Letters to the Editor
-
@lonewolfy
I object to seeing South Park as a "guilty pleasure". Maybe it is to you, but I see some pretty clever and astute social commentary in it.
Like in the Episode "Fun with Weapons" where the fact that one of the kids in town (Kenny) nearly killed another kid (Butters) with a Ninja Star goes basically unnoticed, unpunished and unconsidered by adults. Why? Cartman, thinking he had the Ninja power of invisibility, walked naked through an auction broadcast on local television (gasp), which is OBVIOUSLY a lot more dangerous to society than a little violence.
Homosexuality is also a repeated theme, as is Hell (and who gets to avoid it), lawsuits and, often ignored, crowd psychology (and how stupid people act when jumping even on the most benign of bandwagons, or trying to avoid them).
Sorry, this is totally off-topic, but I had to defend SP there. In my humble judgement, it's at least as insightful as the Simpsons. Of course, some episodes really are just for fun. And yes, it's dirty.
-
While not agreeing with the article
anything that cuts down on oprah, celine dion, and anyone baking their dog cookies has some merit.
-
I just can't even...
I know I said I had some Botox-chat to get to, but this chaps my ass:
"The same goes for female fighter pilots, architects, tax accountants, chemical engineers, Supreme Court justices and brain surgeons. Yes, they can do their jobs and do them well, and I don't think anyone should put obstacles in their paths. I predict that over the long run, however, even with all the special mentoring and role-modeling the 21st century can provide, the number of women in these fields will always lag behind the number of men, for good reason."
Does she really think it's lack of ability that keeps women off the bench and out of combat planes? Furthermore, with the way women are drastically outnumbering men in higher education, it stands to reason that women will eventually have to be on par with men in most careers. (or maybe that's wishful thinking, and the old boys' network will continue to function even when they're far in the minority.)
-
Newsflash: Humans are stupid
Women do some illogical and stupid things, but if you think women have a corner on the stupid market, take a good close look at the crowd of guys at your average sports event. Seriously, guys, painting yourself in team colors to hang out half-nekkid in the cold to "support" a bunch of guys who could buy and sell your whole life in one afternoon?
I'll take Oprah any day.
-
I'm with SueN97
This article was forwarded to me to a friend who was offended by it, but to tell the truth: kind of meh? Women are dumb because we (and gay men of course) can't drive? Women are dumb because we watch Oprah? I mean, shiver me timbers, oh, wait, I mean: *snore* ....
-
Brightstar, you and this ignorant wench have a lot in common...
...but since I refuse to spend the next week or so listing them all, let's cut to the chase. You both detest what you are; you loathe women as a result--and you pass your hatred off as hard-won wisdom, even though you can't think rationall for beans.
-
get the torches!!
Let's Larry Summers this Washington Post writer!!!!
-
Just tell the truth
Don't slice it up into the sexes, PEOPLE, ya know? like human beings? THEY'RE friggin' stupid. We're just marginaly better endowed with bigger brains that some of our tree swinging primate ancestors. Whenever you look in the mirror, boy Or girl, just remember you're not that far up the 'ol superiority scale from a goddamn gorilla.
-
Er...that's "rationally."
But, hey, I don't make nearly as many spelling/grammatical mistakes as Brightstar on any given day...:)
-
@Kaleun - I'm talking about perceptions
Actually, I love South Park myself...and not merely as a guilty pleasure, but as a show which is the TRUE heir apparent to The Simpsons' throne of satire.
(No offense, "Family Guy" fans...but you know this is true.)
But I've heard many of my female friends & acquaintances basically say South Park, like The Onion, is a guy's-only thing which is alien to them. That's why I listed it in my tongue-in-cheek post: it wasn't meant as a rip on SP, but just an issue of the perception that it's a guilty pleasure for men.
{Similarly, Chuck Palahniuk is, IMHO, one of the best writers out there...but he is looked upon as well by many women I know as a guys-only guilty pleasure.
Does he - or SP - deserve that perception? Nope...but it is there, at least among some groups.)
-
So Much Better...
Wow! Grammatical slips that seem oh so Freudian, bad psychology, arguments that women are better than men and vice versa, arguments that women are exactly like men (except for some unique accessorizing), pseudo-scientific blather, all interlace with actually funny sarcasm (special kudos to Dawggone) - the letters section is soooo much better than the articles!
-
You know Deery
you might be worth listening to if you could even point out one statement where I am wrong.
-
On the other hand
Deering, maybe the article writer had a point about women. After all, all I ever get is ad hominems from women.
-
Hey . . .
What's wrong with baking cookies for your dog?
-
Family guy?
"Seriously, it's not even all that funny, and none of the jokes are in any way tied to the plot."
-
More to the point ...
What nitwit at the WaPo thought this sophomoric attempt at "satire" deserved publication? It wouldn't even make the grade at a junior college newspaper.
One thing is clear, though. Charlotte Allen is not speaking for all women when she claims that we're ditzy and dim. She's speaking for herself.
-
If she meant to write satire, she failed miserably.
This article is well written as a screed against women, but as satire, it is poorly written rubbish.
I do not believe for a second that it was intended as satire. The Post and this author are just claiming that it was in a futile attempt at CYA.
-
I'm mostly put off by the update
"UPDATE: 12:00 ET
Send a response to this article
Agree? Disagree? Think this article should never have been published? Send a response to outlook@washpost.com and put "Smarter Than You Think" in the subject line. We'll publish a selection online and in the newspaper on Sunday."
Ooo.. they just can't wait for all the "frenzy" this is causing. It was a poorly written piece of non-sense. I think the best response is to just ignore it.