Sleek and serious

I’ve been on television twice, both times in time slots where nobody could possibly be watching (I keep telling myself), and I’ve had a couple of mentions in the Gazette. The Oklahoman, however, tends to ignore me, and I’m starting to think that’s a Good Thing, since the absence of coverage gives their brow-at-nose-level Web commentariat no shot at me.

This story, for instance, has drawn all sorts of nasty remarks:

Cathy Velte is not your average 54-year-old. The Oklahoma City woman is a successful medical researcher. Financially secure, she’s single, beautiful and confident. She’s a speed junkie who races cars professionally. And she’s proud to be a cougar.

But wait. Most people think of a cougar as a lonely, desperate woman over 40 who is on the prowl for a younger man. That hardly describes Velte.

That’s because Velte is one of thousands of women on a crusade to redefine the term cougar as applied to women.

A sample of the verbiage:

It is flabbergasting that someone would think they could appropriate a term — “cougar” — which is code for “I sleep around” and *NOT* think they are going to “inherit a degrading label.” The “label” fits.

“Code,” incidentally, is code for “This is a blatant example of projection” a good 90-95 percent of the time.

I’m guessing that if Cathy Velte races Porsches and runs a medical lab, she probably doesn’t have time to sleep around, not that it’s anybody’s business in the first place. Furthermore, I have just enough glass around the house to remind myself of the qualifications for stone-throwing. I will, however, lob a lump of feldspar at Steve Lackmeyer if he somehow sells the Dark Tower suits on the notion that I’m somehow newsworthy; I’d almost rather get Valentines from the Lost Ogles.


  1. McGehee »

    6 November 2009 · 12:05 pm

    That would be like me wanting to change what people think of when they hear “gay blade” applied to a man.

    If she wants to embody what some phrase used to mean, she’d really be better off coming up with a new coinage.

  2. Steve Lackmeyer »

    6 November 2009 · 4:03 pm

    Mr. Charles Hill, with all the powers vested in me as a 20-year veteran at The Oklahoman (basically nothing), I hereby declare you totally, utterly and completely uninteresting and not newsworthy. I do, however, continue to insist upon making your blog essential daily reading along with USA Today, New York Times headlines, Drudge, the Tulsa World, Doug Loudenback’s blog, OKC Talk and some obscure social blog whose name I can’t recall.

  3. CGHill »

    7 November 2009 · 10:32 am

    I am, of course, wary about too heavy an application of this particular description: were I in fact the least-newsworthy person on the planet, this fact would perforce make me newsworthy, thereby throwing a monkey wrench into the timelines of the world and causing the sort of cataclysm you could expect from, say, dropping bread crumbs into the Large Hadron Collider.

    I realize that being uninteresting takes me out of the running for someone “single, beautiful and confident,” but I was never really anywhere near there anyway.

RSS feed for comments on this post