Outrageous

Jay,

Do you mean two "excepts" or "excerpts?" Im not trying to be annoying but when I first read it I thought that you were referring to two exceptions in the article that contradicted what has your blood boiling. Then I reread it and thought "Maybe she meant, "two excerpts." Please clarify.

As for the articles, the author accomplished her mission - to make other women upset. She wrote on something that she KNEW at the very least was controversial and at the most would compel other women to seek her head. If the article came from a man, it would have been easy for women to light him up, but she sought to make it more difficult for women readers by writing what some barbaric men think. It is up to you how seriously you take it.

The Washington Post op/ed page has been a joke for several years now. With a few exceptions (Dionne, Robinson) their regular stable runs from the ideological gamut from neo-con to Liebercrat. And the guest columnists they bring in--Liz Cheney, Michael O'Hanlon--are worse.
When Katharine Graham died, and the MSM spent three months in official mourning, I thought it was a bit of over-the-top tribalist navel-gazing. Seeing what her idiot son has done to the paper, I can see what the big deal was. Though I suspect Russert, Broder and Joe Klein think this piece of crap essay is just a jim-dandy example of "contrarianism"!

If this had been written about an ethnic group, it would not have been considered for publication. I see Charlotte Allen writes for the National Review. What a lovely memorial for Willian F. Buckley.

Sexism is the last prejudice that is acceptable to espouse in public. (Yes, I know very well that racism still exists, but it isn't blatently shown in polite company.)

Some friends and I said years ago that there would be a black president in this country long before there would be a woman president. Looks like we may be about to be right.

What drug is she on? Probably alcohol. It reads like the kind of stupidity written in a drunken stupor in the midnight hour.

What a lovely memorial for Willian F. Buckley.

It's perfectly in the National Review tradition:

The central question that emerges... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.

-- William F. Buckley, National Review editorial, 8/24/1957

I guess it hasn't occurred to her that women are actually capable of making up their own minds.

I can't believe this made it into the Washington Post.

Well the Republicans ARE the party of ideas, right?
The idea that women are stupid is just so "provocative".
And that dove tails nicely with PDA's Buckley quote.
It's interesting watching them stagger to, ironically, minority status.

I know that there are a thousand stupider things about this article, but didn't George Eliot - my favorite author - excel because of her verbal skills? So how is she an outlier, according to Allen's twisted definition? The only thing Allen was right about was her being dim. She is the kind of person who can only achieve success by exploiting other peoples' prejudices.

And ivb: it's true that sexism is the only kind of blatant prejudice that is tolerated in America today.

At least the Buckley quote was from 1957 and not 2007. As dreadful as the quote is, racism was much more open then. I thought that Buckley later disavowed those ideas. No matter, I am no fan of his, just thought it was interesting with all the kind words being said about him this week.l

However, today's WaPo is just a treasure trove -- or make that a cesspool. Here's Joe's pal David Ignatius expressing his concern about Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902784.html

Buckley disavowed those views tepidly. Of course he then moved on to wanting to tattoo people with AIDS.

Back to the subject at hand (I have no desire to defend Buckley.)

From Feministe --

"Amanda blogs on a sickening op-ed by Charlotte Allen from the “independent” women’s forum about longing for the days when air travel was a bastion of sexism: Why are Airline Flight Attendents so Awful — and so Ugly? (yes that is actually the title). An excerpt:

Frankly, even as a woman, I miss the old sexist days, when stewardesses were stewardesses: pretty young things in cute mini-suits and little heels who oozed attention onto everyone–because who knew? They might end up marrying one of the passengers … Why does feminism have to mean the triumph of the ugly and the surly?"

They provide a link to a photo of Charlotte Allen. Enough said.

http://redneckfeminist.blogspot.com/2005/07/flabby-chins-are-sexy.html

I'd like to hear a lot more from Jay Newton-Small about why exactly she finds this editorial outrageous.

I'd also like to hear opinions from more women, after having read the entire piece, not just the excerpts.

I'll keep my own outrage in check for the moment, until I some actual rationale and rebuttal from Jay Newton-Small. Modern feminists (especially online) figured out a few years ago that simply expressing shocked outrage at perceived insults, without employing real arguments addressing the lack of merit in Allen's claims, leads to legions of Kate O'Beirnes surfacing with cool reprimands to the effect that the "shrieking" just proves the social conservative s' point about womens' genetic irrationality and hyper-emotional reactions.

Well, Jay Newton-Small? What would you say if you were on Meet The Press opposite Kate O'Beirne?

Totally agree with you, Jay.

But that feeling you had when you read the WaPo garbage and came here to call it outrageous is the same feeling a lot of us have when we light into you in the comment threads.

You should really engage with us more. We're all a lot alike, it turns out.

Sorry, that's "until I read some actual rationale and rebuttal"

Stu
I'm sure you're going to jump all over me but does she really have to rebut "women are inferior". What needs to be rebutted. The woman's article was hopelessly flawed on just about every level. Or are you joking? You've got to be joking.

That being said "Well, Jay Newton-Small? What would you say if you were on Meet The Press opposite Kate O'Beirne?" is something I'd like to hear as well.

It seems to me that we should treat this as we treat writings by Ann Coulter....they're meant to provoke us and get attention for the writer....

jose:

Although I'm inclined to agree with RKA regarding the writer, if Movement Conservatism has taught us anything, it's that yes, we really all do have to rebut "women are inferior", as well as "evolution is only a theory", as well as "liberals hate America", as well as "there is no scientific consensus on the role of human industry in climate change", as well as "we would have won the war in Viet Nam, if we weren't stabbed in the back by protesters at home", as well as...I'm sure you can think of a few yourself.

At some point in the 1980's, the number of women speaking out for their own political equality declined such that "feminist" became as much of a dirty word in public parlance as "liberal"--maybe even dirtier. Simple and obvious ideas like "women are equally capable of employing rational judgment" and "equal pay for equal work" and "women's capabilities, like all human beings, should be judged on an individual basis according to individual merit, instead of collective or historical bases" became notable for their absence from public debate. It was as if everybody who was in favor of these ideas didn't bother to defend them--all that needed to be said was "so-and-so is a sexist", and somehow the debate would go away. It didn't, though.

And here we are. People like Kate O'Beirne are writing columns "debunking feminism", and regularly appearing on Meet The Press, and selling books by the tens of thousands called "Women Who Make the World Worse: and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports".

I think that just simply exclaiming "How outrageous!", as if we were all at a cocktail party on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, has proven to be a huge liability in terms of political or rhetorical strategy on the part of women (and liberals, for that matter).

So, jose, I'm not joking. This Allen woman is definitely not joking; she cites "scientific data" that "proves" women naturally fit roles that are coincidentally also biblical. This is so that the larger ideological message, that "everyone knows" Movement Conservatism is about "the way things really are", as opposed to Liberalism, which is about spoiled kids at college dreaming about grandiose solutions to social problems they don't personally face (but feel guilty about due to first-time awareness of privilege), can become imbued in our daily discourse.

It's no joke. Just being outraged doesn't actually convince anybody of anything, except maybe that, for some reason, somebody who doesn't live in the Heartland is outraged by what it says in the bible again.

So I ask Jay Newton-Small again: Why are you outraged by Allen's piece?

Mike M., really? You feel that outraged at me when you read my posts?

Stuart, I've debated on what to say to you, having read all of your comments through the weeks. And I guess it comes down to the fact that I'm still new when it comes to blogging and I’m the first to admit: blogging is harder than it seems. I'm not making any excuses for myself. But I find it often uncomfortable sharing my opinion as you asked me to today. Having spent a decade in journalism where my opinion was drummed out of me and editors and sources alike were quick to demand objectivity, it's not the smoothest transition in the world to suddenly start spouting one's opinion about this and that. It feels personal to me, which is probably why it's always with a deep breath (and the occasional glass of wine) that I venture into the comment section. Many of the criticisms are, of course, personal. And it's never fun to read how dumb, or what a bimbo you are -- seriously people?

As to the WaPo article, honestly it's trite. A few thoughts, though this is something that one could spend reams picking apart: Why do feminists always equate shoes to intelligence? Is it some throw back to Sex in the City? And five women fainting at rallies in six months is hardly empirical evidence – I’ve seen nearly that number of men collapse in that time of heat exhaustion or just from standing on their feet for the hours it sometimes takes when a candidate is running late. Also, covering Bush’s reelection in 2004 I saw plenty of folks in the Bible Belt who actually did faint, male and female alike, from the near-ecstatic religious experience of George W. Bush. Hell, when I was in intern at NBC I saw women faint when they got to see the Rosie O’Donnell Show live – how sad it that? So to use five women fainting as an example of hysteria for Obama is just silly. Look at the polls: there’s more MALE Obamamania than female. Does that make them dumb, too?

I don't get outraged at you personally, Jay. Your words have provoked me a few times but that's not a bad thing at all.

Don't worry... I was drawing emotional equivalence between me and you, not intellectual equivalence between you and our dear friends at WaPo today.

I had just read this incredible article before checking in on the swamp. Stu, I can't resist your challenge to come up with some specific reasons for why this article is offensive. Certainly the point of the author was to get a knee jerk "this is garbage" response from politically aware and educated women. Why is it OK to slam the response while holding the bomb thrower blameless? I know Mrs. (I suspect she would prefers the Mrs. title and she does mention a husband) Allen would just say, she's a women, the fact she likes to generate heat rather than light just proves her point about being emotional and dumb.
She is making some broad, and yes I must say pretty insulting generalities on some pretty thin "evidence," I has a woman find they are pretty easy to rebut. She sites a couple of studies regarding car accidents and male superiority in spatial relations along with some slams of some individuals, but why are analytical abilities a better measure of intelligence than verbal abilities? The ability to work well within groups and teams is now seen as a very valuable skill in business today. Emotional intelligence is a key component of leadership I fail to see why people who possess it but aren't math geniuses need to be described as "dim." Plus, I can come up with a counter example to each one of hers. 1)Who is the smarter Bush? W or Laura? 2)What possible intellectual value is to be found in the Three Stooges or for that matter Rambo or any Arnold movie? 3)While Hilary's campaign has made some big misteps are we really to believe that Mark Penn had nothing to do with them? 4)For that matter, I don't believe that it was a woman who came up with Rudy's Florida strategy.
Look, the I find the Gloria Steinems of the world annoying, but to write a column that tells women they should just be happy raising the kids because they can then be dim without consequences is really nothing short of insulting.
BTW I am a stay at home mom with two kids. When one awakes throwing up in the middle of the night and I have to determine whether or not emergency medical intervention is necessary, I am very glad I don't just tell myself I am dim and go back to my tea and cookies.

Jay,

Thanks very much for responding to comments, and venturing into the comments section! It's what makes this blog darn near unique.

But I find it often uncomfortable sharing my opinion as you asked me to today. Having spent a decade in journalism where my opinion was drummed out of me and editors and sources alike were quick to demand objectivity

Well, but surely that's not quite 100% the case-- you were, after all, willing to call this article "outrageous."

One reason that some people are frustrated with the media is that certain ideas are stigmatized without being engaged. Which isn't the greatest as far as evaluating arguments on merit goes.

Now, you may, in rebuttal, mention Nazism, or Stalinism, of Charlotte Allen or Charles Krauthammer op-eds in WaPo, or something equally awful. But even in late 2006, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist said that "every serious Democrat" in the Senate voted for the Iraq invasion. As someone who supported the Iraq invasion in some measure because of that attitude, I really don't care much for that attitude. Don't go all "ideology of the center" on us here!

(It can't be a whole ton of fun, necessarily, to see criticism in your threads; but (1) the substance of the criticism may or may nor be warranted; why is it or isn't it in this case? (2) people are frustrated generally with the media, and negativity in any given comment thread isn't necessarily proportionate or even relevant to your post; and (3) who cares if a bunch of dudes in their PJs have negative things to say about you personally?).

Thanks also for spelling out your objections to Allen's article in your comment on this thread. Hey, facts and context! Why, that's exactly the sort of thing critics of the media want to see!

(Except for your Coulterite critics, of course, who want to see you hung by the thumbs. But that's a conversation for another day. [Sorry for the burst of parentheticals in this comment; I've been reading David Foster Wallace, and there isn't a footnote function here, AFAIK]).

Jay Newton-Small:

First of all, thank you so much for responding to commentary; it is very, very appreciated by the folks to take the time and effort to participate here, and makes this blog in particular vastly superior to many other mainstream media outlet ventures into this arena. I am profoundly grateful to hear your voice outside of "column-speak".

With respect to:
...having read all of your comments through the weeks.
Many of the criticisms are, of course, personal. And it's never fun to read how dumb, or what a bimbo you are...

I would like to take this opportunity to make absolutely, perfectly crystalline that my commentary and criticism of your work here is solely and exactly that, and in no way is meant to declare or imply anything denigrating your intelligence or character. I hope that you have read enough of my commentary to know that I don't think it's appropriate or necessary to assign a class of jackass particular to women, whether it's "bimbo", or any other gender-specific insult. It just doesn't make any sense to me to call somebody an idiot (because they, say, compare the primary race to a high school prom) one way if that writer is a man, and then use another term if they are not. It's wrong. Use of gender-specific terms like "bimbo" imply that there is something especially disagreeable about particular writing that can somehow be ascribed to women in general, which, of course, is a thoroughly bankrupt idea, but especially so with respect to writers. So, when I disagree with your professional choices, or believe that your work is reminiscent of bathos, and feel the need to express that disappointment in less-than-laudatory terms (even going so far as to employ the stark fists of sarcasm and litotes in rebuke), please, please do not believe for a moment that I do so in a vindictive manner with the intent to hurt you in any way. OK?

If there's any criticism of your blogging/reporting that is worth reading or on which it is valuable to reflect, I assure you that I am perfectly aware that it is not mine, but Jay Rosen's.

Sometimes, I have a big problem with how and what you write. It's not ideological in terms of left or right; it's ideological in that I operate within the context of a news consumerist ideology, whereas you (as you readily agree) betray the ideological impulses of your trade. Many in the blogosphere don't believe that there is such a thing as objectivity, as your profession understands it, only a range of points on a subjectivity spectrum, whose parabolic functions' output change with the parameters of situation and relationship entered into each specific column. Suffice it to say, your thoughts--analysis specific to you, personally--would in this case be entirely appropriate, since you are acknowledging that your commentary is not stenography nor a written photograph (as it were) of an event or matter to be reported as such. Please, if you're going to say "Outrageous", I'm sure that you would write a lovely analysis on why this is so. It probably is outrageous, if you're not the King of Saudi Arabia, that is.

Anyway, before I write something that takes way too much of your time to read, I'll close with another "thank you" for occasionally taking the time to glance over my commentary, and for responding in such a thoughtful manner today, Jay Newton-Small.

Kathryn Jean Lopez over at National Review links to this op-ed this way today:

"Charlotte Allen
eviscerates women. I love it." (http://corner.nationalreview.com/)

This is what I don't understand about conservative women like Lopez. Even if you disagree with all of feminism, do you really think it is fine to call women "dim"? Is Lopez ready to step down in her role as editor of National Review? Because clearly she is keeping a man from having that job by Allen's standards.

It was a profoundly stupid piece. Thank you for calling the Wash Post out on this, Jay.

http://www.observer.com/2008/stumping-clinton-steinem-says-mccains-p-o-w-cred-overrated?page=7

NOW ISn't that special.

At least 2 people here made this claim:
"Sexism is the last prejudice that is acceptable to espouse in public."

Offhand, I can think of 2 others. One, homophobia, is perfectly acceptable, indeed, requisite, among certain segments of the population. Even presidential candidates. The other, ageism, is so common, most people probably don't even recognize it as a prejudice.

As I've pointed out before, I live in a country where almost every kind of prejudice, except religious biogotry, is far more prevalent and open than in America. Want adds will openly list age, gender, and even national origin citeria. You think this article is bad? How about these examples of sexism: One common Japanese word for husband is literally "master" (or "owner"), while a common word for wife means "in the house." Theaters, e.g., list separate ticket prices for adults, children, and housewives. And don't even get me started on workplace discrimination.

Yeesh, don't let my fiance (a chemist, working on her PhD) read this oped, she'd go ape-shoot.

I'll give this lady a point for noting that Grey's Anatomy is one of the most insipid (and bigoted) shows ever created, quite a feat for Hollywood TV.

Was that Op-Ed piece a joke?

I can't believe the Washington Post would print such nonsense.

Jay Newton-Small:

Thank you for responding here. I am sure you can understand our outrage when "Meet the Russert" assembles a roundtable consisting of "opinion columnists" such as O'Beirne on the right and a reporter such as David Gregory. What, exactly, is a reporter supposed to do in that forum? If he expresses an opinion, he should be reprimanded by his boss. So why is he there in the first place? This is Russert's idea of balance. Russert pretends that his audience is too stupid to know the difference between columnists and reporters.

Just for grins, why don't you keep track of the ratio of conservatives to liberals on the Sunday talk shows and the "news" cable channels in prime-time?

The WaPost on Women: Get Off Your Backs and Back in the Kitchen.
Is this controversy baiting? Is the Post looking to start an honest debate about feminism and politics by priming it with something outrageously dumb and loaded to the gills with cliches? Seems impossible, given the barbecuing Allen is going to get. How would you compensate someone for that?
Was this editorial delegation in desperation, where a trusted reporter is given final cut because deadlines are approaching and the lead editor had other things to do? How often does that happen at papers? Is it grounds for dismissal of the editor? How much job security does an editor have in the face of a gaffe like this? Any comparable gaffes editors have survived?
Finally, people of every demographic do dumb things. Sometimes there is clumping where a trend emerges... like Obama's vigorous speeches and change rhetoric stirring up the youth vote(a little more than it should, methinks). But I think women are really hard to peg on politics, and certainly in this example. Allen makes claims that need book-long defenses. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Oh wait...

Washington Post editorials are the last domain of the incompetent hack.

This is more evidence that the WP is just a loss-leader to push crackpot ideas into the mainstream. (Kaplan is the moneymaker for the Washington Post Company.)

Sexism and racism in one piece. You would think that this was from the GOP Post.