This sex which is not one (or, Dad always warned me those women’s studies classes would lead to no good)

Last month my friend Emma said:

I wouldn’t have imagined Atlantic Monthly writer Caitlin Flanagan was capable of being more moronic, smug and offensive than in her January article It’s All Feminism’s Fault That People Have Sexless Marriages but whaddya know, I’d have been wrong. This month the Dr Phil watching mother reviews Sex and the City writer Cindy Chupack’s The Between Boyfriends Book and pities her for not understanding – dur! – that men sleep with sluts but they marry good girls:

That men are delighted to have sex with women they barely know but are skittish about marrying ones who offer themselves too freely is a fact of life that women have understood down through the ages…upper-middle-class women hold a lot of power in our culture these days. Still, though, there’s one bit of power women will never wrest from men: the decision to deem one group of women candidates for marriage and another group candidates for quick and quasi-anonymous sex.

This month the Bookslut and the Old Hag come out strongly in favor of Flanagan and her latest article, which is about Dr. Laura. From Bookslut:

Two completely different reactions to Dr. Laura’s Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands. First is Jennifer Howard’s offended reaction in the Washington Post. She takes the usual feminist reaction to Dr. Laura, who admonishes women for having careers and children and not being the good little wife. The more interesting piece, unfortunately, is not online yet. Caitlin Flanagan (again, the first thing I read in the Atlantic was her review) takes a more surprising approach. It seems Flanagan has recently become addicted to Dr. Laura’s show and tries to separate the crazy from the rational. She’s persuasive.

I was so turned off by Flanagan’s prior pieces that I can’t bring myself to read this one. Convince me I’m wrong. Or not.


Comments are closed.