an exercise in non sequitur thinking

Well, it's been a while but the time has come to revist an old friend. I say friend, but obviously what I mean is she of the horrendous-vile-harpy-contributing-to-the-destruction-of-the-world-as-we-know-it-through-the-use-of-mind-numbing-online-columns-and-poorly-researched-(if-at-all)-columns-on-gender,-dating-and-why-women-are-really-nothing-more-than-batshit-crazy-marriage-medusas-intent-on-trapping-men-by-filling-their-empty-depressed-wombs-up-with-collateral-babies!-and-then-giving-up-on-sex-because-now-the-ring-is-on-the-finger-they-don't-need-to-do-it-anymore-oh-and-also-men-are-heaps-nice-and-shit-and-women-just-won't-give-them-the-chance-because-they're-stuck-up-bitches-yay-pretend-feminism!

I am of course referring to Samantha Brett or, as I like to call her, That Fuckwit.

After all this time, I'm still uncertain as to what exactly qualifies Brett to speak with any kind of authority on relationships. Is it that she's been in some? Because I've been in some too, but you don't find me peddling misinformation and stereotypes online to a mostly moronic public. Which is a shame really, because I could teach people a thing or two about a thing or two - namely, that it is unwise to date a man who genuinely believes himself to be a Sith Lord and that men who take road trips when you've scheduled an abortion and then forget to call to see if you're okay are probably not what you'd call 'keepers'.

Luckily, you have me to read That Fuckwit's crap so you don't have to.

*hem hem*

This week, Brett asks the incredibly on-trend question of whether or not the anti-feminist movement is back in vogue. Only four hundred million similar articles or television segments have been produced on this in the last week, so we're fortunate that Brett has added her two cents to the vacuum of considered thought on this matter.

I had expected that she'd make mention of 60 Minutes' heinous report last week that suggested more and more young women are embracing 'traditional' roles of femininity - spurning the workplace to stay at home and look after Their Men, attending trite tupperware style retro kitchen wear parties and generally ignoring the fact that they've failed to borrow rampant alcoholism, sexual oppression and gut wrenching melancholy from the decade they've decided to idolise.

+

=

(You get the sense that reporter Ellen Fanning is doing all this through gritted teeth here. As an older woman in a sexist industry on an especially sexist network, it must have felt like chewing glass to construct a report on a 'phenonemon' that is essentially bogus, overblown wishful thinking and reflective of nothing other than some people's desires to will it into existence. I'm sure the presence of Germaine Greer was the studio's only concession to her complaints.)

But if there's one thing we've learned about Samantha Brett it's that she's fond of posing initial questions and not only blatantly failing to answer them, but in fact failing to tie them in any way, shape or form to the actual content of her bilge columns.

She begins by recounting the fabrication tale of a dinner she shared with a male friend recently. While dining on 'sushi and sake' (oh Sam, you are like, soooooo Sydney and cosmopolitan! Get down with your bad self!), she asked him why, if it was so easy for women to find men to sleep with, they couldn't find anyone to commit to them.

Interesting question, Sam. Of course, my initial response would be that you shouldn't seek answers to it from someone who'll offer you the following:

"Oh that," he replied. "Well, that we'll only do when it becomes obvious that a girl we're pseudo-dating proves to be the perfect girlfriend. With so many options these days, why settle for anything less?"

He went on to explain that while he'd happily bonk his dutiful f--- buddy, the thought of committing to her (and ditching the other three women on his speed dial) was enough to make him cringe...

Apparently his bonk-buddy didn't possess enough sex appeal, didn't have a great sense of humour, didn't talk enough about interesting topics, wasn't ambitious enough, didn't flatter his ego enough and wasn't - what he deemed key to getting him to commit - feminine.

"She dresses too much like a man," he exclaimed.

Ah-huh!

See, your friend is a fuckwith. While I understand that you're That Fuckwit, you need to be aware that he's That Other Fuckwit - and his essential douchery when it comes to sleeping with women he has no respect and no discernable admiration for yet considers himself better than is not explanation enough for the disconnect between sex and the willingness to commit that it requires an 'Ah-huh!' on your part. I mean, are you actually that person who believes every lame thing an emotional fuckwad says is indisputable evidence for Why The World Is What It Is?

Here is a verbal painting of your brain.

"He says he won't commit because she's not feminine, meaning that she doesn't flatter his ego enough. Ergo, this must be true and she must be Letting The Side Down with her comfortable shoes and inability to pander to the emotional needs of childish men with a penis complex. Ergo, this must be true of all situations in which men are reluctant to commit to women.

I am now equipped to pen an ill-conceived and spurious treatise on something unrelated to this matter but pretending to be. As usual, I shall offer up no conclusion but leave it to my readers to try and spin some kind of cohesive thought structure out of this mess. Also, I shall cash my ridiculously large check which I continued to bank when other Age writers were on strike, because I have no morals or sense of unity."

She continues:

So was this the issue of contention when it came to the modern female single epidemic?

Brett then goes on to discuss the work of Helen B. Andelin, a Mormon mother of 8 and general thorn in the side of women with, you know, brains. Andelin founded the Fascinating Womanhood movement, which basically instructs women to defer to their husbands in everything, act girlishly and deny their own essential sexuality. Andelin wrote that:

"Sexuality in a woman does not arouse love in a man. Love is aroused by wholesome feminine qualities."

But Brett's hypothesis as always fails to deconstruct the rubbish she's actually talking about. She provides a whole bunch of quotes which, both on their own and in context of Adelin's book, are certifiable garbage - yet the only hint she gives at her disapproval of these ideas is labeling the book 'tedious' and at times hilariously outdated.

Eff, she can't even discern the theoretical difference between the random opinion of some twat she's drinking sake with and actual in depth studies on the views of men and women.

"Perhaps. But when I delved deeper into the topic, it appeared that it wasn't only their dress sense that was sending men away in droves. And it's not even something recent either."

See what she did there?! Firstly, she lied because she said she 'delved' when we know that at best she's conducted a pathetic straw poll of one. She then assumed that That Other Fuckwit's one example of cuntish behaviour was actually the result of some kind of vast action on behalf of women everywhere. WE are sending THEM away in droves with our expectation that love means never having to say you're sorry for wearing sneakers and enjoying financial independence! In droves!

Surely the appropriate response here would be, 'Get over it you self absorbed, arrogant douchebag. Admit that you don't want to commit because what you really want is a woman who'll submit to your assumed brilliance, let you be smarter than her, funnier than her, more powerful and more successful, and who will look good hanging from your arm in front of all the other smart, funny, powerful, successful men you fancy yourself to be in competition with. Fuck this shit, I'm off home to drink vodka and tell everybody I've ever met about what a wanker you are."

But instead of dismissing her friend's views on femininity and commitment as outdated claptrap AKIN to the kind of malarkey pedaled by Adelin, she assumes that his explanation is both correct and universal.

I mean, FUCK. It's offensive enough that she's even provided with paid writing work but you'd think the woman would be forced to actually follow the basic tenets of opinion writing. Namely, have one.

Personally, I like what commentor Ms Magoo has to say.

"I think that for anyone who wants to become a Mormon, give birth to eight children, marry a dentist and pretend they are living in the 1960s, this could be a useful resource."

I'd like to amend this slightly to apply to Brett's site as a whole and say that for anyone who wants to lose a few IQ points a week, learn how to give birth to nonsensical theories, commit themselves to following the inane babbles of an imbecile with too much air time and pretend they are living in Sex and the City, this is an essential resource.

After all, where else could they read such stellar material as this:

"Women don't give enough men a chance any more," a twentysomething male single friend told me over drinks last week. "That's why so many women are single. You should do a column on that: 'Why more women should give more men a go.'"

I was intrigued as he continued: "You see that woman talking to my friend over there?"

He gestured over to a short, balding bloke with pale skin and a leather jacket who was attempting to chat up a bored-looking busty brunette.

"Now, he may not be the best-looking guy in the club, but I happen to know that he is a really great, decent dude. But look at her - she's not even going to give him more than two minutes of her time before she walks away. That's modern women for you."

Obviously it came as no surprise that Brett didn't bother to question why the short, balding man thought he deserved a busty brunette when there are far more noticeable absences of short, portly women being given the time of day by chesty men.

But what could you expect from a woman who describes vomitous marketing tie in and hideously dated battle of the sexes film vehicle He's Just Not That Into You as "Zeitgeist-defining"?

Samantha, your brain called. It wants its bond back.