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

My beloved partner, like our good colleague Mellow Julia, is very sensitive to sexist stereotyping. Is she "overly" sensitive? I wouldn't say so. Bu then, I'm prejudiced.

Speaking of prejudice. I return to a question posed by the writer, based upon a partial quote from one Lord Chesterfield:
What the writer is asking us here is whether it is possible that this highbrow member of the British Gentlemancy of almost THREE HUNDRED years ago might have made an accurate assessment of "the fairer sex". It might be helpful, in making that judgement, to know where this particular quote has been popularized: in a 1954 book entitled The Nature of Prejudice. That's revealing.

It might also be helpful to have the context of the Chesterfield quote, from a letter he wrote to his son in 1748:
Could there be a more cogent description of what we think of as "male chuavinism"? I turn again to the essay in question, for there I find almost every element that this ancient British heir has suggested that all members of "the weaker sex" hold in common, expressed with equal or greater disdain.

My beloved has latched on to the aphorism "B!tch is the new Black". I return to Julia's observation in the opening post that if this article had been written about any other racial group, it would not have been published. Let's look again at Lord Chesterfield's observations, with some simple substitutions:

I con cur with you, Steve!

In making that point, I would call attention to the fact that the publication of the article in question seems to have resulted in a useful discussin of the issue.

So, my question: Would it be better not to publish and therefore not have the relevant opportunity to say the above... or to publish the article and to have the discussion?

I think that it is better to publish and invite discussion.

I'm sorry, I have to ask this.

A useful discussion of the issue.
Better to invite discussion.

As a reminder: the premise of the article is how dumb women are.

What, exactly, is there to discuss?

How dumb the article is? Or the writer?
I'm wondering if my first impression was, after all, the most correct - she was mostly just speaking for herself?

The discussion would be initiated by the publisher, not the writer of the article. I don't wish to cesor, even when the content is obnoxious an stupid, as with this article. But even if the discussion is just pointing out how stupid and obnoxious it is, I think that is for the better.

The current discussion strongly suggests that sexism is still considered socially acceptable in many more circles than is racism. That is, perhaps, a subject for discussion.

I have to admit, it is some torture for me to continually re-read this article for the purpose of this discussion in order to figure out what in the world this author was driving at. And after forcing myself to do this, I rather think that we have mostly misunderstood the author by getting carried away with some emotionally loaded phrases within the article. So let me summarize the main points without those phrases that provoke such delicious contempt.

• 
  Author notes women screaming and fainting for Obama.
• Author wonders what to make of such indulgently emotional reactions.
• Author wonders if women are doomed become so addled in perpetuity.
• Author wonders which women are content to find diversion in Oprah Winfrey.
• Author says
  Quote

  We exaggerate, of course. And obviously men do dumb things, too, although my husband has perfectly good explanations for why he eats standing up at the stove (when I'm not around) or pulls down all the blinds so the house looks like a cave (also when I'm not around): It has to do with the aggressive male nature and an instinctive fear of danger from other aggressive men. When men do dumb things, though, they tend to be catastrophically dumb, such as blowing the paycheck on booze or much, much worse (think "postal"). Women's foolishness is usually harmless. But it can be so . . . embarrassing.
• Author criticises ineptitude of Clinton's campaign concluding with "And she is tellingly dependent on her husband."
• Further criticism of HRC campaign
• "What is it about us women? Why do we always fall for the hysterical, the superficial and the gooily sentimental? "
• More, more more of same
• "Depressing as it is, several of the supposed misogynist myths about female inferiority have been proven true."
• And more, and more mostly incorrect research about gender based difference.
• Author applies the above gender based stereotypes to herself "I am perfectly willing to admit that I myself am a classic case of female mental deficiencies. "
• Author admits cases of exceptionally brilliant women but thinks they may not be representative of the gender as a whole.
• Author proposes that " 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."
• Author closes with the following paragraph: "So I don't understand why more women don't relax, enjoy the innate abilities most of us possess (as well as the ones fewer of us possess) and revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home. (Even I, who inherited my interior-decorating skills from my Bronx Irish paternal grandmother, whose idea of upgrading the living-room sofa was to throw a blanket over it, can make a house a home.) Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and read chick lit to our hearts' content and not mind the fact that way down deep, we are . . . kind of dim."
  

And in all of the above what is the "point"

The author seems to be saying (and my attempt is to paraphrase the author, not to express my own opinion)

Ladies... what the heck are you doing? You are asking for equal rights and saying you should be considered on the same level as men... and yet you go around doing such very "dumb" things. Fainting over Obama, watching Oprah, dwelling on soap operas and worn out romantic cliches, etc etc etc.

Then she closes in an intentionally provocative manner by saying that ... maybe this is the best we can hope for from a gender that is fundamentally a little "dim". With the implied but unstated message... Ladies, if you want to be taken seriously, you should stop some of the shallow self indulgences described in the article. Because if our gender insists on acting in this manner, we can only expect to be considered "dim" "children of a larger growth,"


It is obvious that our nation has an abundance of superbly talented women. So what the heck makes this author write this article. It seems to me that she is just very flummoxed by ... on one hand ladies who faint at the sight of Obama... and on the other hand a Clinton campaign that she sees as ineptly managed and which has blithely squandered the tremendous advantages that the campaign had even a few months ago.

She is saying... women should stop whining about how unfair life is... maybe if the Clinton campaign is failing, it is not because of sexism, but because of poor execution... if women want to get ahead in politics, they need to rise to the challenge at hand... or alternatively relax and enjoy their apparently natural inclination to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen watching Oprah.

"What the heck makes the author write this article," indeed - and what made the Post publish it - has pretty much been my question all along.


I'd also like to point out that the whole thing of "swooning" is likely to be a journalistic invention. Did people faint? Yes, a few. Do we know for a fact that no one fainted at Clinton rallies? Do we know for a fact that those few who fainted, fainted because of infatuation with the candidate, instead of for health reasons, or the closeness of the crowd?

My guess is that the Obama crowds were larger than expected and the audience was closely packed, which contributed to, if it didn't create, the problem. I know that here in Omaha lines formed for hours before the doors opened; that's a long time waiting, especially if you don't bring food and water.

But I think someone thought "swooning" made a better story, and wrote it that way. And because of that, you get an article like this.