Dumb and Dumber

On Tuesday, Moxie Mom made many of us spit out our coffee with the following suggestion:

"In light of the recent Spitzer situation and as a complement to the piece last week, I'd like to see an article in the WaPo about how dumb men are -- doing stuff like this again and again."

The article Moxie mentions is We Scream. We Swoon. How Dumb Can We Get? by Charlotte Allen, a 1,700 word rant on how stupid women are for their enthusiastic support of Obama, which drew howls when it appeared in the Washington Post's Sunday Outlook section. In light of Eliot Spitzer's mea culpa, Moxie's question is well worth discussing.

So, today, let's tackle this: When it comes to blowing opportunities, are men or women dumber? History is littered with the names of men who sacrificed political or professional power, destroyed their families and their self-respect for seemingly fleeting or inexplicable pleasures. Not many women populate the list. Because fewer women are in power to begin with? Or because women are less vulnerable to corruption? What have you seen in your life? Do men blow bigger opportunities more often, or do women? What's the stupidest move you've made to hurt your career or family? Why? What does this say about our culture and our country? Would the ability to resist temptation make women more trustworthy politicians, business leaders, and government officials?

Preview for Monday's column: Top 10 Tips for Managing Household Chaos. Send me your tips on getting errands, repairs and chores checked off so I can include 'em in next week's Top 10.

By Leslie Morgan Steiner |  March 14, 2008; 7:00 AM ET  | Category:  Free-for-All
Previous: Playing Games with Balance | Next: Top 10 Tips for Managing Household Chaos


Add On Balance to Your Site
Keep up with the latest installments of On Balance with an easy-to-use widget. It's simple to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry to On Balance.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



All human beings have weaknesses, and failures, exclusive of gender. Mine is ice cream.

As I remind my spouse, I don't smoke, drink, gamble, do drugs, or chase other women.

Yet I try to improve on my daily mistakes, and failings.

Posted by: chemguy1157 | March 14, 2008 7:28 AM

.....and Spitzer is an idiot:
to bring this shame to his family
to bring any STDs to his spouse
to dishonor his marriage vows
to dishonor his oath of office to uphold the laws of his state

Maybe all would have been forgiven if he had gone directly to rehab.

Posted by: chemguy1157 | March 14, 2008 7:33 AM


1. Lack of opportunity. There are still overwhelmingly more men than women in positions of power.
2. More discretion - women are socialized to be more cautious than men.

If you look at areas where the sexes are even, like the basic relationship level, men and women make bad choices/ cheat on their partners/ generally torpedo the relationship/... pretty evenly.

Or men and women in the entertainment industry...

Posted by: enkafiles | March 14, 2008 7:47 AM

I have done a few dumb things in my life. But I am not dumb enough to list them here!

Posted by: fred | March 14, 2008 7:48 AM

enkafiles

"1. Lack of opportunity. There are still overwhelmingly more men than women in positions of power.
2. More discretion - women are socialized to be more cautious than men."

Neither gender has the upper moral hand. Check out the prisons...

Posted by: chittybangbang | March 14, 2008 7:52 AM

Lack of opportunity. I've seen women in power do just as many dumb things as men; it's just that there are fewer women in public positions/positions of power.

(Okay, I've rarely heard of women having to PAY for it, so that might be one difference.)

Examples:
- in grad school, roughly equal percentages of male and female professors were fooling around with grad students (and in some cases undergrads)
- when I was a Fed, I had a one-year assigned on the staff of a senior exec. I quickly learned that at least half of the senior execs with whom I came in contact were fooling around with a young, attractive member of the appropriate gender, who was generally given a plum position somewhere so that everyone would know this person was a "trophy". That applied to both male and female execs.

Yes, these are "anecdotes" not "data resulting from serious scientific studies" (see yesterday's "On Parenting") but based on my experiences there's little difference between the genders in terms of "doing really dumb things".

In the "hard scientific evidence" area, numerous studies have shown that women's participation in dumb behaviors such as smoking, excessive drinking, drug use/abuse, etc. is not much different from men's.

And like Fred, while I've done some dumb things in my life, I'm not dumb enough to start listing them here. :-)

Posted by: ArmyBrat | March 14, 2008 8:32 AM

"Neither gender has the upper moral hand. Check out the prisons..."
Sarcasm intended?

From the homepage of the Bureau of Justice Statistics:
"On December 31, 2006 -- [...] the number of women under the jurisdiction of State or Federal prison authorities increased 4.5% from yearend 2005, reaching 112,498, and the number of men rose 2.7%, totaling 1,458,363."

That is more than ten men for every woman *in prison* - which indicates that men do more _illegal_ things than women. Are there any statistics showing who does more _immoral_ things?
In my first post, I was giving my best shot at why the crash-and-burns from high positions seem to be predominantly male.

I honestly don't think that either gender is innately more moral or "good" than the other.

Posted by: enkafiles | March 14, 2008 8:41 AM

Maybe it wouldn't have ended up in a big mess had Spitzer's wife been more cooperative in the sack.

Posted by: Mako | March 14, 2008 8:44 AM

uncalled for, Mako! Cheaters will cheat even if (s)he are getting every day at home

I agree with Chitty (WOW!)

Posted by: Radiohead | March 14, 2008 9:01 AM

Mako Mako Mako...talk about blaming the victim! Totally uncalled for....Note that Spitzer never blamed his wife for anything, so neither should you.

Fred, ArmyBrat: I hear your unsaid lists, and raise you one (beer of course...give our TotD)

Posted by: dotted_1 | March 14, 2008 9:04 AM

What makes Spitzer unique isn't his hubris in thinking he wouldn't get caught, or punished, it's his (self-) righteous streak. It's a mile wide and he built a career on it. Any person, male or female, who did the same would have to live a pristine life in order not to take the fall he took this week. The big difference between men and women in this position is that women seem to be raised to understand that hypocricy is punished; the alpha males who enter politics somehow miss this lesson.

As for his wife, she deserves only good things in this life. Whatever the state of her relationship with her husband, no action on her part could have prevented his behavior, and to say otherwise implies that she (and her daughters) deserves the humiliation she's suffered.

Posted by: northgs | March 14, 2008 9:22 AM

Well, it doesn't prove that more men commit crimes. Only that more of them get caught. Or get higher sentences. It doesn't prove anything, really.

Posted by: atlmom1234 | March 14, 2008 10:01 AM

when Leslie's response to a stupid, sexist article proffering a virtual plethora of unsupported and unsupportable assumptions is a column offering a matching list of sexist unsupported and unsupportable questions, ya gotta wonder.

Posted by: anonfornow | March 14, 2008 10:07 AM

"When it comes to blowing opportunities, are men or women dumber?"
Oh, I'd say stupidity is an equal opportunity employer.

BTW, did anyone else besides me catch that the otherwise humor-challenged Charlotte Allen told WaPo Ombudsman Deborah Howell she's working on her doctorate in -- drumroll, please! -- Medieval Studies? The joke possibilities seem nigh on endless. (March 9 column at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702915.html)

Like Chemguy, "I don't smoke, drink, gamble, do drugs, or [fool around]." I likewise suspect we are not alone in our appreciation of fine ice cream (as well as flan).

Posted by: mehitabel | March 14, 2008 10:09 AM

"As I remind my spouse, I don't smoke, drink, gamble, do drugs, or chase other women."

I'm certain she's capable of observing your behavior and drawing this conclusion, if merited, without your reminder.

Posted by: anonfornow | March 14, 2008 10:16 AM

My husband and I are planning on one child - he wants a girl, I want a boy.

When I ask him why he wants a girl, he said it's more that he doesn't want a boy. Because - and this is a man's quote here, let's make that clear...

"Boys do stupid things. And we keep doing stupid things."

That being said, personally, I just can't bring myself to care about the whole Spitzer thing. A high ranking politician had an affair? After years of railing against moral transgressions? Oh, wow...that's just NEVER happened before has it?

I've decided the US Press is like a HS locker room: there are things of real importance that could probably be talked about, but the only topics that are covered with any sincerity are "Who's doing it?" "Who's he doing it with?" "Where are they doing it?" "How often are they doing it?"

Posted by: Chasmosaur1 | March 14, 2008 10:28 AM

Chasmosaur1

"I've decided the US Press is like a HS locker room"

In the US, what ISN'T like High School?

Posted by: chittybangbang | March 14, 2008 10:41 AM

I don't think I got that Charlotte Allen piece. I just assumed she was playing devil's advocate because otherwise the article was too ridiculous to deserve commentary. Was she in fact being serious? If so, the WaPo should send her a one-way ticket to Kansas. She can join a misogynistic, fundamentalist church, marry a wife-beating redneck husband (that's if Larry Sommers isn't willing to follow her to Kansas) and take a job at either the local Wal Mart or Cracker Barrel where she can devote her considerable creative talents to keeping women and gays away from any jobs that involve math or spatial reasoning. In her free time she can begin a crusade teaching men how to knit, crochet, and sew, because obviously women lack the spatial reasoning abilities to either enjoy or successfully compete at any of these activities. I can see her next WaPo piece now... Out of the Way You Stupid Women, Quilting Is a Man's Job!

The abovementioned example being a good case in point, my experience is that women are just as capable of corruption and bad judgement as men, at least when driven by the desire for power and attention. And it takes ambition to get and maintain any position of power, so swapping the gender's of those at the top is not likely to make any difference. I think as a society we need to change the qualities we reward in people, not just the gender of those rewarded.

Posted by: pinkoleander | March 14, 2008 10:42 AM

"What makes Spitzer unique isn't his hubris in thinking he wouldn't get caught, or punished, it's his (self-) righteous streak. It's a mile wide and he built a career on it. Any person, male or female, who did the same would have to live a pristine life in order not to take the fall he took this week. The big difference between men and women in this position is that women seem to be raised to understand that hypocricy is punished; the alpha males who enter politics somehow miss this lesson"

I agree with this paragraph wholeheartedly but, unfortunately, Spritzer is not UNIQUE. Plenty of politicians have a self righteous streak. On both sides of the isle.

Posted by: tsm | March 14, 2008 10:52 AM

chittybangbang:

Good point.

Posted by: Chasmosaur1 | March 14, 2008 10:55 AM

"I think as a society we need to change the qualities we reward in people, not just the gender of those rewarded."

Ding ding ding ding!! My husband's frequently-professed philosophy is that anyone who actually wants a political office is, by definition, unqualified to hold it.

Posted by: laura33 | March 14, 2008 11:00 AM

Pink, now THAT was funny! (Unlike Charlotte Allen).

Chasmo, I think you raise an important distinction, namely that there are two aspects to the Spitzer story. One is the sexual one, which we can all understand. The other is that the case came to light during an investigation of his suspect-looking money transfers which, allegedly for all the investigators knew, could have signaled more serious crimes -- and supposedly they had no idea it would lead to a prostitution ring.

The irony is that apparently Spitzer had been involved in making the grounds for investigating fishy-looking money transfers easier. Spitzer was trying to conceal his transfer totals by dividing them into smaller portions, but the investigating software "bundles" these up in order to recognize what may be in fact disguised larger transfers. As the saying goes, the cover-up can be worse than the original wrong-doing.

Posted by: mehitabel | March 14, 2008 11:07 AM

Hmmm, how about instead we accept that good and bad qualities are pretty evenly distributed throughout the population - whether you slice it by sex, race, religious inclinations, political views, or whatever other construct you want to use to try to stir up controversy? While stupidity, inability to control self-destructive impulses, and other tawdry characteristics may manifest themselves differently in different groups, every groups got 'em.

Posted by: LizaBean | March 14, 2008 11:32 AM

Leslie, thanks for the nod! My vote is that men are dumber simply because no woman's last words have ever been "Hey guys, watch this!"

Posted by: moxiemom1 | March 14, 2008 11:41 AM

While Spitzer's carelessness and stupidity in this matter is extremely surprising, the facet of this sort of controversy which most saddens me (as a person far, far outside any possible conception of the "mainstream") is that it forces into full view that underlying assumption which people have: that the desire for, and pursuit of, sexual pleasure is dirty or dishonourable. Such a view is so counter to my morality, and is so at-odds with my lifelong experience, that it can strike me only as warped, disturbing, and even frightening.

This is not a subject to be coy about, so I'll lay it right the heck out there: sexual pleasure is the greatest thing that life has to offer.

Notice, please, that I say "sexual pleasure", and not necessarily "sex" -- it is possible to get sexual pleasure from things other than sexual acts; and it is certainly possible to have sex without enjoying it. Still "sex is good" is a fine encapsulation of this concept.

So, with that clarification in place, this is what we seem to have: the large-scale denial of the self-evident beauty of sexual pleasure. The greatest thing in life is viewed, not as a source of joy, but, instead, as a source of shame. A greater absurdity is hard to imagine.

This constitutes is a tragedy both for individuals and for society. The obvious harm to individuals is their being pressured to forego these irreplaceable pleasures, and the peace and happiness which they bring. Of course, this pressure will simply be sneered at and ignored by any person who is independent-minded and sexually-liberated (too bad if the term sounds "dated"; the need for liberation on this question is still most apparant); a person who has confined himself or herself to society's "mainstream" has no such option.

The tragedy for society is that this anti-sex view becomes enshrined in custom and (even worse) in law, thereby foreclosing the possibility of any fundamental change in the direction of liberation. It is impossible to overstate the damage that this continues to do socity: all the evils associated with gender roles (male dominantion, domestic violence, child sexual abuse, the "good girls" - "bad girls" concept, even the mommy wars, etc.) stem from this backward worldview.

In point of fact, sexual pleasure is an essential part of a full human life; and all people are entitled by birthright to the transcendent wonder of sexual pleasure.

So, I suppose that I sidestep the question "are men or women stupider?", and just lament the larger societal stupidity. The powerfully depressing fact is that the simple, basic truth that "sex is good" is still, and probably will forever be, a radical notion.

Posted by: cesarano | March 14, 2008 11:53 AM

cesarano, how many of us have ever said "sex is bad". I don't think I ever have, and I doubt many others who post here regularly have either.

Sex is good - but within context.

Posted by: ArmyBrat | March 14, 2008 12:02 PM

cesarano

"I'll lay it right the heck out there: sexual pleasure is the greatest thing that life has to offer."

Huh? Again with the High School mentality?

Posted by: chittybangbang | March 14, 2008 12:04 PM

cesarano, I have to disagree with your assessment that the Spitzer issue derives from an innate societal belief that sex is bad. Well, ok, I can't speak for society as a whole; maybe it does. But for me, it's really not about sex -- he could have had sex with his wife as much and as often as he wanted, for all I care, and more power to him. Enjoying sex, and breaking a vow to your wife to enjoy sex outside of your marriage, are two completely different things.

But for me, that's not even the real problem. I think adultery is mostly a private matter; it sheds light on his character, but doesn't necessarily disqualify him from office. I think our society tends to put far too much emphasis on those kind of problems.

The problem for me is the hypocrisy and illegality. Yeah, I know, hypocritical politicians, what a shock. But this is a guy who zealously cracked down on prostitution, all the while breaking the very same law he purported to be upholding.

Look, I'm a lawyer, so I probably have some silly ideals about the legal system that most rational people don't. But I think it's important that that system have some moral integrity. And when politicians spend their days throwing $20 hookers in jail, then spend their nights consorting with $2,000 hookers, it undermines any sense of justice or integrity in the system. Personally, I think criminalizing prostitution is remarkably stupid. But if you're going to make a career out of enforcing a stupid law, you gotta have the integrity to live by that law yourself.

Posted by: laura33 | March 14, 2008 12:14 PM

"when Leslie's response to a stupid, sexist article proffering a virtual plethora of unsupported and unsupportable assumptions is a column offering a matching list of sexist unsupported and unsupportable questions, ya gotta wonder.

Posted by: anonfornow | March 14, 2008 10:07 AM"

I was initially intrigued by the topic until I saw how it managed to be steered right into the same ditch as the Outlook piece. This does make me wonder...why I haven't learned to ignore those false signs of critical thinking and bypass "On 'Balance'" altogether by now.

Posted by: MaxH | March 14, 2008 12:30 PM

Well, for a totally unscientific perspective, the majority of nominees and "winners" of the Darwin Awards are men.

That's not to say women can't be stupid, arrogant or a combination of both. Maybe there's simply been less press.

Posted by: maryland_mother | March 14, 2008 12:39 PM

I think there are fewer scandals about "corrupt" women leaders because there are fewer women in positions of power. I work in a profession that is predominantly male, and the few women who do work in my company overcompensate in their performance and their behavior, struggling to achieve a socially acceptable balance between "competent" and "nice." I wonder whether female politicians do the same thing.
I have compassion for Elliot Spitzer, for his wife, and for his mistress. I think it's simplistic to generalize about "cheaters," to write off his behavior as the amoral antics of a powerful person who feels entitled, or to blame his wife's lack of sexual interest (!).
I am not speaking hypothetically. I had an affair with a colleague 18 months ago, during a very rough time in my marriage and professional life (I had relocated for my spouse's job and given up a lucrative position and a considerable support network). While I assume full responsibility for my choices (both the affair and the move), I also think multiple factors contributed to the dynamic as a whole. Namely, the tacit expectation that women will step aside for men, ignoring their own needs, obscuring their identity and sacrificing their personal power for "the greater good" as defined by a society that is still very sexist. I know how things felt in my parochial world--I can't imagine life in the political arena.
I resigned after the news of our affair leaked, but the man with whom I was involved is still employed at my former company. We were peers, and he'd had (I later learned) multiple affairs with married women. Yet, according to my (male) supervisor, I was the target of most of the criticism from management.


Posted by: luz.lux1 | March 14, 2008 12:39 PM

Personally, I would say that sex itself is neutral, and as ArmyBrat noted, it's all about context. Sex between two loving individuals can be wonderful, intimate, the best thing on earth, etc etc. Non-consensual or coerced sex, on the other hand, is a terrible and damaging thing. And then there's all the grey in between.

Posted by: LizaBean | March 14, 2008 12:47 PM

With apologies to the fine gentlemen posting here, who I'm sure are exceptions.

Robin Williams condemns the male gender as dumber with the joke, "Two heads, but only enough blood to operate one at a time."

I've seen it demonstrated over and over. The little head below the belt wakes up, and the one above the shoulders stops working, and a man does something incredibly stupid, which he deeply regrets afterwards, but somehow he doesn't learn, and he repeats and repeats the stupidity.

Yes, I know women have done the same. But in my experience, it's a common occurance for men, and pretty rare for women.

I also don't think it's right, or fair to blame men. I think it's biological. For our ancestors tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago, the male who got around to the most females produced the most offspring. And his sons who were most promiscuous in turn fathered more of the next generation.

This doesn't mean that I'll tolerate DH running around on me. If he's getting all hound dog, I'll roll up my newspaper and whack him on the nose. Repeatedly if necessary. That tends to wake up the brain. Then, once he's *thinking*, again, he'll figure out on his own how to manage his behavior. But my responsibility in this partnership is to pay attention to when his brain appears to have stopped functioning and to restart it.

Posted by: sue | March 14, 2008 1:25 PM

Chas -

You (or rather, your husband, my new favorite man) get quote of the day:

"Boys do stupid things. And we keep doing stupid things."

I have nothing to say that can top that. Thank you, Mr. Chas.

Posted by: leslie4 | March 14, 2008 1:27 PM

There was a rather interesting study done not too long ago on power and inhibition that suggests power decreases inhibition. So I suspect the answer to the stupidity issue is less a matter of innate gender differences and more a matter of who is given power in our society.

Posted by: anne.saunders | March 14, 2008 2:40 PM

" more a matter of who is given power in our society."

I just want to quibble over one little word.

Power isn't usually given. It's taken or earned, but rarely given.

Posted by: maryland_mother | March 14, 2008 3:05 PM

Army Brat: "Sex is good - but within context."
LizaBean: "Non-consensual or coerced sex, on the other hand, is a terrible and damaging thing."

Yes, of course. Good point! I should have been clearer about that.


ChittyBangBang: "Huh? Again with the High School mentality?"

I expressed a kind of reverence for sexual pleasure. While I don't know what high school you went to, I can tell you that the guys at my school (in the late 70s and early 80s) tended to talk of their sex lives in terms of predation and conquest, and for reasons of pure status. They were certainly not talking about having been enthralled by passion, or about having a sense of joy in their sensuality.

Furthermore, no guy I ever met in my high school even understood these concepts. Which I found out on several occasions by trying to "talk about sex" with them.

So, clearly, what I expressed was not the equivalent of the kind of attitude towards sex that a high school kid (in my day or before or after) would have. Rather, the kind of demeaning sex talk that tends to take place in such settings is a symptom of the problem that I tried to identify and attack! The typical high school kid talking about "sex" is fully immersed in the poisonous cultural mainstream, and completely buys into the gender roles and especially into the "good girl - bad girl" type of thinking.


Laura: "But for me, it's really not about sex -- he could have had sex with his wife as much and as often as he wanted, for all I care, and more power to him. Enjoying sex, and breaking a vow to your wife to enjoy sex outside of your marriage, are two completely different things."

Yes those are two different things. But, then, this describes a problem with the institution of marriage, not with the act of pursuing sexual pleasure. Marriage is, on that basis, a rather inhumane societal construct, based as it is upon exclusive sex rights.

(Full disclosure: I was married for about a year, more than 10 years ago. But, thankfully I realised my error before any real harm was done, and got out. Both of us are much happier now. (Yes, we keep in touch.) Also, I resolved from that misstep never to compromise again on such important matters. So, I gained something good from that experience.)

Furthermore, a marriage or any other so-called "relationship" in which sexual pleasure is totally absent is, by definition, a failed relationship, worthy of being ended. So, one might logically ask, why didn't this guy just leave his marriage? But, we then run into the fetishisation (if you will) of this institution, wherein the very act of leaving a marriage will hurt a politician. So, one branch of this sort of evil nourishes the other.


Laura: "The problem for me is the hypocrisy and illegality. Yeah, I know, hypocritical politicians, what a shock. But this is a guy who zealously cracked down on prostitution, all the while breaking the very same law he purported to be upholding."

I agree with that, for sure. I should have put some acknowledgement of this point in my original post.


Laura: "Look, I'm a lawyer, so I probably have some silly ideals about the legal system that most rational people don't. But I think it's important that that system have some moral integrity. And when politicians spend their days throwing $20 hookers in jail, then spend their nights consorting with $2,000 hookers, it undermines any sense of justice or integrity in the system."

Well, you are really on a roll now. I also work in the legal field, and so I agree that this sort of thing robs the system of integrity. But...


Laura: "I think criminalizing prostitution is remarkably stupid. But if you're going to make a career out of enforcing a stupid law, you gotta have the integrity to live by that law yourself."

...there's the answer. The solution (in any country or society, not just in this one) is to not have laws that conflict so fundamentally with healthy human needs.

But, before we get rid of these and other silly laws, we'd first have to have some kind of cultural sea change, wherein sexual liberation becomes the norm.

How soon do I expect something like that to occur? Well, sadly, never.

Ferdinand Cesarano


Posted by: cesarano | March 14, 2008 4:06 PM

"Power isn't usually given. It's taken or earned, but rarely given."

Right, and also abdicated when it is convenient, so that women can take the blame for their supposed powerlessness to keep it in their shorts. Because, with regard only to sex (and not any other area that requires analytical, logical thinking or impulse control), men are apparently so powerless that it must fall to their wives to police their behavior on the one hand (per the evolutionary psychologists), but "make him feel like a man, to make him feel like a success, to make him feel like her hero" (per the inestimable Dr. Laura) on the other. How nice to be assumed to have full use of your faculties in every aspect of life except this one, where it can be expected that women will happily take the fall for you.

Posted by: LizaBean | March 14, 2008 4:15 PM

I wonder how many diamonds Mrs. Spitzer is getting now that the "Luv Gov" had his diamond girl!

Posted by: nonamehere | March 14, 2008 5:05 PM

Cesarano, I have not problem with your high esteem for sexual pleasure, but Laura is right on this one. It's integrity not sexuality that is the issue here. Spitzer made a career for himself prosecuting prostitution rings, among other more troublesome vices. It's simple hyprocrisy to send others to jail for the something that you are a willing an eager participant in. It's juvenile, hypocritical, and sad. I also strongly doubt that Spitzer's motivation for seeking prostitutes was a simple need for pleasure. If you're hungry you can always go grab a Big Mac. You might prefer a four course meal at a five star restaurant, but McDonalds will do to satisfy the basic physical need. Masturbation is not a whole lot different than settling for McDonalds, the basic physical needs get met. Your ego, need to be adored, need to feel powerful, etc, might still require the five star restaurant or the expensive call girl, at which point it about getting emotional not physical needs met. And some people's emotional needs just never, ever, ever, seem to be satisfied. At which point you might think of calling a therapist, not your friendly neighborhood call girl...

Posted by: pinkoleander | March 14, 2008 5:16 PM

I don't think women are less vulnerable to corruption. As more women gain power positions, I think they'll "bust the glass ceiling on stupidity."

However, I don't think women -- no matter how much power they get -- will have the same susceptibility to something like a prostitution ring as men do.

Posted by: gchen | March 17, 2008 12:29 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company