Talking about a movie recently, a friend described At the Movies show hosts David Stratton and Margaret Pomeranz’s conversation. He re-hashed in general the conversation, and not word-for-word:
Friend: ‘..and David said something like “I found it a sexually arousing film”
and then Margaret said something like “Oh, David” in a kind of disapproving way…
… I figure Margaret’s probably just post-menopausal.’
The suggestion here I guess is that Pomeranz’s conservative position disapproves of Stratton’s being sexually aroused by the the film. And according to my friend’s summation, Pomeranz’s response here reflects nothing more than her hormone levels.
Could it be possible that Pomeranz may have just preferred not to hear what arouses her colleague in the bedroom? On a nationally-broadcast tv show about film reviews? I’d suggest you don’t have be post-menopausal to find what arouses David Stratton in the sack a little off-putting. But that is beside the point.
What if Pomeranz was 25 years old? Would her response have suggested something different from my friend? In that case then it might be argued that the 25-year old Margaret was probably having her period when she said that. Or even that a younger Pomeranz wouldn’t have been offended because only ‘post-menopausal’ women would think this way.
But it did occur to me that this kind of put-down must be one of the most effective. That the source of a woman’s opinion could be exclusively linked to her reproductive system diminishes her authority on the subject and questions her intelligence overall.
And if you call a person on this point, and you happen to be a woman (who’s not menopausal age) you could expect to be thought of as one of the following –
1. pre-menstral or
2. an angry feminist (insert negative undertones here).
Best to keep quiet then ladies. Leave the deep thought to the ever-rational men.