Firstly, I do support lines at the ends of articles that state when the writer is affiliated with a certain political group. It's important to know when the author has a clear bias or political agenda.

But with lot of respect, Vanessa, I think that anti-feminists might send the same "fuck you" to media that runs feminist "dribble". I don't support poorly-written, anti-feminist articles like those in the Washington Post, but I think it's better to have them published than not.

John Stewart Mill (a feminist!) said that unless our truth is contested, we cannot fully understand the ground we stand on. Feminist arguments and convictions come out stronger when they've met their anti-feminist counterparts. And in the end, I think an educated public will find feminist arguments correct.

So, the burden is *ours* to make sure that anti-feminist articles are refuted vigorously. Nevertheless, the media *must* allow us a fair chance not only to respond, but to tell our stories in the first place.

I agree with where you're coming from, Vanessa.

I would only like to add that it's ridiculous that these the "journalists" that write these pieces give bland hypothetical examples instead of statistics. That, in my mind, is the biggest load of horseshit of all.

dasNeonlicht,

I think you have a point in saying that feminist arguments appear stronger in comparison to anti-feminist ones; this definitely holds true for people who can compare the two sides, back to back, and use basic critical thinking skills to determine which argument makes more sense, and I agree with your point in general. However, I think that the more alarming matter in Charlotte Allen's case is that the piece was published in a supposedly "reputable" newspaper, presumably aimed at a progressive audience. If it was published in a rag like the NY Post, it would still be outrageous, but I would expect to see idiotic opinions in the NY Post.

I do think that there is some level of deceit in the WaPo's decision to publish this article, and maybe I'm being a conspiracy nut, but in trying to "slide in" an anti-feminist's opinion without even attesting to her credibility (none) at the end of it, the newspaper was trying to engage in a sort of subliminal tactic which would support a notion in a reader's mind that "It's okay to be progressive and anti-feminist at the same time. We wouldn't have published this article if we didn't think so." This is the most reprehensible part of the whole issue, for me.

Perhaps if the article was a bit more grounded in reality, but still held an anti-feminist viewpoint (is that even possible?), they wouldn't have gotten so much crap for putting it out.