Wow. Sir Charles had to be a slave to the man today and work -- well, crap, I'm self-employed, more or less, so I was playing out my own master-slave narrative (not nearly as fun as it sounds) before I collapsed with the Sunday papers this evening. Any hint of fatigue I might have been feeling was just blown away when I grabbed the Washington Post Outlook section and began reading this steaming piece of tripe by Charlotte Allen. The piece is essentially devoted to how stupid women are and, gee, it's no wonder that Hillary Clinton may not win the nomination because she does, after all, have a vagina, as do many of those working in her campaign. The execrable nature of the article and the thinking behind it really defy description.
I ran to the computer like a man possessed upon finishing it only to find that many had already begun the much deserved dismantling -- see here, here, and here for instance. I was trying to imagine a newspaper publishing a comparable piece about any other group in society and really couldn't imagine a similar piece about Blacks, Hispanics, Catholics, Jews, Gays, or Evangelical Christians. I really can't. Anyway, I'd suggest sending some love to the Post on this. Katherine Graham must be spinning in her grave.
Hahahahaha!
That piece is a joke, right? A transparent attempt to spark some controversy and thus drive traffic to the WaPo site?
An answer to the NYT's ever-annoying misogynist-in-feminist's-clothing (and tragically unflattering clothing at that) known as Maureen Dowd?
Because, holy shit. That is some horribly ugly and seriously shabby writing built on a swamp of false premises and decorated with risibly stupid examples.
It is the overwrought Floridian baseball stadium of newspaper columns, and it won't stand up to a puff of wind, much less the hurricane-force criticism it appears to have stirred up already.
Bah.
Posted by: litbrit | March 02, 2008 at 10:06 PM
I share your fear that they publish this shit in order to generate traffic. In fact when I looked at the Post's web site for this article I believe it had generated over 500 comments. I haven't had time to read them, but I'd imagine that they are a treasure trove.
MoDo of course was the first person to come to my mind when reading it, but I don't think even she has stooped this low.
Posted by: Sir Charles | March 02, 2008 at 10:44 PM
The funniest thing about the whole column in regard to the Hillary Clinton Campaign is that the campaign has suffered mostly because of mistakes made by male campaign operatives. Mark Penn has been at the core of her bad "inevitability" strategy. Bill Clinton and Robert Johnson managed to make a series of comments after South Carolina which offended thousands of African American primary voters. Really, the only woman campaign operative who was even accused of screwing up badly was Patty Soliz. At the end of the day, the buck stops with Senator Clinton, but you can't help but notice that her male advisors made a series of terrible moves which put her in a trick box.
Posted by: Joe | March 02, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Joe,
You raise a good point -- the major strategic and tactical blunders in Hillary's campaign have been caused by Penn and Bill Clinton in my mind. Hillary has been anything but a flighty or irrational candidate. She's crisp, logical and articulate in almost every setting. I would argue her major flaw is being relentlessly on message and having that message sometimes be rather uncompelling, but nothing like what Allen talks about.
Posted by: Sir Charles | March 03, 2008 at 10:01 AM
The article was actually very well-written and rich in truth. The problem is that you leftists are blinded by emotion -- an emotional attachment to your ideology -- and thus will rationalize away anything that doesn't accord with your agenda.
Oh, by the way, the mainstream media impugn politically incorrect groups all the time. However, people who are pretty dull probably wouldn't pick up on it because the leftists are usually relatively subtle when they propagandize.
Posted by: Not a Dumb Lib | March 03, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Not a Dumb lib,
I doubt you want to get into an IQ contest here.
The article was manifestly stupid and rich with bullshit. Run away.
Posted by: Sir Charles | March 03, 2008 at 11:49 AM