Dear Mr. Matlack,
Thank you for writing. Ms. Stanley is a critic and therefore allowed a bit more leeway in terms of content and opinion, much the same as an Editorial or Op-Ed contributor is. In the particular case of this piece, Ms. Stanley is referencing a common portrayal of men on television, not a personal opinion. I agree that her then attempt to find some source for this oft-repeated portrayal could be misconstrued as her drawing some sort of conclusion or agreeing. The headline, though, is by the far the easiest part of this piece to misconstrue. I will pass your concerns along to the appropriate people.
Best,
Joseph Burgess
Office of the Public Editor
I would respectfully like to ask the NYT to publish an apology for today’s piece entitled:What if you were to public a headline like:“Too Bad Women Are So Slutty” or“Too Bad Blacks Are So Stupid”?You would be roundly criticized, rightfully so, and the author fired for blatant sexism.There are women who are slutty and blacks who are stupid, but saying that ALL womenare slutty or blacks stupid is the whole basis of feminism and the civil rights movement.There men who are lazy, and stupid and liars, but that doesn’t make all men lazy. Askthe 2 million men who have served our country in the wars in the Middle East. Are theylazy?While supposedly a review, the author doesn’t confine her comments to one show. In fact shediscusses multiple shows and tries to tie them to a broader cultural phenomenon by saying things like:“…there’s never enough time because men are lazy. Also, they are not that bright. And that’s why women do almost all of the work at home, and the brunt of it at work, too.”I demand an apology, retraction, and/or publication of a response to the piece(here is my brief blog response: https://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/menlazynyt/)Thank you for your time.Tom Matlack
If you are so moved please email the NYT at [email protected] to repeat my request for a retraction and apology.
Tom, I am completely on your side. The bottom line is the Title ruins any sense of redeeming factors in the article. In today’s headline reading, lack of attention span world, she knew EXACLTLY why she chose that title. Your point on your alternative titles is dead on. If you wrote a post with those titles you would be tarred and feathered. I am not going to get into men this and women that. I believe that many women are “expected” and feel they need to do more for the exact reverse stereotype. What bothers me is when a man… Read more »
Writers usually don’t write the headlines, editors do.
I think that the best way to shut these women up is ridicule them and their positions mercilessly.
I just read that article and I really don’t blame you for responding that way. Frankly that article actually causes me to lean away from watching that show because from the sound of it its just a “oh woe is the poor woman that has to do EVERYTHING because the men are too stupid and lazy” fake empowerment show. I’m even willing to bet that nearly every male character in her life is either a criminal or somehow did her wrong and that she’s going to show her son hot to be a “real man” and everything. But about the… Read more »
Sorry, Tom, but I think you’ve misinterpreted the piece. Although the title itself seems to be making a claim about the world, the piece itself shows that the author is just talking about the lazy-man premise in a slew of TV shows for the purpose of showing that it’s not an unusual premise for the show she’s reviewing. The only attempt she makes to tie it into culture at large is the reference to congressmen or bankers, and even that is merely a wondering about why we are seeing this stereotype on TV so much lately. The paragraph you point… Read more »
BD: I don’t totally disagree with you. But the reason I wrote the piece in the first place was because I thought the headline is offensive (really if the tables were reversed there would be a law suit). And also because even if you think she is only talking about TV there is a much more important point to be made, which she hints at but doesn’t come out and make: for whatever reason we seem to love shows that portray men as lazy-good-for-nothing idiots. If that is the subject of the piece how about we call it out rather… Read more »
Man bashing publication seeks apology from man bashing publication for bashing men.
Wheres the GMP’s apology for bashing the men’s movement?