"This article is from three years ago. I don’t know how you came across it unless you were digging in the New York Times for the 'worst of the NYTimes articles.'"

 A reader named Mary emails me about a post I did yesterday, riffing on a NYT article that, I see now, came out in 2018. The article is titled "Some L.G.B.T. Parents Reject the Names ‘Mommy’ and ‘Daddy’" and it really does seem to be vying for the title of Dumbest NYT Article (especially since it had an atrocious math error). 

The NYT will push old stories in its sidebar or at the bottom of whatever article you are reading, and the linked headline looks fresh. I think that's happening more lately, so I'll be more vigilant going forward. The policy I'm trying to follow is to say something about the date whenever the story isn't new, unless the subject is something that's clearly old.

The quote in the post title is the first item on a list of 4 observations from Mary, so let me give you the rest of her list here rather than put it in the comments at the original post (though I encourage you to go back to that, because I've posted many excellent comments there):

2. If you look at the Readers Picks [in the comments at the NYT] you will see that a majority of readers have a problem with what’s being written here, example:

“So let me get this right: Mx. Schankler thinks using the Hebrew name for father, from a culture that is much more patriarchal than our own, is more neutral and has less baggage than Daddy? Not if you are Jewish or know Hebrew! This sounds like anything to be different or unique. Feeling sorry for the kid!”

“I think I'm pretty open minded. I have friends across the ethnic and gender continuum, but the made-up pronouns and the expectation that others remember them all lest they be criticized as insensitive. Now layering it on children...It just strikes me as incredibly entitled. You're not preaching to the choir; you're alienating the choir!”

“As a middle aged gay women, I find these new 'queer' non-binary pronouns exhausting, confusing and at times silly. I know several lesbian couples who have kids and one is momma and the other is mommy. What's the big deal?"

“This exercise in narcissism and self-absorption does not contain one word about the welfare and well-being of the children involved. A baby is not a blob of meat or a pet or a subject of a social science experiment. He is a human being. Please consider him.”

3. Bottom line. This article is heard as patriarchal, entitled, silly and narcissistic.

4. I have had my difficulties with the New York Times over the years (decades at this point!) although I love it and go to it, but you brought this to my attention, as if it were new and important, when it was old and an article nobody cared for at all. Why stir up frustration when it’s something old and disliked? Or is it? maybe I missed something? Was this connected to something else?

Well, I didn't do it on purpose, but it's still an interesting question: Why stir up frustration when it’s something old and disliked? It makes me wonder: Why stir up frustration when something is new and disliked? Why not ignore it and let it get old where it's even easier to ignore? This blog is an exercise in not ignoring things, in finding things to forefront and say: Hey, look at this!

Now, every day there is also a good lot of things I am declining to call attention to. Right now, I can see what I'm being nudged to think is what's important, and I resist so many things. If I still had comments that you could put right up, rather than the new system of reviewing emailed comments, there would be so many extra comments referring to current news stories that I've chosen not to blog. Oh! William Barr's in trouble at the moment! That sort of thing. We'll see if it doesn't blow over. Toobin's back. Eh...