Not Joking!

When it turned out that The Washington Post's readers were kind of pissed that their newspaper ran an article whose thesis was that women are stupid (and what does it say about the paper that it assumed its readership to be mostly composed of rabid misogynists), the relevant editor argued that the piece was "tongue in cheek," a joke. But the woman in question, Charlotte Allen, wasn't joking at all: "I meant to be funny but with a serious point--that women want to be taken seriously but quite often don't act serious."

Of course in my experience men, like women, want to be taken seriously. And men, like women, sometimes don't act serious. Somehow the world gets on.

Comments

But there are counterexamples of people not wanting to be taken seriously, no? A complete overview of the situation is definitely going to need to take them into account.

Posted by The Modesto Kid | March 6, 2008 9:18 AM

Between John McEnroe, Joe Klein, and this chick, it's getting tough to take the word "serious" seriously.

Posted by anonymous | March 6, 2008 9:33 AM

Allen's piece reads, to me , like just one more lump of the pointless-contrarianism-for-its-own sake that passes for intellectual dialog in America today.

I really doubt Allen thought very much, one way, or another, about the factual basis or social context of anything in that piece--it reads like she was hoping to get a rise out of someone, and she seems to have succeeded.

The best defense against this kind of crap is probably to just ignore it and let the Washington Post continue its slide into irrelevance.

Posted by James Gary | March 6, 2008 9:36 AM

To my disgust, my local paper ran this editorial without comment. I plan on spending my lunch ripping them a new one.

Posted by Persia | March 6, 2008 9:49 AM

When I read it (aloud to my wife) I thought it was a joke. Now I know that it was a "JOKE".

Posted by wren | March 6, 2008 9:53 AM

"Of course in my experience men, like women, want to be taken seriously. And men, like women, sometimes don't act serious."

Case in point, Jonah Goldberg's new book.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | March 6, 2008 9:54 AM

I thought the piece was entirely on target and true. You could write a very similar, and entirely true piece about men. Women are why there is the Oxygen channel and Cosmo magazine. Stupid women. Men are why there is Spike TV and Maxim. Stupid men. The only genuine point is that no one would bother to write the stupid man piece. Which way does that cut?

Posted by Matt | March 6, 2008 10:21 AM

I've been wondering how we take a meaningful stand against this, in a world where most of us get our news from the internet, not a newspaper subscription. I suppose we bloggers could stop linking to Post articles. It wouldn't make a difference if I did it, but maybe you could. Maybe that would send a message!

Posted by Lauren | March 6, 2008 11:01 AM

I've been wondering how we take a meaningful stand against this, in a world where most of us get our news from the internet, not a newspaper subscription. I suppose we bloggers could stop linking to Post articles. It wouldn't make a difference if I did it, but maybe you could. Maybe that would send a message!

Posted by Lauren | March 6, 2008 11:02 AM

The question is can they do it again just before the next big primary battle.

Posted by Fr33d0m | March 6, 2008 11:03 AM

I've been wondering how we take a meaningful stand against this, in a world where most of us get our news from the internet, not a newspaper subscription. I suppose we bloggers could stop linking to Post articles. It wouldn't make a difference if I did it, but maybe you could. Maybe that would send a message!

Posted by Lauren | March 6, 2008 11:03 AM

What I found most interesting about the whole affair was that the Allen's critics basically reinforced her thesis -- which I interpreted as "Women are too emotional and make errors in judgement" -- by throwing up their arms and crying "Stupid! Misogynist!" instead of challenging the piece on its merits. As the piece was not terribly rigorous, attacking it on its substance should not have been a daunting task. It reminded me of Kinsley's definition of a gaffe, and Solo's remark re a miffed Leia "Must've hit her close to mark to get her riled up like that."

I also note that an ex made this same argument, but as a critique of my unfeminine behavior: I'm too rational and not emotional enough. I was, and remain, bewildered. "You're saying you want me to make poorer decisions?"

Posted by Matt B | March 6, 2008 11:22 AM

Lets cut even deeper, a whole lot of people want desparately to be respected, but they dont behave respectably.

The serious piece is just part of the puzzle.

I think there are a lot of cultural quirks in part because there are a lot of Baby Boomers in their 50s, 60s who still see a teenager when they look in the mirror.

Posted by Kim | March 6, 2008 11:38 AM

"women want to be taken seriously but quite often don't act serious"

Charlotte Allen is the personification of her own quote.

Posted by An Outhouse | March 6, 2008 11:49 AM

My observation (based on careful study of the TV Land network on basic cable) is that women are obsessed with insinuating their way into show business. This causes them (due to the underdevelopment of the spatial areas of their brains) to engage in overcomplicated and unworkable schemes of deception, which result in their having lots of 'splainin to do.

Posted by roac | March 6, 2008 11:58 AM

I thought the piece was entirely on target and true. You could write a very similar, and entirely true piece about men. Women are why there is the Oxygen channel and Cosmo magazine. Stupid women. Men are why there is Spike TV and Maxim. Stupid men. The only genuine point is that no one would bother to write the stupid man piece. Which way does that cut?
Posted by Matt

I agree. The reason why "Stupid, stupid men!!" stories don't excite is that they are routine and old news.
And the screeching of feminist "outrage" was only because women accustomed to laughing at the foibles of men and their stupid obsessions and ways in humor, magazines like Vogue and Cosmo, and literature just got called out on being a pack of emotional, illogical, Harlequin novel, Oprah and Obama soap opera-obsessed Goo-Heads.

And Charlotte Allen, nailing them as they have belittled the "male of the species" for sport off and on all recorded history - has to enjoy the sputtering "How-DARE-Yous!!!"

Posted by chris ford | March 6, 2008 12:30 PM

I actually enjoyed Allen's piece.

People really need to lighten up. We strong, New Age liberated fully-equal women are not so fragile that we're going to dry up and blow away if someone pokes a bit of fun at the actions of a few of us. Some women act irrationally, just as some men do. I don't watch Oprah and my husband doesn't watch The Man Show, and I don't have any desire to keep others from doing whatever floats their boat.

And God help us if we lose the ability to laugh at life, and at ourselves. We really are ridiculous, sometimes. Yeah, even me :p

Posted by Cassandra | March 6, 2008 1:44 PM

"Posted by Cassandra

Jeez, talk about playing against character!!

Posted by Dan S. | March 6, 2008 3:39 PM

"by throwing up their arms and crying "Stupid! Misogynist!" instead of challenging the piece on its merits"

Matt B, plenty of people have dealt with Allen 'on the merits.' The actual finding I would ask for is where is her merit? Does she have any? Look at the piece (which appears largely to have been recycled from Maureen Dowd's 2005 polemic 'Are Men Necessary') and tell me where the merit is?

Perhaps the inclusion of the notion that women are dim and therefore should stay home in general discourse works to your advantage, Matt B, but I see it as an attempt to move the discourse to the right. Otherwise, why hire a hack from the IWF?

It's Pomfret and Brady who have 'splainin to do.

Posted by Max Renn | March 7, 2008 1:01 AM

I wrote to Little Debbie expressing my great offense over this article and told her I would not be reading the Post again until I heard an apology and the editor responsible was fired. Thought y'all might be curious to know- she wrote me back and said she will be writing about the incident in this Sunday's edition.

Posted by paige | March 7, 2008 3:35 PM

@ Matt: Which way does that cut?

Sure, you could write a similar piece about men, but the highlighted stupidities wouldn't be nearly so derogatory as those Allen uses against women -- say, drinking too much beer, thinking only about sex, driving fast cars, refusing to stop for directions. All those masculine "critiques" have the positive connation of increasingly one's machismo, one's attractiveness, one's confidence.

Meanwhile, being stupid and too emotional may make a woman more feminine, but our society constantly demeans those traits and femininity in general -- see any episode of "Friends" or Hillary Clinton's campaign strategies.

P.S. The "it-was-a-joke defense" doesn't hold water. Not because of Allen's content, but because she wasn't funny. In fact, she didn't use the linguistical clues readers need to know she's going for irony or satire. As members of the Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert era, most of us are sophisticated discerners of humor and can easily laugh at the incongruities and stereotypes every bloc of people provides, but without the key nudge-nudge-wink-wink, it’s no joke.

Posted by Another Lauren | March 9, 2008 4:49 PM