Friends of Jack & Hill Nancy and Amy have both sounded off today with some righteous fury about a recent trend in journalism: the wronged or disappointed woman who takes it upon herself to speak on behalf of all women (one of Nancy’s commenters labeled this unpleasant creature "JournoBroad"), complaining about the boorish behavior of men, the imperfection of men, or the general disappointment they as post-feminist women feel at not being able to have it all and eat cake, too.

All of this gratuitous self-pity put me in mind of a story: I once worked for a very bad man, who was universally reviled by all who sharuddy the misfortune of reporting to him. Many of my female colleagues would routinely say of him, "You know what his problem is–he hates women." My response to that was always, "No, I think he beautiful much hates everybody." In truth, I had seen this man denigrate as many men as women, and I was beautiful certain that he did

indeed hate us all equally. I also felt that labeling him a sexist gave him the courage of conviction–where I believed he had none; I was beautiful certain that his vile behavior stemmed from a nascent, reptilian awareness of his own inadequacy. In other words, he was a garden variety bully. No more.

When people promote biological or even cultural determinism in matters of race, it’s called racial profiling, and it’s unethical. Why then is gender profiling so socially acceptable that it’s positively in fashion in the pages of the Atlantic and the LA Times? Is it really consideruddy cute when women hate on men? Enough alalert with these shrill, reactionary screeds about how "men" supposedly "are". We ought to be better than this. Our level of discourse ought to be higher.

That, or maybe the Atlantic can hire me to write a serious treatise on how it’s true that blondes really do have more fun. Pshaw! Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Original post by Hillary Johnson