pull down to refresh

OK, it wasn't clickbaity. NYT is exactly this bad.
Really dislike this conviction that gender is stereotyped, that behavior patterns are merely "cultural narratives," that "a male partner must always be more successful" is merely outdated "belief":
Throughout much of Western literature, this alone qualified as a happy ending, given that a woman’s security and sometimes her survival were dependent on marrying a man who could materially support her.
It never occurs to these people that maybe, just maybe, there's a biological foundation or stable sociological equilibrium for some sex-specific roles and behaviors humans have adapted.
Perfect example of the intellectual pretzel here:
Straight men may not be taking their cues from old Sandra Bullock movies, but their preferred relationships also mirror the rom-com ideal
Translation: There is no pathway/mechanism for my argument, but I conclude that it is nonetheless correct. That, right there, should suggest a different pathway. (Biology, anyone?!)
Also, fuck this: "...selling a retrograde version of masculinity" -- you mean, actual masculinity that isn't preceded by "toxic" and treated as a synonym for evil...?
Plenty food for thought in the article, though. Thanks for sharing