Is This Your Typical Thai Male?

I’ve just read what I believe was meant to be an article about relationships from The Nation website, but am astounded at the sexist view of the author. The way he writes it, women should be thankful that men pay any attention to them, should always remember how dispensible they are, are all weak and pathetic and unable to control their emotions.

Take a look at the article for yourself and please tell me – is this view normal?

8 Comments so far

  1. Bonifide (unregistered) on July 12th, 2005 @ 3:03 pm

    It gave me a good chuckle. Psh, sexist… the world needs to stop being so politically correct.

    Why is it when women start saying men are worse than dogs? Everyone stands up and cheers but when a man says the writers are just bitter desperate hags. He’s scorned?

    Its not really worth my time, people get hurt, cheated on, break up, commit suicide because of love, and crap all the time… its part of life! To condemn the whole other sex because of a few choices is ludacris. Male or female… geez just deal with it. Perhaps its their karma, for once picking the extremely hot built athelete, instead of the nice, skinny, bookworm.

    But then again, what do I know. :)

  2. him (unregistered) on July 12th, 2005 @ 6:27 pm

    Dude, read the damn article. It’s about the authors of the books, not about women in general. It’s about the way certain women authors can publish this sexist crap and get away with, whereas if a man did the same, it’d be crucified. Same with shit like Sex In The City – if that was a pointless weekly farce based solely on desperate sexism BUT with 4 men? Forget it.

    I completely agree with the article, btw, you can tell.

  3. Ben Harris (unregistered) on July 12th, 2005 @ 7:32 pm

    I felt that the author of the article used said books as a platform from which to launch his sexist diatribe, so it seems we’ve all gotten something different from it.

  4. him (unregistered) on July 12th, 2005 @ 9:12 pm

    I completely agree with Bonifide. I for one am completely sick of a world in which I have to accept people for being angry, for being women, for being black, for being gay, for being muslim, for being… any number of inane fucking terms of self-defining crap. People should be accepted for who they are, not how they define themselves or what social group the feel they have to inhabit.

    To me this article was showing that angry women who get published on that sole fact do damage, and it’s right – they do. Published authors have the power to put new ideas in susceptable heads, and who is going to be more susceptable than a woman coming out a relationship and wanting support from this book (I cant say the same for men, because these books don’t exist for men). These authors are literally preying on people who are in bad situations. And what do they do? How do they make it better? By slagging of the men, that’s how.

    And that’s wrong, when it portrayed as being “ok”. You know, Hitler wrote at length about his beliefs and do we hear people supporting that? Course we don’t. Would it be ok for a KKK member to write a book? Fuck no! What about a book in which gay men deserve aids? Gimme a break!

    So how come we can have books which rip apart the most stndard thing in the world – the average male?

    And it’s funny, Ben, that you have fallen into the very same trap – you have taken the article and, because it’s a man talking about (a group of) women, you’ve interpreted it as offensive. Read it a little more and it’s perfectly obvious that a somewhat intelligent author is mearly playing the female authors at their own damn game. With their own terms and ideas that they use to describe men.

    You know, in the real world, women lie, cheat, steal, double-cross, hurt, abuse and generally treat men in exactly the same way that men treat women. So the question is, why can women stand proud and shout about it without consequence?

    Good for him or, perhaps, good for her. Who knows?

  5. him (unregistered) on July 12th, 2005 @ 10:42 pm

    Whoops, that last sentence was supposed to read something more like…

    Why can women be allowed to treat men as second rate, when they berate men for doing that exact thing, to them?

    And Hippy Barthday, BTW, nearly 30 huh? :p

  6. Ben Harris (unregistered) on July 12th, 2005 @ 11:40 pm

    oh, thanks for reminding me that I’m getting old(er), but it’s not until the 21st :)

    You’ve got a point, I was surprised to read that kind of thing in the relationship section of a major newspaper.

  7. Carl Parkes (unregistered) on July 13th, 2005 @ 3:12 am

    A minor note, but newspaper articles are generally kept online for only one week, then move to a subscription basis. Then these articles are very difficult to find, as they then become buried within an enourmous database, or they move into the “paid content” section. You might consider just quoting most of the following stories at MetroBlogBangkok in great part, then provide a link, which will probably be worthless within a few months. Spread the news. Free.

  8. him (unregistered) on July 13th, 2005 @ 11:47 am

    21st? arh. um. I knew that. just testing. ahem.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.