if there’s a place in the United States where women are actually paid significantly less for doing the same job as men, it’s not evident from what I’m reading.
Not touching it? Well, I'll touch it for you!
Why did the writer feel the need to make this (wrong) point? It's not necessary to pretend the pay gap doesn't exist to explain how classism is at work in this ad. But I feel like so many people who point out classism feel this compulsion to say the other -isms aren't as important as we think they are, or that we're being manipulated by them, or that we're being brainwashed by identity politics, etc.... Very strange!
Well, Audi, you’ve missed the war; if there’s a place in the United States where women are actually paid significantly less for doing the same job as men, it’s not evident from what I’m reading.
Am I supposed to believe the rest of his analysis is done in good faith after this line?
She’s got a coarse, chunky prole face, obvious braces, and an old-style varsity jacket. In other words, she’s poor
When did braces, thousands of dollars worth of dental work, mean poor (I'm guessing he means that invisiline is the dental work of choice for the wealthy, but he has already admitted this was about nostalgia, in which time braces would mean rich as fuck)? Why are we calling a child's face, a face which looks perfectly average, either chunky or poor? Why did he feel the need to sexualize that young kid by fake surmising that she'd be pretty when she grows up? While this dude is examining this ad, he needs to examine his own issues with what "poor" looks like to him, because his connections say a whole bunch more about him than about this ad.
Commenting because about cars... But anyway, I get the feeling this guy likes the sound of his voice a little too much...
...Okay a whole lot too much. He's probably a Trump fan who thinks he speaks for the people too (especially the poor unfortunate of Middle-America when he has never even seen the south side of upper middle class).
He's probably a Trump fan who thinks he speaks for the people too (especially the poor unfortunate of Middle-America when he has never even seen the south side of upper middle class).
I was trying to figure out what about this was rubbing me the wrong way, and I think you nailed it.
I don't think he's a Trump supporter, but it's probably a near thing. I've read his articles before, he had one last year after his boss was called out for not hiring more women to write about cars and his entire argument was, "All the women who want to write about cars already are, none of the others want to, if we force women to write about cars we are sexist for putting women into positions they don't want, women mostly want to write for Salon or Jezebel, I never got asked to write for Salon or Jezebel, is that sexist?!"
You know, when I read your post, I thought to myself: "If this guy loves his talking as much I think he does, I bet internet is littered with his spoor."
I typed his name in google and yep, he has a blog. I searched for November 8-9 and wouldn't you know it:
Trump supporter through and through. I didn't bother reading the blog, but from a couple of headlines of entries that wasn't drooling over watches and maybe guitars (?) seemed to be all about how women didn't know what's good for their cause.
I did see a very cute and happy kid, so he can't be all bad, but yeah... I don't know how his wife can stand him (probably compartmentalizes this stuff like any good blowhard).
As a former art history grad student, I learned to spin coherent, 80% bullshit analyses of any random object, complete with vaguely plausible symbolic allusions, at the drop of a hat. This dude clearly has the same skillset. I love good analyses of classism in film/art/media/etc; this is ... eh. Feels very college sophomore all-nighter paper.
Structurally, the fact that a third of his analysis falls apart if you assume that the audience *isn't* deeply familiar with soap box derby/kart racing is a huge flaw. Everything I've ever seen about soapbox derby/youth karting has not been particularly egalitarian; it took a lawsuit in the 70s to for girls to be allowed to participate in soapbox derby.
And the "stripper glitter" girl line makes me want to slap him. It takes a special something to sexualize glitter on a primary school girl, many of whom will bathe in glitter if you let them. This guy clearly has problems with women, and hopefully doesn't actually spend any time around little girls. Ugh.
Comments 13
Not touching it? Well, I'll touch it for you!
Why did the writer feel the need to make this (wrong) point? It's not necessary to pretend the pay gap doesn't exist to explain how classism is at work in this ad. But I feel like so many people who point out classism feel this compulsion to say the other -isms aren't as important as we think they are, or that we're being manipulated by them, or that we're being brainwashed by identity politics, etc.... Very strange!
Reply
Am I supposed to believe the rest of his analysis is done in good faith after this line?
Reply
Blind squirrels and acorns.
Reply
When did braces, thousands of dollars worth of dental work, mean poor (I'm guessing he means that invisiline is the dental work of choice for the wealthy, but he has already admitted this was about nostalgia, in which time braces would mean rich as fuck)? Why are we calling a child's face, a face which looks perfectly average, either chunky or poor? Why did he feel the need to sexualize that young kid by fake surmising that she'd be pretty when she grows up? While this dude is examining this ad, he needs to examine his own issues with what "poor" looks like to him, because his connections say a whole bunch more about him than about this ad.
Reply
...and if you think that's just normal things everybody had, you have no right to speak about the opportunities and the failings of the poor.
Reply
...Okay a whole lot too much. He's probably a Trump fan who thinks he speaks for the people too (especially the poor unfortunate of Middle-America when he has never even seen the south side of upper middle class).
Reply
I was trying to figure out what about this was rubbing me the wrong way, and I think you nailed it.
Reply
Reply
I typed his name in google and yep, he has a blog. I searched for November 8-9 and wouldn't you know it:
http://jackbaruth.com/?p=5463
Trump supporter through and through. I didn't bother reading the blog, but from a couple of headlines of entries that wasn't drooling over watches and maybe guitars (?) seemed to be all about how women didn't know what's good for their cause.
I did see a very cute and happy kid, so he can't be all bad, but yeah... I don't know how his wife can stand him (probably compartmentalizes this stuff like any good blowhard).
Reply
Structurally, the fact that a third of his analysis falls apart if you assume that the audience *isn't* deeply familiar with soap box derby/kart racing is a huge flaw. Everything I've ever seen about soapbox derby/youth karting has not been particularly egalitarian; it took a lawsuit in the 70s to for girls to be allowed to participate in soapbox derby.
And the "stripper glitter" girl line makes me want to slap him. It takes a special something to sexualize glitter on a primary school girl, many of whom will bathe in glitter if you let them. This guy clearly has problems with women, and hopefully doesn't actually spend any time around little girls. Ugh.
Reply
Leave a comment