The Washington Post, Advancing The "Women Are Stupid" Argument Since 1994

Well, "Woman Are Stupid" advocate Charlotte Allen gave an online chat elucidating her little polemic (as well as waxing lyrical over the virtues of Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq War etc. etc. puke hurl) over at the Washington Post today, and we gave them the page view because the Washington Post not so long ago overlooked the fact that women are stupid for long enough to allow two women into the position whereby they won two separate Pulitzers the same year. Here is the highlight:

Anywhere: Hey, Charlotte. Nice tits. Sincerely, a guy.

Charlotte Allen: Hey, Washington Post forum moderators: I thought obscene comments were supposed to be filtered out of this forum? How did this one get in?

Who indeed?! Wait, maybe here's a clue! A tipster tells us a 1994 piece by Washington Post editor Gene Weingarten has seen a sudden surge in traffic. "This thesis will reluctantly examine the painful though inescapable scientific fact that women are stupider than men," it begins.
We make no assertion here that brain mass relates directly to intelligence. As scientists, we must at all costs avoid the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. To argue that women are dumber because their brains are smaller would be no more intellectually valid than asserting that just because someone is 6 feet 7 inches tall he is more likely to be able to dunk a basketball than someone who is 5 feet 3.

So call this one a tossup.

3. Extremely Empirical Data

According to the Educational Testing Service in Princeton, N.J., women, on average, score nearly 50 points below men on the Scholastic Assessment Test, the national college entrance exam.

Some studies point out that once women are in college, their performance is equal to, or even superior to, men's performance. We accept that fact, and applaud it warmly, but we must recognize it for what it is. Unscientific.

Unlike an exam administered anonymously, graded by computer and field-tested over generations to eliminate bias of any sort, performance in school is perforce a manipulable measurement. It is a measure not of raw ability, or of intellectual capacity, but of a mishmash of qualities that include diligence, organization and diplomatic skills. It can be affected by factors as extraneous as one's consumption of fraternity beer, or one's skill at coquettishly elevating one's stockinged thigh in a manner calculated to be pleasing to the professorial eye..

Um, yeah I smell an "inside job" here. And yeah, it's sad that the funnier article on women being stupid was written by a man, but I'm going to go out on a limb and call him a "brilliant outlier." XO, Gene.

Charlotte Allen On Outlook Article, Reaction [Washington Post]
Sex And I.Q.: An Apologia [Washington Post]