Speaking of blogswarms

Updated Updated again Lots of other folks have chimed and still are chiming in on this, so I guess I can, too, even at this bloggy-world late date. On Sunday, the Washington Post gave a right-wing flake named Charlotte Allen a prominent space to assert that women are, in general and in a word, dumb, with "brains permanently occluded by random emotions [and] psychosomatic flailings" and who "always fall for the hysterical, the superficial and the gooily sentimental." The column apparently was prompted by some hyperventilating reports of women having "screamed" and even fainted during rallies for Barack Obama - something about which I hadn't heard before but apparently is big news at the predictable places like World Net Daily and the Wall Street Journal Online. And now the Washington Post.

Not surprisingly, it generated a good deal of response, a lot of it negative. (When I said lots of other folks, I meant it: The Post claims there have been over 1,000 comments and 10,000 related blog posts.) So much so that Post management had to issue a statement defending the decision to publish this piece of crap and the author had to take part in an online Q&A about it, published today (which I suppose gives me a hook to say I'm not so late after all), during which she tried to pass it off as just good-natured fun - and utterly failed.

Failed because first off, it wasn't the least bit funny. That she hoped to be seen as a wit is clear; that she made it half-way is equally clear. So sorry, no sale on the "I'm so clever" front. And no sale on the line proffered by some of her defenders, typified by one who called it an expression of "frustration" about how women are "feed[ing] negative ideas about themselves."

Bull. This was neither a lighthearted romp across the social landscape nor a frustrated call to stop feeding stereotypes. It was a complaint from an elitist right winger about why "other members of our sex besides us" - that is, the silly women lacking her and her friends' superior insight - "don't relax, enjoy the innate abilities most of us possess," and doggone it, just be good wives and mothers and "not mind the fact that way down deep, we are ... kind of dim" in a way that insures that the "number of women in [male-dominated] fields will always lag behind the number of men, for good reason." That "reason," apparently, being that women's pre-frontal cortex is like "Cream of Wheat." (Ellipsis as per the original.)

Her argument is transparently vapid, but it might have had some facade of force if her own failings of the sorts she ascribes to other women weren't so profound. For example, whatever she may think about those "other" women, her own grip on facts is weak. For example:

No man contracts nebulous diseases whose existence is disputed by many if not all doctors, such as Morgellons (where you feel bugs crawling around under your skin).

Morgellons is very controversial but it is simply untrue that "many if not all doctors" deny its existence. In fact, in January the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced the launch of a study of this "unexplained skin condition." Moreover, I can find no indication either among believers or skeptics that it is a complaint solely or even largely of women.

Another example:

[F]emale fighter pilots, architects, tax accountants, chemical engineers, Supreme Court justices and brain surgeons. ... I predict that over the long run ... the number of women in these fields will always lag behind the number of men.

I didn't find comparisons for the particular occupations she cited, but I do know of figures for another area where women were expected to "always lag behind" men, indeed for which not that long ago they were supposedly unfit: medicine. As recently as 1970, fewer than 8% of US physicians were women. By 2006, nearly 30% were. And that portion is sure to increase: In 2006, 42% of interns and roughly half of med students were women.

She also dipped into the realm of artificially-created, politically-useful fantasy:

[Hillary Clinton] has wept on the campaign trail, even though everyone knows that tears are the last refuge of losers.

Far be it from me to defend Hillary Clinton but this is bullshit. She has never "wept" on the campaign trail. The truth of the matter is that the day before the New Hampshire primary, which she was predicted to lose with the accompanying devastating impact on her hopes to be president, she was asked at a rally something like how she carried on. The mythologized "weeping" was a brief emotional catch in her voice which you could easily overlook in the video if you didn't know it was there. As for loser, she of course won in New Hampshire; some have even claimed her brief show of emotion was among the reasons why. Apparently not "everyone" thinks that such expressions are for "losers."

Then there are Allen's logical skills, which could also use some of "the special mentoring and role-modeling the 21st century can provide." She says in reference to men not getting conditions like Morgellons,

[a]t least no man I know.

Now there's the way to really nail the logic of the argument. Not to be topped by:

[Clinton's debate performance] consisted largely of complaining that she had to answer questions first and putting the audience to sleep with minutiae about her health-coverage mandate.

So this dumb, complaining woman whose campaign has displayed "every stereotypical flaw" did poorly at a debate because she was too smart? What? But wait, Allen's not finished.

The theory that women are the dumber sex ... is amply supported by neurological and standardized-testing evidence.

Evidence which, she immediately goes on to say, shows that while men are better at spatial reasoning, men and women have essentially identical IQs because, as she says in the very next paragraph, women are better at verbal reasoning. So her conclusion follows from her data exactly how?

Now, it's true that in a neurological sense, men and women are different in terms of intelligence. For example, it’s pretty well established that men do have an edge in spatial/mathematical reasoning and women an equal edge in verbal abilities and memory. Significantly, those differences appear to persist across cultures, making a strong case for there being some biological basis for them. The case is strengthened by brain studies that show that men and women tend to process information differently - or, to be more exact, they tend to use different types of brain matter to achieve intelligence. It's a case where, if you will, separate but equal actually does mean just that.

(I should mention that while the differences appear to persist across cultures, the degree of the difference does not: To cite one instance, a 2004 study of Israeli children found that the pattern of sex differences was different for Israelis than for Americans and the differences between the sexes was smaller among children raised on kibbutzim than among those raised in cities.)

But those facts are grossly misapplied when they are used, as Allen does, to address the issue of fitness for certain occupations. There are two solid reasons for that:

First, the differences do exist but in each case the overlap far exceeds the difference, something that folks taking Allen's view never seem to remember. So the very most that could be claimed about fitness for jobs would be something like "As a very general rule, all else being equal, each sex might have a small advantage in a certain limited number of occupations that are heavily dependent on one of those skill sets as opposed to the other." In short, not much at all.

Second, all else is very rarely equal. Looking at innate differences is interesting in neuro-psychological and evolutionary terms but is not useful in sociological terms, especially in considering employment, where personality factors like drive, ambition, outside support, the baseline of having a genuine interest in the field, and more come into play; even family tradition can play a role.

Bottom line is that using innate psychological differences as a basis for predicting men will always outshine women in some lines of work, which is exactly what Allen did, simply will not wash. It is a falsehood born of either ignorance or bias or both. (I also find it worthy of note that she did not name a single occupation other than "the ability to make a house a home," i.e., be a housewife, at which by her argument women presently do, and will continue to, naturally excel over men.)

And what's more, Allen's math reasoning is no better than her logic. She says that

[w]omen really are worse drivers than men.

This is "proved" by a 10-year old study using data now 18 years old showing women having 12% more accidents per million miles driven than men. She presents her own conclusion - one not reached by the researchers, who made no judgment about "better" or "worse" drivers - as a flat fact despite her own admission that men are three times likelier to be in a fatal accident. And to show her own understanding of the figures she cites, she says the figures showing women have a higher accident rate are as they are "even though men drive about 74 percent more miles a year." But since the comparison was accidents per million miles, that last part is utterly irrelevant to her argument, something of which she seems quite unaware.

(To be complete, the investigators said the difference in miles driven was relevant to the issue of fatal accidents, which had not been adjusted to a per-mile basis. They claimed that 40% of the difference in fatal accidents was due to the greater number of miles men drove. But even allowing for that, it would mean that men drivers get into fatal accidents at a rate 1.8 times that of women per unit of miles driven. So women get into 112% as many accidents as men but men get into 180% as many fatal accidents as women. Exactly how that proves that the members of either sex "really are worse drivers" escapes me. And the fact remains that the way she quoted the statistics shows that she doesn't understand what she quoted.)

Which leaves us with the original point about women fainting at Obama rallies, the cliché "hysterical female" image that prompted Allen's bilge and bile. Her source is "Connecticut radio talk show host Jim Vicevich." His Wikipedia entry describes him as "a self-labeled social libertarian and political conservative ... very conservative, pro-Iraq war, pro-military and anti-Democrat [sic] Party." Admittedly, Wikipedia is not the most trustworthy source on the planet when it comes to such judgments, but even if this is overstated by an order of magnitude, it still means the guy is a real right-winger and not what I would call a reliable source on anything to do with Barack Obama.

But hey, forget that; it doesn't matter except for what it reveals about Allen via her choice of sources. Grant what he says: Five women fainted at Obama rallies since September. (Apparently, the actual number is six.) So in how many rallies? involving how many scores of thousands of people? he managed to come up with five cases of a woman fainting. This is supposed to prove something - anything at all - not even about women Obama fans but women in general? Nonsense. Utter, complete nonsense. But then again, so what: The whole essay is.

In sum, after having for eight years been afflicted with an incompetent, egomaniacal, power-hungry jackass as president because enough guys thought they'd rather have a beer with him than with the other fella, as a result of which I don't think anyone is in a position to condescend to women who are excited by Obama, we are now (again) being told that it is women who are too illogical, too emotional. Charlotte Allen piled together a bunch of ignorance and illogic, glued it together with her own condescending, right-wing, elitist fantasies, and made a net of negative stereotypes to cast over the heads of ordinary women, the ordinary "emotional" and "dim" women who are not among her elevated friends.

Some have called this misogyny, some have called it hatred. I don't know that I would use those words, but the fact remains that she has taken the failings or shortcomings of some and used them to describe a group as a whole. That is a textbook definition of bigotry.

And that's what Allen's essay is: sexist bigotry.

Footnote: For anyone who doubts my description of her as a right-winger, you could google her and check some of her other writings if you're confident in the strength of your stomach - or you could take an easier, gentler course and just consider not only her choice of source about the fainting Obama fans, but some quotes from her Q&A:

- Women aren't a historically oppressed minority; they're half the population or more! What - are we women always supposed to portray ourselves as victims of patriarchy? That's absurd in 2008 when we have every conceivable opportunity.

- I said Katrina was the best thing to happen to New Orleans because it finally opportunity [sic] to a huge number of New Orleans residents living in passive dependency on welfare to get out of New Orleans and change their lives for the better. ... New Orleans itself now has a chance to change into a more self-reliant city.

- I don't think that women are at all discouraged these days from careers in math and science

- I see the ERA as a constitutional club with which to beat down state and local laws. It has nothing to do with rights.

And finally, this lovely exchange:

Woodbridge, Va.: Congratulations on a hilarious article. Do you think the hysterical response to it provides further proof that feminists have no sense of humor?

Charlotte Allen: Is the pope German?

I'm of the mind that when someone engages in insults and put-downs and then responds to complaints by insisting your objections prove that you have no sense of humor - in other words, the only proper response was to endorse the smears by laughing along knowingly - you know pretty much everything you need to know about that person's intentions.

But just in case you're still wondering, this is, in full, what Kathryn Jean Lopez had to say at The Corner at National Review Online while linking to Allen's tripe:

Charlotte Allen eviscerates women. I love it.

So much for good-natured kidding.

Another Footnote: To be completely fair, I now have to add that not all the criticism came from the left. For example, faithfully right-wing Ed Morrissey, late of Captain's Quarters and now of Michelle "Internment camps are a great idea" Malkin's Hot Air, had this to say:

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. ...

Bobby Riggs during his intentionally provocative promotion of his tennis match with Billy Jean King couldn’t have written this with a straight face. ...

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.

Probably the best thing about this is the change it represents: Can you imagine any right-winger writing something like that as little as, perhaps, 20 years ago? We can't deny the continued existence of sexism - but neither should we deny that there has been progress.

Yet another footnote: I am glad of just one thing in the article: It introduced me to Hildegard of Bingen, who does seem to have been quite a remarkable person, all the more remarkable because of the special obstacles she faced as a woman.

Updated with the comments by Kathryn Jean Lopez and Ed Morrissey.

Updated again with the info that in its own post about the column, MMFA had a good chart from the Census Bureau's 2008 Statistical Abstract of the US showing more women than men employed in several tax and business-related areas.