Still say this is crap. WaPo is trying to dodge accountability by setting up Charlotte Allen as a strawman. (See also: today's fake rebuttal www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030501942.html)
Still doesn't explain why they printed the bullshit in the first place. I refuse to accept that someone denouncing my intelligence by virtue of my gender is a valid 'opinion' deserving of ink.

I'm with you Stanna. What was in it for them to print this stuff?

I don't know, but I have no desire to give her any of my time.

Oh screw Allen AND WaPo. They've both gotten enough attention out of this as it is.
Cancel your WaPo subscriptions and delete them from your bookmarks, newsfeeds, whatever and leave Charlotte Allen to sit over there in self-loathing, pathetic silence.

BTW, you REALLY need to upgrade this site. It takes about 5 minutes to load a page here.

Her responses to some of the questions are almost as offensive as the "article" itself. Just when I thought I was going to lose my lunch though, I came across this gem and it made it all worth it:

Anywhere: Hey, Charlotte. Nice tits. Sincerely, a guy.
Charlotte Allen: Hey, Washington Post forum moderators: I thought obscene comments were supposed to be filtered out of this forum? How did this one get in?

Maybe it's wrong on my part, but I can't stop laughing...

I'm sorry about the load time, folks. We're working on it...

Her responses to some of the questions are almost as offensive as the "article" itself. Just when I thought I was going to lose my lunch though, I came across this gem and it made it all worth it:

Anywhere: Hey, Charlotte. Nice tits. Sincerely, a guy.
Charlotte Allen: Hey, Washington Post forum moderators: I thought obscene comments were supposed to be filtered out of this forum? How did this one get in?

Maybe it's wrong on my part, but I can't stop laughing...

Well, she answered about 5 questions and left. Man she really gave her best didn't she...

Still say this is crap. WaPo is trying to dodge accountability by setting up Charlotte Allen as a strawman. (See also: today's fake rebuttal www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030501942.html)
Still doesn't explain why they printed the bullshit in the first place. I refuse to accept that someone denouncing my intelligence by virtue of my gender is a valid 'opinion' deserving of ink.

Am I the only one confused by her last answer? I guess technically, if we're talking numbers, women aren't a "minority". But the fact that we only got the right to vote in 1921 and Roe v. Wade in the 70s means that for MOST OF HISTORY we have been oppressed.

FYI to Charlotte,
Rape as a capitol crime doesn't make women any more protected against rape.
The very fact there has to be a law against it, or that the word "rape" made it into the vernacular (in ANY civilization) means men have been abusing and subjugating women for a loooooooooooooong time.

you know, tangotulip, i couldn't stop laughing at that question, either.

too bad obscene comments aren't filtered out of every woman's life.

"Caitlin Gibson, legal administrator for The Post"

interesting

and weak

We deserve an apology from the editor in chief.

Sophia, mizz.rush -- exactly. The poor woman thinks that Congress passes a law and suddenly, *poof*, no social problems! For somebody who claims her opposition of the ERA is based in wanting to reserve more power for the states, she sure sets a lot of store by the federal government's magical powers. Someone should introduce her to the American South, circa 1880. And 1900. And 1920. And '40. And '60.

I bet if you brought up anti-micegination laws Charlotte would argue the government was working to protect women from black men, as well.

My head a-splode.

It's so sad to me that mainstream media only caters to the privileged.

I wonder if maybe she's a result of a rift in the space-time continuum? She's at the level of consciousness of a social scientist from the (very) early 20th century: women are hysterical and poor people are lazy. It's too bad that she had to 23 skidoo early from the interview.

Would someone tell this women that the reason many low-income residents haven't returned to New Orleans is because their houses haven't been rebuilt, b/c the city is specifically not having relief efforts work there b/c it's such a high-risk area for flooding anyway? So a lot of them are /homeless/...

Gee -- I didn't realized that Staford had a Hegemony major...

Gee -- I didn't realized that Staford had a Hegemony major...

Gee -- I didn't realized that Stanford had a Hegemony major...

Her responses spin me right round.

"Minority? Not when I last counted"
I guess we're choosing to ignore the oppressed part.

"Rape was a capital crime under Roman law"
Wasn't the husband or father of the violated woman the legal victim of the crime? You know as in rape was considered to be a crime against a woman's owner, not the woman herself.

"'As for control over our bodies'" I guess you mean abortion"

No we really do mean control over our bodies. As in the right to use them in whatever way we as individuals see fit as opposed to being bought, traded, and sold as sexually objectified commodities. We also mean the right to the reproductive medicine that allows us to prevent unwanted pregnancy and therefore, abortion. And hey, while I'm at it, yes I think women should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to carry any pregnancy to term, as in they should have the autonomy to control the body they live in.

So Ms. Allen considers Roe v. Wade too far back to be considered "historical". I guess African-Americans aren't historically oppressed either, since the civil rights movement was all the way back in the 1960's.

Reading her responses on the open forum is the same as reading the editorial. This woman has a viciousness to her personality that seems borderline sociopathic (and disgusting) to me.

She's just attention mongering now.

stanna - absolutely. The question at the end of the rebuttal shouldn't be "why on Earth did she write this?" but "why on earth did we publish this".

And the sad thing is, I and a lot of women I've spoken to wouldn't be half as pissed off (and unlikely to ever buy WaPo again) as we are now if they had just issued an honest and prompt apology. Hell, even issuing an honest apology *now* would go some way to helping.

I love this comment session. It clearly indicates how broken her logic skills are. My husband is teaching a logic course this semester and came home last night with a splitting headache after trying to explain to a particular student that "Well, it's my opinion" is not an argument.

"I don't think women are excluded..." or "I don't think women are discouraged.." is not an argument.

nerdalert: I wonder if maybe she's a result of a rift in the space-time continuum? She's at the level of consciousness of a social scientist from the (very) early 20th century...

Ooh, ooh! Can we get a certain pansexual BBC superhero to send her back?! 'Cause that would make me feel so much better. *forces self back to reality* Dammit.

If we can get a hold of that certain pansexual BBC hero, then I have plenty of things I want him to do, and "get rid of Charlotte Allen" will simply have to wait until the next morning. Or, you know, the next week.

So as much fun as this was, which I think it was very fun because her answers were SO BAD, I think this has got to be the lamest possible way for WaPo to respond to hundreds of letters angry about blatant outright sexism. It was just another means for her to defend herself. They publish about 2 sentences of maybe five of the hundreds of letters, but allow her a full-scale response to questions to defend herself. What the hell?! Can't they just apologize?! Apparently they feel NO remorse and continue to support this bull.

I like how she contradicts herself by saying "I don't think women are excluded" in male-dominated fields, but earlier pulled a Larry Summers and said that "the proportion of women at the highest levels of those fields is going to remain relatively small, I predict." So, are women excluded or not?

I think she shows her true feelings here:

West Lafayette, Ind.: Your idea of fun is to paint a (horribly inaccurate) picture of your sex as stupid?

Charlotte Allen: How about an accurate picture?

Wow, my question also made it in and she pretty much mangled it as apparently only she could --

"New York: Am I a man? Charlotte, I have never once watched "Grey's Anatomy." I eat at the stove with the shades drawn. Why are you bringing my femininity into question?

Charlotte Allen: I dunno--what sex are you?"

"And when did women get the right to vote? -- 1921? 1923?"

OMGz SERIOUSLY Charlotte Allen??
Seriously?

mizz.rush,

Do you seriously think criminalizing behavior and imposing severe penalties for it provides no protection at all?

You're on firmer ground, though, when you point out the significance of having a separate word for rape. But I should hope rape would be illegal even in societies with no distinct word for it.

Ooh, ooh! Can we get a certain pansexual BBC superhero to send her back?! 'Cause that would make me feel so much better. *forces self back to reality* Dammit.

Better idea: Have Captain Jack feed her to his pet pterodactyl....

Hey Benquo,

When I read Charlotte's response, I interpreted it personally as her claiming that having a law against rape makes it disappear completely from society.
What I meant by my comment was basically that having a law in place doesn't mean rape itself disappears automatically. Sorry for the confusion there =)

Why the WaPo publishes stories like this -

The conventional theory is that the WaPo and other papers publish articles like this so that they generate traffic, but that is only part of the story. If they wanted to generate high traffic, there are other stories that would generate much higher traffic than these - stories that deny the holocaust, or stories that claim the inferiority of blacks. The problem with publishing stories like that, though, is that it is no longer socially acceptable to do so. They would lose the approval of their peers, they would be ostracized and shunned by the Pulitzer Committee and other prestigious award committees. Claiming those stories are "tongue in cheek" or meant to be provocative would serve only to make the condemnation of their peers even more severe. There would be boycotts, the stock price would fall and those responsible would be fired. In other words, there would be consequences for publishing such articles.

Unfortunately, there are no consequences for promoting cruel stereotypes of women. No boycotts have been called, no national outrage, no relentless pursuit by the media, no Larry King interviews, no talk show coverage. In fact, the severest criticism is that the articles were "silly" or "absurd" and not fitting for "august publications" and nothing more than a trick of the trade to promote traffic and interest. And what's sad, is that women accept this and they accept it because they don't want to be characterized as "scolds" or "bitchy" or "unable to take a joke". We don't want to be seen as the too serious bad sports who can't appreciate a fun, tongue in cheek, provocative article. The editor isn't sorry that he promoted a hatefilled, meanspirited political agenda meant to humiliate and degrade women, he's sorry we had our feelings hurt. He's not even sorry that he hurt women, he's just sorry that we had our feelings hurt. Now the fault is no longer his, it is ours - we allowed it to hurt our feelings.

I don't want an apology. They won't mean it, and it won't fix it. What I want them to do is to stop using women to generate traffic, to provoke readers, to stir up interest in them for them. I want them to understand why it's wrong, why it's hurtful and why it is harmful to women and society to promote hateful and hatefilled diatribes - that it is as wrong to promote these kinds of stories as it is to promote any kind of hateful and wrong stereotypes - that it causes material harm to those who are the target. Above all, I want women to understand the seriousness of this, that we're not only not going forward, we're going backward, and I want them to demand real consequences from their peers and the media. It's the only way it will stop.

it's too bad we can't break the time/space continuum. but, I have to say, EG: I WILL RACE YOU.

it's actually too bad: I read an interview with John Barrowman, and ufortunately, he is in no way bisexual. in fact, it seems, he looks down on bisexuality. damn. I think he'd be on my "free list".

"And what's sad, is that women accept this and they accept it because they don't want to be characterized as "scolds" or "bitchy" or "unable to take a joke". We don't want to be seen as the too serious bad sports who can't appreciate a fun, tongue in cheek, provocative article."

Well, in this case, this is not true. Rather the WaPo just silenced all the outraged readers. Out of hundreds of angry letters, they maybe published about 7 or 8 sentences. They gave a full forum for Allen to defend her nasty article, but picked and choosed only a select few questions for her to answer, and she only took a stab at it for an hour. We don't even get to SEE what all of the questions were. I know for me, I sent in about 5 questions in that time, and I was really monitoring my speech so I could make a point, but not sound too bold so maybe they'd chose to put it through. WaPo is very obviously silencing this mass outcry of public outrage.

I'm still waiting for an apology from the WaPo. I read Allen's chat this afternoon and found her responses as disturbing as her article. She sounds like an unhappy person.

"Reading her responses on the open forum is the same as reading the editorial. This woman has a viciousness to her personality that seems borderline sociopathic (and disgusting) to me."

sociopathic is right. This woman scares me.

I believe it was 1920 Charlotte! Get a clue!

You're right BevD, that's exactly what I'm afraid of and why I'm so pissed off. I emailed copies of the article to at least 20 women I know, and only 3 actually cared enough to respond, just to me. That silence, seemingly driven by an unwillingness to appear 'uncool' really disturbs me.

When I read Charlotte's response, I interpreted it personally as her claiming that having a law against rape makes it disappear completely from society.

The right seems to think the same thing about anti-abortion laws -- just make it illegal, and it should magically disappear; if it doesn't (which of course it won't), well, just don't worry your pretty little head about it.

So...we got the vote 150 years after the nation was founded? And there's a law against rape? And a Supreme Court decision a whopping 35 years ago? Oh joy of joys, there are no problems at all!

Oy. First of all, women should have had the vote from day one. If that wasn't possible, we should have gotten it when the emancipated slaves got it (14th amendment? 15th?). We were the last group to get it. And almost all of the women who started fighting for it were dead long beforehand.

And, ooooh, a law against rape! Now it's never going to happen! I think I'm going to wait until 2 AM, put on my iPod, and walk through the back alleys of a dangerous neighborhood. You know, because making it illegal means it'll never happen!

And do I really have to say anything about R v. W?

Stanna--

I don't like the implication that because I didn't write, I clearly don't care about feministing, or am scared of looking uncool. I am constantly getting requests via email, or other boards, or face to face from friends to respond to SOMETHING, and I don't have time to write a letter about every time. Couple that with the fact that I don't like to give knee jerk responses, and prefer to read stuff and learn the background of it before I write a letter, and I often just don't get around to writing letters to all the places I should be writing letters so.

And, yeah--it's an excuse. Seeing the WaPo's reaction to this, I really wish I did write a letter, and I regret putting it off. But my reasons for doing so aren't as simple as "I don't want the editors and readers to think I'm no fun."