Charlotte Allen: Embrace the Dim

posted at 3:15 pm on March 2, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Rarely have I read a newspaper column that shocks me for its sheer breadth of nonsense, but today’s effort by Charlotte Allen in the Washington Post provides one of those I-can’t-believe-she-wrote-that moment. She starts off by scolding the women who faint at Barack Obama rallies, a phenomenon that deserves all the ridicule it gets. Allen runs off the rails, though, when she extrapolates the silliness of five women into supposedly inherent traits that come when two X chromosomes meet (via Memeorandum):

I can’t help it, but reading about such episodes of screaming, gushing and swooning makes me wonder whether women — I should say, “we women,” of course — aren’t the weaker sex after all. Or even the stupid sex, our brains permanently occluded by random emotions, psychosomatic flailings and distraction by the superficial. Women “are only children of a larger growth,” wrote the 18th-century Earl of Chesterfield. Could he have been right?

I’m not the only woman who’s dumbfounded (as it were) by our sex, or rather, as we prefer to put it, by other members of our sex besides us. It’s a frequent topic of lunch, phone and water-cooler conversations; even some feminists can’t believe that there’s this thing called “The Oprah Winfrey Show” or that Celine Dion actually sells CDs. A female friend of mine plans to write a horror novel titled “Office of Women,” in which nothing ever gets done and everyone spends the day talking about Botox. …

Depressing as it is, several of the supposed misogynist myths about female inferiority have been proven true. Women really are worse drivers than men, for example. A study published in 1998 by the Johns Hopkins schools of medicine and public health revealed that women clocked 5.7 auto accidents per million miles driven, in contrast to men’s 5.1, even though men drive about 74 percent more miles a year than women. The only good news was that women tended to take fewer driving risks than men, so their crashes were only a third as likely to be fatal. Those statistics were reinforced by a study released by the University of London in January showing that women and gay men perform more poorly than heterosexual men at tasks involving navigation and spatial awareness, both crucial to good driving.

The theory that women are the dumber sex — or at least the sex that gets into more car accidents — is amply supported by neurological and standardized-testing evidence. Men’s and women’s brains not only look different, but men’s brains are bigger than women’s (even adjusting for men’s generally bigger body size). The important difference is in the parietal cortex, which is associated with space perception. Visuospatial skills, the capacity to rotate three-dimensional objects in the mind, at which men tend to excel over women, are in turn related to a capacity for abstract thinking and reasoning, the grounding for mathematics, science and philosophy. While the two sexes seem to have the same IQ on average (although even here, at least one recent study gives males a slight edge), there are proportionally more men than women at the extremes of very, very smart and very, very stupid.

Bobby Riggs during his intentionally provocative promotion of his tennis match with Billy Jean King couldn’t have written this with a straight face. Allen blithely consigns the entire gender into second-class status and advises women to give up their dreams of wealth and power, and instead stick to chick flicks, chick lit, and classic chick roles as mothers and homemakers. That, she promises, will make everyone happier.

What a load of absolute nonsense. Women succeed every day in every arena. If Allen feels a little dim, that may have more to do with her own talents that those of her fellow females. It almost sounds like an excuse. I couldn’t help failing, kind sir; I’m only a woman!

Laughably, she applies this excuse to Hillary Clinton, who has been exposed as a mediocre talent at politics. However, her mediocrity has nothing to do with her gender, and everything to do with her personality and character. Allen’s analysis of Hillary as handicapped by her femininity is a close cousin to the notion that Americans won’t vote for a woman for President. This country would certainly have no problem being led by a woman — they just don’t like this particular individual.

Allen also does something else in this essay that deserves condemnation, albeit slightly more subtly. She denigrates those who choose to stay home and make motherhood and family their primary ambition. Instead of recognizing it as a valid choice for strong, independent women, Allen makes it sounds as if women are suited for nothing else. That shortchanges women whose capabilities allow them a wide range of choices but whose priorities unselfishly focus on the people closest to them.

If Charlotte Allen wants to embrace her inner dimness, she is free to do so. After reading this essay, she has a lot to embrace.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The feminists are stomping their Birkenstocks right now.

RobCon on March 2, 2008 at 3:23 PM

New twist on the old riff that if the voters aren’t agreeing with your point of view, the voters must be stupid. In this case, Allen’s simply going to the subset of women voters and putting the worst possible face on female supporters of Obama — that they have to be under the effect of wild hormonal urges to not see the light and vote for Mrs. Clinton.

Expect more of the same sort of rants this fall, should Hillary actually come back to win the nomination and face McCain in the general, and late polls come out showing the women’s vote isn’t breaking 3-1 for Hillary.

jon1979 on March 2, 2008 at 3:27 PM

Practicing Wicca is a way to have Christianity without, well, the burdens of Christianity

-Charlotte Allen

Is this the same idiot we’re talking about here. Moving along.

labrat on March 2, 2008 at 3:31 PM

I don’t even know what movie she was in that deserved such an award for herself. Bah. Meh. Boo. Hiss.

Neo on March 2, 2008 at 3:34 PM

Ed’s wife is very proud of him for having written this post.

The rest of us dudes are looking at our shoes, nodding our heads, and trying very hard not to smile.

The Apologist on March 2, 2008 at 3:36 PM

God, could you imagine the immediate outrage if someone like me… a White Male Heterosexual wrote this???

Romeo13 on March 2, 2008 at 3:37 PM

Inherent victimhood by birthright.

Sheesh, what a maroon.

rockbend on March 2, 2008 at 3:37 PM

“A female friend of mine plans to write a horror novel titled “Office of Women,” in which nothing ever gets done and everyone spends the day talking about Botox. …”

You know, maybe a Hillary Presidency wouldn’t be such a bad idea after all……….?

Seven Percent Solution on March 2, 2008 at 3:38 PM

Do you know what dumb little girls grow up to be?
Dumb women.

Do you know what smart little girls grow up to be?
Dumb women.

cjs1943 on March 2, 2008 at 3:39 PM

Wow……..

Just wow.

Too bad, she’s not a white male Republican. This will be totally forgotten instead.

Techie on March 2, 2008 at 3:40 PM

“…….a study released by the University of London in January showing that women and gay men perform more poorly than heterosexual men at tasks involving navigation and spatial awareness, both crucial to good driving.”

And I thought is was all the farding that they were doing…. who knew?

Seven Percent Solution on March 2, 2008 at 3:42 PM

Women aren’t the dumber sex.

They’re just the goofier sex.

Vyce on March 2, 2008 at 3:44 PM

Not touching this with a 10 foot pole.

VolMagic on March 2, 2008 at 3:45 PM

I know there’s such a thing as scientific racism, but perhaps it’s time for a new field — scientific sexism.

unclesmrgol on March 2, 2008 at 3:49 PM

SHUT UP AND ACT

Kini on March 2, 2008 at 3:52 PM

At the extremely elevated risk of being labeled a sexist or mysoginst, Ed, some of what she says in that column is true. Specifically, the statistical items she mentions, and how they will play out in a reasonably fair human market.

For example, testosterone is directly related to an increase in the spacial thinking ability she mentions (see autism defined as “the perfect male brain”), so, given natural proclivities, the number of male mathematicians and structural engineers will outpace the number of women in the same fields, assuming a meritocracy.

I’m not sure if she’s telling women to give up on such fields. If she is, she is indeed doing a disservice, as there are brilliant female math professors, engineers, pilots and auto mechanics, given the incredible variation of talents within each sex. But they are statistically less likely.

But if she’s instead advising some folks to chill: those who think the sexes will unequal until statistical parity in all fields is achieved, then she’s closer to the mark. Because as is, more women will naturally gravitate towards things they have advantages in, like jobs requiring language skills, vs. jobs less women have a natural inclination towards, like engineering.

Perhaps what is unfair in her column is blithely holding all of the female species accountable for Oprah and Celine Dion.

BillINDC on March 2, 2008 at 3:52 PM

Wrong. She misses the point. It isn’t the “female” part of the genetic code that makes these women stupid… it’s the “liberal/marxist” part…
How else to explain the idiocy that comes from the mouths of Silky, Olby, SeanPenn, AlGore, AirAmerica, BHO, Teddy, Colmes, the BBC, Rather, etc,etc,etc.

Coulter is right: Liberalism is what makes them look and sound ridiculous.

My dream ticket for fall 2012: Malkin/Ingraham (or vice versa!)

Gartrip on March 2, 2008 at 3:54 PM

There is one wrinkle to this argument: in fields like flying planes, for example, the demand for such positions may be great enough that the curve evens out and there will be plenty of women inclined for such jobs. In such fields, there may indeed be no reason that parity between the sexes cannot be achieved. But if your talking about physics professors, where men have an exponentially greater number of representatives more than 3 standard deviations above the mean in extreme mathematical ability you’ll always see disparate representation.

BillINDC on March 2, 2008 at 3:58 PM

“you’re” not “your”

See? There goes that male-inhibited verbal skill. :-)

BillINDC on March 2, 2008 at 4:02 PM

Gartrip on March 2, 2008 at 3:54 PM

Easy, they are all Girly Men… LOL…

Romeo13 on March 2, 2008 at 4:02 PM

So, Ed, did this get her to stop cracking the whip?

XD

fusionaddict on March 2, 2008 at 4:04 PM

It’s the dumbing down of women that feminism has wrought. Instead of fighting for true equality and opportunity, feminism has devolved into wanting women to be able to be sexually irresponsible without consequence. Instead of focusing their energies in studying and doing well in whatever subject the choose and learning how to THINK, women are told to act like men (externally) and then they wonder why they cannot think clearly, why they fail at their most basic relationships and life in general.

Men and women are different. There is plenty of overlap, but basically men are good at what they’re good at, and women are good at what they’re good at. Instead of allowing our daughters to be brainwashed by the bimbo/makeup/sex toy/stupid segment of the media (which is most of it), they should be encouraged to be inspired by the best thoughts, the best ideas, the best ideals. If that leads them to be wives and mothers, well, society is better for dedicated women. If it leads them to be engineers, scientists or anything else, well then good.

Since when have we given up on our children, not finding their strengths and encouraging them, and working with them to overcome their weaknesses? instead, we allow “experts” and a degraded culture to form their minds and hearts.

Shame on mothers who allow that. Between the competitive super-mothers and the don’t give a crap mothers, we’re losing our children, male and female.

Mommynator on March 2, 2008 at 4:06 PM

This woman makes me a little queesy, if only because I have a tendency to be offended by tripe like this. I’ve always thought I’ve made a terrible woman, as I’m not good at things such as putting on makeup/doing my hair, being fashionable, cooking/cleaning/sewing/mothering, and I dislike anything written (movie/book/show/etc) for my gender. The only things I can do stereotypically (that I’m darn good at) are learn languages quickly and get pregnant/give birth. Maybe if I learn to faint I can fit more in with Ms. Allen’s narrow view of us girls.

Or, I can be content with myself that I was a frakking awesome analyst for the Navy, that I’m not winning Mother of the Year, and that this woman’s self-esteem appears even lower than my own.

the goddess anna on March 2, 2008 at 4:07 PM

My wife can’t read a map very well. She has a hard time with directions. She has a degree in biology. She’s as smart as anyone I know, but damn does she have trouble with driving! We’re the polar opposite–I’m an artist and she’s a scientist. My spatial skills are very high. I see things and do things that she can’t. There’s a lot that makes sense concerning the seven areas of intelligence.

There’s a pretty famous study that took place in Sweden (I believe) a number of years back. High school-aged students were given the simple task of drawing a bicycle from memory. No problem, right? Well, the boys all drew highly-defined and near-proportionally correct bicycles–replete with gears and whatnot. The females on the other hand, drew things that looked like they came straight out of the mind of Dr. Seuss. In fact, in my own classroom, my female students struggle with perspectve–one AND two point. My boys relish it and do very well at it. Now, my boys struggle with just the opposite–color combinations and actual laying down of color, whatever the medium.

My boys are good at drawing–especially technical things. My girls are better at expression and use of color. Obviously, this is ALWAYS the case–in fact, this year I have far more girls that can draw well than boys in a few of my grades.

robblefarian on March 2, 2008 at 4:11 PM

Crap–Obviously this is NOT ALWAYS the case…

robblefarian on March 2, 2008 at 4:13 PM

Don’t you think that if she’s a “journalist” working for the Washington Post, she probably *is* a “little dim”?

NahnCee on March 2, 2008 at 4:13 PM

Just like a right-wing nut like Ed Morrissey to defend the equality of women, against attacks from the feminists…uh….wait………I’m confused.

Kasper Hauser on March 2, 2008 at 4:15 PM

A female friend of mine plans to write a horror novel titled “Office of Women,”

I could send her some episodes from my office that will make even the most hardened man scream in horror.

SouthernGent on March 2, 2008 at 4:21 PM

There are undoubtedly different forms of intelligence not shared by everyone in equal measure so I don’t understand why it should be surprising that some people are naturally better at certain activities than others. To argue otherwise would be based on nothing more than the principles of relativism.

Spatial acuity is the term I’ve used for many years to explain why some people are better drivers than others and it is also an attribute of intelligence that can lead to success in other endeavors as well. There are many other forms of intelligence, however, that may also lead to success in different aspects of life’s pursuits, and that’s besides the point that some of the world’s greatest geniuses may fail due to a character flaw while a less-intelligent person may excel.

The author is probably right that, in general, Men are better drivers than women, but then women are probably better at some things as well. And just because men might be generally better at certain activities does not prevent exceptional women from beating them at their own game, like Billy Jean King, (I guess). To deny this is nothing more than political correctness once again running amok, the same concept which has lead to losing teams being handed out trophies right along with the winners.

FloatingRock on March 2, 2008 at 4:31 PM

A female friend of mine plans to write a horror novel titled “Office of Women

A lot of people could write that novel.

baldilocks on March 2, 2008 at 4:33 PM

That men and women are different suggests when combined they are stronger.

FloatingRock on March 2, 2008 at 4:46 PM

All women (including the boss) must report to the kitchen for serving males duty.

Barefoot and pregnant it the required attire; after all they are not capable of anything else.

/sarc

F15Mech on March 2, 2008 at 5:03 PM

She and Michelle Obama lama ding dong are on the same track it seems. Avoid challenge and corporate America, embrace the change of just giving up.

bbz123 on March 2, 2008 at 5:05 PM

Men and women are different. There is plenty of overlap, but basically men are good at what they’re good at, and women are good at what they’re good at.
Mommynator on March 2, 2008 at 4:06 PM

That’s not allowed in the religion of liberalism. Women aren’t allowed to just be women; they are forced to try to be men instead. And, yes, someone of either sex would have to be pretty darned “dim” to be surprised when it turns out they’re not perfect at it.

And it’s a shame from every possible point of view. When women (as women tend to do) cave in to societal pressure and plunge into careers they’re not suited for, everyone has to start keeping the dirty little secret: The exact same behavior we used to think of as cute and feminine, we are now forced to see instead as incompetance.

Because pointing out the obvious is, of course, forbidden as the Cardinal Sin of the liberal faith.

logis on March 2, 2008 at 5:09 PM

It’s the dumbing down of women that feminism has wrought. Instead of fighting for true equality and opportunity, feminism has devolved into wanting women to be able to be sexually irresponsible without consequence…

Sounds like a long-term plan by beta men to get more women…

I had an honor’s program sociology teacher that taught our small group that socialism, communism and monogamy were the product of inadequate men (what we call beta males around here). They can’t produce a surplus for themselves, so they force everyone to divide the resources evenly, which then gives them more than they would have gotten otherwise. Upon observation of polygamy and “free sex”, they concluded that they could not attract the most desirable women, so they introduced monogamy and faithfulness in order that they would have access to, and keep, much more desirable women than they could have gotten otherwise. The professor’s final analysis was that any society that adopted both socialism and monogamy, was doomed to failure because the motivation of the actual producers (alpha males) would be removed and the goods of value would be so diluted that no growth could be achieved, so only failure was possible.

That being said, my wife is a great accountant and auditor. But, her domestic skills have definitely suffered due to her focus on her career. I don’t think anyone can be all things. Luckily, I can cook. My daughters are expected to excel at all areas of school, probably because I have high expectations of them and a low regard for the public school system.

Geministorm on March 2, 2008 at 5:12 PM

Want to see women signing a petition to repeal women’s suffrage? Sure you do.

Akzed on March 2, 2008 at 5:19 PM

The professor’s final analysis was that any society that adopted both socialism and monogamy, was doomed to failure because the motivation of the actual producers (alpha males) would be removed and the goods of value would be so diluted that no growth could be achieved, so only failure was possible.

Marx advocated the abolition of marriage and the “community of women,” so your prof was just being a good Marxist.

Akzed on March 2, 2008 at 5:25 PM

Amen to Anna at 4:07

I work in a male-dominated field, have maybe watched Oprah a handful of times in my life, and consider myself made up if I have lipstick on. What is this woman’s problem?

Sekhmet on March 2, 2008 at 5:25 PM

It’s the old ‘nature vs. nurture’ dilemma: how come there are no boys fainting at Obambi rallies? Is it genetics or culture?

Don’t know the answer. My wife is a damned good doctor, but she has trouble telling ‘left’ from ‘right’. Fortunately, she is not a surgeon.

MrLynn on March 2, 2008 at 5:27 PM

Wait, wasn’t there a university president (I think Harvard)that got drummed out of his position because he said something similar to this a few years back.

Oh, silly me. The guy that got fired had a penis, so he isn’t allowed to make the same basic points as someone without a penis.

Blarg the Destroyer on March 2, 2008 at 5:28 PM

education aloows people to put together blocks ,, it dosent mean they can build a damn thing

rico101 on March 2, 2008 at 5:35 PM

education aloows people to put together blocks ,, it dosent mean they can build a damn thing
rico101 on March 2, 2008 at 5:35 PM

Hmmm.. education, you say?

Akzed on March 2, 2008 at 5:40 PM

OOOh, sounds like she must have done something in your breakfast cereal this morning. Doesn’t Ann Coulter make a case against women voting? Don’t see you taking her on.

Now, let’s see. Why does this blogger feel threatened by Charlotte Allen?

Watchman on March 2, 2008 at 5:41 PM

Ed Morrissey, feminist blogger!

Right on sister, tell it.

Watchman on March 2, 2008 at 5:43 PM

Biology 101.

a) Men hunt.

b) women nurture.

c) Neither can equal the other in their appointed roles.

d) Not all qualify.

OldEnglish on March 2, 2008 at 5:46 PM

Watchman on March 2, 2008 at 5:41 PM

I think someone did not read or understand the WaPO article.

F15Mech on March 2, 2008 at 5:49 PM

She obviously did not get the memo:
“The truth is taboo”

Stating the truth will get you fired today quicker than lying.

TheSitRep on March 2, 2008 at 6:26 PM

Ann Coulter said something similiar a few months ago. Ms. Coulter is always ahead of the curve!

SouthernGent on March 2, 2008 at 6:42 PM

Kini on March 2, 2008 at 3:52 PM

No the person that wrote this column is not the one pictured on the main page of Hotair….I don’t think?

terryannonline on March 2, 2008 at 6:42 PM

Inherent victimhood by birthright.

Sheesh, what a maroon.

rockbend on March 2, 2008 at 3:37 PM

Also men bashing by birthright.

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.

F15Mech on March 2, 2008 at 6:42 PM

Just a warning to all posters on HotAir.

According to Ms. Allen…

Once of these days I will become “catastrophically dumb”

I will blow my paycheck on booze and then go postal.

But hey thats not my fault, I am just being a man.

F15Mech on March 2, 2008 at 6:51 PM

As a man whose intelligent wife is very happy to let me lead the family, I know that women can be just as intelligent (or as stupid) as men. But women & men think differently. For example, women are more gifted at discerning the character of other people, but women are also more likely to be hindered in the thought process by feelings.
My point is that men & women need each other.

jgapinoy on March 2, 2008 at 7:34 PM

Geminstorm — monogamy is the unique product of Western Europe’s Catholicism and free-holding tribal structure in the Dark Ages. Most societies are failures compared to them because all resources are held by the Big Men, including women. Which leads to both genetic bottlenecks (only the Big Men reproduce) and low resource utilization, i.e. all males besides the Big Men are essentially serfs and peasants, women are concubines in the harem. Your Sociology Prof sounds like an idiot. Universities are full of them.

Traditional Western marriage/family patterns took the same basic technology from other cultures (printing, gunpowder from China) and rapidly improved them through ownership by individual men on their families behalf. THAT is the strength of the West.

Captain Ed — much of the stats cited by Allen have been replicated. women on average have shown higher verbal scores consistently than men. Higher reading comprehension, higher ability to discern emotions. Men score consistently higher on average than women on math and spatial ability. For example, there has been zilch female Fields Medal winner in the hundred plus years it’s been in existence, despite a few female outliers such as Adm. Grace Hopper (Cobol) or Ada Lovelace (probability pioneer). Women also have a narrower variation in basic intelligence, while men have been shown in study after study to have a higher variation — more geniuses and dunces.

Men and women are different. Duh.

What Allen is sort of getting at is the current debased feminized culture that values emotion and feelings over logic and reason. Oprah and the View and other female oriented shows (most of night-time TV as well) are all emotionally based. Watch any of the makeover shows where the emphasis is on emotion. Or Obama’s feminized appeals to emotion. Or Cotillard’s emotional responses. Or heck “the Beauty and the Geek” reality show, where dumb but beautiful women are challenged to think and smart but dorky men are challenged to respond emotionally to people.

The old Jane Austen model advised reason and logic for women as well as emotion, to avoid making bad choices that were far worse for women than men. Choose a bad or wrong father for your kid and you can’t undo it, particularly bad since many traits are now believed to be genetically inherited. Including cruelty, narcissism, etc. Far too many women go off with the hot but awful bad boy and get murdered. Even more end up with abusers per Dalrymple in his “Life at the Bottom” and wonder why? As far as Allen wants more reason in the cultural life for women, all to the better. I don’t think she’s advocating “Kinder, Kuche, und Kirche.”

Balance in everything.

[As for Wiccan stuff being religion without bothersome moral rules, probably spot on. People seem biologically hard-wired to need religion to function in social situations and deal with their own knowledge of mortality not just for themselves but for loved ones.]

whiskey_199 on March 2, 2008 at 7:42 PM

I enjoy sex with women.

What else can you do with them?

mylegsareswollen on March 2, 2008 at 7:43 PM

when she extrapolates the silliness of five women into supposedly inherent traits that come when two X chromosomes meet

Elvis? The Beatles? Dionysus? …It is usually the women.

Don’t get “mad” at me: I not only adore but respect women. I’m just saying that they don’t call it hysteria for nothing.

Tzetzes on March 2, 2008 at 7:45 PM

I enjoy sex with women.

What else can you do with them?

mylegsareswollen on March 2, 2008 at 7:43 PM

That reminds me of a joke a Canadian friend told me:

What is strong enough for a man, but made for a woman?

“A backhand”.

When he told that to me I was disgusted but could not keep myself from chuckling.

TheSitRep on March 2, 2008 at 7:59 PM

I am a female. I own my own business. I select my own books, I will be voting for a candidate I choose and I cannot stand Celine Dion. Botox? I don’t think so. I am not a feminist either! Here is the crazy part…I know other women who are smart and ambitious. In fact, I share office space with two other female lawyers who actually can drive to work without getting lost or in an accident. What is wrong with us???? We had better go home and make new babies while simultaneously swooning over Oprah I guess.

HawaiiLwyr on March 2, 2008 at 8:00 PM

There’s only one generalization that works with this thread and that is the men who have posted here are basically…screwed.
Maybe that was the original intent of the article, its not possible to write anything PC concerning a self deprecating article by a women.

Speakup on March 2, 2008 at 8:04 PM

Marx advocated the abolition of marriage and the “community of women,” so your prof was just being a good Marxist.

Akzed on March 2, 2008 at 5:25 PM

Off Topic:

Here I was thinking he was a staunch anti-communist…he also railed on some middle-eastern cultures that promoted polygamy and a religious doctrine promoting a sexual bounty for martyrs…

I think his point was that only under a free, self-supporting society would monogamy be successful, it was his stand that the combination of socialism/communism & monogamy that would doom a society. Concerning Marxism, he did hand out the Communist Manifesto, which he subsequently tore to pieces (not literally) saying that we needed to know our enemy. I also remember he was in trouble with the university for his grading, I can only guess that he wasn’t handing out enough grades in accordance with some bell curve. I know I had to struggle to get an “A” in the class.

Two books I remember him recommending that I read; Atlas Shrugged and God and Man at Yale. That probably pulled my head out of my arse (or out of the haze of liberal sludge pushed down my throat by 15 years in the public & private school systems). Yes, I’m an admitted (reformed?) ex-liberal/democrat.

Geministorm on March 2, 2008 at 8:09 PM

Proud descendant of a long line of Beta males…..

Women.
Rule.
The.
Planet.

There are only two proper responses to your boss….

1. What, dear?
2. Yes, dear.

Limerick on March 2, 2008 at 8:12 PM

HawaiiLwyr on March 2, 2008 at 8:00 PM

Make new babies? Yes. The rest? Negatory!

We need to increase the conservative population. I’m worried that too many couples are placing their careers in front of families, and waiting too long to have kids. Thank God for accidents, which both of my girls are.

Geministorm on March 2, 2008 at 8:13 PM

My point is that men & women need each other.

jgapinoy on March 2, 2008 at 7:34 PM

That is probably all that really needs to be said in this thread…

Geministorm on March 2, 2008 at 8:18 PM

This article by Charlotte Allen,were was her expertise
when dealing with the Clinton administration’s sexual
predator “Slick Willy” on the reason’s for the bimbo eruptors that continually sought after Bill(Sarc!).

Well,lets see if I can wind my way through this Liberal
mental maze,I think any women who stays at home,raising
the childern is far better off than wasting time in the
theatre watching the vigina monologes,or peace rallies,
Protest’s at Berkley,Pinko’s,Peta,Green Peace,and their
newest project,Hillary is being screwed over by thier own
Liberal media!

Now where was the mean,biased,partisaned media when Bill
and Hill were in the White House,especially when Bill was
besmirching the the oval office.

Now,between Ms.Allen,and Femenazi Dianne Fienstein the feminists have opened a new front,that being that Hillary
is being treated differently than Obama,00000000000 thats
just awful,my micro-violin is playing the crying tune.

Was this a plan by Hillary,to start off the “crying card”,
followed by MSNBC operative to up the ante to “Pimped”
daughter,now to Charolette Allen article,followed by
Diane Fienstein,the media has been unfar to poor Hillary,
after all she is only a women!

canopfor on March 2, 2008 at 8:22 PM

HawaiiLwyr on March 2, 2008 at 8:00 PM

Most of the women I’ve known that are truly smart, tough, and ambitious reject feminism. In fact, from them I’ve received some of the most fascinating criticisms of feminism that only a woman could convey.

Saltysam on March 2, 2008 at 8:34 PM

She proves her point. She’s dumb for writing this.

But WTH is so bad about eating while standing up and pulling the shades down?

Domino on March 2, 2008 at 8:51 PM

Short (funny) video: Women, Know Your Limits

Tzetzes on March 2, 2008 at 8:52 PM

I am a woman. I’ve traveled all over the world. I speak smatterings of Hebrew and French. I do medical reviews for an insurance company, usually 7 or 8 at the same time and completing 30 in one day. I read books about politics and history mostly. I’ve never seen Oprah. I’ve never had a car accident, which is better than I can say for my brother and father. I haven’t had a speeding ticket in 6 years.
I don’t know what sort of women Charlotte Allen hangs out with but I challenge her to come hang out with me for a couple of days. This “theory” will probably fall to the wayside.

Or maybe I should just get back to the kitchen and finish birthing dem babies.

mjk on March 2, 2008 at 8:56 PM

Camille Paglia should sue this b*tch for plagiarism.

Ms. P. made these same points far better and with superior intellectual brilliance in her engrossing book “Sexual Personae” well over a decade ago.

Shame on this shallow twit.

profitsbeard on March 2, 2008 at 9:02 PM

Short (funny) video:Women know your limits.
Tzetzes om March 2,2008 at 9:02PM.

Tzetzes: Thanks for that,good laugh,Now
I know what happen to Women who
are Liberal!Haha

canopfor on March 2, 2008 at 9:10 PM

Short (funny) video: Women, Know Your Limits

Tzetzes on March 2, 2008 at 8:52 PM

Bwwwaaahahahahahahahah!!!

Meh………

“…and grow beards.”

BWWWWWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Seven Percent Solution on March 2, 2008 at 9:22 PM

I’m great a spacial reasoning but I can’t do math to save my life and my wife took away the checkbook years ago. She’s an operating room nurse (RN and AORN certified, one of the top nurses at her hospital who is in high demand on every case, handles crisis well, is disgusted by office gossip and can cook up a storm, makes desserts that people almost kill for! All that said, in spite of the fact her IQ is 2 points higher than mine, she failed her drivers test the first time and she’s the one who succeeded in totaling the car. I would hardly call her a failure and she is able to do whatever she wants to do. I on the other hand can talk, do IT for her (she’s hopeless with the computer) and am more than happy to be married to the greatest woman and wife in the world. We are all different, what’s the problem?

flytier on March 2, 2008 at 9:27 PM

She’s not a man. Feminists will ignore this.

hadsil on March 2, 2008 at 9:29 PM

Only a man could have taken what she wrote and come up with such an opinion. Boy, those feminists have everybody trained real well, don’t they.

I’m a female who has worked for 20 years in a technical field and I can say this with no hesitation:

1) Most women are dumber than most men, and those of average intelligence make no effort to compensate for their lack of smarts because they don’t have to. A woman who cannot do what a man makes an effort to do is not expected to. They are compensated for.

2)Smart women have to be twice as smart, and work twice as hard, as the average man to be perceived to be as good as he is. She can never be wrong, have no personal opinions, and NEVER say she doesn’t know something because not knowing one thing means, to most people, that she doesn’t know anything. Most men, on the other had, have a problem saying the words “I don’t know” and even when they do say them, they are considered smart and talented anyway. And humble.

3) Most women are their own worst enemies and they make it tough for the smart and talented women to get respect because they are such poor roll models.

4) I would rather work for, and with, men any day. In my 20 years in a technical field, I can count the number of men who have disrespected me on the fingers of one hand. But the women? Women are petty. Women are mean. Women are just horrible to each other. The smarter and prettier a woman is, the worse treatment she gets from other women.

5) Women suck, actually.

Jaynie59 on March 2, 2008 at 9:37 PM

Actually ,the best boss I ever had was a woman. If she were running for president, I would campaign and vote for her. Hillary …. no

gstrickler on March 2, 2008 at 10:24 PM

Actually ,the best boss I ever had was a woman. If she were running for president, I would campaign and vote for her. Hillary …. no

gstrickler on March 2, 2008 at 10:24 PM

Same here, or at least among the best bosses. (Sun Chi by name.)

And my fiancée for one is much smarter than I am. Case in point: we just applied to Harvard for the same program, for which they received (they let us know) 106 applications. She was one of the seven they chose, while I was one of the ninety-nine left out in the wilderness.

Is it intimidating having such a brainy soon-to-be-wife? Perhaps occasionally. But mostly it’s exhilarating.

Tzetzes on March 2, 2008 at 11:05 PM

The only valid argument I’ve heard made so far for making a special effort to prepare women for work in the sciences and engineering is not that they are equally or better suited to solving the current set of problems, but that they are capable of finding new problems and solving existing ones in different ways. Sometimes a radically different solution, even if it is the poorer of its peers for the immediate problem at hand, can affect solutions to future problems in radically better ways. Women provide a kind of annealing effect to the accretion of the solution space that up to now has not existed.

That said, I for one welcome our leather-thonged buxom overlords.

spmat on March 2, 2008 at 11:36 PM

Once upon a time women were probably the smarter gender. Now many of them, particularly the younger set, are man wannabees. They’re irresponsible, loud, brazen, arrogant, and obsessed with sex, then they wonder why no one respects them. Men are obnoxious enough; pitiful “me too!” imitations of them are worse.The feminists have ruined America, or at least their own gender. Instead of demanding that men act more responsible, their message is for women to act more irresponsible all under the veneer of attaining equality. They’re equal now; equally stupid.

Grayson on March 2, 2008 at 11:59 PM

Wow, this woman is pure evil. She should learn to hide that ignorance and keep her yap shut and quit generalizing.

4shoes on March 3, 2008 at 12:30 AM

A question regarding the other natural role of women:-

Why did Holly recreate Rimmer to be Lister’s companion on the Red Dwarf?

OldEnglish on March 3, 2008 at 1:03 AM

While Charlotte Allen beat up on her own gender more than I would, what guy has not been exasperated by the sheer silliness and pettiness of women? Most of the time, we’re biting our lip trying not to laugh at some nonsense with which they’re furiously engaged. At work, one can’t help but notice that when women gain control, they organize themselves into a bitchy little sorority.

Tantor on March 3, 2008 at 1:23 AM

I have never heard of Charlotte Allen in my entire life and after hearing the goofy things she is spewing to whoever happens to be in earshot of, I doubt I will be giving a rat’s patootie about her or anything she says or does anytime in the near future. Delegate her to One Time Wonder Land for all I care.

pilamaye on March 3, 2008 at 7:18 AM

Here I was thinking he was a staunch anti-communist…
Geministorm on March 2, 2008 at 8:09 PM

Oh good. I mean, you said he as a college prof and all so..

Akzed on March 3, 2008 at 12:28 PM

You’re waay too fair and balanced, Cap’n. And serious.

Lighten up.

misterpeasea on March 3, 2008 at 3:20 PM

At work, one can’t help but notice that when women gain control, they organize themselves into a bitchy little sorority.

Tantor on March 3, 2008 at 1:23 AM

Which is why I’d rather be a street-walker than work in another office.

Oh and what Jaynie59 said.

Ed, you’ve been hood-winked, bamboozled, led astray, run amok.

baldilocks on March 3, 2008 at 4:21 PM

Grayson on March 2, 2008 at 11:59 PM

Grayson on March 2, 2008 at 11:59 PM

There is a downside to being either a woman or a man. Women can be vain and manipulative in a way that men never can be, while men can be… well, pigs, in ways that women would never imagine.

I don’t think Ms Allen is proud of some of her “sisters” for behaving as some of them do. I think she is appalled by those who give into their lesser traits rather than their higher ones, in being so mesmerized by appearances, in matters where appearances can be deceiving. Real women, women who are proud of their special gifts and who don’t judge themselves in terms of doing thing that men can do, would be aghast at other women who would let themselves be taken in so easily by such fleeting charm. I think that’s the point Ms Allen is trying to make.

Her success in so doing notwithstanding.

manwithblackhat on March 3, 2008 at 6:09 PM

Charlotte Allen’s article was terrific, funny, logical, well-reasoned. We should all read it twice. I do suspect her husband helped her with it.

steve007 on March 3, 2008 at 6:13 PM

We are all different, what’s the problem?

flytier on March 2, 2008 at 9:27 PM

For feminists, that is the problem.

tom on March 3, 2008 at 8:56 PM