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

In a WaPo online chat with Allen (evidently in response to the many readers who were livid with the original article and trying to keep its readership) a reader pointed out to Allen that the fainting could have occurred due to the great number of people in attendance and the heat. Allen's "comeback": "It was in February." Guess she really is a dim bulb. Unless the gathering was out-of-doors in the northern part of the U.S., why would the month be relevant?

So, I can see why she calls women "dim" if she uses herself and her experiences on which to base her opinion.

In case anyone is interested, there is a transcription of an on line chat session with the author. That link confirms that the article was written with at least an attempt at humor
chat

link

With all due respect, Ardy (and I *do* respect your writings), "making fun of" is completely different from "attempt at humor".

And rather than a "portrayal of [women] as victims", she claims to rectify that by depicting women as people who ought to "not mind the fact that way down deep, we are . . . kind of dim"? Maybe in her circle, but even then I'd hardly call it humor and certainly no improvement.

OK.

Just when I thought almost everything had been said on this article, comes a published response:
Dumb and Dumber: An Essay and Its E...piece -- it's why The Post published it.

I was going to excerpt a quote from it, but I couldn't - it's all excellent writing that hits just about every point dead on.

Reality -

That article, if anything, made me even more upset than the first one did.

But only because, dammit, I didn't write it myself.

Thanks for the link. It was excellent.

At that time, was Obama in the same city? State? Hemisphere?

I suppose that we are all a little amazed at the amount of discussion that has been prompted by this piece of writing. To some degree, it seems that we are talking at cross-purposes. It is a little difficult to separate out where it is that we are actually speaking about the same thing and in disagreement. But, let me have a go at it.

In the first place, the author failed at what ever she was trying to do beyond amusing herself. I think we can pretty much all agree that few people found the piece "funny"; and any serious points that it may have been trying to address have been mostly ignored.

Still, in the context of castigating the author, I think that it is important to make an effort to discern her original intent; and to place what she has written within the context of that intent.

In making that effort, let's discuss the example that you quoted: "not mind the fact that way down deep, we are ... kind of dim." Now if that phrase were written with ironic intent, then it would be analytically inappropriate for a reader to conclude that the whole point of the article were to establish the dimness of women. And in fact if one reads the article carefully, one will quickly notice that she allows that men have their own dim wittedness of a different nature. And so if dimness is being alleged, it is dimness for humanity as a whole. And, I am sad to say, the dimness of humanity has been repeatedly and conclusively demonstrated over the course of recorded human history and so it is rather pointless to take offense at that proposition.

From your previous posting, I presume that you are familiar with the chat transcript. And so you would already know that this author graduated in classics from Stanford University and that she has lots of women friends that are both accomplished and intelligent. It strains credulity to imagine that this author was smart enough to be admitted to Stanford and that after studying there for four years, she graduated from this esteemed university with the opinion that all women are "dim." And for that reason, one would expect a reader to excercise minimal care to insure that perhaps they have not misunderstood her intent before becoming enraged at her article.

To the extent that the author intended an insult, IMO she intended the insult towards certain manifestations of "dimness"; rather than to the gender as a whole. And in insulting dimness, IMO, her intent was to weaken that dimness, rather than demean her own gender as a whole.

But, let us assume for the moment that it is the case that the author was making the exactly the point that has enraged so many people. I have to wonder why it is that people have become so emotionally swept up in this. The proposition that all women are dim witted is so patently absurd that I simply do not see how anyone could take that proposition seriously enough to become offended by it. If it were not for this forum discussion, I never would have read the article beyond skimming it's title. IMO, what is dim is giving this article more importance than it is entitled to; which is none. What is more dim is to respond to the article in a way that demonstrates exactly the sort of reflexive emotionalism that the article criticizes.

As I have said, I do not feel that the piece achieved an objective of humor. That being said, "attempt at humor" would be a general reference to a broad spectrum that comprises the many types of humor. "Making fun of" is a certain type of humor within that spectrum. Some people may disagree, but let's explore the thought in more detail.

If this rhetorical device ("making fun of" ) was directed at someone like ... for instance George Bush, I am sure that many people on this board would agree that it was "funny." Indeed I can provide almost innumerable citations of threads on this board where people do "make fun" of Bush and apparently enjoy the humor of the exercise.

So when a respected ranter tells me that "making fun of" is completely different from "attempt at humor",.. I can only respond that that proposition is remarkably divergent from my daily experience reading this forum. What seems closer to the truth is that "making fun of" certain subjects is considered to be politically incorrect and therefore deplorable in those specific contexts.

Ardy, you do make a very good point about the definition of humor.

However, I think you missed the writer's ultimate goal... if you read the piece I cited, I think it will be a little more clear.

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that what the root cause of her apparent "dimness", and why her claim that "making fun of women" is "an attempt at humor" has missed its mark, can be spelled out in two words: Political Agenda.

Or, political bias; take your pick.

I think the relevant quote, from the response I cited, says it all:


The following paragraph gives further support to that idea, but I didn't want to go over the 'limit', so you'll just have to read it.

I was about to say that from someone else with a true intent at humor, it might be funny... but after reading it I just can't say that... not when her actual conclusion is that women ought to

There is no amount of editing that can correct the non sequiturs in logic, there is no dressing that can be applied to actually make it funny, without changing the message given by the above quote.

And then she wouldn't have written it.

And it wouldn't be the same article.

And we wouldn't need to discuss it.