I simply asked her to listen to my college radio station tomorrow at 4pm CST because I host a feminism talk show and my co-host and I will be discussing her op-ed.

I couldn't think of anything better to ask her (besides what Ann had already come up with) because, you know, I'm so dim. And my Caclulus class will be starting soon.

Best to not ask her such a mean and complicated question. She won't understand it and it will lead to a emotional breakdown and she'll probably throw her uncountable shoes at you.

I'm really angry that they are giving more time to her, especially after they acknowledge all the angry responses.

This is the question I submitted:

How do you deal with the cognitive dissonance that must result from putting forth an argument that women are so prone to silliness because they just aren't very bright while also expecting your readers to take a woman's point of view (yours) seriously?

Badass. I can't wait for this.

I also feel sick about giving her or WaPo more attention/publicity. That said, I couldn't help myself and submitted the following question:

Subject: What is the barometer for stupidity?

In your column, you use the popularity of books such as "Eat, Pray, Love" and chick lit to make your case for women's collective stupidity. My question is, in relation to whom - all of the men out there reading Proust and Dostoevsky?

Needless to say I'm not holding my breath for a response...

I also feel sick about giving her or WaPo more attention/publicity. That said, I couldn't help myself and submitted the following question:

Subject: What is the barometer for stupidity?

In your column, you use the popularity of books such as "Eat, Pray, Love" and chick lit to make your case for women's collective stupidity. My question is, in relation to whom - all of the men out there reading Proust and Dostoevsky?

Needless to say I'm not holding my breath for a response...

Man, I don't have any questions for Charlotte Allen. My questions are for the WaPo editorial board, all along the lines of 'what the hell are you thinking!?'

stanna - I agree. I don't give a fuck about Charlotte Allen or what she wrote in her dumb column. There are many people like her who will say whatever bigoted nonsense gets them the most attention attention (see also: Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh). What I care about is that a newspaper would print such shit. What standards are there, if any, for the opinion pieces they run?

My question:

Why do you want to reinforce stereotypes about women being less intelligent and more flighty and frivolous than men? Do you WANT to make it even more difficult for women to be taken seriously as professionals?

So I hate that the WaPo is giving this woman more time and more publicity, but I could not resist...

You assert that women should be happy for the skills or intelligences that we have to nurture, and make a house a home, so why is it that you write these articles when it is not where your talents lie? Why try to compete with men when this is a forum which you say they are bound to always exceed the talent of women? Why do you need this outlet? Why have you taken on this job of informing women what they should be or how they lack, when it is obvious that men would do it better and you say that you should be making your house a home?

Ok, so I had a way better prepared question that I sent in earlier today, but in the heat of the chat I just spouted something out and that's my question they went with... I asked if her idea of fun was to paint a horribly inaccurate picture of her sex as stupid. And her answer, well, it's to be expected I suppose.

Watch Charlotte Allen miss the point over and over and over and over...

My (third) letter to the editor:

Over the course of the past few days I have been asked whether I am stupid because of my sex in order to draw in readers to benifit your paper; insulted by the related opinion piece featured prominantly in your paper; insulted again by a sad attempt to make the teaser more palatable; told I have no sense of humor; and now asked to give the originator of all of this insult even more time and consideration through an online chat.

I am absolutely furious that despite literally thousands of angry responses your paper continues to give Charlotte Allen an inordinate amount of authority. It is clear that you do not care to hear the opinions of nearly all women but instead choose to promote sexism. It's no wonder your paper does not have a very large female audience.

"Women aren't a historically oppressed minority! They're half the population or more!"

Just because they aren't a minority, doesn't mean they aren't historically oppressed. Fuck, women got the vote after African Americans. I call not being able to vote being oppressed.

Watch Charlotte Allen miss the point over and over and over and over...

My (third) letter to the editor:

Over the course of the past few days I have been asked whether I am stupid because of my sex in order to draw in readers to benifit your paper; insulted by the related opinion piece featured prominantly in your paper; insulted again by a sad attempt to make the teaser more palatable; told I have no sense of humor; and now asked to give the originator of all of this insult even more time and consideration through an online chat.

I am absolutely furious that despite literally thousands of angry responses your paper continues to give Charlotte Allen an inordinate amount of authority. It is clear that you do not care to hear the opinions of nearly all women but instead choose to promote sexism. It's no wonder your paper does not have a very large female audience.

I'm going to stop pressing refresh on the chat page...I'm going to stop pressing refresh on the chat page. Does anyone else think it's funny that she is saying that her work wasn't satire, she really thinks women do a lot of dumb things. She is digging a deeper and deeper hole for herself, and laughing at us the entire time. I'm done. I have to stop reading her bullshit or I'll go crazy. I can't believe this women gets paid to be this obtuse.

Watch Charlotte Allen miss the point over and over and over and over...

My (third) letter to the editor:

Over the course of the past few days I have been asked whether I am stupid because of my sex in order to draw in readers to benifit your paper; insulted by the related opinion piece featured prominantly in your paper; insulted again by a sad attempt to make the teaser more palatable; told I have no sense of humor; and now asked to give the originator of all of this insult even more time and consideration through an online chat.

I am absolutely furious that despite literally thousands of angry responses your paper continues to give Charlotte Allen an inordinate amount of authority. It is clear that you do not care to hear the opinions of nearly all women but instead choose to promote sexism. It's no wonder your paper does not have a very large female audience.

My comment: (I couldn't help myself...)

Please explain why using the following statement infantilizing women is (1) true or (2) funny.

"Women "are only children of a larger growth," wrote the 18th-century Earl of Chesterfield."

Watch Charlotte Allen miss the point over and over and over and over...

My (third) letter to the editor:

Over the course of the past few days I have been asked whether I am stupid because of my sex in order to draw in readers to benifit your paper; insulted by the related opinion piece featured prominantly in your paper; insulted again by a sad attempt to make the teaser more palatable; told I have no sense of humor; and now asked to give the originator of all of this insult even more time and consideration through an online chat.

I am absolutely furious that despite literally thousands of angry responses your paper continues to give Charlotte Allen an inordinate amount of authority. It is clear that you do not care to hear the opinions of nearly all women but instead choose to promote sexism. It's no wonder your paper does not have a very large female audience.

My question would be, How do you sleep at night?

Though I'm not participating in the chat.

And what's so awful about Eat, Pray, Love? I liked it; it's just a fun, engaging read. I definitely wouldn't consider it "chick lit." And even if it were "chick lit," who cares? Women's "frivilous" interests are always coded as negative while men's are coded as sophisticated necessities (Football, Rambo, video games, Maxim...).

someone just told her she has nice tits...I wonder how she feels about that considering sexism is a myth

This is just depressing. How out of touch can she get? Women aren't restricted anymore because we can go to college now? Girls aren't discouraged from pursuing careers in math and science? Constituting half the population keeps you from being oppressed? "Sure, a lot of women lead tough lives and run themselves ragged--I'm very sympathetic to their plight. But I don't see what that has to do with my article"? And she seriously doesn't know what year women got the vote?!

Unless she fell into a coma in the seventh grade and only woke up a week ago, there is no excuse for her to be this ignorant of the way the world works, and even less for the Washington Post to treat her as if she's got a fucking shred of credibility on any of these issues.

someone just told her she has nice tits...I wonder how she feels about that considering sexism is just pretend (/sarcasm)

I'm sorry! I was trying to refresh and apparently it kept reposting.

Um, holy shit, she actually got my suffrage question. Wasn't really expecting that to make it through the filter. Oh well.

I love how she admitted that it wasn't ironic or satire - just the fact that women are stupid was supposed to be funny. Then she said making fun of men is called feminist humor, which is odd, since I don't make those jokes but I hear some non-feminists make them, which I assume is their way of making themselves feel like sexism doesn't exist. I also find them comparable to the Stuff White People Do blog, which I, a white person, find hilarious, because I know no one is going to oppress me based on stereotypes about white people. Although I think dumb man jokes are probably more likely to do harm than that by reinforcing certain gender stereotypes, I also think a lot of men know deep down that they're not in danger of hitting a glass ceiling because they're a man and people tell dumb guy jokes.

Then she said (again) that Katrina was great for New Orleans because it got people to move and stop living off of welfare, and clearly they're happy about it because they're not all going back to New Orleans, conveniently omitting whether or not there might be anything keeping them from returning to their hometown despite wanting to. So I think I'm done reading Charlotte Allen for a while.

If sexism is a myth, how do people like her, who generalize the intelligence of more than half the human population, exist?

That's the question I would ask, but I REFUSE TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WAPO until the editor in chief publishes a real and satisfactory apology.

As if her article wasn't blatant proof about her disrespect and disdain for women, I found her answers to the onlin Q&A glib and dismissive. She wasn't seeking to explain herself -- as if there could be any explanation --but to spout more hate. I am thoroughly disgusted that WaPo...

...ugh, as I was typing this that horrible Robot Woman Heineken Keg commercial came on TV. I'm sure Charlotte Allen thinks that's all we're good for.

I asked what research she did to come up with the thesis and argument of her article. It didn't get answered.

But then, I'm guessing that the answer would have been, "none."

What I want to say matters little. But mine might be a common enough reaction.

At first, I thought that too much was being made of an obviously worthless article, printed by a paper in a panic about its own future.

Then I changed my mind and thought, no matter how unimportant, this bullshit should be fought . . . "but why give them more publicity".

I have changed my mind since. This and all future bullshit printed by this paper MUST be relentlessly attacked until it stops. Thanks for doing it.

Changing my mind further, I now hope that it doesn't stop. I hope it blows up into something massive, exposing bigger, more appalling prejudices that make these twit pieces possible.

It's sort of exciting to smell blood.

The "why give them more publicity" question is a good one. They've generated a lot of traffic with this stunt, and totally let their readers down by trading journalist standards for some publicity. What we need to do is demand that they fire the editor who put this tripe on the page, if they want to maintain any reputation as a serious news outlet. Charlotte Allen's article:
1. Fails to offer anything other than anecdotal evidence to support her thesis
2. Does not link to the 'studies' she discusses and mis-represents data
3. Makes no attempt to have an honest discussion, and is completely devoid of rational statements
So - the WaPo should never have published the article, it was a HUGE mistake, and they've compounded this mistake by pretending that it was a satire about women's reactions to Obama. Editors should be fired for green lighting an article written by a dishonest broker which misrepresents scientific fact, and for then proving that they can't figure out the topic of a two page article which mentions Obama only briefly but women's supposed 'dimness' repeatedly. This sort of abusive stunt is not OK.