On take on the issue:

Au Contraire Mon Frere

Ezra is just now noticing that people just make shit up in regards to editorials? There are some really corrupt aspects of his profession, and he should probably start being more honest with himself about them.

Fine, but haven't the brave Washington Post editors struck another blow against the damned liberal Competence Mafia.

You guys are always "quality work this" and "basic intellectual standards" that.

Why don't you just admit you got something against people who favor sh*tty work and crappy arguments?

No wonder the Post has to throw cold water in your face by showing you that crazy and stupid and lazy people have opinions too!!!

[i]A study published in 1998 by the Johns Hopkins schools of medicine and public health revealed that women clocked 5.7 auto accidents per million miles driven, in contrast to men's 5.1, even though men drive about 74 percent more miles a year than women.[/i]

This was my favorite part about the article. That she felt the first statistic was bolstered by the second even though the first was a rate and completely independent of the second.

It really is pretty shameful that the Post would publish something which shows such basic stupidity like this. Calling this shoddy journalism is a huge understatement.

Matt brings up the very passage I want to discuss. According to the Hopkins study, women have 0.6 more accidents per _million_ miles driven, and men drive 74% more miles per year. She finds this evidence damning, but my experience with the world tells me that practice generally improves skill. The women in this study had slightly more accidents with _dramatically_ less practice. No study of accident frequency which doesn't control for the amount of driving the subjects do can possibly be meaningful, especially when the accident rates are so close together. If driving skill is a function of practice, which seems pretty likely, it's completely unreasonable and irresponsible to use it as a measure of intelligence.

This is possibly the worst op-ed I've ever seen, but it generated one of the funniest comment threads over at Wonkete in internet history!

You say this about the Post:

So instead, I'll say this: They should be ashamed of publishing an article of such poor quality.

This is just what the Post op-ed page does. It publishes low quality work by non-experts called "pundits."

Don't turn into one yourself. that would be a shame.

Ezra, I think you mean that Charlotte Allen is a provocateuse.

Anti-feminist? Not sure what that means.

Is that like calling you and Matt anti-semites because you disagree with AIPAC?

Is that like calling Barack Obama an anti-Democrat because he endorsed Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont?

Most, actual, intellectual movements do not call people that disagree "anti-".

Modern Feminism loves to call anyone that dissents with them in any manner anti-feminists, and anti-woman, and misogynists.

Fuck you Ezra for being stupid enough to fall for propaganda and not speak out against it.

Would've been great if they'd published it April 1.

"Anti-feminist," as it applies to her, means that she opposes the idea that women are people. Sounds about right.

I'll agree with her that she's mentally deficient; where I come from, that means you don't get to speak for your entire gender.

I removed that paper from my read feeder long ago.

Matt, I think you're being too nice. The next part, that women get in far fewer fatal accidents out of the accidents they have, is a big big deal. It's why my sister gets cheaper car insurance than I do. The insurance markets have spoken and men are worse (in terms of damage caused) drivers.

So I read that op-ed by Charlotte Allen, but I had just assumed it was all totally sarcastic, and not to be taken seriously. I mean, I just assumed it was snark until I started seeing it being mentioned here, in the Huffington Post... all over the place. I thought it was the kind of satire that is borderline realistic so people can't quite tell... Am I wrong--is this person SERIOUS?

- Most, actual, intellectual movements do not call people that disagree "anti-".-

I left in your "intellectual" punctuation.

Modern feminism is not an intellectual movement; for many, it is survival.

Well, semites are a group of people. Feminism is an ideology. People who disagree with it could probably be called 'anti-feminist'. The real problem is when certain feminists start labeling any critique of their beliefs as 'anti-'.

Some of them simply refuse to see the massive amounts of classism and racism within their movement. Even when these flaws are pointed out by other feminists. At this point, feminism is about little more than putting rich white women on equal footing with rich white men.

Soullite, I largely agree. But people understand that Matt and Ezra are Jews, but they are called self-loathing Jews and anti-semites because they disagree with AIPAC. That's an intellectual disagreement, and it's bogus to assert either of these two are anti-semites.

Similarly, as you note, the common thing for a Modern Feminist to do is to call anyone that disagrees with her a misogynist or anti-feminist.

Take a look at Daphne Patai, Christina Hoff Sommers, even Cathy Young. These women (and others) have spent the vast majority of their careers discussing women's issues and gender issues and yes, it is true, they disagree with some aspects of Modern Feminism.

But no one can credibly assert they are anti-woman, or even anti-feminist, they just have disagreements with some but not all of the goals and tactics.

Yet Ezra and many knee-jerk liberals are happy to go along with calling these women "anti-feminists" when the truth is, all of these women have done far more to advance women and gender issues, and have thought far more deeply about the issues than our twinky hardballin 24 year old putative liberal Ezra Klein.

Which makes Ezra a fucktard and a wanker and basically a trendoit dipshit.

买不锈钢管,找双森不锈钢管公司,信誉好,不锈钢管品种齐全,不锈钢管销售热线:0576-82521580