Capitol Hill Blue Forums Misc. Topics The Media "We scream, We Swoon, How Dumb Can We Get?"

Sounds just like edicts, of old, on college campuses requiring women to be in their dorms by 10 p.m. because they were more subject to rape if they stayed out later. This restricts the rights of the possible victim instead of the victimizers.

College and war are in no way similar. One is about personal freedom, the other is anything but.

This thread seems to be permanently off-topic. Unless there are further posts relevant to the article in the opening post, I will close it by the end of the afternoon.

This doesn't mean I don't think the current discussion has merit; it just belongs in a topic of its own.

Julia

This seems a sort of perverse censorship. A media outlet must figure out what is and is not sexist, how sexist is it, is it sufficiently sexist to prohibit publication, does it have any redeeming characteristics, etc.

In the case of this specific article we are discussing, I think the publication of the article has in fact promoted a useful discussion of sexism that would likely not have otherwise taken place.

The article itself was written by a woman and not intended to demean women.

And while I strongly disagree with many opinions that she expressed, I also feel that she should be free to express those opinions. I see no catastrophic downside to such freedom. She is not yelling fire in a crowded theater. She is not corrupting the morals of youth.

I just do not see a basis to demand that media self censor this article.

Sorry. The fact that the article was written by a woman does NOT mean it is not demeaning to women. When you say "women are dumb" -- that's demeaning.

Again, I'm not saying the article should be censored. I'm saying is it really worth publishing in a national newspaper? Lots of articles are submitted to lots of publications every day. The fact that they are not all published is not an indication of censorship.

She is entirely free to express her opinion. I don't have a very high opinion of the article itself; I just expected a higher level of content for a national newspaper.

As far as starting a conversation, there are much better ways to do it than saying "women are dumb."

The article is sexist, yes. But it also doesn't deliver anything new.

And what I said was the article did not intend to demean women

One might say that it is dumb to expect politicians not to lie.... you have separately said almost as much. To say so is not demeaning, it is an opinion. The author of this article did not say that all women are dumb all the time. I think she was saying that some behaviours are dumb.

I may agree with you. It is our opinion. And frankly, I would probably say the same about many other articles that are also published.


Perhaps, but in the end, publication of the article has in fact started quite an extensive conversation here and elsewhere.

It seems to me that there are much better ways to start a discussion than with an insult. If that really worked well, we'd see it used as an opening gambit here at RR a lot more often, wouldn't we?

You wrote "One might say that it is dumb to expect politicians not to lie.... you have separately said almost as much. "

I went back and looked at that thread; the closest thing I could find was "My point being that it's as foolish to believe one candidate's campaign to be clean as is it to excoriate another's for being 'dirty.'" That's saying two things are equally foolish; it's not calling a group of human beings "dumb."

If you were referring to something else, please let me kmow and I'll look at it, and edit it if it's truly insulting.

You said: "I think she was saying that some behaviours are dumb." Some behaviours ARE dumb. But she didn't say the behaviours were dim, though - she said "way down deep, we are...kinda dim." (emphasis mine)

You also say the article "did not intend to demean women." (I'm trying to get it right this time.)

Let me remind you of her closing paragraph:

Most of the women I know, I also like, and respect. They don't fit this pattern. They are factory managers and accounts and software test designers and network designers and emergency docs and investment bankers. A couple are small-business owners. Some volunteer their time to other people. Many of them are also caretakers, of children or elderly parents. They are not dim.

That closing paragraph insults all of us - and it does so intentionally. I had forgotten just HOW insulting it was until I went back to look at it.

IMO provocative postings initiate many discussions here on RR. The frequency of such opening gambits would likely be much higher if not for the rules of the board and the intensive moderation. I think the intention of the editor's decision to publish the article was indicated by the opening paragraph which said


Julia, if you think there is a huge difference between foolish and dumb... then I sincerely offer you the apology that you deserve.


Yes she did say that, just as Chris Rock might "insult" members of his race about some of their foolishness. Just as Garrison Keillor makes fun of the foolishness of Scandinavians. And just as you or I might criticise how things work in America ... and also be somewhat defensive if a non-American were to say the same thing. Julia, with all respect, I could generalize and say that we men are kind of "dim" in the sense that we often seem incapable of controlling our lust. And if I were to say it, I don't imagine I would be attacked by other men for my sexist comments demeaning men.


I can certainly understand that you would feel infuriated and insulted by what this author wrote. Clearly, the author does not move in the same circles that you do
I do not perceive any nasty intent from this author. She has an entirely different life experience than you.

I am guessing that most of your friends do not watch Jerry Springer, or Dancing with the stars, or TMZ, or One Life to Live, ad nauseum. But we know that lots of people do watch these programs. Is it not possible that the author of this article is on of the large number of people who live a life quite different from the life lived by you and your friends? Is it not possible that "trailer trash" would have a different view of life and it's possibilities than you and your friends?

IMO the author wrote an article that reflects her own opinions and her own experience of life. Obviously it is far different than the experience of you and your friends. But it does seem a stretch to accuse the woman of intentionally insulting you and your friends.

I would also offer you my apology if I have inadvertently offended you by defending the honor of a woman with whom I disagree.

Ardy, I don't think we're getting anywhere here. I'm going to respond to a couple of your last points and then I think I'm done

Normally I wouldn't quote the whole post but this covers a lot of ground.

1) There is a difference between "provocative" and "insulting." I just verified that with dictionary.com
2) That opening paragraph was added later, after the angry posts started pouring in. I'm fairly certain it wasn't there when I first saw the article.


I know that there is a huge difference between saying "I did something dumb" and "I am dumb." There's also a huge difference between saying "that is a foolish act" and "you are a fool."

It's even part of our guidelines here at this site.


With all respect, there are black folks who think Chris Rock isn't funny. For me, the gender of the author doesn't lessen the poison of the words.

The Post says "Responses, most of them angry, flooded in -- hundreds of letters to the editor, more than 1,000 comments on the article on washingtonpost.com and more than 10,000 related blog posts." Several of the women on this board have agreed with me. If I'm being unreasonable about this article I'm certainly not standing alone here.


Yes, she's a writer who is published in national newspapers (this is not her first article for the Post.) She is probably far more metropolitan, and far more sophisticated, than we are out here in Omaha.


I'm related to a lot of trailer trash, thank you. Yes, their views are different from mine - but I don't think they're particularly, inherently "dim." I think they're particularly low-income, though.

A lot of people have different view of life, yes, from trailer trash to astrophysicists. Their life experience is no less valid than mine, or than this writer's.

That's my point.


Oh, I don't think she's offended me and my friends. I think she offended women, generally. But I am not going to be able to win you to my point, so let's call it a draw.


No apology necessary.

A woman President may expect to get reactions from those she works with that span a spectrum anchored at its extremes by:

1. Do whatever she says, because it's hopeless to argue.
2. Punch her in the chops, because that might shut her up.

Mostly,i predict, it'll be "Yes, Dear. Whatever you say, Dear."

And the fun of yet another once enjoyable passtime will have been cast on the trash-heap of History.