just to see - you are not - passing by
With deserved trepidation, I followed some links today to a story in the Washington Post about how women are just kind of dumb and pathetic. Yeah, all women. Yeah, because they're women. Yeah, that Washington Post, the one you've heard of. It was written by a woman (and therefore unassailable?) and says pretty much what I said it says.
I wouldn't blame you if you didn't believe me, and went looking for the link that I'm not going to give you. Because I kind of didn't believe it, which is why I clicked on the link and read the whole thing.
Plenty of people in plenty of places are disputing the logic, which is clearly flawed. (Yes, studies show that men have on average greater spatial abilities than women. And women have better verbal memory than men on average, what of it? Is one type of ability inherently more central to judging a person's intelligence and worth?) The piece has spawned many arguments between one man, for instance, who says jeez, finally, the truth is acknowledged, and thirty women trying to shout him down. It also had the effect on me to want to send the writer an e-mail and say, "okay, then, I'll quit my job, get knocked up, refrain from voting (Obama!), and just go stare at a wall."
Because, really, what are we supposed to do with this information? Of course, yes, the article is wrong for all the reasons it's obviously wrong. But what's the real point of publishing it? Hackneyed arguments about the worthlessness of women aren't going to change the minds of people like me. They're not going to make me actually quit my job and get knocked up and refrain from voting (Obama!) and just go stare at a wall. They're just going to make me feel shitty all day.
I have an idea about what the point is of publishing it, and it's not a great conspiracy against women -- although if making me and a bunch of women like me feel shitty all day is a side effect, then so be it. The point of publishing it is to get a nickel from an advertiser who profits from them kicking me in the teeth.
Yeah, you know, that's what's to be done about this; here's a nice little note appearing at the top of the article now:
And here's what will happen: a bunch of women and men will write in and say no, women aren't dumber than men. A few men will write in and say jeez, finally, the truth is acknowledged. And the Washington Post will sell more advertising. Not surprisingly, right now this article is at the top of the Post's list of most-read opinion articles.
So what's to be done about this? Let's not reward the Washington Post with more shit to stir. Let's reward advertisers with more hell than they bought advertising. It's 10:00pm Eastern, and here are the advertisers who are associating themselves with this dreck:
SmileTrain.org (Really SmileTrain? A non-profit providing free cleft surgery for children wants to tack its link up next to an article about how stupid women are? No donations for you, SmileTrain!)
BudgetTravel.com" (Actually, this one might actually work. Women may be dumb as boxes of rocks, but men still want to go on romantic vacations with them.)
UnderArmour.com" (Hey UnderArmour.com, guess what makes me feel my girl power and engage in activities requiring awesome fitness wear? Oh, just about anything other than an article telling me how I'm stupider than men.)
Okay, apparently after three separate article viewings, WaPo wants you to register. And I think it's pretty obvious that the last thing I want to do is give them another registration to tally up and show their advertisers.
Ha! Okay, here's my e-mail to Budget Travel (and here's where you can find contact information for their PR people):
Hi Soandso,
I was just wondering whether Budget Travel was aware that its ads were appearing next to an article about how women are, on balance, dumb and pathetic. Here's the link, in case you're in too good of a mood right now.
(**Hey, I told you I wasn't giving it to you!**)
Does Budget Travel make a habit of advertising alongside such articles? This particular one has certainly gotten a lot of attention from the public, probably because it's so inflammatory, so I can see why Budget Travel would want to put its name there in one sense. In another sense, I'm puzzled by why Budget Travel would want to associate itself with something that is so openly insulting to a group of people whom I'm guessing make up about half its readership.
Cheers,
(me)
Ha! Here's my e-mail to UnderArmour (submit your own here!)
Hello!
I noticed that your company is advertising alongside an article in the Washington Post that claims, essentially, that women are dumb. Here's the link to it:
***
I hope you don't also think that women are dumb, but just in case you do, I'll be careful not to purchase any of your products until I hear otherwise in some public forum or another.
Thanks!
((Me))
Ha! Here's my e-mail to SmileTrain (infoatsmiletraindotorg):
Hi SmileTrain,
Looks like you're doing some good work there. It makes me really happy to see non-profit organizations helping people, especially children, who need it.
I'm writing you because I was wondering what a nice non-profit organization would be doing advertising alongside an article about how dumb women are. Here's the link, in case you were allowing the Washington Post to put your ad up all willy-nilly and aren't aware of which specific articles they're putting it next to.
***
If you have time, I would be interested in hearing whether or not you were aware of your ad being placed next to this article. It's gotten a lot of hits today, which I'm sure was its purpose, but it seems to me like you wouldn't want to be purchasing advertising from a news organization that publishes stuff like this.
Thanks!
((me))
Well, sending off these e-mails has lifted my mood at least to the point where it was before I read that stupid thing this morning. If you have the time and inclination, I hope you submit your own letters as well.
I wouldn't blame you if you didn't believe me, and went looking for the link that I'm not going to give you. Because I kind of didn't believe it, which is why I clicked on the link and read the whole thing.
Plenty of people in plenty of places are disputing the logic, which is clearly flawed. (Yes, studies show that men have on average greater spatial abilities than women. And women have better verbal memory than men on average, what of it? Is one type of ability inherently more central to judging a person's intelligence and worth?) The piece has spawned many arguments between one man, for instance, who says jeez, finally, the truth is acknowledged, and thirty women trying to shout him down. It also had the effect on me to want to send the writer an e-mail and say, "okay, then, I'll quit my job, get knocked up, refrain from voting (Obama!), and just go stare at a wall."
Because, really, what are we supposed to do with this information? Of course, yes, the article is wrong for all the reasons it's obviously wrong. But what's the real point of publishing it? Hackneyed arguments about the worthlessness of women aren't going to change the minds of people like me. They're not going to make me actually quit my job and get knocked up and refrain from voting (Obama!) and just go stare at a wall. They're just going to make me feel shitty all day.
I have an idea about what the point is of publishing it, and it's not a great conspiracy against women -- although if making me and a bunch of women like me feel shitty all day is a side effect, then so be it. The point of publishing it is to get a nickel from an advertiser who profits from them kicking me in the teeth.
Yeah, you know, that's what's to be done about this; here's a nice little note appearing at the top of the article now:
Agree? Disagree? Think this article should never have been published? Send a response to outlook@washpost.com and put "Smarter Than You Think" in the subject line. We'll publish a selection online and in the newspaper on Sunday.
And here's what will happen: a bunch of women and men will write in and say no, women aren't dumber than men. A few men will write in and say jeez, finally, the truth is acknowledged. And the Washington Post will sell more advertising. Not surprisingly, right now this article is at the top of the Post's list of most-read opinion articles.
So what's to be done about this? Let's not reward the Washington Post with more shit to stir. Let's reward advertisers with more hell than they bought advertising. It's 10:00pm Eastern, and here are the advertisers who are associating themselves with this dreck:
SmileTrain.org (Really SmileTrain? A non-profit providing free cleft surgery for children wants to tack its link up next to an article about how stupid women are? No donations for you, SmileTrain!)
BudgetTravel.com" (Actually, this one might actually work. Women may be dumb as boxes of rocks, but men still want to go on romantic vacations with them.)
UnderArmour.com" (Hey UnderArmour.com, guess what makes me feel my girl power and engage in activities requiring awesome fitness wear? Oh, just about anything other than an article telling me how I'm stupider than men.)
Okay, apparently after three separate article viewings, WaPo wants you to register. And I think it's pretty obvious that the last thing I want to do is give them another registration to tally up and show their advertisers.
Ha! Okay, here's my e-mail to Budget Travel (and here's where you can find contact information for their PR people):
Hi Soandso,
I was just wondering whether Budget Travel was aware that its ads were appearing next to an article about how women are, on balance, dumb and pathetic. Here's the link, in case you're in too good of a mood right now.
(**Hey, I told you I wasn't giving it to you!**)
Does Budget Travel make a habit of advertising alongside such articles? This particular one has certainly gotten a lot of attention from the public, probably because it's so inflammatory, so I can see why Budget Travel would want to put its name there in one sense. In another sense, I'm puzzled by why Budget Travel would want to associate itself with something that is so openly insulting to a group of people whom I'm guessing make up about half its readership.
Cheers,
(me)
Ha! Here's my e-mail to UnderArmour (submit your own here!)
Hello!
I noticed that your company is advertising alongside an article in the Washington Post that claims, essentially, that women are dumb. Here's the link to it:
***
I hope you don't also think that women are dumb, but just in case you do, I'll be careful not to purchase any of your products until I hear otherwise in some public forum or another.
Thanks!
((Me))
Ha! Here's my e-mail to SmileTrain (infoatsmiletraindotorg):
Hi SmileTrain,
Looks like you're doing some good work there. It makes me really happy to see non-profit organizations helping people, especially children, who need it.
I'm writing you because I was wondering what a nice non-profit organization would be doing advertising alongside an article about how dumb women are. Here's the link, in case you were allowing the Washington Post to put your ad up all willy-nilly and aren't aware of which specific articles they're putting it next to.
***
If you have time, I would be interested in hearing whether or not you were aware of your ad being placed next to this article. It's gotten a lot of hits today, which I'm sure was its purpose, but it seems to me like you wouldn't want to be purchasing advertising from a news organization that publishes stuff like this.
Thanks!
((me))
Well, sending off these e-mails has lifted my mood at least to the point where it was before I read that stupid thing this morning. If you have the time and inclination, I hope you submit your own letters as well.
<< Home