Thursday, February 25, 2010

Bomb Disposal


If you were to judge me strictly by my opinion of the female writers and contributors at Salon, you'd probably think I was the world's biggest misogynist. That's because I just can't shut up about how bloody fucking awful so many of them are. With the exception of Joan Walsh, who's fantastic, and a select few others, Salon's roster of largely catty, misguided women are a discredit not just to anybody who spends most of his or her day tapping fingers against a keyboard in the name of putting words to virtual paper, but occasionally, to the female sex itself.

Yeah, Heather Havrilesky and Stephanie Zacharek take crap writing whole to new levels, but at least they don't play the neo-feminist role and attempt to in some way interpret the world through the lens of, and subsequently speak for, all womanhood. They're just reviewing TV shows and movies. Badly, sure, but it's still pretty cut and dry. Then there's Mary Elizabeth Williams, and now Martha Nochimson. Williams I've commented on before, not really ripping her to shreds, just calling her defense of Sarah Palin's indignation in the wake of the "Family Guy Incident" a little silly.

But Nochimson. Oh, dear Lord.

I could spend a ton of time systematically taking apart her almost mind-bogglingly ridiculous and insulting piece on Kathryn Bigelow in today's Salon -- the one which calls Bigelow "the 'Transvestite of Directors'" and proceeds to slam her work in The Hurt Locker as being simply what a female auteur has to do to get noticed by the Hollywood boy's club -- but thankfully, at last count 70-something pissed off commenters had done the heavy lifting for me.

Seriously, read this horseshit, and try not to laugh and/or close your laptop and walk away before you feel the need to set something on fire.

Salon: "Kathryn Bigelow: Feminist Pioneer or Tough Guy in Drag" by Martha Nochimson/2.24.10

By the way, one of the aforementioned commenters asked if this sort of thing is done purposely by Salon: Some moron writes something completely over-the-top and sure to draw fire to increase page views and pad out the comment section. It's certainly possible, no doubt about that.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

A writer was just fired from a tech site due to having written outrageous stuff just to draw views. Apparently, the editorial staff had been encouraging it.

Here's the article from the writer's side:
Editorial: Confessions of an Internet “Shock Jock”

L. said...

Yes, Ms. Nochimson, you're right. If us ladies are interested in or produce anything that isn't sickly sweet romance wrapped in doilies we're guys in drag. Only men could possibly care about a man in a film who doesn't bother to spend the time revealing his sensitive side by getting all lovey with a woman, right?

Dear god, I've been unknowingly tucking for my entire life. I better go check for chafing, because I'll bet it's bad.

Capt Aclow said...

I can't wait to read her next review where she criticizes a black director for making a "white" movie.

Yacob said...

Maybe its best just to ignore all these writers by not reading their articles. Its not enough to avoid leaving them a comment. If they dont get any hits on their site, Salon may be persuaded to drop them altogether!

Noxious Nan said...

Good advise Yacob.

I think a commenter at Salon put it best: With feminists like this we don't need mysoginists.

Vermillion said...

Geez Louise, really? What is wrong with her?

She doesn't see the irony in saying that a woman that makes an acclaimed piece of work (one that BY HER OWN WORDS she says is a male-dominated genre) and well on her way to being the first woman to win an Oscar, isn't feminist?

And the reason she feels this way is basically...she doesn't make her movies "girly" enough??!!?!

WHAT. THE. FUCK?!!?!!!

This is why people can't have nice things.

I am going to go scream into a hole.

Che Grovera said...

What's wrong with her, V? She's the worst kind of grasping-for-acceptance academic out there: a "film scholar".

VirginiaO'Possum said...

OK, Chez, you win. I might still argue with you about Havrilesky just to be contrarian, but I couldn't get through Nochimson's review. It lost me in its irrelevance to what it thought it was talking about way before I could even get angry. Mediocre grad school paper. I would have asked for a rewrite.
Just to be egalitarian for a moment, however, Salon's decline isn't at all confined to its women writers. Have you tried to slog through anything by their new food writer, Francis Lam? His sense of culinary (and political) history extends back to about last Wednesday, and, as with so many Salon articles, you wish he'd stop talking about his own stupid self and just fucking tell you something of interest already. Greenwald has slid sideways into an unedited, humorless dog in the manger of resentful second-string punditry. Etc. It's sad, really; Salon was once my favorite place on the Web. Now most of it is just a bad Twitter feed.

VirginiaO'Possum said...

PS: If they are doing it to draw page views, it just confirms that once you start gaming the counters instead of providing a good product, it's only a matter of time before you suck.