Woman says women "kind of dim"

Wife and I read this and thought that if she was trying to be funny it was one of the poorest written pieces we have seen. If she was trying to be serious it was one of the worst pieces we have seen. Too mant trees died for this article.

Steve

If men had been subject to the disparagement, condescension, and discrimination throughout history that women have, with the same half-assed justifications of "they're just not as smart or capable" that women have put up with, then yes, I imagine a man writing this column about men would have garnered a similar reaction. But since we live in the real world and not matriarchal fantasy land, it's viscerally frustrating to see someone trot out the old stereotypes of pillow-headed silly women because they don't happen to like someone else's politics. The "I was just joking" defense is especially thin on this one since no one seemed to have taken it as humor before the editor said so.

Or turn it around a different way, Rod. If Clarence Thomas had written an op-ed about how maybe black people really are generally stupider and less reasonable than whites, based on wide-scale black support for Obama, would saying "it was a joke" after the fact make it less offensive?

Frankly, I thought the article was brilliant. I was laughing out loud by the end of it; I think that those who found it offensive missed the decidedly humorous tone of the piece, which is pretty hard to miss, in my opinion.

First of all, what's wrong with pointing out the idiocy of the rock-star treatment Obama's been getting, which seems to have its greatest effect on women and (according to Rod's post yesterday) small children? If women had been fainting at Republican rallies, do you think people would pretend not to notice? It's absurd to think of grown women becoming so overwhelmed by emotion that they faint under the power of Obama's rhetoric, but apparently it's happening rather frequently.

Second, what's wrong with showing the irony of the uber-feminist Hillary Clinton, once known for her mocking words about stay-at-home moms and cookie baking, falling into misty-eyed tearfulness over the slow decay of her mismanaged campaign? Come on, people: we've been told over and over again that Hillary Clinton is the smartest woman in America--surely she doesn't need the sympathy vote, right?

Third, I think Allen's question, "What is it about us women? Why do we always fall for the hysterical, the superficial and the gooily sentimental?" is a rather good one. Advertisers and marketers for large corporations would rather we didn't examine ourselves in this area, since they've amassed fortunes appealing to the tastes and spending habits of women precisely because we will often fall for the hysterical, the superficial and the gooily sentimental. Though the article maintains a light and humorous tone throughout, this is actually a good question, one that it might be enlightening to answer--but it would require us to admit that men and women actually are different, and that the role our emotions play in our decision-making process is greater and more complex than it is in men, generally speaking.

Granted, she makes sweeping generalizations and some of the specific examples she cites are off-base (the Morgellon's phenomenon isn't even remotely limited to women, for example, and the CDC is investigating it); but as it seems rather obvious that her purpose in writing the piece was to take a laughing look at the still-present tendency of women, even in these enlightened days, to be drawn in by rock-star politicians, Oprah Winfrey, trashy autobiographies and the ever-alluring glamor of shoe sales, I think these minor flaws should be overlooked.

My husband and I both read this and we figured that it must have been meant to be a joke, only because it was so poorly thought out, so ridiculous that there was just no way it could be meant to be serious. However, there was nothing in the text of the column which indicated that it was a joke. No wink-wink, no obvious sarcasm. It was really and truly one of the most poorly written, poorly thought out, communicated or argued pieces of crap I've had the displeasure of reading outside of white supremicist propaganda. Bad, bad, bad with no redeeming qualities IMO.

Not only was it terrible, but her concluding statement said that we should we should just accept that we're dumb so that we won't feel bad about doing what we really want to do - stay home with babies. This statement so undermines women who would like being moms to be respected for the work they do. Radical feminists like to say that being an at home mom is limiting and not appropriate for an intelligent woman to do. Here, Ms. Allen says, "well, we're really not that intelligent anyways, so we shouldn't feel bad about staying home." With friend's like that, who needs Linda Hirshman? (And this was exactly how the ending was read by several liberal bloggers I read.)

As for if it had been written about men, honestly if it had been as poorly written, poorly argued and poorly communicated, I really do think people would have called foul. Men get lots of teasing and ribbing as well as occasionally being painted as miscreants. However, I think that the days of accepting this level of derision and hostility towards men have probably passed.

Honesty out of a woman!!

The age of miracles has truly returned.

Goes to show women are not rational beings, but they FEEL that they are.

Wasn't Charlotte Allen the "Loose Cannon" who held the Beliefnet conservative political blogger post before Crunchy Con? If so there's really no point howling about much of anything she says. She's completely detatched from reality, or else very rationally writes things for their shock value rather than their intellectual content. The woman actually said India's ~200 years as a British colony was a net benefit for India! Rod had more intellectual honesty in the search-engine-test/Britteny-Spears post a few months back than the Loose Cannon had in all her posts combined.

If Charlotte was not the Loose Cannon I take it all back and humbly beg for forgiveness.

Spelling correction: Charlotte Hays.

After Larry Summers mentioned that maybe biology is a factor in extremely high math ability, among a lot of others, and that this should be studied, several female professors said they wanted to faint or felt sick. Unless they were raised in the Victorian era, it sounds suspicious.

If it's a joke, where's the funny? Can anybody point out any humorous element in it (other than unintentional irony)? I know that I, as a mother of sons and wife to a husband and friend to many men, would most certainly object to an article that treated men the way this article treats women. The author appears to be quite bitter and hostile, not lighthearted, amused, witty. She doesn't seem in command of her material. There have always been women who have been willing to betray other women to curry favor with men, just as there have been members of any less privileged group in society. I turned on the television today and saw there was a book being promoted about why women are liars. I am not a liar and most people of either gender are not liars. To the extent that I suspect that people are liars, I've seen both men and women do it. I guess the bottom line is: What purpose does an article like Charlotte Allen's serve. If it doesn't amuse (and I guess the overwhelming conclusion is that it doesn't), doesn't inform, and doesn't enlighten, what does it do? I guess it provides her with money, but it does nothing for readers.

I read it more or less as Erin did and thought most of it was extremely funny, particularly the parts that involved Erin's third point above. A certain kind of woman has been making some really dreadful fiction hugely profitable since the '70s, and the whole phenomenon richly deserves some jeering. Seems to me that those who take offense are mistaking Allen's tone.

The characteristic virtues of either sex are always in danger of going bad and becoming vices: male energy becoming aggression, female empathy becoming sappiness. Laughter is a good corrective.

Would a man ever write something that inane about other man and have it published in the opinion section of one of the most influential newspapers in the country?

Daniel,

Shouldn't you be watching Oprah or something?

Brava, Erin. If you keep writing long posts with which I mostly find agreement, yer gonna save everyone gobs of my pompous lecturing* about things in which they have no interest or little comprehension... wait. Did I just applaud you for muzzling me?

;-D

* Speaking of which: Allen's droll tone was her undoing, methinks. No one appreciates droll any more, or so I observe... maybe because it requires thinking before responding to it.

Erin and Maclin, millions of Freshman Comp students are now wishing that you graded their papers.

I agree, Maclin. My appreciation for Allen's humor doesn't blind me to the various literary deficiencies of the piece, most especially the structure of it, as I mentioned above.

I am sorry Rod, I just reread your article and realize that I had totally missed your point. We are on the same page. Apologies for jumping to conclusions and being rather dim myself.

"uber-feminist Hillary Clinton, once known for her mocking words about stay-at-home moms and cookie baking,"

Uber-feminist Marilyn Quayle said about the same thing once - only it was "tea and crumpets" instead of cookies. Why is that always overlooked?

As for the idea that feminism was supposed to stop female emotion (?!?), well, my jaw is still slapping the floor.

The parodies of feminism (generally derived from a handful of narcissists who grabbed attention by calling themselves radical feminists in front of the know-nothing MSM back in the day) that get a free pass here are astounding. Let's be sure to only quote Ann Coulter and Rush L. as the sources of conservative and Christian wisdom from here on in. It is only fair...

I just read a series of questions with ms. allen on WP about her column and I'm still flabbergasted at what she thought she was doing. It wasn't satire, according to her. It wasn't parody, according to her. It was just a series of insults to women that we were supposed to find funny. why would I find a series of insults to women (or anyone else) published in a major paper funny?

Seriously, her article said, "these are stupid things women do because they really are stupid. It's scientifically proven! So they should just cop to their stupidity and not feel bad that they are just dumb and be comfortable doing dumb people stuff like taking care of children." And there's a breathing human who is surprised that people missed the humor in that? Seriously?

If her point was that we make fun of men when women do just as dumb things as men, then why not make that arguement in a humorous way. "You think men are bad - look at what we women do!" Or if her point was to say that feminism had failed because it hasn't eradicated sex differences, why not say that?

The downfall of radical feminism has always been that it's based on the mysogenistic idea that what is good, intelligent and worthwhile is defined by what men value, so any differences between men and women must be vigorously denied or it will confirm the idea that women are inferior. Ms. Allen's protest against this brand of feminism seems to be - see you were wrong we really are inferior -just look at all the differences your ideology hasn't been able to erase. Women, let's stop fighting it and embrace the idea that we're inferior!"

And I don't see a wink wink in comparing "Pamela" to "Fear of Flying". Fear of Flying could only be taken seriously by anyone at the peculiar moment of its publication. Today, even in feminist circles it's acknowledged to be trash and important only for its historical significance.

So many of the best posts on this blog are by women. Must be the verbal skills thing. Guess Ill head over to my spatial skills blog so I can feel better.

Steve

All this reminds me a joke...

"Did you hear the one about the two lesbians walking into a bar?"

"THAT'S NOT FUNNY!"

I don't get it. What was funny about it? Was it funny because her examples of ways women are stupid were funny? Was it funny because it was obvious to you that she didn't really believe what she was saying - just using exaggerations and outrageous statements to make a point (which bizarrely she says wasn't what she was doing - she claims the column really reflects what she thinks)? Was it that she seemed to be arguing against the radical feminist idea that men and women are the same?

I'm asking honestly here. I think I have a pretty good sense of humor, but I didn't think this was funny except in a "what?!?!" kind of way. My husband who finds even really dumb stuff funny didn't laugh once while reading it and just came away confused as well. So I'm wondering what anyone would find amusing about it.

franklin, actually while I am absolutely believe in the reality of differences in the tendencies of the sexes, I actually am decidedly NOT very "female" in many respects. In our home, my husband and I have our

I think the bottom line for me is that I am an unusually smart woman. I grew up during the height of the "sex is a gender construct" era and have run into more than my fair share of people over the years who have told me that interests and passions (things like children, education, religious devotion, literature) were inappropriate pursuits for someone with my intelligence. Why were they inappropriate? Because they reflected traditional "women's work" which, everyone knows, was what women were consigned to do because they were less intelligent. Now that we know that women are not dumb, it is time for us to leave "dumb people's" work behind.

My response has always been that it is extremely mysogenistic to measure what is worthwhile and what is not by the standard of what men do. The problem isn't that the work women have traditionally done requires minimal intelligence, as both the chauvanists and radical feminists like to argue. The problem is that this work has been undervalued because it is typically done by women. If we value women as intelligent, free and equal partners in the human endevor, then the work women do needs to be valued as much as the work men do.

What Ms. Allen does is reject both the radical feminist position and the position of someone like myself and say, "Not only were feminists wrong about men and women being the same. They were wrong about women being as smart as men. We should accept this and be happy doing the traditional, less mentally rigorous work that women have traditionally done. Isn't it silly that people would think otherwise - look at all the evidence of our stupidity!" So in one fell swoop she has used our gender differences as a weapon to condemn women for expecting to be respected AND denigrated the value of the talents and pursuits that women such as myself are working to elevate as respectable endevors.

PLUS she did it as a conservative which simply re-enforces the view that conservatives don't really believe in gender equality, that to accept the reality of gender equality is to accept the reality of female inferiority and that claiming to praise "women's work" on the part of traditional conservatives is simply code for "go sit down and don't bother your pretty little head."

Her logic is flawed beyond repair (men's visual spatial skills make them better at abstract thought, but women's superior grasp of the abstract construct of language makes them dumb?), she uses real, rather than exaggerated examples of sex differences as her evidence (exaggeration is the key to humor, satire and parody. Without this element, you are just making fun of people to laugh at their stupidity, which is what she admits she was doing) and she joins right in with radical feminists in insisting that "women's work" is for dumb people.

Anyhow, this woman has taken up too many brain cells. I still don't understand what was funny about the column. Fortunately, almost no one who reads it will think she has a point. Unfortunately, there are people who will walk away thinking that they got a glimpse into the conservative mind while having their prejudices against "women's work" affirmed. Which doesn't do anything for my perspective.

Rebeccat, you are (in large part) reacting to Allen's use of stereotypes. At the risk of seeming sarcastic or ironic -- neither of which do I intend -- you match my upbringing and personality rather closely but we diverge mainly on our gender difference. You're a woman looking at it from the inside, I'm a man looking from the outside. It should surprise no one that we agree on the principles but have very different levels of reaction to express.

Thanks for responding. I feel like I know you better, and you express many things that need wide exposure.