This doesn't quite go into the Schadenfreude category (or, evidently, the "breaking news" one), but I was quite pleased to learn that Caitlin Flanagan's writing will no longer be polluting the best magazine in the world.

Comments

[Kevin Walsh]

C'mon Vidiot, just because you don't agree with her, I wouldn't say "pollute."

Along with hip hop, cell phones and graffiti, one of the reasons I'm uncomfortable with the present era is the total war between proponents of opposing opinions; there's no real collegiality anymore.

This is an age in which Rolling Stone captions photographs of GWB with one word, "Bozo" and reports Natalie Maines refering to him as a "dumb fuck."

Hey, I didn't vote for him. But I respect the office.

I am ashamed of my era.

www.forgotten-ny.com

[Vidiot]

Well, it's certainly true that I don't agree with her. But it's not just that. I don't think that she's a very good writer; she overgeneralizes her specific experience, and assumes that all women, everywhere, share her circumstances and have access to her advantages. Which is demonstrably untrue.

This is aside from her smug, condescending "let them eat cake" tone, which I think is beneath the New Yorker...and at any rate not very pleasant to read. She condemns working mothers, yet conveniently ignores that she herself is one. She comes across as the voiceover for the "How To Re-Invent The Stepford Wife" instructional filmstrip, and her sweeping generalizations just don't hold water.

I think the Atlantic and the New Yorker were seduced by the "Freakonomics"-type appeal (say contrarian things or hold an opinion one wouldn't be expected to have) and let their standards slip a bit. Or they figured that the "controversy" she'd gin up would only help the circulation, even if it did upset a few people in the bargain. We were supposed to pay attention to her because of how gosh-darn counterintuitive and transgressive she was, and not because she was a top-notch writer, making interesting points, doing groundbreaking reporting, or even making coherent logical sense for that matter. The New Yorker typically excels at hiring people who excel at those pursuits -- Flanagan was an atypical blot on the magazine's reputation.

I don't think collegiality is dead. But if I disagree with someone, particularly over matters with real stakes, I'm going to insist that they be able to support their opinions. See, I'm a liberal, and I often disagree with conservatives. Some of my best friends are staunch conservatives, however, and there are others who I respect, such as George Will and William F. Buckley. The quality that they share is that they've thought it through. They've done the work. And if it led them to a different conclusion, then so be it, and let's debate it. But, sadly, that's not the way most conservatives act lately: they assert something is prima facie true, without bothering to show their work or apply critical thought to their notions.