In defense of women everywhere

It’s literally hard to believe that the Washington Post published a 1,700-word opinion piece about women being dumb. This is, after all, the 21st century, and reasonable, sensible people like to believe feminism has made at least some strides towards equality between the genders.

And yet, there it is, in black and white. Charlotte Allen, without a hint of irony or parodist tendencies, makes the case that women are dumb, shallow, and generally kind of pathetic.

As proof, Allen kicks off her discussion by pointing to women supporting Barack Obama’s campaign, some with great enthusiasm.

“Women ‘Falling for Obama,’ ” the story’s headline read. Elsewhere around the country, women were falling for the presidential candidate literally. Connecticut radio talk show host Jim Vicevich has counted five separate instances in which women fainted at Obama rallies since last September. And I thought such fainting was supposed to be a relic of the sexist past, when patriarchs forced their wives and daughters to lace themselves into corsets that cut off their oxygen.

I can’t help it, but reading about such episodes of screaming, gushing and swooning makes me wonder whether women — I should say, “we women,” of course — aren’t the weaker sex after all. Or even the stupid sex, our brains permanently occluded by random emotions, psychosomatic flailings and distraction by the superficial. Women “are only children of a larger growth,” wrote the 18th-century Earl of Chesterfield. Could he have been right?

She goes on, at great length, to answer that question in the affirmative. Indeed, Allen insists that women are “embarrassing.”

I kept waiting for the punch-line. I thought, “There has to be a paragraph in here somewhere in which Allen actually defends women from vapid accusations she couldn’t possibly mean.” Alas, it was not to be. This WaPo piece, which Scott Lemieux accurately described as “the dumbest thing published in an American newspaper in many moons,” is a lengthy treatise that hopes to convince the reader that adult American women are generally worthless.

In addition to “swooning” over Obama, Allen went on to insist that the proof of women’s flaws is evident in their tastes: “What is it about us women? Why do we always fall for the hysterical, the superficial and the gooily sentimental?” Yes, according to Allen, women who like Oprah, Celine Dion, romance novels, and “Grey’s Anatomy” are helping to prove the entire gender’s flaws as human beings.

Apparently hoping to drive sensible readers completely over the edge, Allen — again, in all seriousness — argued that “supposed misogynist myths about female inferiority have been proven true,” including the notion that women are bad drivers, have physically smaller brains, and are awful at math. (In one especially jaw-dropping sentence, Allen writes, “I can’t add 2 and 2 (well, I can, but then what?). I don’t even know how many pairs of shoes I own.”

Allen concludes:

…I don’t understand why more women don’t relax, enjoy the innate abilities most of us possess (as well as the ones fewer of us possess) and revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home…. Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and read chick lit to our hearts’ content and not mind the fact that way down deep, we are . . . kind of dim.

How the Washington Post editors decided this was worthy of publication is a total mystery.

She sounds like Ann Coulter, claiming women should be denied the vote.

  • Funny, i just tried to read that screed, but i didn’t make through the first three paragraphs before just giving up.

  • Never underestimate the power of training. She’s bought the bullshit the men in her life have sold/taught her, like many women around the world do. (female genital mutilation is often imposed upon girls by their mothers, aunts and grandmas). Of course, the bullshit market is not exclusive to women. Men are equal purchasers but the topic du post is women. The war against inane tradition continues.

    That is the overarching under current of modernizing the world: Our struggle to separate ourselves from the traditions that hold us back.

  • Great googly moogly. She really has a bad case of projection. Just because she is dumb enough to prove how dumb she is, why should we think she represents all women? Jaw droppingly stupid. As Somerby might ask, where the hell are the editors?

  • Definitely a really pathetic piece of writing, and I’m with CB and other commenters on how poorly this reflects on Allen.

    However, I don’t understand the criticism of WaPo for running it. Since when are opinion pages only for “valid” opinions? Or even uplifting, progressive opinions? And when did the decision to run a piece become an endorsement of the views in the piece?

    I think the WaPo did the world a service by giving us this conversation starter. Yes, there really are people (and women!) out there who believe that females are inherently inferior, stupid, and superficial. It’s a useful reminder that, as much as we’d all like to believe that kind of thing is in our past, some people still think that way. And it gives us perspective when evaluating Allen’s other writing.

    So, yeah, stupid piece. But its very cluelessness makes it worthy of reading by people who want to understand the world as it is, not just the world as we wish it were.

  • Reading the whole column was not easy. Now, a couple hours later, I still can’t make sense of it. Could it be that the writer is serious? If so, it’s one of those weird windows into the world-view of another person, a perspective on living that truly is baffling. I could see into the world of, say, Phyllis Schlafly, and recognize what she was talking about, or I could listen to that dreadful Dr. Laura, and squeeze out some redeeming quality (maybe her listeners are there for a good laugh), but this glimpse into the psyche of Charlotte Allen shows nothing familiar. No one I know thinks like that.

    Yeah, where were the editors at WaPo?

  • re #6 by Brooks:

    Good point. Publishing it may actually provide the writing’s only worthwhile purpose. But it’s not unnatural to question the use of the ink; they have the right to publish, Charlotte to write, and we to question.

  • Apparently, it’s not only men who can be made insecure by the presence of a strong, capable woman in public life.

    This kind of gender-based eugenics would be laughable, if you didn’t know that 15 million people would be nodding their fat little heads to it as they listen to Rush Limbaugh on Monday. Can you imagine this person raising a child? “Sorry baby, you’re dumber then the boys, so make sure you learn how to cook”.

  • boc (7): “Yeah, where were the editors at WaPo?

    Let’s let Charlotte Allen answer that one. This is from her web site.

    “Unfortunately, it would appear at this point that I have been involuntarily retired. I have neither an agent nor a publisher. Currently, the quality of writing has very little to do with what gets published. A business that is driven by marketing rather than quality is a lot like the proverbial Emperor without clothes. It’s about selling puff pastry without any filling.

    After spending almost two years attempting (and failing) to get three different manuscripts accepted, I find that the publishing industry has become so difficult, so incomprehensible, and so very expensive that I have lost both the desire and the energy to push on.

    I’d also like to mention that, unfortunately, very few, if any, of my books are available in bookstores.

  • Danp, that’s Charlotte Vale Allen you’re quoting. She’s a Canadian novelist.

  • “It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.”

    Mark Twain

  • Hey, this column will no doubt go a long way towards reviving her writing career. I’m sure the intellectual stalwarts at Regnery will be calling any moment…

  • Allen’s piece is so infuriating and so wrong on so many levels that I don’t even know where to start. WTF was the WaPo thinking when they green-lighted that piece?

  • Unhappily, I think it is not really much of a mystery how the Washington Post editors came to publish this piece. It is because they basically accept the misogynistic stereotypes that Allen enumerates, and they found this piece an engaging and cute way to present that view of women, probably believing themselves to be somewhat insulated from criticism by the fact that the author is a woman.

    For a long time I tried to figure out how the Post editors could repeatedly publish such benighted content (about the war, about justice, about the economy, etc). They are clearly smart and educated. But that doesn’t mean that they see the world the way I do. Their judgment is informed by a rather conservative, non-integral, non-global world view, and it is not likely that this will change. The Allen commentary was not an aberration, but one in a continuing series of Post articles and comments that reveal their world view. It is asking for heartbreak to expect this to change until the people are replaced.

  • Ok, who remembers the story just a week or two ago where a female referee of vast experience was not allowed to serve at a private Christian school basketball game because “women shall have no authority over men”? That was literally their reason. You can look it up.

    http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/02/21/referee/

    http://tinyurl.com/25mmd7

    Now we have this Quisling in skirts helping to undo all the progress we’ve made in the last half century, trying to push women quite literally back into positions of servitude instead of partnership. It’s frightening and infuriating and totally, totally wrong, but you’ll see it happening more and more often until women start voting solidly Republican again.

    What, you think articles like this would be written if the majority of women were voting for McCain? I think not.

  • Sounds like something George Macaca Allen would have beaten into his (second) wife…

  • This op-ed writer is a flawed, 19th century thinker. But I think whoever edits their op-ed page realized that the piece, if it gets picked up around the country, helps Hilary in the primaries or McCain in the general.

    At least I hope that’swhat he/she was thinking. The idea that an editor thought this even qualifies as a conversation starter, much less as a thoughtful essay, is too frightening to contemplate.

  • The cover photo on the Post today is a young girl shrieking at meeting Obama. It never ends and if he wins, it’s really only beginning.

    The Post is a shell of it’s former self. I feel pity for Ms. Allen. What her parents have done to her will be hard to undo. I feel sorry for her friends; Are you really like her? I would not be seen with her anywhere.

  • Look, the answer is obvious, isn’t it? Here point is this: Women are dumb, women pass out over Obama. Women vote for Obama. Lots of women like him. But then again, women are pretty much clueless, therefore the implication that, given their feeble cognitive capacity, their choice in a candidate is necessarily an ignorant one, (and, by the way, by extension, Hillary must also be a half-wit). So vote for the re-pig of your choice, but never for one of those Democratic half-wits.

  • Yep. Grey’s Anatomy and romance novels prove that women are dumber than men. If they were as smart as men, they’d be watching Chuck Norris movies too.

  • Has anybody ever actually seen Charlotte Allen? I think it’s a nom de plume for Rush Limbaugh.

  • Oh well… I went to my paper version of the article and there, below the front-page teaser (continued on p 5) is this little note: “Charlotte Allen, a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institutes’s Minding the Campus Website, plans to spend her fee for this article on another pair of shoes.” Sounds like what’s her name Marcos’ wife…

    Equally interesting is the choice of side by side article (also continued on p 5), written by Linda Hirshman (“Linda Hirshman is the author of “Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World” says th llittle note under that one). The article’s title is “For Hillary’s Campaign, It’s Been a Class Struggle”, with the continuation bearing the “The Only Voting Block Not Noting Its Bloc” banner

    What’s interesting is that, usually, the two articles positioned that way try to present opposite points of view. But this time, not so much. Although the two authors come from two ends of the political spectrum (Allen a Repub and Hirshman a Dem), their two articles, essentially, complement each other. Alllen says women are too stupid to vote altogether, Hirshman says women are too stupid to vote their interests (for Clinton). One way and another both are anti-Obama.

    Oh, and if you’d like to tell Ms “we’re all so dumb” Allen what you think… She gives her e-address as: charfleur@aol.com “Burnt flower”??? How dumb can you get?

  • Proof positive there is time travel, at least backwards to the 50’s.

    How did she find time to write such a lengthy piece while baking, reading ‘Torn Bodice’, having the vapors over studly Obama, and raising 2.3 smiling children?

    Oh, I forgot, sleep deprivation. Now it all makes sense.

  • I’d say that she is a young person with no brain who has a good case of Stockholm syndrome. Some of the younger ladies do not remember the good old days when stuff like this was keeping women out of the realm of writing an op-ed for any newspaper. It is the new generation who will fall for all the right wing propaganda. I was amazed to hear on a right wing radio talk show right after bush was placed in office the topic of the day was “should the nineteenth amendment be repealed”. And two or three women (plants I think) called in to say they would not mind giving up the right to vote. All this women are stupid stuff is just aimed at getting women not to vote or be agreeable to giving up their vote. And the reason why is that we are smart enough to vote democratic in large numbers and they do not like that. Just one more group they would like to disenfranchise.

  • Wow. After reading this reply board, I must say the term “ditto-heads” can be applied beyond the boundaries of Limbaugh-land.

    How dare a writer challenge anyone’s preconceptions about what constitutes misogyny? Apparently the differences between men and women are never to be discussed, as if there is a final verdict on the subject and anyone who makes provocative observations to the contrary must be some weak-minded fool who has bought into all the anti-woman propaganda.

    Never mind the research she references. Never mind that the study of male-female behavior/intelligence/psychology is about as complex a field of research ever undertaken. And never mind that the values society assigns to various traits are a continuously moving target because we as a species are particularly bad at deciding what is good for us or bad for us. If you doubt that, observe the constantly revised “expert” opinions about what is “nutritious”. It’s a dart-board. And if we can’t even decide what foods are good for us, what makes us think we have men and women all figured out?

    You know, it’s one thing to disagree with a writer or honestly argue particular points. It’s another thing to cherry-pick the content of an article in a way that distorts both the information and intent of a writer, just so you can have at her with the rotten fruit. The easy sense of moral and intellectual superiority expressed on this board is sophomoric in my opinion.

    Okay, I’m done. Let the crucifixion begin…

  • I’m sorry, I only read down to the first place where the author mentioned the name of that black guy who’s running for president, and everything went kind of blurry. I guess I hit my head on the edge of the computer desk – I must have fainted.

    Could someone please repost the remainder of the article, and replace the name of that black guy who’s running for president with “Mamabama”, every place it occurs? I don’t know what’s wrong with me.

  • OK. I finally broke down and went to read (ok scan) the entire op-ed. I found it pretty poorly reasoned. I especially Ms. Allen’s commentary regarding women drivers:
    Depressing as it is, several of the supposed misogynist myths about female inferiority have been proven true. Women really are worse drivers than men, for example. A study published in 1998 by the Johns Hopkins schools of medicine and public health revealed that women clocked 5.7 auto accidents per million miles driven, in contrast to men’s 5.1, even though men drive about 74 percent more miles a year than women. Does not the study’s use of accident rates per million miles driven compensate for the differences in total miles driven? Yes 2 + 2 = 4, but then what?

    Who could disagree that Charlotte Allen has every right to express her opinion and search for research to back up whatever it is she is trying to say. But, again, I have to say her reasoning is not very impressive. She dismisses “pop” stupidity in men as if it does not really exist (painted, naked beer bellies at Soldier Field in December, anyone?). The truth is that pop culture neither reveals nor appeals to anyone’s intellectual side. And, Ms. Allen did not bother to find out why people are feinting at Obama rallies, she just assumes it is a case of the “vapors” and somehow related to someone’s general level of silliness and air-headedness. But, circumstances do not matter when one has a point to make. Finally, I did not find her writing particularly humorous either – except the part about men driving much more than women do making the accident rate that much more astonishing and damning for women. She did not realize that her attempt at being self-effacing had already been proven by her own words. We did not need further evidence and so it was neither funny nor sincere.

    At the end of the day Ms. Allen’s message (to me) was that women are dim, and should just relax and enjoy the tasks the – her – world assigns to them (very reminiscent of a judge who once advised victims of rape to simply lay back and enjoy it). Maybe I’m just feeling cranky this afternoon as I prepare to go to work, but I found her message offensive. But, of course, she is welcomed to it.

  • Hmmm. I have a total of 5 college degrees, including a bachelors from one of the most prestigious universities in the world (the University of Chicago), two masters and a PhD. If I’m actually dumb (since I’m a woman), that must mean a lot of men are too, since the men at those institutions let me get all those degrees. The WaPo gets more appalling by the day.

  • Tuimel: “‘A study published in 1998 by the Johns Hopkins schools of medicine and public health revealed that women clocked 5.7 auto accidents per million miles driven, in contrast to men’s 5.1, even though men drive about 74 percent more miles a year than women.’ Does not the study’s use of accident rates per million miles driven compensate for the differences in total miles driven?”

    Another way of saying that would be: women clocked 5.7 auto accidents per million miles driven, in contrast to men’s 5.1, even though men get 74 percent more experience. Since women exhibit better judgment when driving, they are two-thirds less likely to be involved in a fatal accident.

    But that wouldn’t suit her agenda, would it?

  • You know, I was looking at a page the other day about the 100 best film directors- there were no women on the list. And then I looked at a list of US presidents, and again- there were no women. And then I looked at history’s best writers, actors, athletes, military leaders, scientists- and here, too, were mostly men. And then I looked at the wealthiest people in the world- again- men.

    Now, I am not ignorant, and I know that much of that male dominance is attributable to women not having the same opportunities as men.

    But seek for the source of the lack of equal opportunity, and you’ll find womankind’s deficiency. If women were equal to men, or better, women would have equal opportunity, or better, and would always have had. That they haven’t is proof of their inferiority to men.

    I am not a misogynist, I rather prefer the company of women, socially. They are, in general, smarter and easier to talk to. But they are making 70 cents on the dollar, or whatever it is, for a reason. That is not from nowhere. And while it doesn’t reflect their abilities (for they’re not “70% what men are” merely), it does reflect some defect (or not even a defect- simply, some element of their nature)- namely, the defect responsible for one half of the human race letting the other half walk all over it.

  • I expect all car insurance companies are run by those XX dimwits — they give preferential rates to those bad, female, drivers. And I wonder if gay men get better rates, too. ’cause, according to Ms charred flower (right below the numbers for accidents) there’s this little gem:
    “[…] women and gay men perform more poorly than heterosexual men at tasks involving navigation and spatial awareness, both crucial to good driving”
    One shudders to think about the possibility of lesbians getting driver’s licenses; their disorientation factor must be such that they’re, probably, unable to walk…

  • I agree with Badass @ #4. Too many people in this world, of both genders, blindly accept the bullshit they are fed, regarding the paths they walk in life. We live in a society that still equates a woman’s worth with her appearance and her ability to attract men, as opposed to her innate talents or work ethic.

    I know this firsthand; being a woman who composes and performs music, I have found it difficult to be taken seriously as a professional. Whether I am working in the sphere of concert music or in jazz/pop (and I have frequently worked in both,) closed-minded people– of both genders– insist on comparing me to other female composers, rather than thinking abstractly and realizing that my artistic output has nothing to do with gender.

    As it happens, all my compositional influences, with the sole exception of Laura Nyro, happen to be male. I did not consciously choose for that to be the case, and I think it is partially the case because fewer female composers have had the opportunity to achieve wide recognition. Also, the unfortunate phenomenon of physical beauty plays a role, especially in the pop sphere. I am 5’3″, and I do not have the emaciated shape of an anorexic junkie; hence, in the society we live in, I am relegated to limited success. A similarly average-looking man would be judged on his talents, and would face no such barrier.

    So, what am I going to do? The only thing I can; keep fighting the bullshit! And when disgusting articles such as Charlotte Allen’s run in the mainstream press, it only serves as a reminder that it is incumbent upon all of us– male and female– to question the oppressive system as it is, rather than simply swallow it.

  • Maybe she is trying to make women ‘prove’ their intelligence by not voting for Obama. I spared myself the ordeal of reading the article, so I could be wrong, but not being a woman it seems highly unlikely.

  • Keep it up righties. Let out your inner Mark Penn and tell the world how any group that can be seen as expressing support for the Democrats doesn’t matter. Go ahead, say that women are stupid because they are voting for Obama and Hillary and are staying away from John McCain in droves. Berate people of color for looking to the Democrats for acceptance and inclusion. Call the white males that are voting for Democrats to be worst part of the race’s gene pool. Tell young voter turning out in inspired numbers that they are all idiots who shouldn’t be voting in the first place. Tell unions you hope all their jobs are shipped overseas to some low wage worker in another country. And when you are done giving sh*t to every group that support the Democrats this year, for there are many, then stand back and listen for the sound of the coming landslide, for you will be in a very, very small minority of voter come November and the rest of us will relish your doom.

  • Paul (33) – Oh, please. Somebody get this guy a soapbox. Women make 3/4 of what men make because they’re intellectually deficient, and it has nothing to do with centuries of sociology and the systematized differences created to divide people based solely on gender. Nothing at all. Right. Just like how our forefathers repressed blacks, too? There was a solid reason for that too?

    It’s so open-minded of you to prefer women “socially.” You’re so tolerant for that, thank you. But it’s insanely simplistic to think that the way we have run our society has nothing to do with the way we live now.

  • Yeah, Paul, it’s amazing that women haven’t risen up since time immemorial and made the world a better place for themselves. You know, in spite of being kept in virtual slavery for thousands of years, kept away from any opportunity for education, and forcibly married off at puberty and kept pregnant until death. But you know what’s even more amazing? The history books (written by men) and the media (dominated by men) that overlook, omit, or ignore the real achievements of women. Ever heard of Bodicea? Yeah, the broad that, way back when, dared to raise an army and sack Roman London. Not a common story in the history books. When she’s mentioned, historians (male) emphasize not that she succeeded brilliantly where many male leaders had failed, but that she did not completely conquer the Romans and drive them out of England.
    And how about that chick that actually discovered the DNA molecule and took x-ray photographs of its structure but was never even mentioned when the Nobel Prize was handed out to Watson and Crick (men), who basically “stole” her discovery? And how about the woman (I can’t think of her name right now – us dames aren’t good at remembering names) who had clocked more air-force flight time than any male pilot and was actually trained as an astronaut, but who was passed over when choosing candidates to go to the moon because (and this was actually admitted to by NASA) because the powers that be thought a man should be first on the moon?

    Dumb quiffs all, I suppose – who’d have thought a couple of balls could make such a difference? And who can say what a different world we might be living in if half the world’s intelligence had not been suppressed for the last several millenia? And why – if women are the intellectual voids you make them out to be – did men have to work so hard to keep them in their place? I mean if we’re just dimwitted breeders, we shouldn’t need enforced restrictions and legislation to keep us dumb and happy. Why are men so threatened by women?

  • Paul @ 33: Now, I am not ignorant, and I know that much of that male dominance is attributable to women not having the same opportunities as men. But seek for the source of the lack of equal opportunity, and you’ll find womankind’s deficiency. If women were equal to men, or better, women would have equal opportunity, or better, and would always have had. That they haven’t is proof of their inferiority to men. I am not a misogynist… it does reflect some defect (or not even a defect- simply, some element of their nature)- namely, the defect responsible for one half of the human race letting the other half walk all over it.

    I’ll go out on a limb here, Paul, and take you at your word that you’re not an ignorant misogynist, though your post could definitely fool someone. Do you believe in evolution? Have you ever observed in animals that the male is often physically larger/stronger than the females? How they fight with each other over who gets to mate and pass on their genes? Have you noticed that humans, too, possess these gender traits? Your last sentence contains the germ or your answer: “… it does reflect some defect (or not even a defect- simply, some element of their nature)- namely, the defect responsible for one half of the human race letting the other half walk all over it.” Voila! Men have been able to physically dominate women, and this dominance has permeated virtually all spheres of society. But just as we expect to grow out of the phase where we males have to go fight off other males to keep them from raping our mates, it is to be fervently hoped that the other aspects of women’s subjugation, so deeply ingrained in our social structures and in the beliefs of the more benighted among us, can also be overcome.

    As for using statistics to show that women are more dense than men, two can play at that game (I’m not addressing you here anymore, Paul). 84% of the people who call into Rush Limbaugh’s show are males. Ergo, men are WAY more stupid than women.

    Hey, let’s face it: When 50% of the people in this country vote Bush in for a second term, it’s proof positive that vast swaths of the population, both male and female, are dumb as posts.

  • 31. beckya57

    For someone with 5 degrees, I’m a little shocked that you either didn’t read the piece thoroughly or you clearly didn’t understand the author’s points. You chose instead to over-simplify the meanings allowing you to demagogue your righteous indignation. If your sarcasm is what now passes for thoughtful commentary at the University of Chicago, perhaps that institution should re-examine its standards.

  • Yo Paul, take off those blinders, man. The world’s much more interesting without them.

    Incidentally, a recent study of matrilinear (not matriarchal per se) societies v. patriarchal societies show that the gender roles you, Paul, hold so dear are not so much inborn as learned: “Our experimental results reveal interesting differences in competitiveness: in the patriarchal society women are less competitive than men, a result consistent with student data drawn from Western cultures. Yet, this result reverses in the matrilineal society, where we find that women are more competitive than men.”

    So, could it be that the paucity of prominent women in Western society, politics, what have you is, after all, a function of the patriarchal structure? Who would have thought it??

  • Yikes @ #42, I think the poster at #31 was being satirical, a la A Modest Proposal. She was not intending for her comment to be taken as an example of serious analysis.

    (I, too, am a University of Chicago alumna, and am very quick to defend my school!)

  • If women are so dumb (including herself), why is Allen writing for a major newspaper, instead of being a housewife, making a home and writing romance novels while lounging on her couch eating bon bons? What a nut job!!

  • If women are so dumb (including herself), why is Allen writing for a major newspaper, instead of being a housewife, making a home and writing romance novels while lounging on her couch eating bon bons? What a nut job!!

  • Reading the comments by what I can only assume are “men” agreeing and thanking her for stating the truth was nauseating.

  • At first, the article was merely eye-rollingly stupid. And then the end, that was jaw-droppingly…well, offensive is a good start, but it just doesn’t say enough.

    Who the hell is she talking about?

  • Oh my god, I so totally agree that there are things women are better at than men. Like, I chose chemistry for my major because it’s so like cooking! Like, just yesterday I threw some p-phenylene diamine in with some 1,4-benzenedicarbonyl chloride and whipped up a batch of Kevlar – you know, that stuff they make bullet-proof vests out of? And, like, it so works on your nails, too. I coated mine with it and – wow! Talk about hooks. I just hope my thesis advisor likes what I’ve done with that polyethylene terephthalate stuff I churned out last week. He’s so cute, my advisor. I hope he notices my hair….

    Obama! He’s such a hottie! But he’s married…what a lucky bitch his wife is…I bet she’s never balanced a double-replacement reaction like I have. Damn.

  • There’s probably no point in sending it, but how I long to do it anyway:

    You utterly stupid cow:

    Please shut your misbegotten mouth and go back to eating bonbons and squirting out babies. You are an embarrassment to serious, hard-working, intelligent women everywhere. If Susan B. had known that someone like you would come along and write such idiotic tripe, she probably would have given up. Or perhaps not; I’m sure that there have always been self-hating women who wished for nothing more than to be giggling, breeding, house-cleaning imbeciles. You and your kind have always been part of the problem.

    Don’t bother to write a reply. In reading your mind-numbingly brainless screed and writing the first hate mail of my adult life, I have given you all the time I ever will.

    Sincerely hoping you rot in hell,

  • I am aware of the evolutionary differences. I am also aware that the differences do exist and that they led, in human development, to further differences between the genders.

    The mere fact that men still dominate society is proof that women are inferior to men. I am not arguing this as a man, or a misogynist. I am arguing it because it’s self-evident. It’s like when a team loses to an ‘inferior’ team in the playoffs- the team that wins in the playoffs is, by the very nature of the thing, the best team, since how a team performs in the playoffs is by what it must ultimately be judged. Playoff performance then is the ACTUAL PERFORMANCE, or, if you prefer, reality.

    If women were equal to men, they would be equal to men. If they were better than men, they would have it better than men do. You can call me names and assume things about me till you’re blue in the face, it won’t change anything. I do not say it’s fair or unfair, how things are, but nature is above such distinctions, and all the crying in these responses is emotional and not logical.

    You can not debate how things actually are.

  • Paul,

    So you’re saying that everything in our society is as it should be? Because if it should be different, then it would be? Am I getting that correctly?

  • Paul, I readily admit that women are inferior to men (generally) in physical stature and upper body strength. My point was that this, probably more than anything, is what has allowed men to dominate women in other spheres. So yes, I’ll buy your assertion that women are “inferior to men” if by that you refer to those differences in strength and stature. But your seeming insistence on implying that the inferiority extends farther than that is what makes you sound like a misogynistic ignoramus.

  • Men are superior because they have two brains — one “upstairs” and one a couple of feet lower down — while women have only one. Just imagine the wonders men might have achieved if they were able to use both simultaneously…

  • This discussion is nuts. Women and men are different. If I judge men by women’s standards or attributes, men come out inferior and vice versa. If I give a mechanics certification exam to brain surgeon, he’ll flunk, but it doesn’t mean he’s stupid or inferior. Everything hinges on who controls the game. God knows what idiotic game Allen is playing but I think she might need counseling.

  • beep52: excellent points.
    libra: LOL

    If strength was what mattered, Gorillas would rule the world.

    If men were 5’4″ and 120lbs, I don’t think the military would require the troops to carry 80lb packs. The criteria was based on a normal man.

    I hate that air bags kill small women.

    I also wonder why 80% of the prison population are men. The majority of the 20% who are women are in as drug mules and such.

    I hate it that violent rape is not recognized as a hate crime

    I am appalled that Hillary is held responsible for her husband’s mistakes but given no credit for his successes.

    I am frustrated that women who exhibit anger in the workplace are seen as bitches, but men who do exactly the same thing for the same reason are seen as assertive and strong. http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/worklife/08/02/angry.men.women.reut/index.html

    After centuries of fighting to be seen as equals, it’s still OK to discriminate against women. Any hint of racism is booed, but damn, don’t let the lady forget her place!

    Men interrupt women without even realizing it! Watch any news show. It’s sickening. Some women do as I do and keep talking. That’s annoying for all concerned.

    I love men… but damn we’ve got a long way to go baby.

  • I hate that air bags kill small women.

    I’m a small man (think George Stephanopoulos) married to an equally small woman. We had a car accident about ten years ago. The air bags not only didn’t kill us, they really cushioned us when we slammed into a wall at about 50 mph. The secret: You gotta wear the seatbelts, too.

  • If Paul has ever had sex with a woman (without paying for it) it proves the inferiority of that woman’s taste in men.
    That the entire “inferior/superior” question could be divined by some women going gaga over Obama is just silly.
    What we have in this WaPo editorial is another self-loathing person. Think of a female Larry Craig.

  • Good lord. I had difficulty getting through this because of the strong sense of self-loathing I was picking up from the author. Strongly suggest finding a good multicultural awareness program that can teach you the difference between victimhood and internalized oppression and perhaps how to begin to empower yourself.

  • The only one here that is stupid is Allen, actually brain dead would be a better discription. I’ve know many women in my life of 70 years and none of them would I consider stupid, but some of the men I’ve been aquainted with didn’t have the brains of a earthworm.

  • Katherine Graham must be spinning in her grave.

    I have long thought the WaPo ceased to be a serious example of journalistic integrity, with her passing, and this tripe only confirms it. It has merely become another form of corporate, profit driven, entertainment.

    Oh, and Paul. Paying a woman to “spend time” with you, isn’t really “socializing”.

    Dimwit.

  • “Everything hinges on who controls the game”

    Everyone keeps mentioning this in some way or other, but never seeming to understand its implications. Presumably we can all agree that there was no God above, granting men control. So men took it. And have held on to it. And probably will so long as men and women exist.

    Now if that’s so, how are men and women equal? Women did not take control. And have never taken it, even as they were treated like garbage by most societies.

    The line about “they’re different! if a brain surgeon took a mechanic’s exam, he’d flunk!”

    Yes, but there exist such a thing as salaries to tell us that brain surgeons are better than mechanics.

    When women give up sex and childbearing for a while, for real, and revolt (not only against men, but against nature which has put them second to men), you’ll have something. But women have never done that. They’ve burned bras and kept shooting out kids. If you have no willing revolutionaries, you can have no revolution. And women have had no revolution.

  • Paul:

    “The mere fact that men still dominate society is proof that women are inferior to men. I am not arguing this as a man, or a misogynist. I am arguing it because it’s self-evident. It’s like when a team loses to an ‘inferior’ team in the playoffs- the team that wins in the playoffs is, by the very nature of the thing, the best team, since how a team performs in the playoffs is by what it must ultimately be judged. Playoff performance then is the ACTUAL PERFORMANCE, or, if you prefer, reality.”

    It’s a little disingenuous to suggest that team A losing to team B in the playoffs is somehow an evaluation of team A’s innate abilities when team B made and continues to make the rules and has been playing the game decades longer than team A. See: institutionalized sexism.

  • “Charlotte Allen.” Is that a pen name? She had me going there until the last sentence. That was pretty dim.

  • “Yes, but there exist such a thing as salaries to tell us that brain surgeons are better than mechanics.”

    Ergo, Paris Hilton is better than a brain surgeon.

    And better than you.

  • I liked the article. I don’t see why a person can’t take a commentary about weakness no matter how generally inaccurate, and find something that can be applied in one’s own life. The critics of the original arguement are too sensitive; stop closing your minds and instead allow the article to open your mind.

  • Yeah, I’ll let this article “open my mind.” Because this is such a new idea, I’ve never even heard it before. Women are stupid?? Charlotte Allen is SO innovative!! Men haven’t been saying this for centuries or anything…

  • You know, I was going to give a long, detailed response to Paul’s numerous and ridiculous comments, but then I read this line …

    Yes, but there exist such a thing as salaries to tell us that brain surgeons are better than mechanics.

    … and realized that he either: a.) is a parody; or b.) has such an intellectually-vacant view of the world that nothing anyone ever posted would matter.

    Quite frankly, anyone who thinks that Lindsay Lohan is “better” than, say, Mother Theresa, simply because the former has oodles of cash, is best left to stew in his own ignorance.

    Although I do weep for any female in his life … assuming there are any that don’t have an “Inflate to 30 psi” label affixed to their forehead.

  • Allen is in danger of illustrating her own thesis, so let me demonstrate that at least one woman is capable of recognizing a few obvious omissions. Some women have dubious taste in literature and TV shows? Well, who encourages Hollywood to keep churning out “action pictures?” Women are sometimes wowed by the superficial characteristics of a candidate? Who was elected president because a certain percentage of the electorate decided that he would be a nice buddy to have a beer with? Who were those would-be drinking buddies of said president, who has amply demonstrated that acting impulsively without thinking through the consequences is NOT a solely feminine characteristic? We all know he’s very VERY VERY masculine because he landed on an aircraft carrier wearing a codpiece, the very embodiment of American manhood.

    The fact is that stupidity is an equal-opportunity characteristic, and there are just as many males as there are females who are as colossally stupid and ditzy as Charlotte Allen and Maureen Dowd. Now, the BIG question is why these dizwits get their work published, but then you could ask the same about William Kristol, couldn’t you?

  • 5 women swoon and it tars the whole sex?

    As for support of Obama, Men lead… doesn’t that make us DUMBER?
    IOn which case the whole human race is a lost cause.

    Hmmmm… maybe she has a point there somewhere.

  • What frightens me is that I am no longer shocked by misogynist women. During this primary season, I have wondered to my colleagues and friends if America is more racist or sexist. I believe sexism is acceptable where racism is not. This is not to say racism doesn’t exist but if someone is overtly racist, they will be called on the mat for it and it certainly wouldn’t be published in the WaPo.

    What if this column had read that African Americans are stupid for swooning over Obama’s campaign visits? It just wouldn’t happen. There are certainly some scientists who have claimed blacks are less intelligent than whites, whites less intelligent than Asians. James Watson, for instance. However, Mr. Watson was roundly criticized and lost his job. Ms. Allen will keep working, and she isn’t even a scientist.

    We should be asking why this article is any different. Shame on Ms. Allen.

  • Where’s the counter argument?

    Allen may not be right, but you’ve offered nothing to prove her wrong.

    “This WaPo piece, which Scott Lemieux accurately described as “the dumbest thing published in an American newspaper in many moons…”

    That’s the best you can do? This vacuous counter-blog offers a belief system.
    Allen at least offered a tidbit of statistical analysis and accurately cited her media and academic sources.

  • Thanks, T-Rex, for putting it better than I would have. One need only look around from where one stands to be awash in examples of male stupidity. It is at least as easy to make a (stupid) argument for the inherent inferiority of men, as though all of the complexities of human behavior and gender relations can be reduced to an “XX is better than XY” statement.

    Frank Zappa stated it well: We are dumb all over; a little ugly on the side.

  • “It’s a little disingenuous to suggest that team A losing to team B in the playoffs is somehow an evaluation of team A’s innate abilities when team B made and continues to make the rules and has been playing the game decades longer than team A. See: institutionalized sexism.”

    But this is another instance in which you’re missing the point- which is that MEN INSTITUTED SEXISM. The ability to do that= superiority. That constitutes the contest, in the playoff analogy. In that analogy it’s sort of backwards- everyday experience, things as they go now that we’re quite evolved and out of straight survival mode, is the regular season- and in that, women are as good as, or better than, men. But, to borrow political terms, who set the agenda? It was men. That was the playoffs.

  • Re: #50 Stacy6

    “You utterly stupid cow:”

    Come now, you can do better that this. Kindly don’t tie Ms. Allen’s stupidity to her capacity for milk production. We’ve had enough sexism for one thread, surely.

    “Please shut your misbegotten mouth and go back to eating bonbons and squirting out babies. You are an embarrassment to serious, hard-working, intelligent women everywhere.”

    She is equally an insulting traitor to all jovial, lackadaisical and slower witted women, whether they suck bonbons or not. My issue with this post (and one of the many I take with Allen’s article) is that it overtly posits mothering as a simple occupation. As the mother of three children (one of whom is severely mentally disabled) and a University graduate, I can tell you that there is nothing simple, or simple minded about “squirting out” and then raising your offspring. Being tender “towards children and men and the weak” is not character flaw but nor is it especially conducive to shrieking, swooning, gossiping or reading chick lit. I know many women who’s lives daily testify to the fact that it is possible to be an intelligent, hard-working, ambitious, resourceful and highly literate homemaker. Not PhDs, CEO’s or Nobel Laureates, but, irrefutably, anything but dim.

  • “Where’s the counter argument?”

    The counter argument is that the whole premise is flawed, and Paul has done all he can to demonstrate that. “MEN INSTITUTED SEXISM. The ability to do that= superiority. That constitutes the contest, in the playoff analogy.” But the playoff analogy is, in itself, absurd. There is no clear system of points to determine who wins the right to claim superiority. Or, at least, not to anyone who hasn’t reduced the concept of human superiority and inferiority to a one-dimensional criterion such as “who gets paid more”. I suspect that most people, if asked what makes one person, or group of people, “better” than another, would begin to list a series of qualities, such as intelligence, moral character, work ethic, financial success, compassion etc., which would vary considerably between individuals, cultures, age-groups, you name it. So for some, the claim that men instituted sexism would be an argument for male moral inferiority.

    Even the attempt to rank according to individual criteria rapidly descends into mush. Are women, statistically, inferior to men in physical size? Sure, that’s easy. Are they inferior drivers? Well, by some criteria, perhaps, but that is already a multidimensional measurement; they seem much less prone to road-rage, so by that measure, no. Are they of inferior intelligence? The debate over how to objectively measure the complex concept of “intelligence” will likely rage forever without any clear consensus. Are they morally inferior? The lonely divorced guy may say yes, but if I the victim of a shooting, what are the odds that it’s by a woman?

    If Allen feels inherently inferior to men, well, maybe she likes it that way, or maybe she should consider getting some help. But her “tidbit of statistical analysis” hardly suffices in making any such argument about women as a whole.

  • Of COURSE money is the main thing. Money = life. Ability to live. Ability to live well. Quality of life. There can be nothing higher than that on earth, and there is nothing more conducive to that (or more conducive to what is conducive to what’s good in life) than money.

    Just what do you think money is for?

  • Well, she’s at least right that the popularity of “Eat, Pray, Love” is a public embarrassment.

  • Paul: As I say, there are many different ways of evaluating what makes person or a people superior or inferior to another. Yours is a rather singular viewpoint, in which one can be judged solely by the totality of one’s self-interest, and the ability to fulfill it. And there is a remarkable worship of the rich among some elements of our culture. But when most people reflect on, as an example, the greatest individuals of our nation’s history, “who got the richest” is not the sole, or even the primary, criterion.

  • (I posted this at Salon, too, where this piece was linked.)

    Yeah, this article is dumb. It also probably got zillions of hits today, which was its purpose.

    If you’re as pissed off about it as I am, write to the advertisers whose ads are appearing next to the article and let them know how you feel about it. The ads I saw belong to these organizations (remove the spaces):

    SmileTrain.org — info @ smiletrain.org

    UnderArmour.com
    http://www.underarmour.com/shop/customer-service#contact_us

    and

    BudgetTravel.com — media relations people are listed as:

    kara @ workhousepr.com and lauren @ workhousepr.com

    These contacts aren’t responsible for the article, of course, but they should hear about it if they’re associating themselves with, and benefiting from, this type of dreck and their potential customers don’t like it.

  • allen has confused the journalistic “we” for real people. people who write for newspapers and large blogs seem very prone to this lately. it’s fake populism mixed with ego, and it’s awful to behold.

  • I loved the piece. Did any of you dim bulbs consider the possibility that it was, just a bit, tongue-in-cheek and perhaps a bit of a joke? Nope. It reminds me of the old joke, “How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?” Answer: “That’s not funny!”

  • re 82. As a matter of fact, yes. Instead of tongue-in-cheek, all I found was head-up-ass. Check your own wattage.

  • Sounds like this lady is talking about herself, well I personally think she should speak for herself and leave the rest of us out of it. I am and always have been brilliant at mathematics and I am not the only one who knows so, also most of the men I know are much worse at mathematics than the women I know are, it’s just that the men THINK they are better because they are sooo profoundly arrogant, for what reason, I have no idea, they follow women around like dopey doey eyed dogs, it’s really really annoying.

  • What I want to know is are there actually any men out there who would be kind enough and selfless enough to defend this kind of treatment of women? I for one have a problem with television commercials which make men look like complete fools and I know a lot of women who would be annoyed by these ads as well, but where are all the men defending us? No. Men rape, kill, destroy, abuse, who am I kidding to believe that there would be some who would go as far in the opposite direction as to defend us. They all stick together no matter how barbaric the situation.

  • If men are so superior to women, why are they so psychologically and physically fragile? It’s a biological fact that male fetuses are far more likely to miscarry than female fetuses. Male infants are far more likely to die in their first year of life. Males inherit far more genetic disorders than females because they lack the redundancy afforded by two x-chromosomes. Males are more prone to serious mental illness and psychological deficiencies (for reasons yet unknown), as evidenced by the undeniable fact that virtually all serial killers, sexual sadists, rapists and other violent criminals are men. The claim has long been made that such criminals are created by abusive childhoods and a bad environment – but far more girls are subjected to violent physical and sexual abuse than boys, and you don’t see them growing up to stalk and kill men in all sorts of sicko ways. And, face it, men, as the the old saying goes, “between shit and piss you are born”. Wasn’t ever a man who wasn’t squeezed out from between a woman’s legs – and that’s the real rub, isn’t it? Without a mommy who grew you, popped you out, gave you tit, and wiped your butt and nose, where would you be? And, until you can replicate yourselves and nourish your offspring without female wombs and breasts, until you can get along without the the humble domestic work done by women (which freed men from the daily toil and allowed them the time and energy to invent), I can easily argue that you – men – are the “inferior” sex.

  • dunno, seems pretty true to me, I feel Humans are very adaptable, but for us girls the best place to be is in the kitchen, all we are doing by entering the market is making everything cost more, now a Man cant own his own house, he needs the help of the women because now we are expected to work in jobs to help pay for rent. only girls lucky enough to be owned by rich men get to be in their natural environment. I guess the inherent problem is, the stupidity range of people is a large number, if men are 20- 80 points we are 0-70

  • shes awesome. completly correct. ne one else who does not believe so is just trying to fool themselves or just get laid.

  • Comments are closed.