Women and the WaPo
Item 1: The lede paragraph of a review in last Friday's WaPo of a new Chinese-made movie:
- The experience of "House of Flying Daggers" isn't like going to a movie so much as going to a truly superb brothel. That is, pleasure is available in every room, in every configuration, in all possibilities, in polymorphic abandon. It doesn't treat you gently, it ravishes you.
- Dear friends:
I was truly disgusted when I read this lead to a movie review on the front page of today's "Style" section: "The experience of 'House of Flying Daggers' isn't like going to a movie so much as going to a truly superb brothel. That is, pleasure is available in every room, in every configuration, in all possibilities, in polymorphic abandon."
It didn't take a genius to guess that the writer, Stephen Hunter, was a man; and I'm assuming that all the editors who signed off on such a simile must have been men, too?
What on earth were they thinking? That the pages of the WP are a kind of snickery boys' club where the writers and readers-- all of them "guys"-- can sit around together and fantasize about the debasement through prostitution of women, girls (and yes, perhaps, young boys as well)?
How do they imagine the "experience" of "going to" a brothel is for the (overwhelmingly female) people who perforce have to end up working there, providing all that "pleasure" to their male clientele?
Did they stop for a minute to imagine that the paper's women readers might read that simile very differently from a large number of-- but not all-- your male readers? Did they even remember that it's possible that (gasp!) the paper does indeed have quite a few female readers? What on earth kind of a communication where they trying to send to us with this jejune snickering?
Please, "guys", get your act together. Fast. It's bad enough that the WP's op-ed pages are almopst totally dominated by contributions from male writers-- as though the "wisdom" in the human race is concentrated nearly wholly in male heads... But to make the content of the paper actively hostile to female readers, as well? That's going ways too far.
Sincerely,
Helena Cobban
- Dear Ms. Cobban,
Mr. Getler passed along your note to me. Thank you so much for sharing your
opinions on the review written by Stephen Hunter, whose articles I edit. I
can't comment on women's voices in The Post's Op/Ed pages, but where I
work, the Style section, I am one of five female editors out of about 11
editors total. Our newly-appointed department head is also a woman (Deborah
Heard).
That said, I'm not surprised that you, and likely other readers, found that
particular movie review's lead offensive. One person's idea of humor is
often another person's idea of offensive. If we were to remove all the
potentially-offensive sentences from the Style pages, I don't think we
would produce a very provocative, intriguing and relevant section. Of
course, you're welcome to disagree.
I like to hear from readers--the Post is blessed with a varied readership
that likes to talk back to us. I welcome your comments in the future and I
hope you'll keep reading Style.
Best,
Leslie
- Dear Leslie:
Thanks for your letter.
I have no idea how old you are but I can't believe you are so inexperienced that you've never before encountered the "hey, it was just humor" defense of stereotyping hate-speech. Except, of course, that that is never a sustainable defense of such speech. In addition, the article in question was not in the genre of "humor". It was a movie review. The writer was casting around for a simile to express his idea of "available", "polymorphic" "pleasure and he chose the image of "a truly superb brothel". I don't see that he was attempting humor.
But even if he were writing "humor", the "hey, it was just humor" defense for inter-group stereotyping is anyway unsustainable. Let's bring in all those thigh-slapping jokes that link the ideas of "Jews" and "stinginess"! Or "African-Americans" and "laziness"... Or "Polish-Americans" and "being stupid"... Ho, ho, ho!!!
And while we're about it, a joke about "beautiful Asian women" and "brothels". Oh yes, that's a real thigh-slapper, too.
Why don't you and Stephen Hunter just try saying "sorry" for the offense you caused. That might be a good place to start.
Sincerely,
Helena Cobban.
(P.s. Score for women's contributions on today's WaPo Oped page: 0 / 5.)
Here is the link to the whole review
What I find comic is that :
"... it turns out that the "House of Flying Daggers" isn't a brothel (there is a brothel and it's called the House of Peonies, and if you know the address, please e-mail me) but an insurrectionist group, led by women."
Which man isn't afraid of women's power ? the reviewer apparently wasn't able to handle such a threat, not even in a movie and had to make fun of it.
I agree with you that the humour is quite heavy and bad taste. But it's quite difficult to explain that to men and sometimes even to other women, they just don't get it, or don't want to get it.
I find Hunter's simile offensive too and for the same reasons. You wrote a very good letter. Too bad the NYT staff are a bunch of neanderthals.
In the movie, Mei does indeed play a prostitute in a brothel, called the House of Peonies. But the brothel is a cover for the insurrectionist group "House of Flying Daggers," which opposes the corrupt emperor. The Madame and Mei are members of the opposition group and fierce warriors. So the NYT reviewer is not only offensive, but he completely miscasts the movie in his opening sentence. The movie is really about what people are willing to do to oppose a dictatorship. Hmm, it's not as if we aren't learning about that under Bush?
So by this woman's admission, the Style section has almost fifty percent women editors , but the review was written by a guy who thinks women embody polymorphic sexuality. Way to go, Leslie! Maybe if you work real hard at being one of the guys, you'll get to be head of the harem!
Well put Helena. Send your reply quickly.
Both your initial letter and response to "Leslie" are appropriate and good. Perhaps your second letter is a bit condescending but, given the seriousness and importance of the point you are making, not overstated.
To The Washington Post:
I agree with Ms. Cobban’s objections to this review. The reviewer was not attempting humor. In any case, material may be funny, and at the same time the subject can also be inappropriate for humor. What’s next? Dead-fireman jokes? Sincerely - Mike Fahey, NYC
bcc: Helena Cobban
thank you for your sanity. :) i believe both your letters are right on. however, it's tough to fight irrationality (ie, the fear of women) with rational argument. sigh... so, i was hoping to start a (r)evolution ;) cheers and thanks again, desales linton