Frida Ghitis and Mithal al-Alusi, who she has written about with praise as a man
Frida Ghitis—a noted foreign affairs journalist who started at CNN soon after it started in 1981 and covered covered the collapse of the Soviet Union from Russia, the 1991 Gulf War from Jordan and Saudi Arabia—published an opinion piece for CNN which asked the question, “Are Men Stupid?”
It got huge traffic, 4k comments, and really pissed me off.
I wrote a response, “Actually, No.”
I was content to leave it at that since the whole line of thinking in which modern manhood is defined by the likes of Charlie Sheen has long since lost its luster as a straw man to fight against. I am just sick and tired of yet another headline, yet another woman holding up the stupidity of men.
Enough.
But a reader drew me into a tweeter conversation with the author of the original piece, Frida. Now I have scars all over my body from the Christmas massacre, which occurred when I got into a twitter fight with Hugo Schwyzer that spilled over to Slate columnist Amanda Marcotte and Roseanne Barr, shotgun and all.
So I treaded lightly, really trying to understand the author’s motivation and point of view. After an hour or so of exchanges Frida offered to email me to explain. Below is what I received. I asked her permission to publish it, which she readily granted.
◊♦◊
Hi Thomas,
I appreciate your concerns about my article, and I understand your concerns. And I definitely see why you found the headline, in particular, troubling.
Nevertheless, I think the discussion about why some men throw it all away for casual sexual affairs is, indeed, a legitimate one.As I mentioned in our earlier exchange, I write about world politics. Like many other people, men and women, I have been intrigued by the frequent news of otherwise intelligent men choosing to engage in sexual liaisons that destroy their careers. As an observer of international affairs, I have seen the impact this has.
Still, you are absolutely correct that there are many men who behave admirably. I could not agree more. I have written about them in other articles.
They grace magazine covers and are the subject of interviews and praise on a regular basis.There are countless men I admire and respect. But that doesn’t take away the fact that we see a parade of powerful ones who destroy their own careers in a way that simply does not make any sense. It is their behavior I wrote about, notwithstanding the headline chosen by the editors.
The very reason the misbehavior is noteworthy is because it deviates from the expected. We expect men to act intelligently, especially intelligent ones. They don’t always do that.
Without the foolish dalliances of people like Bill Clinton, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and many others, the world might look very different today.
The examples are many and we hear new ones regularly.
That is not to deny the obvious fact that many women also make foolish decisions. And it is not a claim that all men behave this way.
I hope this clarifies my views for you.
Best,
Frida
◊♦◊
Frida subsequently sent me these links to stories she has written about men she admires:
A few brave Arabs speak up for Israel
N. Korea: Absurd, cruel, tragic and dangerous
One Man’s Life and the Future of Iraq
◊♦◊
So in the end I still very much disagree with a story which asks the question whether men are stupid. Frida claims she had nothing to do with the headline, and agrees that it is unfair. But she actually asks the same question in the body of the text and is very broad in her own language. “The question has baffled women, mostly, since biblical times,” she states referring to men’s IQ meltdown.
If you are going to talk about leaders who make grave personal mistakes, which in turn have a negative impact on the rest of us, I suppose that is fair enough. But let’s not couch it in terms of manhood. Let’s just say that quite a few human beings who aspire to lead have a fatal flaw that unfortunately causes them to implode in ways that are sad and damaging.
That issue has nothing to do with the broader question of what it is to be a man in the 21st century and how we as men navigate the roles of husband, father, son and worker.
That said, I appreciate that Frida took the time to correspond with us and frame out what she thinks about men and to contrast the harsh language in the original piece with words of praise for men in general and the specific men in the stories she sent.
I learned something in the process. Which is that when it comes to gender sometimes having a constructive discussion requires being curious about what someone really thinks even when you are sure they are dead wrong. Sometimes they will really surprise you.
About Tom Matlack
Personally what bothers me so much is that this piece went pretty much unchallenged at the same time that we are supposed to believe that men don’t get generalized like this. I stand by that claim that if this had been an article painting women under some broad brush most of the people that were dead silent on this would be circling tanks and calling for blood.
Here is a thought on all this.
Is it possible that high powered women have just as many affairs BUT are either more discrete OR because the people they are having the affair with are more discreet. Afterall, it could be argued that the women these men were having affairs with kinda made out like bandits, got book deals, got talk show deals etc etc. I highly doubt a young man who was screwing a high powered woman would be making the talk show circuit so there is no (read money) reason to come forward.
Maybe so, but the situation Ms. Ghitis is different. It’s not high-ranking women in government service ordering in some night when they’re TDY in Rome, or getting their groove back in Jamaica. It is something specific, a kind of frat party mentality that probably no women in the Secret Service participate in. She is absolutely right, this was absolutely stupid.
I personally think this is a case where she as an individual does not have some seething man-hatred going on, but she is framing her thoughts in terms of the man-hatred of the larger culture. So this is a case that shows how systemic and institutional misandry is.
Because looking at the substance of the artilce, even with that unfortunate wording Tom pinpoints, she could just as well have said “Why do such smart men do such stupid things?” and everyone would have just nodded in agreement.
This is probably going to be a teachable moment for a lot of people, like the furor over Dom Imus’ racist remarks about the Rutgers basketball team. A sloppily worded, arguably not really motivated by hate but still offensive comment can and should have devastating consequences. When that comment is this bigoted, it should come back to bite you.
“It is something specific, a kind of frat party mentality that probably no women in the Secret Service participate in.”
Well now that part of it, the idea that the few women who are in the Secret Service probably were excluded, is actually interesting. I don’t think it makes their hiring prostitutes problematic…but it does make you wonder about the ‘boys club’ mentality. If a lesbian SS agent had been like…yeah I’ll join in too…would they have thought that was weird? Was it meant to be a guys only thing?
Unfortunately the direction the dialogue is taking about this seems to be more of – guys can’t keep it in their pants, sex is bad, prostitution is bad…and that’s it.
“she is framing her thoughts in terms of the man-hatred of the larger culture.” is exactly my point and well said.
Not sure about the point about Don Imus. He got fired. Don’t think Frida is in any danger of that.
I don’t think he is trying to suggest that she is getting fired or that she should get fired. Probably more like she deserves some backlash over it, to a point.
This was the point I was trying to make in my column on HuffPo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vicki-larson/why-were-harder-on-men-wh_b_1437335.html) and that was reprinted here (http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/why-men-should-take-a-lesson-from-women-on-cheating/) — “a kind of frat party mentality that probably no women in the Secret Service participate in. She is absolutely right, this was absolutely stupid.”
I truly wonder about that frat-boy mentality. My boys are, thankfully, not interested in that and I have to hope that is in part because their dad and I are not attracted to that (although some of my kids’ friends have been). But it isn’t just frat-boy mentality that gets many intelligent men in trouble — Clinton, Spitzer, Weiner, Craig, Sanford, Edwards (must I go on?) are all smart men who made huge, huge errors solo. I wish someone could explain that to me. Is it ego, arrogance or — what? What drives the frat-boy mentality and the solo-frat-boy mentality? This is not about thinking all men are like that, but when it happens, it’s — wrongly — all too common to lump all men into that category. These men “have it all” — what in them makes them think they can get away with such bad behavior?
But, Tom, your comment “when it comes to gender sometimes having a constructive discussion requires being curious about what someone really thinks even when you are sure they are dead wrong. Sometimes they will really surprise you.” needs to be addressed; it’s not that we need to be curious “sometimes” — we need to be curious ALL the time. When someone says something we don’t believe it or believe to be “wrong,” we must always look deeper; why does this person see things this way? Otherwise we too quickly make assumptions, lump the person into a category (misandrist/misogynist) and quickly dismiss what he/she is saying. That adds nothing to the dialog or understanding. And that, ultimately, is what we want — right?
Yeah, well maybe you should re-read your article, because it didn’t come across that way to me (and others). It came across as more of a taunt! Another ‘All Men are Stupid” article to go with the 6 BILLION or so like it published it seems daily by women.
“Nevertheless, I think the discussion about why some men throw it all away for casual sexual affairs is, indeed, a legitimate one.”
Fine. Then why oh why did Friday not think of actually, y’know, asking some men if she wanted an answer to this question?
Because the answers may well have helped her understand men, rather than just ignorantly judging and dismissing them as she did in this article.
I agree that men in positions of power and notoriety are playing with fire when they have an affair, and it is pretty stupid to take that risk considering what is at stake; their credibility, their jobs, and their money.
To what extent do these men get caught in such scandals because the women involved can’t keep it secret? Even using the threat of exposing the affair for personal gain?
We’ve seen the likes of Larry Flynt offering women hundreds of thousands in payoffs to provide proof of an illicit affair with any number of politicians, famous actors or athletes. What would stop some woman from cashing in on something like that when she begins to get that feeling like she’s being used and wants some retribution?
Another thing, power is an aphrodisiac, and often the men in positions of power find more opportunity to have an affair because women are drawn to them. I think this makes these men have a sense of entitlement, like this is just one of the perks of the job, and they think nothing of it, or the lives they are harming. That casual attitude towards the affair can also make women more likely to speak out.
I think that it is much less likely that a woman gets caught in a similar situation because a man is less likely to tell.
Jon I do think it worth exploring both sides of power as an aphrodisiac (powerful and powerless without regard to gender). But again my point was that the ultra powerful have little to nothing in common with men in general.
And if women were treated the same way, as the men she mentioned were, they would be crying sexism and oppression. Truth is, men generally don’t have sex with women, and then use that to self promote, profit or publicly destroy them.
Rebuttal, exhibit A: Kris Humphries.
Exhibit B: Kevin Federline.
Exhibit C: Bobby Brown (Mr. Whitney Houston).
Facts in evidence don’t speak to a generality, but they do support actuality.
I don’t think that they are good examples of men that had clandestine affairs with women, and then gone public about them for personal gain.
@ Mike
Many people think Kris Humphries was used to revitalize Kim Kardashian’s career. Didn’t she get like $7,000,000 to televise the wedding?
When I saw this article on CNN, I couldn’t believe it. It’s offensive on so many levels. First of all, if it’s true what she says about her not having control over the headline, then shame on CNN for creating such a sensational one in the first place–I’m assuming to garner ratings. And second, as a follow up to the previous one, why not pick a title that really more accurately describes the question. Why do some people throw everything away to have these affairs? Because the posters who mentioned that women do, too are right. At least in my experience that’s what I’ve seen. And the people that are in this position–male or female–will often go to great lengths to continue living in the lie that they’re living in.
So much for dialogue. This only serves to perpetuate stereotypes that we don’t need anymore. I’m frankly disappointed.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m not going to be embarrassed into defending the Dominique Strauss-Kahns, Bill Clintons, Eliot Spitzers or Bobby Petrinos.
Male behavior is a complex web of many strands. But stupidity is one of them.
When there’s a men’s responsibility movement, maybe we’ll stop expecting women not to say mean things about us for screwing up.
That’s just victim blaming.
Were it a case of women having an affair and the man making a false allegation of rape or going to the tabloids, they would be attacking the him.
When the genders are reversed in the situation, they attack the male too.
I’m sorry, Eoghan. I’m having a hard time thinking of these men as “victims.” The word almost feminizes them for me.
I see them more as scoundrels. I don’t even mind scoundrels. I do expect them to stay in character, though, and not turn into martyrs on the hot seat.
I can’t think with terms like “victim blaming” that turns big swinging cocks, even erstwhile ones, into passive sufferers set upon by sharpies.
Mike.
If a woman have an affair, and the man then made a public false accusation of rape or sold the story to the tabloids, who would be the scoundrel and who would be the victim then for the media and in the public’s eye?
Men aren’t doing that sort of thing women in the numbers women are to men and if they did, society and the media would attack them for it.
“That is not to deny the obvious fact that many women also make foolish decisions. And it is not a claim that all men behave this way.”
It’s good that she thinks that, but the language of everything else she wrote went exactly the other way.
Peter you are correct. But just getting her to say something sane, despite the rest of what she which contradicts it, was my goal.
Ho-hum, another’journalist’ takes aim at the ‘Male Pinatia’. How origional, how insiteful. So she bashes men on CNN and apoligizes on Twitter and by E-mails. How pathetic! Hey, you know freelance writers get paid by the article, so it’s an easy payday!
What’s there to understand. Men do things like this to feel alive. Now should they find something else? Probably. The risk is the biggest the attraction.
I find this to be a pretty standard case of sensationalism trumping journalism. It’s really sad that this is the norm in the media.
I have been amused by this whole story – mainly because of some wry comments from friends who are Journalists/Media Gurus, and their take on it all!
1) Who in the media has been caught with their pants/panties round their ankles and is being got at with this whole story issue?
2) Who as a public figure has been caught and is getting ready to be slaughtered – and has used the term stupid against opponents – thereby declaring open season when they get caught? Public Flogging and Blood Bath to follow!
3) When does the Hypocrisy end – of media types declaring what is Moral – Socially Acceptable – In the interests of society …. and just look at the UK Phone Hacking Scandle – Public Inquiry – legal action worth Millions … and it was not the public who were of questionable Morals, acting is socially unacceptable ways and only from a position of highly questionable personal self interest – it’s called a pay packed and promotion up the slippery pole! ….and just when will the whole story unravel in the US! It has been happening there too!
4) It’s just like Bambi Kanetaka! … and that comment was made by a Lady Journalist, of senior years! I can’t wait for her Autobiography to be published – the tales over the dinner parties have been a revelation. P^)
“Are Women Stupid”
- by Transhuman
One CNN reporter, a woman, asks if all men are stupid, a question she claims has been pondered by women since biblical times. Women can, as a sex, barely manage to represent 50% of the STEM course graduates who then go on to be employed in their trained field; instead they get cushy jobs with the McDonalds of journalism known as CNN. I think I’ll make the sweeping statement that yes, based upon this one woman, women are indeed stupid.
Making baseless generalisations is pretty easy. Maybe I should apply for a journo gig at McCNN?
“notwithstanding the headline chosen by the editors”
WTF, she’s distancing herself from the headline and blaming the editors? Hmmm…maybe we can uncover where the editors misunderstood the article and conjured their pithy headline.
Clue #1, the article opens with: “Are men stupid? How else can we explain…”
…well I think we solved it Watson.
Yes, the leaders Ghitis mentioned are stupid. But the women aren’t equally to blame? Shouldn’t those who willingly participate in these affairs share some of the responsibility?
It’s the same with the whole contraception issue conservatives have raised. They act like the women should stop having sex and be more responsible but never suggest the men these women are having sex with should take any responsibility.
It takes two to tango. It’s unfair to blame one without assigning at least some of the responsibility upon the other.
Yes, the leaders Ghitis mentioned are stupid. But the women aren’t equally to blame? Shouldn’t those who willingly participate in these affairs share some of the responsibility?
Good luck on that because that requires a thing called agency. The idea that in some cases a woman is actually responsible for her action no matter how bad they are. Its the reason why when that Eliot Spitzer incident went down a while back people were treating the prostitute he was spending money on like she was a victim, despite her being a willing participant in the sex. Hell I remember a few sites that refused to publish her name “out of respect for her privacy” while at the same time said woman was shopping around for any book/show/movie/etc… gig she could find.
It’s the same with the whole contraception issue conservatives have raised. They act like the women should stop having sex and be more responsible but never suggest the men these women are having sex with should take any responsibility.
Agreed. I for one want all the tools at my disposal that I can get my hands on to take my part of the responsibility.
“Good luck on that because that requires a thing called agency. The idea that in some cases a woman is actually responsible for her action no matter how bad they are.”
Now, I agree that women are often portrayed as people without agency, particularly in the media. And I definitely agree that this is a huge problem whenever it comes to anything regarding sex. And seeing as this is something in the media with regards to sex, that seems to fit.
However, I do think that the “our society doesn’t blame women for anything,” argument gets made too often. Not in this instance…just in general. Our society does put responsibility on women plenty of times when they do horrible things. And on an individual level, when we’re talking about personal interactions instead of mass media, this is even more true. Which, I’m not at all saying that women get blamed for stuff more than men…goodness no. What I mean to say is that the media narratives surrounding these issues don’t necessarily match up with what happens in the real world. Also, that I think this idea of women without agency is particularly true with regards to any story that focuses on sex, but is less true outside of that.
However, I do think that the “our society doesn’t blame women for anything,” argument gets made too often. Not in this instance…just in general.
Agreed.
Our society does put responsibility on women plenty of times when they do horrible things.
Yes and just like with men it seems to switch back and forth in an inconsistent manner. That’s how you end up with people thinking that a woman is 100% responsible for birth control and men are 100% for all intergender violence (no matter which way its going).
What I mean to say is that the media narratives surrounding these issues don’t necessarily match up with what happens in the real world.
Agreed.
Also, that I think this idea of women without agency is particularly true with regards to any story that focuses on sex, but is less true outside of that.
Oh I’d say it happens outside of sex quite a bit just as with in some cases women have an unfair amount of agency heaped on them when it comes to sex (like the birth control thing I mentioned above). Look at violence and even crimes that don’t involve violence.
Or take something like female genital cutting. Its odd how people go on and on about how its terrible that men do this type of thing to girls when in fact a very large portion of the support for that in African areas is actually from women themselves (who of course given a pass because “teh patriarchy” made them do it”).
Oh I definitely agree it’s inconsistent and unfair both ways much of the time (i.e. men are given agency for things they couldn’t control, and women are given agency for things they couldn’t control).
As for birth control, yeah you make a good point…I was just thinking about the act of sex itself. Like say, prostitution (with the women often viewed as abused victims), sexual assault and rape (which we’ve had many discussions about), cheating (which is almost always assumed to be a guy, not a woman)…heck the way straight pick-ups work (so I’ve been told) is that women are viewed as taking a more outwardly passive role.
I detect an undercurrent of agitation on this topic. Its a frustrating reality, but I think we all know that if those secret service agents had been 11 women instead of 11 men, or that NY attorney had been a women instead of a man, we wouldn’t have had those sex scandals.
Stupidity and immaturity may be gender neutral qualities, but sexual improprieties are just dominated by men. Not saying that women can’t trespass or that all men are sexual libertines, but so long as our media finds sexual imprudence a topic worth reporting, those headlines will be dominated by men and our unique tomfoolery.
In the mean time, I’ll wait with baited breadth for a powerful women caught with a rent boy, or women behaving badly while on official capacity…but its going to be a looonnnnng time.
Stupidity and immaturity may be gender neutral qualities, but sexual improprieties are just dominated by men. Not saying that women can’t trespass or that all men are sexual libertines, but so long as our media finds sexual imprudence a topic worth reporting, those headlines will be dominated by men and our unique tomfoolery.
Fair enough but that problem isn’t so much that its mostly men doing it. The problem is as you nod to in your first sentence leaping from “most sexual improprieties are done by men” to “does this mean men are stupid?”.
Not:
“Why do so many men cheat?”
“Why can’t some of them keep it in their pants?”
“Why do some men seem to actually think with their d!cks?”
No the headline and even the material of the article pointed to men being stupid.
And low and behold when men say something about it we told we are whining (which in terms of gender there seems to be an odd double standard. depending on which side you’re on one never whines while the other almost only whines).
“but I think we all know that if”
Words commonly said before a racist, sexist, etc generalization. I don’t know that being all female the chances would be lower, but what gives you that idea?
It’s not an unfair generalization to extrapolate on a statistically relevant observation with a clear causal relationship between the predictor and the dependant. Here, let’s try a couple of examples:
I think we all know that if…
-those agents were men instead of women, they would have had less menstrual cycles
-those agents were children instead of adults, they would have needed more nap time
-those agents were donkeys instead of monkeys, they would have needed less bananas
So here’s the observation: men masturbate more, visit more prostitutes, visit more strip clubs, consume more porn and make more rejected sexual advances than women on avg as a population. And the casual link? Male/female testosterone levels exceed 10-to-1 ergo, men have 10 times the desire and 1/10th the availability of willing sexual partners thus we observe more men engaging in more sexual activity without a receptive reciprocal partner.
Think the sexism arises in our attitudes toward these causal differences. Pretending that they don’t exist for example (which has been fashionable for years) means we feel entitled to judge one group by the norms of another group often resulting in undeserved feelings of moral superiority and condemnation by the latter.
Women didn’t commit those indiscretions largely because they weren’t in a position to do them. Couldn’t an argument be made that women are too stupid to hold leadership positions? Women make up over 50% of the vote. Factor in incarceration rates and the denial of the vote to felons in certain areas and that percentage is easily 52, 53%. How dumb would you have to be if you can’t convince your own gender to vote for you?
We know reality is a bit more complicated than that. Misogyny and misandry is not limited to the opposite gender. Men like women are expected to act in a certain way and we all feel societal pressures to conform . How many more indiscretions did not make the paper? Where they stupid for doing it or was the problem getting caught? What about other mistakes like corruption? Sexual indiscretions are stupid, but crimes that bring power and prestige or financial gain are somehow not stupid, because money and power is worth ruining your life for.
As for what the author thinks, sometimes you need to take them at their word.
“But I believe the common denominator, the proximate cause of the irrational behavior, is arrogance; the belief by some powerful men that they can get away with it.”
That statement is not exactly misandric. I’ve also struggled with thoughts about how “balanced” a piece has to be. If we talk about male victims of rape or DV, do we have to mention the female victims? Can’t an article simply be about male victimization? Before everyone chimes in, I am aware of the obligatory though men still perpetrate the majority of lines in those pieces. I’m just asking the question does it have to be in there. Can we have a piece on men’s decisions without including women’s decisions?
She includes Tiger Woods and his myriad mistresses, but I think Tiger was stupid for getting married not for having those affairs. If you need that many women to feel satisfied, just don’t get married. The other question I had was did Bill Clinton actually get impeached? I thought there were hearings, but he wasn’t actually impeached. Can somebody clarify?
“A brilliant man, everyone said about the president, but also one of only two presidents in American history impeached.”
…he was impeached by the house, but not the senate.
Well, President Clinton was impeached, but was eventually acquitted of the two articles of impeachment.
“December 19, 1998: After 13 1/2 hours of debate over two days, the House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment, charging President Clinton with lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice. Clinton vows to fill out his term and appeals for a bipartisan compromise in the Senate.
…
February 12, 1999: President Clinton is acquitted of the two articles of impeachment”
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/clintontimeline.htm
I’ve been looking a little closer at this story and issue. There does seem to be a view, embedded in the CNN story, that only male CEO’s/Politicians are to be used to judge all men – and label all as stupid.
I am not telling tales out of class when I say that Women can and do do stupid things – they also have affairs, illicit liaisons, get involved in sexual harassment of employees and generally do things which are equally stupid! I know of too many who have – in Education – in the Health sector – in the Voluntary sector.
There is a bias that “Frida Ghitis” has failed to address. She keeps looking at CEO’s and males and fails to look at women who hold equivalent positions.
It was even addressed her on GMP – there is a demographic divide where more women hold CEO equivalent positions in the Voluntary/Public Sector than men – and yet “Frida Ghitis’” work has the inherent bias of NOT dealing with that sector. She is a Foreign Affairs Journalist and not even a Business Journalist! Her exposure to sources is biased – and that leads to bias in her writing and the opinions she has expressed.
Of course – given that it is seen as sexists to out a female CEO – Politician – Power Broker who is as Ghitis would put it Stupid is seen as sexist itself – I’m wondering who has the cake and who is eating it as well!
I have also been chatting again with some mates who are journalists (male and fermale) and asked them a simple questions. If you found that the female CEO of a Charity was playing away from home – how would you report it? The answer was “Not At All”.
They openly admitted that media outlets would be more than wary of reporting matters. If she, The CEO, had embezzled Millions or used funds to pay for Trysts with some Brazilian Cabana Boy – that would be news worthy, but just being stupid and risking personal reputation would not be enough!
In fact – even then they would way the damage to the Charity/Organisation against the news story and be very unlikely to report it at all.
NO Media Group wants to be the one that causes a Charity to loose funds and leave the beneficiaries without support. … so if you are a Female CEO in charge of a charity or public sector provider …. you have Carte Blanche to be equally stupid ( as defined by Ghitis ) and no one will bat an eye lid – or make comment in the media.
Now that is what I Call Privilege. P^)
There are some interesting insights as to the Corporate World too – published 2008 in Marie Claire – and I love the bit which reads “If I have to look at this guy every day, why not have it be someone who makes me remember what a schoolgirl crush is?”
IT was clever to make such a comment Off The Record – but it does show that Stupid is not just for men!
hmmm…not convinced. There may be an under reporting bias, but the lack of powerful women caught in compromising positions is surely that women are substantially less inclined to engage in such lascivious behavior to begin with.
There is a recurrent theory on the blogosphere that as women gain more power in society (and men lose it), women will be free to act as badly as men and/or men will lose the privilege of behaving badly. Depending on personal persuasion, opinions differ on what constitutes “normal” but the consensus assumes behaviors will ultimately converge b/c gender is only a social construct after all. It hasn’t happened, and its not going to happen. Women have been ascendant for decades now as men have declined and prostitution, pornography, sexual harassment, ect remain almost exclusively the domain of male lechery with no female equivalent.
Interesting quote
“The very reason the misbehavior is noteworthy is because it deviates from the expected. We expect men to act intelligently, especially intelligent ones. They don’t always do that”
Hmm, since it is common sense that women also behave badly and do stupid things and yet it isn’t noteworthy, does this mean the media EXPECTS women to behave badly and be stupid.
Maybe I’m just quibbling over examples, but the examples she uses are pretty faulty even if she’s using a really broad definition of “sexual dalliances.”
For example, I _suspect_ that DSK is guilty of some sort of inappropriate, even criminal, sexual activity, but has that actually been PROVEN to a degree sufficient to say that he is guilty of sexual stupidity? Being accused of doing something stupid and doing something stupid are not the same thing.
Why are people so stupid as to assume that allegations are true?
I’m still getting over the reference to “biblical times” in a professional, mainstream news organization. That sounds to me like pandering as much as the “men are stupid’ theme. I wonder if the CNN science correspondents talk about Noah’s Ark….