My response to this inane diatribe, sent via email this morning to the Post, is as follows:
While I think it is perfectly acceptable—and, indeed, warranted—to take women to task on the choice made by the mainstream to digest whole the culture of uber-superficiality (a la Paris Hilton), trash tv, celebrity gossip and crappy top-40 music, I don’t think a damning, inflammatory vitriol on women’s innate “dim-ness” is at all productive.
Nor do I agree to any of its supposed truths. The examples the author gives are at best unfair (such as the book Eat, Pray, Love, which is only unpalatable because of its tired narrative themes that are to any woman under the age of 30 a touch antiquated, but could serve as a reminder of one’s personal power to other women who’ve perhaps not been exposed to the empowerment pitch of the lib movement—which, I’m sorry to say, is still happening...necessarily) and at worst untrue (such as the charge that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was mismanaged—who says?—and too woman-heavy—which, in the minds of many, could be considered a plus).
I feel the frustration of modern women’s culture myself on occasion, but this doesn’t give me permission to garbage talk my peers or to spread untruths. Neither for the sake of argument, nor as a way of getting increased web hits.
And I dare the author to ask any of my own coworkers, colleagues and friends whether I myself am stupider than my male counterparts. They’d first laugh in her face. Then they might remind her of the myriad ways in which women consistently outpace men in business, in government and in the home—as well as of the contributions women make, both in leadership and supportive roles, every day all over the world.
In all fairness to the Washington Post they did balance the "Women are Stupid" article with this gem which explores the only other reasonable explanation for the irrationality of the weaker gender: they are simply fickle.
2 comments:
My response to this inane diatribe, sent via email this morning to the Post, is as follows:
While I think it is perfectly acceptable—and, indeed, warranted—to take women to task on the choice made by the mainstream to digest whole the culture of uber-superficiality (a la Paris Hilton), trash tv, celebrity gossip and crappy top-40 music, I don’t think a damning, inflammatory vitriol on women’s innate “dim-ness” is at all productive.
Nor do I agree to any of its supposed truths. The examples the author gives are at best unfair (such as the book Eat, Pray, Love, which is only unpalatable because of its tired narrative themes that are to any woman under the age of 30 a touch antiquated, but could serve as a reminder of one’s personal power to other women who’ve perhaps not been exposed to the empowerment pitch of the lib movement—which, I’m sorry to say, is still happening...necessarily) and at worst untrue (such as the charge that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was mismanaged—who says?—and too woman-heavy—which, in the minds of many, could be considered a plus).
I feel the frustration of modern women’s culture myself on occasion, but this doesn’t give me permission to garbage talk my peers or to spread untruths. Neither for the sake of argument, nor as a way of getting increased web hits.
And I dare the author to ask any of my own coworkers, colleagues and friends whether I myself am stupider than my male counterparts. They’d first laugh in her face. Then they might remind her of the myriad ways in which women consistently outpace men in business, in government and in the home—as well as of the contributions women make, both in leadership and supportive roles, every day all over the world.
Get a clue.
In all fairness to the Washington Post they did balance the "Women are Stupid" article with this gem which explores the only other reasonable explanation for the irrationality of the weaker gender: they are simply fickle.
Post a Comment