Girls gone wild

Somewhere, Jane Austen is aghast. Queen Victoria is about to blow a gasket. And your sweet little great-grandmother, the one apt to blush when the word "corset" came up in mixed company, is positively apoplectic.

[Pat]

They forgot to mention one important thing in this article. Men are not attracted to these women for any great length of time. They see them as a novelty. Something to experience once in your life and nothing more. These are not the type of women that men seek a long term relationship with.

[A thought]

The BAD part is that writers seem to think that to make these women powerful they must run roughshod over others feelings - like the men they eshew. Basically, these are tramps in new clothes.

[A thought]

Pat wrote:

They forgot to mention one important thing in this article. Men are not attracted to these women for any great length of time. They see them as a novelty. Something to experience once in your life and nothing more. These are not the type of women that men seek a long term relationship with.

Right. AND, Hollywood shows these women as hopping into the sack quicker than you can say: Gotta condom? In fact, Hollywood has made the myth of the American woman hopping into bed so prevalent that in English movies and TV series, ALL American girls bed guys after meeting them for 1/2 hour!!! Talk about 'skanky Yanky'.

[timecop]

All I know is that american women are one species of unhappy, bitter, arrogant, nasty creatures that the more they fight to be "independent" and "powerful", the more they become repulsive and miserable charicatures.

They end up dying sad and lonely....

[Guy at Altamont]

In short, the "new paradigm for fictional females" is... a male. The world has gone mad.

[Cindy]

Clearly, the author has never read either a Jane Austen novel nor a biography of Queen Victoria. This article is just an unfortunate mess.

[Lemmiwinks]

An "unfortunate mess" is an understatement, Cindy. "New" heroines? Really? This article looks as though it was written in 1992, and pulled out of mothballs now for some inexplicable reason. Hollywood has been cranking out these same shrill, misanthropic women for almost 20 years now. It's a financially driven stereotype (and a bad one), nothing more.

If you want to see a movie with a strong, powerful female lead, go rent "Contact" with Jodie Foster. The character of Ellie Arroway is intelligent, strong (I'm talking in terms of her personality, not her ability to do a flying round-house kick), determined, and most importantly, HUMAN. Her character drives the movie admirably, and without the obligatory chip on the shoulder that most producers seem to force on their female characters these days.

I've come to expect better than dreck like this from a Pulitzer Prize winner.

[Liberal and Proud]

timecop wrote:

All I know is that american women are one species of unhappy, bitter, arrogant, nasty creatures that the more they fight to be "independent" and "powerful", the more they become repulsive and miserable charicatures.
They end up dying sad and lonely....

Spoken like a true jilted little boy.

[Liberal and Proud]

As Madelein Albright once said "There is a special place in hell for women who DO NOT support other women."

[Liberal and Proud]

Pat wrote:

They forgot to mention one important thing in this article. Men are not attracted to these women for any great length of time. They see them as a novelty. Something to experience once in your life and nothing more. These are not the type of women that men seek a long term relationship with.

You mean men who are very insecure with their own sense of self....right?

[Lee]

I just came here to stick up for Jane Austen and Edith Wharton--hardly creators of "dainty and decorous" women, either, but rather creators of strong women negotiating their times, which, stereotypes to the contrary, don't necessarily get more sexist the further back you go.

However, since your column seems to have brought every weird male loser out of the woodwork to yell (and misspell) dated screeds about these intolerable women, I'll revise my comment to say, "Right on! What you said!"

[how hung was carridine]

michael jackson was one girl gone wild---and look at what happened to her!

[Thundermug]

Don't forget Sarah Connor and Ripley.

[That guy]

Liberal and Proud wrote:

As Madelein Albright once said "There is a special place in hell for women who DO NOT support other women."

Madeline Albright should know from Hell.

[That guy]

Liberal and Proud wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean men who are very insecure with their own sense of self....right?

No. He means men who aren't homosexuals.

[Smart Mouth]

Liberal and Proud wrote:

As Madelein Albright once said "There is a special place in hell for women who DO NOT support other women."

So do you support Sarah Palin? Ann Coulter? Ayn Rand? Margaret Thatcher?

[Smart Mouth]

Liberal and Proud wrote:

As Madelein Albright once said "There is a special place in hell for women who DO NOT support other women."

There's also a special place in hell for women who give American nuclear technology to the North Koreans!

[Smart Mouth]

If men were to become the type of men that "enlightened" women SAY that they want, they would never even get the time of day from ANY woman (enlightened, or otherwise).

[Justin Wood]

I think Girls Gone Wild
should continue!