Despite paper's concern "about keeping women as newspaper readers," Wash. Post published essay calling women "kind of dim" and "the stupid sex"
SUMMARY: Though Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell has stated that "[c]oncern about keeping women as newspaper readers has been an issue for many years" at the newspaper, the Post published an essay by Charlotte Allen in which she called women "kind of dim," suggested that women were not only "the weaker sex" but "the stupid sex, our brains permanently occluded by random emotions, psychosomatic flailings and distraction by the superficial," and claimed that Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has been "marred by every stereotypical flaw of the female sex."
As Media Matters for America Senior Fellow Duncan Black noted on his blog, Eschaton, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote in her January 27 column that "[c]oncern about keeping women as newspaper readers has been an issue for many years" and noted that "Post editors are concerned that young women with children are not becoming Post readers as they get older." Howell added, "A Post task force is looking at the problem and will make recommendations." Yet, on the front page of its March 2 Outlook section, the Post published an essay by Independent Women's Forum (IWF) blogger Charlotte Allen headlined "We Scream, We Swoon. How Dumb Can We Get?" in which she asserted that "Connecticut radio talk show host Jim Vicevich has counted five separate instances in which women fainted at [Sen. Barack] Obama rallies since last September," and argued: "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."
In her essay, Allen also claimed that Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign "has run one of the worst -- and, yes, stupidest -- presidential races in recent history, marred by every stereotypical flaw of the female sex," and asserted that "Clinton's nearly all-female staff was "chosen for loyalty rather than, say, brains or political savvy":
Take Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign. By all measures, she has run one of the worst -- and, yes, stupidest -- presidential races in recent history, marred by every stereotypical flaw of the female sex. As far as I'm concerned, she has proved that she can't debate -- viz. her televised one-on-one against Obama last Tuesday, which consisted largely of complaining that she had to answer questions first and putting the audience to sleep with minutiae about her health-coverage mandate. She has whined (via her aides) like the teacher's pet in grade school that the boys are ganging up on her when she's bested by male rivals. She has wept on the campaign trail, even though everyone knows that tears are the last refuge of losers. And she is tellingly dependent on her husband.
Then there's Clinton's nearly all-female staff, chosen for loyalty rather than, say, brains or political savvy. Clinton finally fired her daytime-soap-watching, self-styled "Latina queena" campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, known for burning through campaign money and for her open contempt for the "white boys" in the Clinton camp. But stupidly, she did it just in time to alienate the Hispanic voters she now desperately needs to win in Texas or Ohio to have any shot at the Democratic nomination.
Allen concluded her essay:
So 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. (Even I, who inherited my interior-decorating skills from my Bronx Irish paternal grandmother, whose idea of upgrading the living-room sofa was to throw a blanket over it, can 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.
As the blog Feministe noted, Allen wrote in a June 27, 2005, IWF blog post (accessed through the Internet Archive) that "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," adding: "Why does feminism have to mean the triumph of the ugly and the surly?"
Great job, Washington Pest, I mean, Post.
It’s sad that anyone would have such a self-deprecating defeatist view of herself - but to project it onto all women?
You think she still wears her poodle skirt?
This is not the first Washington Post story for which I had a problem understanding the logic in even printing it.
Mary, maybe she is looking for her feet to be bound as well. :-) Nice job of using sexist rhetoric to attempt to smear Democrats though, which seems to be the main point of the article. Same old RW smear job.
I guess MMFA is implying that women can't handle reading something negative about themselves or they might quit reading? Good grief, newspapers are going to be dead eventually anyway, it has nothing to do with gender.
At least a woman wrote the piece. I don't agree with her conclusion but let's not censor the newspaper, okay?
"I guess MMFA is implying that women can't handle reading something negative about themselves or they might quit reading? ... I don't agree with her conclusion but let's not censor the newspaper, okay?"
Lets take this in two parts. First, YOU implied, not MMFA. Why take off on a tangent designed to derail the conversation. You are off topic. MMFA did exactly what they set out to do, and we all (except you) thank them for noting it.
Second, I guess you hold major newspapers to the same standard as random bloggers and posters. I don't, nor does any intelligent thinker. Do you really think anyone wants to censor the newspapers over this? Red herring much? So what Bruce wants us to know is that poorly written, sexist articles from major newspapers are OK with him, and pointing it out as crap is not OK. Weird.
Is this Bruce guy Tommy? Sorry, I haven't read the posts for awhile, and it is a shame to see the Free Speech red herrings thrown around as real debate.
I’m hear you Mefirst. Reading the newspaper was part of my wake-up morning routine for years – Then I moved to a small town of less than 100,000. After 2 or 3 months of wasting my money on a delivery subscription, which was priced the same as the “big city” paper I was accustomed to reading, I gave up on it. I would be finished reading it front to back before my call to the “morning constitution” even set in, and decided it was not worth it!
I’ve accepted the fact that newspapers are a dying breed. There are plenty of bygone props in my life that I miss which have been replaced with “newfangled” alternatives that I am reluctant to embrace, but hey, this IS progress. Not only can I now read the big-city paper of my hometown online, but I can read other ‘takes” on the stories from literally thousands of other papers around the country, or world. The question that I have is how many of these online sites would still live on once the printing presses of that newspaper stop rolling?
I worked in the printing industry for over 25 years and know the dilemma it was in 15 years ago – I can only imagine what it is like for them to try to keep their heads above water today. The cost of materials alone has skyrocket – most notably the newsprint (paper) itself – and one of the largest sources of revenue, classified ads, has been eaten away by “free” online classifieds. Unfortunately, I really don’t see things getting any better for newspapers.
As far as your concerns regarding an online newspaper’s “readability” – fear not, soon they will be reading aloud to you and you’ll be able to “read them” with your eyes closed.
"A Post task force is looking at the problem (of attracting and keeping female readers) and will make recommendations."
If you were running the Post, would you consider today's essay by Charlotte Allen as a really good first step in that direction?
I honestly don't know. My political perspective gets crushed every day by posters here and yet I read everything regularly. Some people like me are just gluttons for punishment I guess.
The standard the newspaper should set is to print opinion pieces that are thoughtful and well-written with a factual basis. The standard should not be what any gender or group might think about a particular piece.
If you consider Allen's essay calling women "dim" and "stupid" as being "thoughtful and "factual", then it fits into your "standards" for a Post article. But not mine. And I doubt I'm alone in feeling that way.
Having your political perspective crushed is one thing. That happens to me all the time from all kinds of media. Being told you are stupid because you are a woman is another.
There is NO way that the Post would have published this item if a writer had instead engaged in racist stereotypes in the same way that Ms. Allen employed sexist stereotypes and untruths. The same principles for declining to do so should have been employed when deciding about this piece of ****.
And, it makes no difference whether the writer is male or female, black or not black, etc. Women who hate women, or pretend to do so in order to advance their conservative agenda, get no free pass to spew hateful and sexist BS.
The standard the newspaper should set is to print opinion pieces that are thoughtful and well-written with a factual basis
Do you believe this particular essay exemplifies such a standard?
So what is your problem with MMFA posting on it?
Media Matters hardly ever publishes stories about Maureen the queen of mean Dowd, yet when a WAPO reporter slams women one day, the MMFA attack dogs go on the attack.
Is it because Media Matters considers Maureen Dowd a "progressive" (See MMFA study on columnist bias) that it has decided not to attack her based on her progressivity?
did you miss these stories?
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=maureen+dowd&from_date=&to_date=&issue=&subissue=&topic=&person=3773&show=&outlet=&x=24&y=10
Sure, Mefirst, in other items. But this item reminded TS of Dowd, and there was nothing here about her.
Check.....mate! ;0)
Well, with respect to your obvious lack of comprehension, HAD Maureen Dowd written this particular essay, then I would guess that MMFA WOULD have challenged her as well, especially if the New York Times had publicly announced plans to increase female readership.
Now, the more obvious (well, perhaps not to you, "Truthseeker") reason for MMFA's commentary here was that the Washington Post had recently announced plans to retain, if not increase, their female readership. Allowing a diatribe describing women in disgustingly sexist terms just AFTER these plans had been announced is nothing short of idiotic (and having a woman pen this essay makes it all the more reprehensible). Perhaps this "woman" is looking to become Ann Coulter's BFF*; from the essay, it certainly seems that way.
*Maybe not BFF, but BFTIDNYTSUAAL (Best Friends Till I Don't Need Your Toadying, Suck Up Ass Any Longer).
Speaking from the vantage point of an exceptionally intelligent female, I stopped reading publications like the Washington Post when I was a child. They neither offer me unbiased news nor intellectually stimulating information.
With respect to the essay discussed above, its gross overgeneralizations provide proof that misogyny is not a function of gender. The author demonstrates an inability to comprehend anything beyond self-perception and therefore surmises that every woman is exactly like her. Perhaps, if she were more intelligent, she would view the world differently.
It is also quite clear that the essay is designed to promote a personal agenda. Since misogyny and sexism have been condoned by many during the current presidential race, the Washington Post may be testing the waters to see if such an essay appeals to an untapped audience.
The Rightwing narrative of the Rightwing "MEDIA" ... long including the Washington Post ... is that one has to be "DIM, STUPID, and WEAK" to vote for a Democrat.
This hit piece on WOMEN ... which is of course a hit piece on Obama and Clinton ... simply follows the proscribed rightwing narrative.
It forwards misogynistic stereotypes, it takes as undisputed premise that the Democratic candidates have no substance whatsoever (simply cannot be supported on MERIT), and arrives at its CONCLUSION that anyone who votes for a Democratic candidate is verifying every demeaning and disdainful attitude held by rightwing paternalists.
And, of course, you can avoid proving the Limbaughs and Kristols and Matthews RIGHT in their declarations of female inferiority and lightweight mentality if you just ... get this ... do ANYTHING politically except vote for Obama or Hillary.
It's that simple, the message of this "opinion" piece; a woman should either stay home on election day (perhaps redecorating the home), or vote for McCain (because voting for HIM does not require supidity, weakness, or being DIM.)
Ironically, this piece goes a long way towards identifying the characteristics of a woman who would religiously read the Washington Post, listen to Limbaugh, and vote for McCain. She is self-loathing, masochistic, and convinced of the inevitability of her intellectual inferiority. She is this author, Peggy Noonan, Bay Buchanan, Mary Matalin, and every other cowed enabler to the dominance of the elitist paternalistic white male.
The alternate title for this piece should be, "I am Republican Woman, hear me WHIMPER."
that was pretty much your standard MSM hit piece against democrats. you'll notice the only women ms. allen made specific reference to were, un, uh..........democrats.
i think she got all the classic right-wing highlights against sen. clinton, taken out of context as usual. i expect no better from the post, nyt's or elsewhere.
"Poorly written" hardly describes this article! It totally lacks any sophistication of thought and more than just a 'duh' for the Washington Post, one has to assume there was a point to a choice this bad. I don't know how a woman could possible take this selection other than an invitation to leave the paper with a "and the horse you rode in on!". I cannot fathom why anyone would cut this paper any slack. It becomes pretty obvious that they can't compete in excellence so the Post, like so many others is deciding to attract readers from the bottom of the barrel.
Shouldn't Charlotte Allen qualify as a 'Worst Person' on K.O. or would that remind people that K.O. completely ignored all the overt and crudely sexist remarks made by most of the personalities on MSNBC?
If you read the entire "essay", perhaps the most telling line is the one where Charlotte Allen EXEMPTS HERSELF from being weak, stupid, and dim.
Yes, it's all those OTHER women "out there" ... those specified by their support for Democratic candidates ... who are mentally disabled.
Allen helpfully notes that OBSERVING the phenomena of the "STUPID WOMAN" is an intellectual headscratcher for smart women like herself. She says, " I'm not the only woman who's dumbfounded (as it were) by our sex, or rather, as we prefer to put it, by other members of our sex besides us."
You guessed it. There ARE a few smart, strong, capable women who recognize how embarrassingly dim "other members of our sex" are ... BESIDES US!!
That would be other women who, as useful tools to the White Male Establishment, berate and insult women as a whole for daring to not buy into the male dominance theme of the Rightwing. The "besides us" team of SMART women are, as mentioned earlier, Allen, Noonan, Buchanan, and Matalin ... but I left out a couple of others. Ann Coulter, for all of her over-the-top militant rhetoric, is a staunch MISOGYNIST who readily claims OTHER women too stupid to be allowed to vote. And Phyllis Schlafly of the "Eagle Forum," godmother of the subservient, compiant woman who is ultimately the slave to man.
Republicans all, and without exception, women who believe women should serve their male masters ... and if they do NOT, are STUPID, WEAK, and DIM.
This is Classic Projection -- because it is, of course, the WILLING SLAVE who deserves no respect, because she does not respect HERSELF. And OF COURSE she is angry and feels threatened by a woman who shows the backbone to stand up and demand full rights of citizenship and humanity. To admit such a woman might be smart, strong, and brave (and CORRECT!) is to admit that one's own life has been wasted. It is to admit that all those insults slung at one's sisters in fact apply directly to ONESELF.
Allen can't make that admission, nor can her fellow enablers of white male dominance.
Can women be browbeaten and insulted into becoming Republicans? Only if very, very weak and with near zero esteem. (And THOSE women are already committed to promoting Republicans!)
I can hardly believe what this woman has written. I haven't seen such blatant backlash against women's advancement since the 1980's when all the major newsmags had proclaimed that professional women were quitting their high-paying jobs to stay home and make old fashioned oat meal instead of the instant (I'm serious, this was a story in either Time or Newsweek).
Perhaps Ms. Allen would also like to see a return to some other aspects of the 1950's status quo, when men were men and women knew their place - before the term "domestic violence" had been coined and wife beating was called... well, marriage. The first laws making the violent assault of one's wife a crime were passed in the late 70' and even as late as the 80's. Prior to that, if the cops were called, they could only arrest the guy for disturbing the peace if a neighbor filed charges.
Or perhaps Ms. Allen longs for the days when, in order for a women to have a man charged with rape, she had to produce a witness who saw him rape her (a law in many states, including my state of Iowa, until 1982). Yeah, rape always happens in the 3rd isle of the grocery store.
This woman should be wearing a black turban. Better yet, if she really wants the full male-supremist experience, I suggest we take up a collection to fly her to the northwest tribal territories of Pakistan and fulfill her gender fantasies.
This woman has been a contributor at that wellspring of right wing women's "scholarship," the Independent Women's Forum, for years.
http://www.iwf.org/authors/inkwell/7.html#listing
The WaPo obviously knew that. They also knew her last piece for them, in which she dismissed the idea of advance directives as some sort of conspiracy of the "intellectual elite" to intimidate her into "dying when we ... think it is appropriate for you to die," elicited a similar outraged response. And given the amount of misrepresentation and just plain bad information, deservedly so.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101201882.html
So, why are they surprised when people are disgusted with them for publishing this tripe?