Ever notice that while nearly every publication in the Western World sees Valentine's Day as a chance to indulge is some harmless romanticism, wingnuts take it as an opportunity to tell you love's just a scam and you should just get down to the miserable business of breeding? Get a load of the cold open on Susan Patton's V-Day downer at the Wall Street Journal :
Another Valentine's Day. Another night spent ordering in sushi for one and mooning over "Downton Abbey" reruns. Smarten up, ladies. Despite all of the focus on professional advancement, for most of you the cornerstone of your future happiness will be the man you marry...
Apparently Patton is afraid some of her female readers (I know but look, anything's possible) have no mothers to call and tell them if they want ever to get hitched they better forget this "love" horseshit:
An extraordinary education is the greatest gift you can give yourself. But if you are a young woman who has had that blessing, the task of finding a life partner who shares your intellectual curiosity and potential for success is difficult. Those men who are as well-educated as you are often interested in younger, less challenging women.
So does Patton wants schoolly ladiez to date down? That'd be too easy:
Could you marry a man who isn't your intellectual or professional equal? Sure. But the likelihood is that it will be frustrating to be with someone who just can't keep up with you or your friends. When the conversation turns to Jean Cocteau or Henrik Ibsen, the Bayeux Tapestry or Noam Chomsky, you won't find that glazed look that comes over his face at all appealing...
You're probably beginning to catch on, from this oooh look at you with your stupid "education" you dateless hag schtick that Patton isn't here so much to help as to hector.
So what's a smart girl to do? Start looking early and stop wasting time dating men who aren't good for you: bad boys, crazy guys and married men. College is the best place to look for your mate...
Because by the time he sobers up it'll be too late. Also, Patton nags her lady readers that "men won't buy the cow if the milk is free," which I assume means you shouldn't indulge his lacto-porn urges till he puts a ring on it.
Not all women want marriage or motherhood, but if you do, you have to start listening to your gut and avoid falling for the P.C. feminist line that has misled so many young women for years.
Yeah, happy Valentines to you too, Miss Manners. Next, Matt K. Lewis at The Week --
Valentine's Day somehow manages to turn voluntary acts of kindness and warmth into perfunctory gestures, and romantic candlelight dinners into onerous burdens — all in the name of "love" (read: commercialism).
Lewis must have sensed that his readers might at this point mistake his POV as anti-capitalist and write stern letters to the editor, so he goes for sure-fire conservative signaling devices -- first, whining about Our Degraded Culture:
Just as Valentine's Day seems utterly harmless, much of the "wholesome" music we grew up listening to fostered this pernicious worldview.
The Righteous Brothers, for example, sang: "Without you baby, what good am I?"
Then, C.S. Lewis and Jesus! Finally, he tells us,
And if you do marry, forget about all that love at first sight nonsense. Find someone you'd be willing to go into battle with — or, at least, go into business with. That's not romantic, but it's wise.
Celebrate your exclusive rights tender with some coffee and donuts in the break room and then back to work! Does anything about Valentines Day bring joy or at least non-misery to these people? Well...
Obama's Valentine's Day gift to himself; dinner with royalty without Michelle
...no, actually. Nothing does. It's like even the specter of normal positive human feelings either gives them a sad or fills them with rage. I like to think of them as human beings, but I'm beginning to believe with Charlie Pierce that they are in fact the Mole People.