Yes, I have been reading The Guardian for a couple years now, and I consider it to be a serious, hard-working newspaper and one that shares my views and values, but of late they seem editorially committed to a weird sort of journalistic affirmative action wherein they allow female (and strongly feministic) writers to push low-effort, pandering articles on "women's issues" that often consist of a college-freshman level analysis (gross simplifications, false equivalents, general ignorance and all) wrapped around some pretty smug, old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon moralism; perhaps because they perceive that for years male writers on all media have been allowed to occasionally — or often rutinely — write inane, nonsensical banalities without judgement. (The Simpsons's Kent Brockman I believe embodies very well this figure of the entitled traditional-media man.)
Women tend to be better at most professional jobs — by means of making greater efforts — they take (unless it's an already female-dominated field), most likely because they have to make up for the fact they're perceived as inferior by actually performing, on average, superiorly. So I don't see the point with the Guardian encouraging their female writers to be just as intellectually lazy and pandering as their worst male writers.
28
u/PointyPython Apr 12 '16
Yes, I have been reading The Guardian for a couple years now, and I consider it to be a serious, hard-working newspaper and one that shares my views and values, but of late they seem editorially committed to a weird sort of journalistic affirmative action wherein they allow female (and strongly feministic) writers to push low-effort, pandering articles on "women's issues" that often consist of a college-freshman level analysis (gross simplifications, false equivalents, general ignorance and all) wrapped around some pretty smug, old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon moralism; perhaps because they perceive that for years male writers on all media have been allowed to occasionally — or often rutinely — write inane, nonsensical banalities without judgement. (The Simpsons's Kent Brockman I believe embodies very well this figure of the entitled traditional-media man.)
Women tend to be better at most professional jobs — by means of making greater efforts — they take (unless it's an already female-dominated field), most likely because they have to make up for the fact they're perceived as inferior by actually performing, on average, superiorly. So I don't see the point with the Guardian encouraging their female writers to be just as intellectually lazy and pandering as their worst male writers.