’s really just fake self-effacement by Wurtzel. “I know I should point out how I’m hotter than your average 24yo when I’m 45, teehee, but it’s true!”

      Which is why she also carries on about her sexy 5 inch-heeled Mary Janes, her personal trainer sessions, and dietary choices. “Look at me, I’m like Samantha Jones, but even sexier and more successful!”

      • Lolagirl
        October 18, 2012 at 1:10 pm

        Bah, that should read shouldn’t point out.

    • EG
      October 18, 2012 at 7:32 pm

      I don’t get what age has to do with physical shape unless she is talking about her heart/lung or other organ function.

      Don’t be silly, Steve! It doesn’t matter how women’s bodies function, or how healthy we are; the most important thing about women’s bodies, of course, is how many men want to fuck them.

  42. anna
    October 22, 2012 at 7:03 am

    So if she believes in feminism (aka equality between men and women) she also thinks men have let themselves go and are pathetically gross and unlovable if they don’t wear makeup, adopt a restrictive diet, slave away on the exercise bike, shave and pluck and wax all their body hair, etc.

    Right?

    Because otherwise she’s just a hypocrite.

  43. Russiancat
    October 25, 2012 at 5:34 am

    – grr, hiss, spit, table flip-
    Really?
    Well go gently caress yourself lady. I spent my whole adolescence being an ugly duckling and secretly dreaming of being like the “pretty” girls in my class.
    Then I finally screwed my head on right and my life instantly became easier.
    Walking around in expensive shoes and face caked in makeup is not feminism. Thinking catcalls define your worth isn’t feminism.

    Wearing makeup when and IF you want it and dressing the way you want to, without being criticized/judged/threatened for it – that is feminism.
    Waking up in the morning and smiling at yourself in the mirror, thinking you’re awesome and that the day is going to be great, because you’re happy to be you – that is feminism.

    (By the way, I’d love to see what this “feminist” has to say about women who are unable to wear heels because of spine problems. What do we with those poor things? Shoot them right away to put them out of their misery?)

    ( well that came out longer then I intended….but ugh! What is that lady on? I don’t even…I can’t )

Comments are closed.