(Updated) Dumb, Dumber & Dumbest?

First of all, I don't interpret screaming and swooning as a measure of intelligence. My wife is so damn intelligent (I'm humbled by it) yet she screamed and swooned at a recent Prince concert. She was just having a good time. And there's nothing wrong with that! And fellas, we are some of the biggest screamers and swooners at sporting events (myself included)

I'm also disappointed that Zuzu and Jessica went that route in their responses. I was expecting them to rip the WaPo article to shreds POINT BY POINT. Oh well...

Since this WaPo article is pointing at Senator Clinton, I just have to say the following:

HUH?!?

I strongly feel Senator Clinton has run a tough ass campaign. I think her overall strategy is flawed but the woman has represented! Heck, if I had a company and I needed a CEO, I would call Senator Clinton. Nothing she's done in her campaign reeked of weakness IMHO. Desperation but not weakness. And desperation is a HUMAN thing. 'Nuff said.

Shaun, I rarely will read anything described by the author as being about women being dummies - I've skipped some of Maureen Dowd lately too. But because you posted about it - I'm going to go read and come back. :)

FWIW, no editor should have published that thing. And I'm surprised anyone would write it - have we checked to see if it's plagiarized? (that's a joke- promise)

My main beefs with it: she writes, "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."

DING - reading about the episodes should have made her wonder why the reporters didn't do a better just describing what they saw rather than telling us what they saw as being swooning. Tell us women said x and then fainted. Then I can draw the conclusion that they had low blood sugar that day or Obama gets their blood pumping so hard that they can't take it.

But let ME made that decision (oh - Shaun - lol - does this sound like my thing re: "hissy"!? told you - I am a real "show dont tell" stickler).

So if Charlotte is worth her salt, she should have said something about the sexist language and/or connotations with the descriptions of swoon etc. Frankly, that IS a big part of how this campaign season has been manipulated - the media refuses to let US decide for ourselves and instead uses these loaded terms.

Also - none of the things she enumerate that men do that are dumb fall into the same category. She fails to mention how men look at women's breasts and legs and derriere of other women, even when in the presence of their daughters or significant others or mothers. THAT would be more equivalent. Or how they react to media images of celeb women and so on.

Honestly - I only skimmed the second page because after the first page, all I could think about was how her column says more about her than it does about anything or anyone else.

Well not much she said is wrong, I think its just another form of catch up being played in the sexes. Without a doubt there are difference with men and women across the board. But its really how you rank stuff. For instance she says women are worse drivers according to that Hopkins study, then short after says that men are more likely to have a fatal accident, which makes it sound like women are better drivers.

I think the big problem is that men have shaped the world largely, and women are sorta playing a game of catchup, by trying to outdo men at what we've traditionally done really well in the system we created to work best for us. Even with the best of intentions things are going to be stacked against women. Take magazines, you want to sell to men, you put sexy girls on the front page. You want to sell to women a la Cosmo or whatever, you do the same thing.

Slamfu - what you write is fair. The issue is one of omission - what the writer omits and what she embraces as true or representative when it's only what's reported in loaded language (as I see it). I'd always thought that women had lower car insurance rates due to better driving but maybe that's no longer true - I know the younger drivers recently have started to have more costly insurance - something was out about that in the last couple of months.

Anyway - I'm going to say that what you've written supports my thought that there was no need for this essay - an editor should have axed it. :)

Barbie said it herself: Math is hard!!

Shaun,

Speaking for myself only, I felt that writing a point-by-point rebuttal to Allen's piece would give her piece legitimacy that it did not deserve. If the piece had been about African Americans, and had said that research proves blacks are intellectually inferior to whites, that they are inherently good at athletics, and by the way what's up with these lazy black guys who would rather sit around eating watermelons than doing an honest day's work -- you don't think that any reasonable, sane person would have felt the need to rebut these statements one by one, do you?

There are some beliefs or attitudes that in the 21st century should simply be considered too ignorant or stupid to engage with -- and Allen's piece was one of them in my view.

Doesn't mean such a piece should be ignored -- as we can see it hasn't been. But debating Allen on the question of whether women are dim bulbs is a bit degrading, I think.

kathyedits:

A fair response under the circumstances, especially our learning however belatedly that this was satire (cough, cough) masquerading as drivel.

I'm also disappointed that Zuzu and Jessica went that route in their responses. I was expecting them to rip the WaPo article to shreds POINT BY POINT. Oh well...

Why should I rip it to shreds point by point when Jill had already done so, as linked in my post?

Pays to read the posts, people.

If more people resorted to screaming and swooning, they would have less energy for punching, stabbing and shooting.

Unless they find the energy to engage in both sets of behaviors at the same time, as we see routinely in the Middle East. ugh