Ross Douthat, the young conservative on the Times op-ed page, weighed in today on Susan Patton's totally fucked-up advice for Princeton women. His piece, which lays out that the Ivy league represents the kind of compromised meritocracy that caters to elites like Patton, especially because they give the elite a chance to preserve their wealth and status, is both nuanced and thoughtful. But it's coming from a person who tends towards the right. And attacks the type of meritocracy that has privileged most of the readership of the Times. In other words, commenters are having a really hard time trying to figure out what to make of the piece.
Twitter user Jon Gabriel has been tweeting some of the more choice comments on Douthat's piece (which he describes as representing some "haughty butthurt"), and they are hysterical:
"educated people marry educated people not to perpetuate inequality... but because they like the same philosophers and poets and composers"
— Jon Gabriel (@ExJon) April 7, 2013
"[Is Douthat saying] intelligent people should squeeze themselves into a relationship with people of more limited cognitive abilities?"
— Jon Gabriel (@ExJon) April 7, 2013
"[Why would an] English major share his/her love of literature with an uneducated bank teller... a math professor with a beautician?"
— Jon Gabriel (@ExJon) April 7, 2013
And if you're thinking, like much of the younger set, that these comments are steeped in irony... think again! It's New York Times commenters, silly — it's like getting texts from your mom.
"Frankly, I don't understand what the author wants. Does he WANT a regression toward the mean?"
— Jon Gabriel (@ExJon) April 7, 2013
"Should a summa cum laude Harvard graduate feel socially obliged to fall in love with, marry, and have children with a high school dropout?"
— Jon Gabriel (@ExJon) April 7, 2013
Were you a summa cum laude at Harvard? Who knows! Who cares? Obviously the biggest takeaway from this searing piece is that any challenge to the elite should be dismissed out of hand (by the elite).