Here's how the Post dealt with another recent controversy, when an online contributor's essay offended some Jewish groups. The contributor lost his job at his home institute and the editors of the section apologized to readers, and then some. And that was apparently an online essay that had not even been edited by someone on the paper's payroll before it went up, as was this piece in the Post's Sunday print section front page. Can the Post Outlook editor promote the slurring of women (in the name of "voice") but not other groups as something that generates lots of discussion? Or can he commission articles to denigrate the intelligence of other racial groups as well in the same spirit of a lively and provocative debate? What's the Post standard on which groups can be legitimately denigrated on which page? Let's watch and find out. I bet the reaction will lean towards "tsk-tsk" in next week's ombudsman column and a hearty self congratulation from the Post to itself about generating such an important discussion about whether women are in fact dumb. At the very least, we can hope a few of the fine Post reporters who actually do journalism will professionally humiliate Outlook editor John Pomfret and whoever else in the chain of command is responsible for this piece internally at the Post in the way they deserve. That there is not already an apology on the Post site is pretty surprising.
It's always problematic to debate the relative pervasiveness and impact of sexism vs. racism vs. homophobia vs. etc..., and I don't think it's simple or useful to construct a hierarchy of problems in these areas, but I do think there's a shockingly high level of acceptable and often unexamined misogyny - often promoted by male editors who love to publish ladies who hate ladies - in our mainstream media.