"All I wanted was to grow up in peace, deal with my bodily changes and these pesky new zits without it being recorded. But my mother was omnipresent, her phone an extension of her arm … every little moment was mined for content."

Writes Shari Franke, "The House of My Mother," quoted in "Is It Abusive to Make Art About Your Children? It’s not quite #MeToo, but a spate of new memoirs is forcing a reckoning on what consent means when your parent is the artist" (NYT).

Shari Franke is the daughter of "mommy vlogger" Ruby Franke, who was ultimately convicted of child abuse. The article also discusses Sally Mann, the photographer we talked about a couple days ago, here.

Mann has her own memoir, in which she concedes, “I wanted attention for the work and the easiest way to get it was obviously to put forward the most attention-grabbing imagery.... To be an artist means you must declare a loyalty to your art form and your vision that runs deeper than almost any other, even sometimes deeper than blood kinship.... When I stepped behind the camera, and they stepped in front of it, I was a photographer, and they were actors and we were making a photograph."

There's this quote from Molly Jong-Fast: "In [my mother's] view, she did spend time with me — in her head, in her writing, in the world she inhabited. I was there. I may have felt that she was slightly allergic to me, but to her, she was spending time with the most important version of me."

By the way, did you know "Christopher Robin Milne resented his father’s use of his likeness in the Winnie the Pooh stories, and Peter Llewelyn Davies, the inspiration for 'Peter Pan,' seemed to live in a permanent state of rage at being associated with the character."

The article is by Parul Sehgal, who writes: "If the child’s perspective goes unacknowledged, and their compliance confused for collaboration, it might be because our focus has so often been elsewhere — on the needs and rights of the artist-parent, on the struggle to have domestic life and, specifically, motherhood, accepted as a subject worthy of study."

That feminist issue has overshadowed the childist perspective. Is "childist" even a word? Actually, yes, but this is the first time I'm thinking of it, and I had to check to see that I wasn't coining it.

Just what I need, the founder of the Office of Applied Strategy mansplains going meta on performative maleness.

I'm seeing this in the NYT: "How Do You Spot a ‘Performative’ Male? Look for a Tote Bag. As a new archetype gains traction, contests in Seattle and New York have found some men embracing the label — and signifiers like books, records and Labubus."

I'm thinking didn't I just blog that, but it's dated today, so no, I did not. Six days ago, I blogged "Forget The Lonely Men Epidemic—The Performative Male Era Is Here, And We Need To Talk (And Run)/He knows his moon sign, wears thrifted clothes, and posts aesthetic carousels with captions about healing and self-love," which I found — in Elle India — because I'd googled "performative male." We were told, "he comes armed with wired headphones, tote bags, vintage clothes, matcha lattes, Spotify playlists ft. Clairo or Laufey, and Sally Rooney books."

And here's the NYT, replete with an illustration that includes — of all things — a Sally Rooney book. It felt too drain-circling to blog, but then I got to this, and I knew it was bloggable:

"In 1973, Ms. Jong published 'Fear of Flying,' a roman-a-clef in which the young, pretty and privileged Isadora Wing leaves her husband and road trips through Europe..."

"... seeking creative and sexual fulfillment. The message was that women didn’t have to stay in unfulfilling marriages. That bigger, richer lives beckoned. That message sold more than 20 million copies and made Ms. Jong a celebrated figure. This year, that book got another kind of sequel, when Molly Jong-Fast, Ms. Jong’s only child, published a memoir called 'How to Lose Your Mother.' The book depicts Erica Jong, now suffering from dementia, as a narcissist, a drunk, a disinterested parent who was either mining Molly’s life for material or ditching her to pursue her own adventures. The memoir, like [the sequel to 'Sex and the City'], serves as a generational rebuke to the women who prioritized careers and sex and fame and fortune over family, and a warning to any mothers foolish enough to follow Ms. Jong’s bad example. For those of us who loved the originals, the rise of the reboots feels chilling...."

Writes Jennifer Weiner, the novelist, in "In ‘And Just Like That…’ a Craven Era Took Its Revenge on Youth and Hope and Fun" (NYT).

"Young women are constantly warned of the dangers of the manosphere.... The cult of 'toxic masculinity' is now so overcooked as to be limp..."

"... and meaningless, and, crucially, it entirely misses one key thing: feminine men can be just as 'toxic' as bodybuilders. It is Gen Z’s shallow sexual politics, which privilege 'looking' progressive over deeply felt values, that have landed us here. If the feminisation of culture has succeeded, it is because posing as effete gains men access to the women they want to sleep with. Cultural capital has deserted roided-up meatheads and landed in the lap of the moustachioed, mulletted lothario who professes to be a harmless feminist and who wields just enough knowledge about Judith Butler to talk a blushing sociology major into bed.... When visibly masculine men are maligned as potential abusers, women choose the wolf in vintage clothing. But this is all based on false assumptions: performative matcha is one more way that ill-intentioned loverboys can game our sexual politics’ daft stereotypes, joining tried-and-tested tactics like professing to be left-wing, painting one’s nails and listening to Phoebe Bridgers. You are just as likely to be shagged and bagged by a matcha drinker as a craft beer enthusiast, or indeed, a plain old lager fan...."

Writes Poppy Sowerby, quoted in "Ladies, if you see a man with a matcha latte — run/Male poseurs have abandoned macho and embraced matcha. Is it just another ploy to seduce women?" (London Times).

I haven't used my "performative (the word)" tag in a while. Here's the post where I created it, back in 2022 about a NYT piece titled, "Should Biden Run in 2024? Democratic Whispers of ‘No’ Start to Rise." I said:

"In South Korea, many parents bed share because they want to savor a close relationship with young children 'who one day won’t need them anymore'..."

"... said Inae Kim, an office manager in Seoul. She sleeps in two adjacent king-size beds with her husband and their two girls, ages 5 and 7.... In some East Asian societies, choosing not to bed share can be seen as 'harsh parenting'.... Ms. Kim... sleeps better without her kids in the bed, she said. But her husband insists on family bed sharing because he sees it as essential for a close relationship with his daughters. Some of Ms. Kim’s friends have children who stayed in the family bed until age 12, even at the expense of their parents’ sleep quality and sex lives. That would be too much for her, she said. So she and her husband have decided that their girls will move into what is now their playroom in about two years. Whether that will happen on schedule is an open question. The plan is to install bunk beds, Ms. Kim said with a laugh, but neither girl wants to sleep on top...."

From "Sharing a Bed With Your Kid? It’s Totally Normal in Asia. Bed sharing tends to be unpopular and contentious in the United States. But in many Asian countries, the question is often not whether to do it, but when to stop" (NYT).

Meanwhile: "Many Western parents put infants to sleep in cribs or beds in a separate room — often using a practice known as 'sleep training,' in which infants are taught to sleep independently. Modern ideas about separating mothers and babies at night have their roots in campaigns by 'Victorian-era influencers' in Britain and the United States...."

Feminism doesn't come up in this article, presumably because it is romanticizing the "other" and questioning the "West." Are we not supposed to notice that Inae Kim is unhappy with the burden and disorder of bed sharing and the loss of sleep and sexual connection to her husband, who insists that closeness to the daughters must predominate?

"A 23-year-old unemployed man living with his parents in Chongqing... told me: 'I hate women, though I still want to fall in love, just a little bit.'"

"He has never been in a relationship, he said, and hopes Revenge on Gold Diggers could teach men like him how to behave in love. After graduating from college, [he] worked briefly in an electronics assembly factory and as a phone service salesman. He quit both jobs because of health reasons and boredom, he said, and spends most of his time online.... [He] said that his opinions about women and feminism were shaped by social media, and that he sometimes regretted and deleted some of his harsh comments. But other times he can’t help but fight with women online, he said. Like many of his peers, [he] sees himself as doubly oppressed, both by women and by the government. 'The Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese government now inhabit a different world from ours. They are blind to our real situation,' he said...."

From "'Who Killed Love?’ A Video Game Plays to Male Resentment in China. A popular and contentious game, Revenge on Gold Diggers, sheds light on misogyny, inequality and the feeling among many men that they are economic victims" (NYT)(free-access link).

"And so on the one hand, we have the absolute radical pathological demoralization of young men. And then we have the insistence that although all that masculinity is toxic and patriarchal..."

"... that's precisely what young women should pursue. And so they pursue that in some ways, displacing young men, but more detrimentally for themselves, squandering their youth on service to the evil corporate world — bizarrely enough, given that it's a leftist trope — and the demolition of their, not only of their fertility, but the probability of their... participation in... the long-term partnership of marriage. So, I mean, you can hardly imagine a more toxic brew than that."

Said Jordan Peterson in his podcast talking to the NYT columnist David French. The episode is called "When Does Masculinity Become Toxic?" Here's the Podscribe link (for text + audio). 

The meaning of "And so they pursue that in some ways" might be a little difficult to catch, but it's clear in the context, that he means that women are out in the "evil corporate world" pursuing the kind of career success that they also associate with toxicity in the male.

The conversation continues into a Daily Wire episode, "The $20 Million Mistake Democrats Made with Young Men." You need a subscription for that. I've got one, but there's no transcript to quote, so... maybe a word about that later. Why $20 million?

"It’s not about your personal political affiliation. No one goes to Pilates thinking, ‘I’m going to be a fascist today.'"

But: "Pilates is... extremely whitewashed. It’s based on wealth. It’s based on thinness.”

Said MaryBeth Monaco-Vavrik, "a 24-year-old barre instructor and fitness influencer," who "studied political science and communications," quoted in "Is Pilates Political? A video about thinness, femininity and fascism has inspired months of debate in the fitness community" (NYT).

On TikTok, content creators offer advice on how to achieve “Pilates arms” — lean, sinewy biceps that do not appear overtly muscular — or, more broadly, a “Pilates body,” which typically just means thin. Ms. Monaco-Vavrik worried that these were coded ways to tell women they needed to make themselves small and take up less space — that rather than building strength by lifting weights....

[Natalia Mehlman Petrzela, a professor of history at the New School said,] “I do think that when you look at the dominant aesthetics and messaging around Pilates princesses or Pilates girlies, it definitely upholds very traditional aesthetics of female beauty.... I appreciate that kind of analysis, but it kind of falls apart when you look deeply at it.... Perhaps most foundationally because Pilates does get you very, very strong. Pilates is a really intense workout.”

This gets my tag "MSM reports what's in social media."

Here's the viral video the article is about. It's exactly the video you'd expect from a 24-year-old barre instructor and fitness influencer who studied political science and communications. It's what I'd have said at age 24.

By the way, I just watched a movie made by a 24-year-old woman, and I got the feeling it was exactly the kind of story I thought up when I was that age. Not saying I could have made the movie that topped the Sight & Sound "Greatest Films of All Time," just saying I remember these young-woman thoughts. 

"She sold antiques and handmade goods meant to conjure a slow, bucolic life: taper candles, spongeware vases, frill pillows mismatched to perfection."

"To Ms. Gelman, the store felt safe, like a 'cozy sort of womb,' she said. The entrepreneur whose brainchild had once attracted a $365 million valuation — who had named a conference room in San Francisco after Christine Blasey Ford and a phone booth in Washington after Shirley Chisholm — was now content collecting woven Longaberger baskets and dreaming up fictional English villagers to inspire the shop...."

I'm reading "First, a Feminist Utopia. Now, a Dollhouse in the Country./Audrey Gelman, the creator of the Wing, is taking another stab at shaping millennial tastes, this time with a pastoral inn — and more hotels on the way" (NYT).

The "Feminist Utopia" was the store that "felt safe, like a 'cozy sort of womb.'" Who knows what's feminist about dreamy nostalgia about English villages? 

The "Dollhouse" is an inn that the NYT describes as "a hallucinatory boardinghouse furnished by a flea market picker and haunted by Ichabod Crane" with rooms that are "almost entirely shoppable: scalloped rattan coffee tables from England ($2,250); mattresses from Massachusetts (starting at $1,349); hand-painted dinner plates ($59) from Italy; a thrifted pig-shaped cutting board ($55)."

"I would have gone to my grave peacefully had I never been reminded of the smug, horny entitlement of young men in the two-thousands—the Tucker Maxes and Adam Carollas..."

"... or the pressure I felt to find their humor funny or smart. I did not enjoy being reacquainted with male journalists’ gratuitous comments about teen girls’ breasts in Rolling Stone, or the haranguing of diet books like 'Skinny Bitch' ('You need to exercise, you lazy shit'). I had repressed all memory of the ghastly reality-TV show 'The Swan,' in which desperate and body-dysmorphic women undergo a series of plastic surgeries and are then assessed by a panel of judges so that one may be crowned 'the swan' among ugly ducklings...."

Writes Dayna Tortorici, in "What Did the Pop Culture of the Two-Thousands Do to Millennial Women?/'Girl on Girl,' by the critic Sophie Gilbert, is the latest and most ambitious in a series of consciousness-raising-style reappraisals of the decade’s formative texts" (The New Yorker).

"People could never imagine that I would lack any confidence, or belief in the simple things about who I am."

"Everything was torn to bits. He leaves a trail of blood. I don’t think I’m saying too much earth-shattering stuff after we — there’s been enough out there. But it gave me the greatest gift, which is myself. It gave me the greatest gift of how much I needed to show up for myself and take care of myself."

Said Danica Patrick, on a podcast called "The Sage Steele Show," quoted in "Danica Patrick: 'Emotionally abusive' Aaron Rodgers relationship ‘wore me down to nothing'" (NY Post).

I saw that just as I'm in the middle of listening to Aaron Rogers on a new episode of Joe Rogan. Audio and transcript at Podscribe. I don't think Aaron talks about any of his relationships with women. Does he leave a trail of blood? He doesn't give a clue. He and Joe talk about vaccines, the pyramids, aliens, the Sean Combs trial, transwomen in women's sports. Juicy substantive topics.

Why are men's podcasts so different from women's and why do I only listen to the men's? Part of the answer is that I'm highly skeptical of female empowerment discourse — e.g., "the gift of how much I needed to show up for myself and take care of myself." It's not just that it's superficial and repetitious. I suspect that it's part of the subordination of women, not that it does men any good. 

"A new straight-studies course treats male-female partnerships as the real deviance."

Subheadline for a New York Magazine article titled, "If Hetero Relationships Are So Bad, Why Do Women Go Back for More?" The teaser title on the front page is "Do Straight Women Really Exist?" The author of the article is Jessica Bennett.

“In this class, we’re going to flip the script,” [said sociologist Jane Ward to her students on the first day of class]. “It’s going to be a place where we worry about straight people. Where we feel sympathy for straight people. We are going to be allies to straight people.”...

Flipping the script is a good approach to studying the topic, and the topic is worthy of study. However, I don't like being directed to "worry" or "feel sympathy" or "be allies." I'd look at the subject head on. But neutrality is cruel, and women want to present as empathetic. 

The online world seems to get weirder and more retrograde about heterosexuality every day. Idealized masculinity has become more aggressive, more jacked up, and also more high maintenance... while femininity gets ever “softer,” more nurturing and domestic, and somehow still more sexy....

"Almost a decade after its première, 'Handmaid’s' retains its signature violence but has thoroughly exhausted its narrative premises...."

"Writing in the Reagan years, [novelist Margaret] Atwood imagined an authoritarianism of the repressive Christian variety. The sexual politics of our era’s conservatives are more prurient and boorish: the misogynists of Gilead say 'Blessed be the fruit'; ours say 'Grab ’em by the pussy.' Still, the sadism of the show’s fictional world finds ample comparisons in our own... In its early seasons, 'The Handmaid’s Tale' was criticized for what some saw as its self-indulgent scaremongering. The show, its detractors sneered, was trauma porn for middle-class women who wanted to see themselves as victims of the Trump age...."

Writes Moira Donegan, in "'The Handmaid’s Tale' Reflects the Exhaustion of Liberal Feminism/What’s most striking about the show, now in its final season, is not its hysteria but its lack of conviction" (The New Yorker).

"I'm not worried about whether I would be protected or not at said institution. I'm, you know, Privileged White Woman..."

Tim Walz’s daughter announced that she was accepted into a graduate school but has decided not to attend, stating that as a “privileged white woman,” she does not want to support institutions that fail to protect student protesters. 🤡 pic.twitter.com/F995YVHPrl

— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) March 30, 2025

Nothing more privileged than choosing to do nothing. She's just doing nothing for a year. But that's okay. She's "not really in a rush."

I wonder which institution "said institution" was. It would help in understanding how much of a sacrifice this is. In some cases, an ambitious person, who can afford to take a year off, could do things to bolster her credentials and gain access to a more prestigious school. Why, this public declining of an offer is itself a credential! Especially in some fields... so I have to wonder what she majored in, undergrad. Sociology? I looked it up. It was indeed sociology! And a minor in women’s gender and sexuality studies. 

So, great viral video. Great audition tape. 

I remember when feminism involved seeing woman as the victim, but now we see young women contemptuous of that viewpoint and not worried about whether I would be protected. 

What if it were your job to infuse the zoo with Critical Race Theory, radical feminism, and LGBTQ+ instruction and insight?

As noted in the previous post, President Trump signed an executive order that "directs the Vice President, who is a member of the Smithsonian Board of Regents, to work to eliminate improper, divisive, or anti-American ideology from the Smithsonian and its museums, education and research centers, and the National Zoo."

Now, maybe the zoo is thrown in there because it's run by the Smithsonian. But I had to wonder what the zoo might be doing and what it could do if it wanted to lean into the kind of ideology that the Trumpian vision sees as improper, divisive, and anti-American.

So I asked Grok to assume the job of infusing the zoo with Critical Race Theory, radical feminism, and LGBTQ+ instruction and insight. I told it to write some placards to be posted in front of particular animals and displays. If you're one of those people who won't read things written by A.I., you'd better bail out now, because what follows is 100% Grok:

"You might think such a scene — lines of strangers ogling an exposed female body lying in the middle of the street — would feel unsettling or prurient...."

"Instead, the atmosphere felt mildly jovial, as people exchanged amused glances, shrugged, and snapped photos. Nothing untoward was happening here, because Balloon Kim seemed protected from any personal transgression. Naturally, being 60 feet long helped.... But Balloon Kim seemed impervious to transgression [because] Balloon Kim did not so much depict a person as it did a commodity, an abandoned outer shell.... By covering her famous face, Balloon Kim refused to return the onlookers’ gaze. She depicted no personal expression, and blocked even the depiction of any access to her interiority. This structure was not a portrait or a sculpture of Ms. Kardashian, but rather a very faithful recreation of the workings of Ms. Kardashian’s empire, which is built on the meticulously crafted project she has made of her body — a collection of highly public, highly exposed curves and spheres, sculpted and polished to perfection, displayed according to Ms. Kardashian’s diktats, and offered up as a series of ideals to be aspired to and emulated via the purchase of products."

Writes Rhonda Garelick, in "About That Giant Kim Kardashian in Times Square/The seamless, poreless, sanitized effigy of a capitalist titan was a startling piece of marketing for Skims" (NYT).

1. That last sentence — "This structure was not... " — is a doozy. Have I ever written "doozy" on this blog? Yes! And I've written it in the context of a long sentence that needed diagramming. So now, here's another item for the annals of Things I Asked Grok: "Diagram this sentence...."

2. "Interiority" — You might remember just last month I was asking "What kind of people use the word 'interiority'?" Encountering the word in a NYT article (about Dylan Mulvaney), I searched my blog archive and extracted the history of the word "interiority" on this blog. There were 5 earlier appearances, all of them in quotes, never used by me. One day I'll use it!

3. This post gets my "big and small" tag — which is, regular readers may know, my favorite tag. I  am amused by absurd and radical size variations. 

4. The NYT writer is doing something I've seen a lot of over the years — crediting a woman for doing something other than what you might think she's doing: selling her sexuality. 

Space tourism is idiotic... as is the use of the word "historic" to describe non-achievements by women.

But The Daily Mail tells us: "Lauren Sanchez, Katy Perry and CBS Mornings co-host Gayle King have left fans shocked after it was announced they are heading to space. It was revealed on Thursday that the Jeff Bezos's partner, 55, the pop star, 40, and the news anchor, 70, are part of the Blue Origin's historic all-women crew, which will blast off in the spring."

The fan "shock" is only over the sheer randomness. Katy Perry in space! I wasn't thinking about that.

As for "historic"... I'm reminded of the old Samuel Johnson quote: "Sir, a woman’s preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all." That is, calling this non-achievement "historic" is actually a sexist putdown.

To wallow in the idiocy, watch Lauren Sanchez do TikTok:

"She still loves recording herself and often thinks of her life decisions as things to debut on a platform...."

"But the memoir ends with a declaration of intention to protect, if not necessarily her privacy, then perhaps her interiority. 'I’m trying this new thing where I keep certain things to myself,' Ms. Mulvaney writes. 'Little yummy womanly moments just for me.'"

From "Dylan Mulvaney Dreams of Privacy. Really. Her bubbly video diaries about her gender transition were once a study in oversharing. Now on the other side of a nationwide boycott, she sees the value in keeping some things to herself" (NYT).

What are you doing, just for you? Is it manly/womanly... and how would you know? Is it yummy? Is it bubbly? When you're in there, in your interiority, can it be bubbly?

How is your interiority? It's the NYT writer, Maggie Lange, not Mulvaney, who's using that word. I was moved to ask Grok: What kind of people use the word "interiority"? 

I'm told: "Writers, especially novelists and literary critics, use it a lot when dissecting characters or narratives—think folks analyzing Dostoevsky or Woolf for their deep dives into the human psyche."

And maybe also NYT writers helping very lightweight pop culture figures promote their memoirs. 

"Interiority" is showily contemplative. "Everyday people don’t typically say 'interiority' unless they’re parroting something they read or heard in a niche context."

I wondered if — in the 21 years of this blog — I'd ever used it. Quick search. I see it appears 5 times, but each time, I'm quoting someone else: 

Here's a pretty obtuse New Republic article: "It’s Time for Democrats to Woo the Man Vote."

That's by Susan Milligan. Subheadline: "The post-Dobbs emphasis on the women’s vote didn’t help the party among women—and it may have affirmatively alienated millions of men. It's time to treat men as an interest group."

Sample obtuseness:

Trump ridiculed trans rights, feeding a young male fear that young women were not just surpassing them, but perhaps trying to become them (a strategy that had the ancillary effect of appealing to mothers and fathers worried about their daughters’ bathrooms and locker rooms being invaded by trans women).

I don’t believe young men are worried that female-bodied persons are going to horn in on maleness and outdo them. No one's been talking about trans men. The focus — as the parenthetical concedes — has always been on trans women and how they might infringe on the interests of non-trans women. 

"Under her leadership articles have included 'How Feminism can Guide Climate Change by Action,' 'Denial of Evolution is a Form of White Supremacy,' and a critique of Star Wars..."

"... titled: 'Why the term JEDI is problematic for describing programmes that promote justice, equity, diversity and inclusion.' The author of this last piece called the Jedi 'a religious order of intergalactic police-monks, prone to (white) saviorism and toxically masculine approaches to conflict resolution (violent duels with phallic lightsabers, gaslighting by means of "Jedi mind tricks," etc)'...."

From "How magazine went from publishing Einstein to calling Jedi racist/Scientific American has been accused of abandoning objective rigour for a ‘woke’ agenda" (London Times).

The "her" in "Under her leadership" is Laura Helmuth, who was appointed editor-in-chief of "Scientific American" in 2020. She supposedly had a "deep respect for the brand," but then "broke the magazine’s tradition of impartiality by endorsing Joe Biden for president in 2020."

But: "Helmuth was forced to resign last November after making a series of derogatory comments about supporters of Donald Trump. In since-deleted posts on Bluesky after Trump’s election, she called his voters 'fascists' and the 'meanest, dumbest, most bigoted' group."