"First objection has to do with strangeness / difficulty / day-of-the-week issues.... MALE EGO is odd enough without the wannabe-clever Saturday-level clue. Secondly, that clue (esp. its tone) just really rubs me the wrong way, and I'm trying to figure out exactly why. I think the clue is, ironically, anti-feminist. It's winky and cutesy and stupidly totalizing ('half the world'???!). It's what I'd call Fake Feminism. Cosmo Feminism. It should be followed by 'amirite, ladies?' and then another round of appletinis. Also, 'MALE EGO' feels like a phrase whose currency peaked in 1978. It's not a very useful concept, because ... does it just mean 'the ego of men,' generally, or is it specifically (straight?) men's ego In Relation To Women, or what? The whole clue / answer pairing strikes me as at least mildly heterosexist. Not that gay men don't have egos, but ... as my (female) friend just said of this clue, it has a very 'Me Tarzan, you Jane, me tough caveman but have fragile psyche at same time' implication to it. The sentence 'Half the world's egos are easily bruised' is nonsense ... and thus so is the clue."
Rex Parker has a problem with today's NYT crossword.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२४ टिप्पण्या:
There's no reason that crosswords can't be narrative-based.
Looks like it bruised his ego
If the NYT had an actual man there, they'd know for retarded their puzzle is. But since all they have are metrosexual ballerinas, they are clueless.
The Times is not being published with "half the world" in mind.
4 across, four letters starting with J, not funny.
It's a lame clue, but if I had either the M or the second E, I would have immediately known the answer. Which is really the point of a Crossword puzzle, to be just difficult enough that you can't solve it immediately, but still be solvable between coffees/during your commute. Lots of stupid sayings/phrases/puns get into crossword puzzles, that's really all this is.
Ray Rice had trouble with the rest of the puzzle after filling in the obvious answer: HER FACE
It also doesn't make sense. "Easily bruised thing for half the world"--male ego. Either the male ego is easily bruised or it isn't. This clue suggests the male ego is not easily bruised for the other half of the world.
But why did this particular clue get so much attention? Plenty of crossword clues are semi-literate groaners.
It is not good manners to complain that this is anti-male sexism. It is good manners to complain about it's heteronormativity. Hey, that's something.
"Lots of stupid sayings/phrases/puns get into crossword puzzles, that's really all this is."
Rex Parker is all about having high standards for the clues and the answers and a few other things. So your comment is off point for him. He writes to tell us when there are stupid things in the puzzle, not to say oh what's the big deal, it's just a puzzle.
"It also doesn't make sense. "Easily bruised thing for half the world"--male ego. Either the male ego is easily bruised or it isn't. This clue suggests the male ego is not easily bruised for the other half of the world."
You're missing the joke and what was intended to be tricky misdirection. "Half the world" = men. (The other half is women.)
The best defenses that straight, white men have from casual male bashing come from smart gay men. See South Park, Family Guy and Glee.
No, I'm not missing the joke (did you really think I didn't know what they meant? How is it possible that you thought that?), I'm pointing out that it does not work logically.
My feeling is hurt. It's my only one too. It is my Achilles heel
Boys grown into men's bodies are still seeking approval from Daddy and Mommy. Denial of approval is a big deal.
Then there is the other half of the half who have grown up.
tim mag
I agree with your logic. And, Prof A has treated you with contempt & she will now think that your calling her on it is just another example of a bruised ego.
Whatever.
There was a funny letter to an advice columnist in the WaPo where the woman was devastated that she spoke an ex lover's name during her wedding night lovemaking to her new man, and that he left her that instant, burned all bridges to her family, and left the country, apparently taking her passport with him, which greatly upset her because she wanted to follow him an stalk him, apparently.
The general consensus seemed to be that the man was a total freak for being upset by this minor lapse and that having an ego that easily bruised proved his was an unfit husband and that she was better off shed of him.
I say fine. Win-win. But the obvious standard applied was man wrong, woman right. I think there are good evolutionary biology reasons for a man to be wary of devoting his life efforts to raising another man's children. We all pretend now that evolutionary biology doesn't matter anymore and that men's lives are completely subservient to the needs of the female. Well some of us anyway.
It makes me happy however that he shed himself of that using beotch in time.
"No, I'm not missing the joke (did you really think I didn't know what they meant? How is it possible that you thought that?), I'm pointing out that it does not work logically."
It's possible I thought that because of the way you wrote. I guess I see what you meant to say. Something like that the the "for" refers to the thinking that the male ego is easily bruised (rather than to the ego that is easily bruised) and why would only half the people in the world think that?
I'm just glad the word "confederate" was not used.
All in all, it was an entertaining puzzle. There were a couple of SAT words: lacuna and precis - unusual for a Tuesday. I thought the male ego clue was odd, but it didn't occur to me to be offended.
It's not about being offended, its about taking note of an endless campaign of marginalization and pushing back.
Tha Saturday NYT puzzle is the ball-buster. Sunday is child's play compared to it.
I don't know Parker's work well enough to say anything about him. But if I had a line as good as "It's what I'd call Fake Feminism. Cosmo Feminism. It should be followed by 'amirite, ladies?' and then another round of appletinis." rattling around in my brain I'd find an excuse to use it.
It's not about being offended, its about taking note of an endless campaign of marginalization and pushing back.
Indeed. If women wouldn't tolerate identical commentary, why the hell should men? We've been denigrated and shoved to the side enough.
Women don't have egos, they have vaginas.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा