New York Times accidentally leaves editor’s petty, elitist comments in wedding announcement

by editor on April 4, 2010

The elitism of the New York Time was on full display in, of all places, a recent wedding announcement. reveals the nuptial news:

Oops! A partially edited version of Danielle Cohen and Jonathan Segal’s wedding announcement made it onto the internet today, full of {cq}’s and desperation over how to describe a housewife.

The early version, screenshot by noble comment warrior MockerStalker, includes a paragraph that appears to be a note between the writer and editor fretting over how to identify the groom’s mother. It appears they contemplated identifying Mrs. Segal as a sixth-grade teacher, a job she held in 1975, making it difficult to factcheck.

The final edition leaves poor Mrs. Segal out entirely, because if one does not have an easily identifiable job, philanthropic hobby, or tony employer, one does not exist at all to the Vows page.

Nice to see that the Times’ elitism isn’t just restricted to the editorial page.


Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
1 Comment threads
3 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
Mrs. P.copter1KimmyQueen Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Notify of

Feminism to its lowest and disgusting state: A woman cannot chose to be a housewife anymore (if ever). A woman who is a housewife was forced into it, either by the punishment of having children and making the wrong decision of not aborting the mistake, or because the husband made her. If she does choose to be a housewife, then she is a dumb a$s and no one who matters should bother with her and she will not be missed.



KQ, funny you should say that. My 7-year-old is in Catholic school for the first time this year, and some of the working parents (like myself) have expressed the feeling that the school presumes all of the moms are stay-at-home, and makes a number of their scheduling decisions, like last-minute changes, without regard to those who work outside the home. So I guess it depends on which vacuum you live in. Always a good idea to look at both sides, IMO. Of course, that wouldn’t be the NYT way, would it?

Mrs. P.
Mrs. P.

I think the point is that being a stay-at-home mom is no longer valued in and of itself. There are a lot of kids growing up to be good little socialists because they are popped into daycare at the earliest opportunity and end up learning their values from the state until they graduate. Stay-at-home moms and retired grandmas like myself are always around to counter this by teaching our values, not those of Al Gore, Karl Marx or the Sierra Club. Don’t get me wrong, I was a working mom myself for many years (from necessity, not choice), but motherhood should also be respected as a “career choice”. Now that our public schools have been turned into indoctrination centers (here in Canada, they start the politically correct/environmental crap in kindergarten), the role of parents becomes even more important. We could get along without snooty art critics, but we would be totally screwed without moms.


That is not the point though. It is important for schools to make allowances for both aspects stay at home parents and those that aren’t for sure. That should definetly be brought up to them, and I hope they change their policies accordingly. However, there is no intrinsic harm in assuming that some to most parents (ie mothers) would be at home when children are still very small or under the age of 12. To this day that is the case for a lot of women (and some men) who make that choice, so they incorrectly assume it is a large amount when it isn’t. However like I said it is not the point. I hope that there is no misjudgement on their part on women who chose to be out of the home. Have you been misjudged or looked down on for not being a stay at home Mom? If you have seen that behavior from them then that would be bad and that would be an issue. Overall women who work out of the home are now a necessity and unless we are dealing with a backward group of people here, there is very seldom nonsense coming out of people when a woman is out in the world working.

However, the thing is that the NYT didnt want to add the Mother information on a WEDDING ANNOUNCEMENT a small unimportant matter, because the women didn’t have a career. She was meaningless and unimportant. She wasn’t necessary to be added on her son’s wedding announcement just because she didn’t have a career like her husband. That is the point and that is why it is gross. They misjudged her worthiness for her lack of career, when her career was basically to take care of her family. Taking care of her family wasn’t deemed important enough to the NYT. That is offensive to me.