AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > May > 19
Monday, May 19, 2008
Is it taboo for prominent women to attack their peers?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Rebuttal
To post your comment and to read other comments, scroll to Post Comment link at bottom of blog
Charlotte Allen’s piece was both tongue-in-cheek and important: and all the feminine outrage serves only to prove her point that some women need to get a grip. She was calling women to a higher standard, embarrassed to see women swooning over Barack Obama like a rock star — and why do we scream over rock stars anyway? As Allen’s point implicitly asked, do you see men doing that? Why is it primarily women who make vacuous self-help books best sellers, or who get addicted to empty-minded soap operas? And why is asking that question cause for anyone to furiously forward Allen’s piece into Andy’s “in” box?
Or why is there such anger toward any woman bringing up the scientifically accurate statement that there are certain things men’s brains are more wired for than women’s brains? The reverse is also true, but no woman gets hammered for bringing those up — which, by the way, Allen did. But angry readers only focus on the fact that she dares to criticize her gender.
The furor has nothing to do with mediocrity - that is what Allen’s piece was about. No, the furor is entirely because women criticizing their own gender has become deeply offensive — even when the criticism is demonstrably true and you are doing so in order to encourage your fellows to better themselves. Men can do that with each other; women can’t.
Are we so insecure that we can’t take a little ribbing? So humorless that we can’t swallow any satirical criticism? Can’t examine reality and say, “yeah — good point — maybe it is embarrassing when fellow females swoon over rock stars and throw their underwear on stage?”
By phone, Charlotte Allen said she received more than 700 emails, most hostile, some obscene, some threatening her life. Just 20 percent supported her, for they thought the same thing. The bigger message clouded by angry feminists remains true: men and women are different. Each gender has strengths and weaknesses, and we should not only celebrate those strengths but work on those weaknesses. For example, brain science shows that women are wired better for communication and processing emotions. I just wish we hadn’t proven so good at making much ado about nothing.
Services »
Commentary
By Andrea Cornell Sarvady
To post your comment and to read other comments, scroll to Post Comment link at bottom of blog
Former Reagan speech writer and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan recently eviscerated Hillary Clinton for describing Barack Obama’s weakened support among “hard-working Americans, white Americans.” Noonan deemed the pronouncement “so vulgar, so cynical, so cold, that once again a Clinton is making us turn off the television in case the children walk by.”
Whether or not we agree with this assessment is beside the point; the writer has game. Noonan can dish it out and Clinton can take it. Male and female readers alike appreciate clever commentary that provokes with a purpose.
Therefore, I’d hate to have anyone misinterpret the furor over Charlotte Allen’s recent Washington Post article as a sign that women can’t handle a little in-house insurrection. “We Scream, We Swoon, How Dumb Can We Get?” keeps getting forwarded to my computer “in” box like bad penny. Why? Believe me, it’s not because it betrays the sisterhood.
The problem with Allen’s tack isn’t disloyalty, it’s mediocrity. The piece declares that Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been “marred by every stereotypical flaw of the female sex.” Huh? Here’s how average women are attacked: They talk about Botox! They watch “Grey’s Anatomy”! Finally, Allen brings out the big guns: we’re just not as smart as those supersmart boys.
If one is going to go up against one’s own kind — and who better to do that? — then make sure those knives have been sharpened. If you write a half-baked diatribe against other women just to be provocative, expect everyone to be annoyed. Allen’s editor eventually tried to bail her out by claiming it was intended as satire, but if the conceit falls so flat it requires explanation, you’re already lost.
Clinton deserves credit for running a campaign so viable it made its female trailblazing status a mere afterthought. Why can’t the pundits follow suit? All women know that criticism is part of having a seat at the table, and our spirited response shows that neither the airwaves nor the blogosphere remain a boy’s club. In the end we simply expect the same thing men do in debate — intelligent arguments with a razor sharp point. Now, if you’ll excuse me, “Grey’s Anatomy” is about to start…