Quantcast

«

»

Jul 26 2013

The Unbearable Shallowness of Tina Brown

There are few media figures quite as annoying as Tina Brown, editor of the Daily Beast and Newsweek. She gives a perfect example of how utterly vapid she can be in her unquenchable zeal for arbitrary princesses delivering male heirs — because they’re just so much better than icky girls, amirite?

“As soon as William really kind of emerged into the public eye, you had this wholesome prince and his choice of Kate Middleton turns out to be absolutely impeccable. I mean, once again, she does the perfect thing,” Brown said during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “I mean, although there’s the constitutional change that we can now have a girl as the first born to be the monarch, nonetheless, she does the traditional thing, and she gives us a prince. She gives a king. I mean, let’s face it, the Queen will be thrilled. She and the Duke of Edinburgh, much as they would have said they would have been fine with a girl first born, they really did want a boy and they got one.”

One can only wonder how Ms. Brown would have reported on Henry VIII growing tired of Anne Boleyn for failing to deliver him a male heir. No doubt this kind of misogyny would bother Brown a great deal in any other setting, but since this involves the royal family — such a thing should not exist, ever — it’s all just hunky dory.

18 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Raging Bee

    Ed, I apologize for the OT comment, but I am now getting messages saying my browser is acting to prevent a “cross-site scripting” (XSS) attack — every sigle fucking time I click on any of your posts! I get the warning message when I go to your main page, I get it every time I go to one of your posts, and I got it when I returned to this post after logging in. You really need to check your adware — something here is acting even fishier than usual.

  2. 2
    dono

    To me, the word “royalty” is as meaningless as the word “divinity” (not counting the gooey confection definition).

  3. 3
    doublereed

    Also, why are we acting like it’s the time of Henry VIIIth? Women don’t determine the gender of the child. Men do.

  4. 4
    dingojack

    “… his choice of Kate Middleton turns out to be absolutely impeccable. I mean, once again, she does the perfect thing”.

    Notice it’s his choice and his taste – Poor ol’ Katie just had to go along with it passively, being a creature of no will (so to speak) of her own, that is, a woman.

    To be fair, she does do something, ‘the perfect thing’, ’cause getting pregnant and having a child is not something that just any ol’ woman can do, oh no! It takes a woman infused with the Royal Prerogative don’t you know.

    “…. she does the traditional thing, and she gives us a prince. She gives a king. I mean…”

    Wow! That Royal Prerogative is powerful stuff – it gives mothers the power to magically create the ‘right’ sex for their child to fulfil the expectations of ‘tradition’ (without any gender dysmorphia or anything!). And a child that is just sooo remarkable they managed to stuff all the English congenital idiots and the Archbishop of Canterbury in Katie’s uterus (along with the kid) to perform the secret coronation ceremony (being he’s clearly born a king and all). And it’s all for us! So I guess that Kate and Will are both creatures lacking in any decision-making abilities of their own. Poor kid’s gonna be as fat, sad, bad and mad as his historical nameskes.

    Simply more of the usual royal twaddle about an unimportant, useless, inbred parasitic non-entity.

    Dingo

  5. 5
    d.c.wilson

    I wish the destroyer of Newsweek was an outlier, but this fawning over the product of 1500 years of inbreeding is now reached epidemic levels in the US media. One airhead on CNN actually called Kate “brilliant” for producing a male heir on the first try.

  6. 6
    dingojack

    A royal variety of what Raymond Chandler would call: ‘the celebrity dog-vomit”.
    Dingo

  7. 7
    Abby Normal

    Women don’t determine the gender of the child. Men do.

    No, men don’t. Men have no more control over the gender of the child than women do. Sperm contains the key chromosome, true. But it’s not like men have any influence which one is going to be the lucky swimmer. The only people determining the sex of their baby are the ones using IVF or similar technological solutions, in which case either gender could be making the choice.

  8. 8
    d.c.wilson

    Notice it’s his choice and his taste – Poor ol’ Katie just had to go along with it passively, being a creature of no will (so to speak) of her own, that is, a woman.

    You’re being kind. The media is treating her like a brood mare who’d been inseminated with sperm taken from Seabisquit to produce the next Triple Crown winner. It’s really disgusting.

  9. 9
    dingojack

    Let’s hope their kids take after Henry VIII’s brood, rather than Henry II’s or Edward II’s.
    Dingo

  10. 10
    rickdesper

    Thank you Abby. Getting tired of people floating the meme that men “determine” the gender of the child. Unless something really bizarre is going on in the testes, random chance is determining the gender.

  11. 11
    Pierce R. Butler

    Last I heard, women have some “say” in the gender of their offspring, in that, e.g., a more acidic vagina will interfere more with Y-chromosome sperm than with X-chromosome sperm.

    Some strains of modern folk medicine attempt to exploit that knowledge, by providing douches etc of varying pH, but the results haven’t been very reliable. But of course, we know that the royal family gets the most advanced medical treatment – how could urban legends ever penetrate the highly-educated British monarchy’s physicians’ practice?

  12. 12
    Abby Normal

    d.c.wilson @8

    Well said.

    On a lighter note, congratulations to the royal couple on the birth of their son. I read he was a healthy 8 pounds. For American readers, that’s about $19.

  13. 13
    Richard Bartholomew

    So what kind of newborn child would be “unwholesome”?

  14. 14
    zekehoskin

    Dono at 2: I loves my royalties. I’m a songwriter.

  15. 15
    JustaTech

    @Dingojack: Do you mean: die young, plunge the country into religious civil war, or bring about a new golden age? ‘Cause while I think that last one is super unlikely, golden ages are nice.

  16. 16
    Karen Locke

    Perhaps the young lad will grow up to repudiate his grandfather and campaign for *gasp* real medicine.

  17. 17
    lpetrich

    Was the US Revolutionary War fought in vain? It might seem so, given all the fawning over the successors of King George III.

  18. 18
    iknklast

    One airhead on CNN actually called Kate “brilliant” for producing a male heir on the first try

    I had a son my first (only) try…and I’m not even royal!!! Maybe I should apply for the job of princess? Nope, sorry, not inbred enough. Plus, I absolutely hate the flamboyant showiness, and I like my privacy too much.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site