Misogynistic David Brooks

[Mass]

This stupid and sermonizing column (ostensibly about "money does not bring happiness, family life does") is amazing coming from somebody who is normally seen as a moderate. So, being married is more important than all (when it comes to Sandra Bullock, at least) and she made the wrong choices? Which ones? Being a successful working woman? I dont remember him writing an article when successful male actors got into a messy divorce (I wonder why?)

It is bugging to see him go to what should be 19th century views (a woman is there to satisfy her man's needs).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/opinion/30brooks.html

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: March 29, 2010

Two things happened to Sandra Bullock this month. First, she won an Academy Award for best actress. Then came the news reports claiming that her husband is an adulterous jerk. So the philosophic question of the day is: Would you take that as a deal? Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow?



...

Nonetheless, if you had to take more than three seconds to think about this question, you are absolutely crazy. Marital happiness is far more important than anything else in determining personal well-being. If you have a successful marriage, it doesn’t matter how many professional setbacks you endure, you will be reasonably happy. If you have an unsuccessful marriage, it doesn’t matter how many career triumphs you record, you will remain significantly unfulfilled.



...

If the relationship between money and well-being is complicated, the correspondence between personal relationships and happiness is not. The daily activities most associated with happiness are sex, socializing after work and having dinner with others. The daily activity most injurious to happiness is commuting. According to one study, joining a group that meets even just once a month produces the same happiness gain as doubling your income. According to another, being married produces a psychic gain equivalent to more than $100,000 a year.

...
de.

So apparently, for Brooks, a woman cannot succeed the same way a man does, on her own right. Digby has on her blog this interview of Brooks about Pelosi, where he does not seem to think a woman can succeed on her own right, but because of who she is (wife, daughter, or sister of somebody successful).
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/not-quite-100.html

Why is he in such a crisis of anxious masculinity that the unique, self-contained Hollywood world is bothering him? I’m afraid that we have to assume he’s upset because Nancy Pelosi took his balls. When forced to consider the subject of Nancy Pelosi’s massive success as Speaker of the House---success many people like Brooks would not think a woman capable of---he said this, after Mark Shields suggested Pelosi is the most powerful female political figure in our history:

JIM LEHRER: Do you buy that, David?

DAVID BROOKS: I’m trying to think of alternatives.

Some people say Edith Wilson was very powerful when Woodrow Wilson had a stroke.

Already we’re deep into wanker territory. But it gets worse! Because Brooks simply cannot accept that a woman might acquire power the way a man can, by working hard and winning elections and getting good at her job.

DAVID BROOKS: But, certainly, this is a great accomplishment. And sort of it’s an interesting picture of what it takes to succeed in a job like this.

She is not a great speaker—I mean a spokesperson, a communicator. I personally don’t think she’s great on policy. But she has the skills to know how to control this body, which is a fractious body, even when you have a majority. And, so, those skills are maybe in her blood from her father and her brother, but also skills that she really possesses. And there’s no denying she is a very effective legislator.

OK, Brooks recognizes her some skills, but why does he feel necessary to push her father and brother. And, if it had been her brother, would he have pushed the notion that he is only successful because the father was?

[ShortnFiery]

1. It's not just women! My first indicator that David Brooks was an arrogant GOP shilling snob was ...

when he tried to place "an elitist" label on Obama by stating that he couldn't envision Candidate Obama at The Salad Bar within one's local Applebees. :wtf:

Hey Brooksie!?!
Applebees doesn't have a Salad Bar.
You'd know that if you were one of us average wage-slave Americans.

David Brooks, one each ----> BUSTED! :evilgrin:

[hfojvt]

10. well I am an average wage-slave American

and I don't know jack-squat about Applebees, having not been in one in at least five years or so.

[ShortnFiery]

11. Then I respectfully stand corrected. Our family, et. al., knows the salad bar is AT Ruby Tuesdays.

I was generalizing to what may be considered, by many, working-class dining haunts. :shrug:

[hfojvt]

19. I hardly ever eat out period

I am not sure if that is common for working people although I would think at some income levels that eating out is a luxury that it makes sense to avoid.

Still it is funny that Brooks wrote about a restaurant that he apparently never goes to himself.

[sarge43]

2. I wonder how Brooks feels about same sex marriage

Does he believe gays and lesbians are entitled to the bliss of a happy marriage or are they just SOL?

Not hard to guess what he believes.

[Fool Count]

9. Well, if that's your guess, you guessed wrong.

Here is what his Wikipedia entry offers in this regard:

"Brooks also broke with many in the conservative movement when, in late 2003, he came out in favor of same-sex marriage in his New York Times column. He equated the idea with traditional conservative values: "We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.... It's going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage." (New York Times, November 22, 2003, A-15.)" <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brooks_(journalist)>

Why call him misogynist for simply citing solid research data suggesting that healthy family and social life is more
important for personal happiness than material wealth? Do you disagree with his point and believe that material wealth
is more important? If so, what is the basis of your opinion? There is no other point made in this particular column.
One can certainly argue with it, but baseless name calling is not a proper way of doing it.

[sarge43]

13. I am surprised. Thanks for the info. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

21. I think George F. Will also favored gay marriage. "It encourages responsible behavior." Something

like that.

[Mass]

15. OK, so why take Sandra Bullock as an example? She was rich AND thought she had a good

marriage. Did she do something that jeopardize her marriage? Or is Brooks just a bad writer who has a lead unconnected to the rest of his article?

Her husband is a jerk. What does this have to do with "a good family is better than money?", which is true for some people, but not necessarily for all.

I'm not reaching. I am a woman and I've heard too often this reasonning that women should take care of their family rather than succeed in their job. Surprisingly, it is never said for men (they should go work and hope their wife take care of their family).

The fact is that he presents that as a deal "Would you take that as a deal? Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow?"

Why? Why could she not have both? She is an very talented woman. How is it a choice?

[hfojvt]

24. because of current headlines - that's why Sandra

Is there a man in the news who would be a better example?

She could have both, but she doesn't. Because of the scumbag Jesse James who lived down to his name, but all the same, she doesn't.

[get the red out]

3. That makes no sense

Her success didn't turn the guy into an adulterer, his own lack of character is the cause of that. What about all those 50s house-wives whose husbands thought it was their right as men to screw the secretary on the side because the woman at home had zero options if she left the marriage?

You cannot make someone else become an asshole nor can doting on them and devoting all your time to THEIR happiness keep it from happening. I think Mr. Brooks has fallen off the "personal responsibility" wagon, he may need an intervention.

[ronatchig]

4. Something I've yet to figure out

is why anyone gives a potters damn about what this twit has to say, or thinks about anything.

I mean it is beyond obvious that his whole stick is the corporate line.

And I say this without reading his drivel linked here.

[OKNancy]

5. I can't read the whole thing, but does he mention that Jesse

has more money that Sandra Bullock? His net worth is more than hers.

[seabeyond]

7. really? i dont do hollywood bullshit. but i didnt know. i thought he was a loser she fell for

what did he do to make his money?

pure curiosity

[OKNancy]

16. I saw the figures on CNN last night

He is worth 100 million. He has several successful businesses.

Lifted from http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/jesse-james-net-worth/
Over the last 10 years James has built a $200 million a year empire off of West Coast Choppers. West Coast Choppers started humbly in 1992 out of a friend’s garage in Long Beach California. Since then it has grown into a massive merchandising and lifestyle empire which includes a clothing line that is sold in Wal Mart, multiple TV shows, a magazine, fast food restaurants, and more.

[seabeyond]

18. wow, interesting. thanks. oh would have thought, lol. nt

[The_Commonist]

6. Brooks is a weenie!

I am required to point that out any time his name is mentioned.
Sometimes he gets it right.
Sometimes he gets it oh so wrong...

[Jim__]

8. I agree Brooks is an ass, but I don't read his column the way you do.

I don't think the opening paragraph is addressed just to women:

Two things happened to Sandra Bullock this month. First, she won an Academy Award for best actress. Then came the news reports claiming that her husband is an adulterous jerk. So the philosophic question of the day is: Would you take that as a deal? Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow?

I think it's addressed to everyone. Granted, it's an asinine question. We don't get to choose between a successful career or a successful social life. I think they tend to go together. But I took his point to be that a successful social life is far preferable to a successful career, for both men and women. I think if i had a choice, that's the one I'd make; but his column does nothing to support the idea that we get to choose.

[Captain Hilts]

22. Perhaps, but the fact that it comes up when a high-profile woman has a problem...

is, in itself, sexist. Enough men have ugly divorces, etc. and we don't get calls to value family life more.

It's only a matter of time before the Wash Post's Kathleen Parker will blame it all on feminism and feminists.

[hfojvt]

12. it seems like you are reaching, searching for reasons to call him names

Isn't it possible to just disagree with him and make some points of your own? Does he have to be both wrong and misogynistic just for believing and stating that relationships are important to happiness (for men and women)?

[seabeyond]

17. that is how i read it. nt

[hfojvt]

23. Which way?

That he is misogynistic or that they are reaching?

[seabeyond]

25. i read it that accomplishment in profession life did not trump happiness in marriage

that to have a supportive person, someone you love in personal life outweighed what is accomplished in professional life. and i didnt see it as gender oriented.

but then i wasnt interested enough to click on the whole article and read to see if there was something telling in more of his writing

[KittyWampus]

14. this is Brooks attempt at social commentary ala Frank Rich who is successful at drawing comparisons.

Brooks is sub-par but then so is the NYTImes when you really get down to it.

[grace0418]

20. One of the most dour, crabby-ass individuals I can think of talking about personal

happiness being more important than anything? Interesting.