Letters to the Editor
-
Good point, Rosenkavalier
About the paradigm (not "patriarchy," which is beyond loaded and not useful anymore). But I think women not taking offense at being called stupid for liking what they like is worth working toward--otherwise, the paradigm won't change. I do a lot of things that place me squarely into typical woman territory, including (gosh!) liking Grey's Anatomy. I thought Bridget Jones' Diary was genuinely good, far more clever than it needed to be, and thought afterwards, well, if this is "chick lit," give me more. (Alas, it turns out BJD is actually better than most of the genre.) And then I don't do other things, like watch Oprah or soap operas. But if I did, you can bet I wouldn't be letting an article like this make me feel bad about myself.
I have been thinking about paradigms a lot lately, re crying. As someone who has to effortfully hold back tears if I'm angry or frustrated, while none of my guy friends seem to have this problem, it irritates me that if I were to cry in a public forum, it might be seen as manipulative. I can't help my body's urge to cry any more than many others can help their urge to empathize and protect in response.
-
@ Doppelganger
Did I miss something? You have a girlfriend? What's all this about women not liking smart men? How many women do you need to like you, anyway? (I also like smart men. But not men who over-generalize.)
-
Every smart guy
learns pretty quickly to act dumb around women. They really get scared and back off from smart guys.
-
To: outlook@washpost.com
Dear Washington Post,
Really, there is nothing about Charlotte Allen's article "We Scream, We Swoon. How Dumb Can We Get?" that makes it deserve publication. Not only is it highly offensive, not just to women but to anyone with a brain, but it's also incredibly poorly researched and its conclusions are completely unsupported by its content. It's poor journalism, poor writing, and poor behavior in general. There are only two reasons I can think of that the Post ran this; either they thought it would be funny to incense half their readership, or they secretly agree with the thrust of the article. Desperately sad to see this as part of the legacy of Katherine Graham and Ben Bradlee. And John Pomfret's "What, can't you ladies take a joke?" response only adds insult to injury. I have female family members, friends, co-workers, and role models who I look up to and consider far smarter than myself. You've singlehandedly insulted them all, and don't seem the slightest bit apologetic for it. With that in mind, I can't think of one reason why I should continue to give you my business.
-
@doppleganger and brightstar
Oh! Ha, ha, ha, haha, haha, hahahahahahahahahahahaha - help, I can't ... top ... laughing!
Oooohhh. Hee. Ahem. He hee. Hem.
Ookay. Better now.
Thanks. That was funnier than the allegedly satirical column in the POst.
-
@doppelganger re Pride and Prejudice
I cannot tell you how many dinner parties I've been to where chat about Jane Austen is supposed to be intellectual -- she wrote three books, folks, that's about it.
Jane Austen wrote SIX (6) novels, plus three uncompleted works, plus 4 works of juvenilia, including one called The History of England, which is highly amusing.
Try reading Jane Austen for Doppelgangers.
In any case what the hell does "supposed to be intellectual mean"? I would certainly be happy to discuss Jane Austen with anyone, because I find her books and her world fascinating, but not because it is supposed to be intellectual.
Anyway, the question will never arise, because my chances of meeting anyone who has ever read even one of her books is about nil, though, of course, millions of popular romances are somewhat inspired by the format she pioneered.
I think you are a bit unfair, because 99% of people of both sexes are dummies, some more so than others, but most people have other redeeming qualities.
Just quit hanging out with snobs, and you will be OK.
-
@Amerigo: talk to me about Jane
now *there* asa gal who could write satire!
-
@ Doppelganger
You have studied, and understand, the Black-Scholes (may be misspelling that) equation for valuing options. Funny look.
You get excited about an idea. You ... whatever.
Women do not dig serious male intelligence. They just plain don't. A guy of my acquaintance has a doctorate in aeronautical engineering. He manages about sixty people, and is literally a rocket scientist who launches satelites.
I'm a woman, I have studied and understand the Black-Scholes model.
Problem for Doppelganger's societal model! Red Alert!
Seriously, I feel like you inhabit some parallel universe where I never go, because in my world, meandering conversation full of random facts and interesting discoveries and observations, from both men and women, is standard.
-
@Juliebird
Emma Woodhouse is the most insufferable character in fiction. I am sure that if she had written a sequel, the Knightleys would have been the most miserable couple on earth.
-
Intelligent Men
I'm in my forties. I'm male. I am extremely smart. And I get good and sick of having to disguise it around women.
Who are you trying to hit on?
When I was younger, I had a friend who used to complain about the same thing. A few of us fixed him up with a very attractive, smart architect we knew and all went out for drinks after work one night. They both knew it was an informal, blind date.
He was literally leering at every cocktail waitress that went by. Once he even turned around in his chair to get a better view of one waitress's behind. In front of his date, he pointed out that "Hot chicks like that won't give me the time of day, chicks in this town are superficial and only are interested in money."
We were horrified, but we saw why the women just weren't into the funny, decent looking, smart guy he seemed to be...and why the women that eventually did go out with him were not always the sharpest tools in the shed.
-
More about Jane Austen
I find myself...half in love with Amerigo?
Seriously, I am not sure how Jane Austen became a "chick writer." If you look at her contemporary readership, she had a lot of male fans. In any case, I really don't think she'd have become part of the canon if half of humanity was categorically uninterested in her novels.
Even Mark Twain, who seemed to dislike Austen in a most amusing way, did not lack interest: "Every time I read 'Pride and Prejudice' I want to dig her up and hit her over the skull with her own shin-bone." Ha ha ha! But he keeps reading it!
She had something, that's for sure.