I guess you can say that Alexandra Petri, a Washington Post writer, was trying to be supportive of women when she penned her absurd article in which she supposedly translates famous quotes into the way they would have to be uttered by a woman who wanted to survive  in the mean old, anti-woman corporate world. In fact, it made us look like fools.

Petri introduces the concept of women's meeting language:

“Woman in a Meeting” is a language of its own.

It should not be, but it is. You will think that you have stated the case simply and effectively, and everyone else will wonder why you were so Terrifyingly Angry. Instead, you have to translate. You start with your thought, then you figure out how to say it as though you were offering a groveling apology for an unspecified error.

Here are some examples of how Ms. Petri thinks a woman would have to say famous quotes:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
Woman in a Meeting: “I’m sorry, it really feels to me like we’re all equal, you know? I just feel really strongly on this.”

“I have not yet begun to fight.”
Woman in a Meeting: “Dave, I’m not going to fight you on this.”

“I will be heard.”
Woman in a Meeting: “Sorry to interrupt. No, go on, Dave. Finish what you had to say.”

What kind of mealy-mouthed women does Ms. Petri associate with?

The Federalist's Mollie Hemingway emitted a "long, exasperated groan" when she read Petri's piece, which portrays women as speaking like "sub-literate teenagers" in meetings. Hemingway defined three problems with the piece. Number one, the piece "comes off as super sexist:"

I always find it fascinating how different the world described by the media is from my own. I know many different women. Some of us have even experienced a bit of sexism here and there. I have never encountered this mealy-mouthed language the media tells me we’re forced into using during meetings.

Yes, women and men tend to communicate differently. Men tend to be more aggressive during conflict, and women tend to be more passive aggressive. Both can be grating and both can serve a purpose.

But where do feminists get the idea that women somehow are forced into speaking like idiots in meetings? Just how bad are Washington Post editorial meetings, you know? I wish feminists could learn how liberating it is to work in environments where you can just speak your mind and, assuming you’re holding to basic standards of respect for your fellow human being, nobody freaks out. From Hollywood to mainstream media, it sounds like there’s some kind of problem where progressive politics ends up really harming women in various ways.

Further, imagine you were a sexist trying to claim that women don’t have the skills to hack it in corporate life. You could have written a piece translating quotes into female-speak, and it would have read much like the actual piece linked above. Look at this example here. Does it seem like something written in defense of women or something that makes you think we’re not cut out for corporate life?

The other two problems: This is not how women talk, and it "conflates the challenges of group dynamics with sexism." Read the whole piece