The Washington Times has a well documented history of racism and incompetence. It's a paper with absolutely no "integrity." A right-wing propaganda rag that is beyond even the most outlandish parodies with the added bonus that it's owned by a convicted felon and cult leader who claims he's the son of God.
Things are looking up for the paper. New Executive Editor John Solomon changed the Times's style guide. No more referring to a United States senator and presidential candidate by her first name. No more scare quotes around "gay marriage." The paper has nowhere to go but up, so it's a start.
The "nowhere to go but up" bit can not be said of The Washington Post. The Post has a pretty good reputation. And it's being squandered on nonsense. If people are going to call out the Times for their racist editors, I think it's about time that the sexist drivel the Post publishes gets its due.
I've spent many, many hours reading, writing, and stalking all things Laura Sessions Stepp. Her anti-feminism and promotion of not reporting rapes have been duly noted by myself, DC blogs like DCist and Wonkette and feminist blogs like Jezebel and Feministing. There's no surprise there.
But the editorial the Post published on Sunday really goes beyond the pale. Its thesis: women are dumber than men. There is no evidence used to back this up. Save for hilarious junk like this:
Depressing as it is, several of the supposed misogynist myths about female inferiority have been proven true. Women really are worse drivers than men, for example. 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.
Um. It's accidents per million miles driven. A ratio. So it does not matter if men drive 74% more miles. Jesus, isn't someone at the Post supposed to check this stuff? And that flawed nonsensical piece of garbage is the only evidence in the entire piece!
The piece then devolves into the female author, Charlotte Allen, claiming that she doesn't know how many pairs of shoes she owns. Ergo, she is another dumb female. Well, let's make one thing clear. Charlotte Allen is a dumb woman. There is no debate there. Everything else in her piece can be easily refuted.
My problem isn't with Allen anyways. It's with the Post. Read that editorial and ask yourself why the Post's editorial staff would decide to publish that piece. It isn't clever. It isn't funny. It isn't accurate. It isn't compelling. It was either done solely for attention (which is inexcusable) or someone at the Post really thinks women are "dim" (also inexcusable).
I buy the Post every weekday. I spend $120 a year on the Post. I can't do it anymore. I just can't buy that paper in good conscience. I will not support an organization that promotes such outdated and misogynistic bullshit.
Both major newspapers in this area are damaged goods. I refuse to support Reverend Moon and I refuse to support sexism. And I refuse to support the Washington City Paper because at the end of the day I prefer some semblance of quality in my reading materials. That leaves me with what...The Examiner? Oy vey.
Looks like I'm spending $240 a year on The New York Times.