Letters to the Editor
-
Why?
Whether you found the treatment successfully satirical or not is of course up to you, but why the problem with humor at a women's expense. Shoot, my email is full of male bashing humor sent to me by female colleagues. Why can't we take the joke at our expense? I am sorry but I am in agreement with my male colleague who said the Justin Timberlake Super Bowl ad will only be funny to him when women get off our high horses and find like humor in belittling ourselves. Somehow it doesn't wash that the only successful target of humor has to be men. Step aside Broadsheet, you're holding us back..
-
Shucks, I failed to pick up a copy of Sunday's Washington Post
But if she wants to scream to the DC Metro area that she's a dim-bulb, it's her right. She should speak for herself. Pigeonholing is so grade school, and if she wants to write satire, she could start by reading Jonathan Swift.
re:wychwood When will it end?? For the last 6 months or so in the DC area, we have had so many murder/suicides where the whole family was wiped out. And it ain't because of the male-bashin' liberal media in these parts bringing it to our attention....Rush and all his imitators hog AM radio all day-every day...so hard to get a traffic report...
It is beyond sad that a journal such as Washington Post has sunk to new lows in view of the really tragic stuff happening in the area. But I guess they need something to fill that 10 lb Sunday edition.
-
@scarab
I have a problem with jokes that rely on denigrating anyone's intellect to be "funny".
If the joke is about some random specific hypothetical person, fine, but when a big part of the joke is someone's race/gender/whatever and how being part of that automatically makes them stupid or other stereotypical behavior, that's enforcing stereotypes.
-
We are all stupid
A larger portion of Democratic men vote for Obama than the portion of Democratic women who vote for Obama. Obviously, men make a reasoned choice for Obama, while the women make an emotional choice.
Sunday football, college basketball, the Simpsons, etc. all offer evidence of superior intellectual capability. Oprah offers only evidence of stupidity.
Nora Roberts and Jane Auston are intellectually dull and unchallenging, while Dean Koonz offers the height of intellectual stimulation.
The fact that as many females are graduating from medical school and law school as males clearly establishes female inferiority.
The only thing one can say about the article is that its sheer stupidity certainly proves its point.
-
Jokes are supposed to be funny
Lets get some things out of the way:
1) Jane Austen is a brilliant novelist. I've read all of her novels(she has far more than 3) more than once, before the age of 21. And Pride and Prejudice I've read 12 times. Maybe I'm like Twain, but I can't stop reading it.
2) South Park is not stupid, but really that's so not the point.
3) Yeah men get made fun of all the time. However IMHO, men can't deal with women who talk to them directly rather they need to be cajoled with humour about their deficiencies. Men do it to other men all the time with great success. Otherwise they get very wounded and then very defensive. Yes this is a generalization that I'm making. It's just my experience having 4 male house mates.
4) It's not that women dislike smart men, it's that generally people are uncomfortable around very smart people. However, I'm around ridiculously brilliant people(some even winners of MacArthur Awards if that means anything). Some of them are lovely to be around and others are worth disliking. Based on a sample of 1, I don't think it's fair to say that you are disliked by women for being smart. There is a chance that you are disliked for another reason that you are unaware of.
5) Bread baking is a far more worthy activity than discussing Charlotte Allen.
6) I did see a picture of Charlotte Allen and I don't think she got her job using her feminine charms.
Well these things are quite amusing to discuss and contemplate, but really I think the main issue is that there is a prevalence of anti-female sentiment that has been made even more obvious by Clinton's campaign. Whether or not you support Clinton, you should still be alarmed by the fact that a newspaper with the circulation of the Washington Post could print this piece.
And no, this was not satire or a joke or something that women or anyone should laugh off. To say it is so is rather disingenuous. If we make fun of men, it does not change whether or not men will be taken seriously when it really counts.
However, not only were Charlotte Allen's views repugnant, but the "scientific" evidence given to support her views was poorly researched and misunderstood. This kind of shoddy editorial is not dissimilar from a lot of what the media is producing. Yet no one really calls them on it. The Washington Post and other newspapers who continue to give a voice for those such as Charlotte Allen, need to be held accountable.
I've stopped reading the Washington Post not only bec. of this Charlotte Allen incident, but bec. it's increasingly depressing to me to see the state of the media today.
-
Okay, but the hypocrisy is the issue...
P51us,
I respect that you don't like debasing humor based on gender. But if we are going be offended by this article, then we are going to have to be offended by all articles and incantations that debase gender. Maybe your daily paper, parlor magazine and tv box are miraculously different, but when trying to be objective, I see some negative/sexist things about females, but far more negative/sexist things about men, so much that it has become socialized and accepted as the norm. We buy it, we watch it, and we promote it- so if its good for the goose... . Either we need to step off the pedestal, or share it and let the boys stand with us. Based on what I have seen- we are not about to share- kind of the point of the satire.