AOL's Feminists Strike Again

by Nicholas Stix Who can turn a porn queen into a “ditzy ingenue”? AOL, that’s who! And no, I’m not writing a hackneyed send-up of “Mame.” Anyone who is an AOL customer gets the company's "news" inserts and pop-up ads whenever he tries to read his e-mail. Thus, he lives in a world in which “ditzy ingenue” is a euphemism for “porn star,” as in the following passage about actress Heather Graham and her new, midseason replacement TV show. “How You Know Her: She became a star by playing a ditzy ingenue in the movie 'Boogie Nights,' and guest-starred on 'Scrubs' last season.” Graham played a ditzy porn “actress” in Boogie Nights, which was a touching movie (it really was!) about the 1970s' pornographic movie industry. No ingenues anywhere in the picture. Do any of AOL’s feminists know English? Much of the "content" AOL provides consists of what journalism legend George S. Schuyler would have called "moron fodder" -- worthless instruction by “experts” telling one that one is obliged to over-tip, tips on how to deal with an impossible boss, etc. Of course, the boss is a man, and the beleaguered employee -- or rather, in pc speak, "co-worker" -- is a female. (If the politically correct had any logic skills, they'd see that the violence they do to language solves many of their problems. If the man in question is a "co-worker," then he can't fire you. Only bosses can fire people. But since feminists and the other leftists dominating journalism have banished clear language about hierarchies -- boss/subordinate; employer/employee -- in favor of egalitarian euphemisms like "co-worker," while at the same time obsessing endlessly about problems that are central to hierarchical relationships, their writing is schizophrenic at best. If they've already neutered white male authority, how can they be having all these problems with authoritarian white males?) AOL's moron fodder stories are often written by females who I am sure think they are better than the work they do … but they're not. I don't know what is more important to AOL's Web editors: Showcasing moron fodder written by ditzy female "journalists," or showcasing the photos of female models that invariably accompany the stories. Unless it is a model posing as an evil boss, you won't see many pictures of white males in AOL's features. While white male bosses are portrayed as ogres in AOL's features, a female boss who really is an incompetent ogre will get powder-puff treatment. And so it was, last February when the headline "Shocking Ouster" accompanied some AOL “content” on Carly Fiorina, who had been fired by Hewlett-Packard, after serving almost six years as its Chairman and CEO. Carly Fiorina has the dubious honor of having destroying the collegial corporate culture carefully nurtured by firm co-founders Bill Hewlett and David Packard, in favor of a ruthless, bottom-line orientation that resulted in layoffs to over 10,000 workers; and of having rammed through one of the most misbegotten mergers in American corporate history with computer rival Compaq, costing HP and its stockholders billions of dollars. The only shock was that HP’s board of directors waited so long to can her. But Fiorina was a woman and a feminist, to boot, and so, feminists immediately pulled out their violins, and played, “If she were a man, they’d say she’s hero.” And AOL played the same song. In mid-December, AOL also ran a feature on Irish immigrant success story Lesley Wootton by a Dayana Yochim, “An Extreme Retirement Makeover.” The story has the teaser, “What does it take to go from $83 in savings to having more than $150,000 in the retirement kitty in less than two years? The financial equivalent to stomach-stapling and tag-team liposuction? Nope. It's a retirement regimen we can all follow….” “For more than 20 years, this Irish immigrant, her American husband, and their five kids scrambled to avoid financial disaster. At one point their family income was just $5,200 a year -- that's less than $15,000 in today's dollars. Lesley worked odd jobs, factory night shifts, waitressing -- anything she could do to bring in extra money while avoiding having to pay for day care. “Then, two years ago, it looked like it was game over. Lesley was 53 and recovering from a divorce. She had a negative net worth and just $83 officially earmarked for retirement. “The end? Not so fast. Today she is debt-free and sitting on a nest egg of more than $150,000. If Lesley sticks to her plan, she'll be a millionaire by age 67.” I read on, hoping to find out how Lesley Wootton had beaten the odds. I never did find out. Alleged journalist Dayana Yochim begins with clichéd dieting analogies (“Step on the Scale,” “Lighten Your Load,” “Purge the Hidden Carbs,” “Make sure you're getting all the right nutrients”) before dumping them for generic self-help/money clichés (“Elevate Your Game” and “Become a Lean, Mean Money Machine”). After all the mixed clichés, you still have no idea how Wootton made her money. But the folks at AOL, in connivance with The Motley Fool, are willing to sell you a subscription to their Get-Rich-Quick newsletter. The article links to a long second article, excerpt from the Get-Rich-Quick newsletter, with Lesley Wootten’s ten tips on how to get rich in two years. 1. Improve your job prospects. 2. Read great books about money. 3. Track spending. 4. Wean your kids off the gravy train. 5. Consider selling your house. 6. Telecommute. 7. Max out your savings accounts. 8. Save your marriage. 9. Reward yourself. 10. Slow down, but don't retire. Along the way, we learn that this woman, who had an income of $5,200, was able to improve her job prospects by going to college, where she was a Phi Beta Kappa. Later, she sold her house. Hello? The premise of both articles was that Wootton was broke, with five children to support. If the premise was honest, Wootton could not possibly have gone to college, much less bought a house, even if it was a “farmhouse.” And we don't want to go into the "gravy train." The anonymous writer is insulting the reader’s intelligence, but that’s the m.o. of moron fodder. Similarly, we know that Wootton’s success came only after her divorce, and that she had no savings. (My hunch is that she got the house in the divorce settlement, sold it, and turned it into her present bankroll. Which would mean that she didn’t do it alone, but rather with her ex-husband’s help. In any event, the writer is being dishonest, by setting up a scenario that would preclude the result she depicts.) So much for feminists respecting women’s intelligence. If you believe the sort of, um, stuff that AOL pushes on its customers, I’d like to introduce you to my friend, Miss Ingénue. She goes for $500 an hour.