Charlotte Allen: A Week Later

The Washington Post published new letters in response to that Charlotte Allen article (I’m not linking to it again. You can find it if you go to the letters.) that has infuriated thousands of WaPo readers. There was a name in there that I recognized- Andi Zeisler from Bitch Magazine.

Charlotte Allen’s article represents a new low in sexism. The Washington Post’s recent response to the outpouring of well-deserved outrage over the piece, however, might actually be more insulting to women than Allen’s ill-researched, specious and insulting piece.

Would The Washington Post publish an op-ed titled “African Americans Aren’t Very Bright,” “Immigrants Aren’t Very Bright” or “Jews Aren’t Very Bright”? Of course not. Any sentient editorial team would recognize that as a blatant statement of bigotry and hatred. So why are women not given the same consideration? Why does The Post feel free to baldly insult more than 50 percent of the population — who probably make up more than 50 percent of The Post’s readership? Either you share Allen’s opinions, or you don’t value equality. For a publication that has publicly stated that it wants to attract more female readers, either option seems like a losing strategy.

As a recent contributor to Outlook, I am ashamed to be associated with a publication that deems such blatant bigotry acceptable or even amusing. But as the co-founder and editor of a magazine that works constantly to point out that sexism exists and even thrives in the mainstream media, I suppose I should thank you — you’ve made my job that much easier. In the future, whenever people suggest that sexism and bias against women are things of the past, this article will be my Exhibit A in demonstrating not only that sexism is still alive and well, but also that supposedly objective papers of record are the quickest to disseminate it.

ANDI ZEISLER

Bitch Magazine

The Washington Post’s Ombudsman states that she found the piece to be insulting and not funny. But here’s what Outlook staff members thought:

“[Allen] pitched the piece to Outlook assignment editor Zofia Smardz, who had worked with Allen before. Smardz thought the piece was “funny, clearly tongue-in-cheek and hyperbolic but with a serious point that provided food for thoughtat a time when the Clinton candidacy and some women’s reactions to the Obama candidacy have put the subject of women and women’s roles front and center. I thought her piece held up a mirror to some foibles so many women, including me, can recognize in themselves, even as we seek absolute equality and expect to be taken seriously.”

Her questionable sense of humor not withstanding, what the hell has Zofia Smardz been reading lately that this was “food for thought” by comparison? “Cathy” comic strips?

Oh, but there is more:

Smardz thought American women “have come far enough to be able to laugh at ourselves and not feel threatened by some satirical self-criticism and self-examination.”

Oh, we women are plenty capable of laughing at ourselves when the topic isn’t a thinly veiled sexist diatribe and- well, you know, funny. That tends to help.

She “didn’t anticipate the fury of the Internet and the blogosphere, much of which seems to me to have either overlooked or missed the humor I saw.”

Yes, if a couple of thousand people find something to be without humor it is they who are missing a point- clearly not you.

Most women read it online. The version in the paper was edited extensively, but not all of the editing appeared in the version most people read online.

Unless the print edition just had a blank page, I’m pretty sure the reaction would be the same to either version.

Six other women, five at The Post, read the piece; five thought it was fine and one didn’t, Smardz said. Outlook Editor John Pomfret, who has the last word, thought “it presented a different, albeit very non-PC take at a time when women and politics is a riveting topic in this country. I expected the piece to be controversial, but  did not expect the intensity of the reaction. It was a learning experience about the section, my job and our readership.” Deputy Editor Warren Bass argued against it. “I wrote a fairly blunt e-mail arguing that it wasn’t up to snuff and that the paper shouldn’t run  glib, essentialist screed that insulted an entire gender.”

It doesn’t say what women at The Post Ms. Smardz asked about the piece but I’ll be generous and assume it was other writers/editors. Not only does the Washington Post need to hire more women, they need to work on that screening process a bit more. Although Mr. Pomfret was the deciding voice, Ms. Smardz should have popped out of the woodwork earlier in the week and took some of the heat with him.

And everyone should buy Deputy Editor Warren Bass a drink. Or a cupcake, if he doesn’t drink. Something nice to celebrate the fact that he works in a place where he probably wants to (or does) beat his head into his desk on a daily basis.

Tags: Bitch Magazine, Charlotte Allen, Washington Post