The Washington Post: Bitches ain’t shit

stupidwomen.jpgWho knew that all it takes to get published in The Washington Post is penning a piece on how stupid women are?
Charlotte Allen – a professional woman-hating hack from the Independent Women’s Forum who has also oh-so-bravely attacked transgender rights, said that the answer to women’s potential financial woes is marriage, and suggested that Hurricane Katrina might have been “the best thing” to happen to New Orleans which is full of “whiners…chisel[ing] us taxpayers” out of money – has outdone herself in an article that is all about what dumb fucks women are.

I…wonder whether women — I should say, “we women,” of course — aren’t the weaker sex after all. Or even the stupid sex, our brains permanently occluded by random emotions, psychosomatic flailings and distraction by the superficial. Women “are only children of a larger growth,” wrote the 18th-century Earl of Chesterfield. Could he have been right?

Lest Allen seem like she’s just spouting misogyny for a patriarchal head-pat and a paycheck, she offers super compelling evidence that other women also find women stupid:

I’m not the only woman who’s dumbfounded (as it were) by our sex, or rather, as we prefer to put it, by other members of our sex besides us. It’s a frequent topic of lunch, phone and water-cooler conversations; even some feminists can’t believe that there’s this thing called “The Oprah Winfrey Show” or that Celine Dion actually sells CDs. A female friend of mine plans to write a horror novel titled “Office of Women,” in which nothing ever gets done and everyone spends the day talking about Botox.

“Some” feminists! “Other” women! Her reporting skills astound. Though it isn’t hard to believe that when one works at an organization whose sole purpose is to convince women that sexism is actually fabulous, that water-cooler talk would consist of chatter about how vaginas are really just brain cell black holes.
But of course, Allen includes herself in this dumb-off, presumably to garner even more credibility with misogynists.

I am perfectly willing to admit that I myself am a classic case of female mental deficiencies. I can’t add 2 and 2 (well, I can, but then what?). I don’t even know how many pairs of shoes I own.

I could go on and on, because Allen certainly does provide ample fodder for fisking, but there’s no real point. Professional anti-feminists make too much bank to ever stop writing sexist drivel. The Washington Post, however – who claims to be so concerned about how to appeal to women that it convened a task force on the subject – should know better.
Tell WaPo how you feel about the paper calling half their readership dumb-asses. Write a letter to the editor or complain to the ombudsman.
(On a more personal note, Allen has also written about how much she loves Feministing.org, the Feministing parody site started by men’s rights activists who also own an “Ameriskanks suck” page. It seems Allen is willing to align herself with anyone who hates women. Charming.)
This is for folks who have questions about the post title.

and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

63 Comments

  1. Posted March 2, 2008 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    …[women's] brains permanently occluded by random emotions

    Whereas we men are emotionless automotons driven entirely by cold, unfeeling logic. ‘Cause, you know, that completely explains The Man Show.

  2. Daniel Burk
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    “I am perfectly willing to admit that I myself am a classic case of female mental deficiencies. I can’t add 2 and 2 (well, I can, but then what?). I don’t even know how many pairs of shoes I own.”
    Haha, right. She really doesn’t need to try to convince anyone that she’s a dumbass. I think that’s pretty clear already.

  3. HotblackDesiato
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    What is this? April Fools’ come early at the Post?
    I couldn’t make less sense than her if I tried.

  4. sluckenbill
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

    When I first read it I was sure it had to be a parody of what’s been going on in the corporate media lately. *sigh* Sadly it turns out it was just a copycat media outburst. Thank goodness I stopped getting the Post a year ago.

  5. Mina
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    Did anyone else seen the response at MetaFilter?
    http://www.metafilter.com/69532/does-this-woman-make-my-gender-look-stupid
    “You get the feeling they were sitting around the break room saying things like ‘I don’t get it, what does the internet have that we don’t? Oh wait, trolls! Trolls must be what make the internet popular!’”
    posted by tkolar at 10:55 PM on March 1
    “…
    “I tried forumlating a response but I couldn’t type anything coherently, all that is left is me slamming my head against my desk repeatdly.”
    posted by liquorice at 2:00 AM on March 2
    “3-6 damage, liquorice. Unless you’re not playing forumwarz.”
    posted by imperium at 2:09 AM on March 2
    “If it’s an Ikea desk it’s only 1-4, with the pyramid die.”
    posted by Flashman at 2:22 AM on March 2
    “Let me see if I can follow the rhetorical progression of this article here:
    “1) Some women, somewhere, are doing something the author does not approve of.
    “2) The author claims this means that all women are stupid.
    “3) The author supports her thesis with dubious studies she does not understand, to the extent that she actually cites results that undercut her own points (e.g., according to a study she cites, women have slightly more minor traffic accidents and a massively lower amount of fatal traffic accidents — about 60% fewer per passenger mile and an amazing 81% fewer as a measure of total traffic fatalities — which she claims proves that women are poorer drivers) …
    “4) Thus proving she is stupid.
    “5) See?
    “I do not think she has proven what she thinks she has proven. She has amply demonstrated point 4, but not point 2.”
    posted by kyrademon at 3:07 AM on March 2

  6. Posted March 2, 2008 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know which is more pathetic about this Malibu Barbie (“Don’t ask me, I’m just a girl! Teehee!”): that she thinks she’ll get the right-wingers to like her by doing their homework for them like in high school… or that she thinks approval from that woman-loathing crowd is desireable to begin with?
    p.s. my apologies for the link, now that I think about it :o

  7. Ninapendamaishi
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    Wow. Just… wow.

  8. Ari_El
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    I feel sick. Sick, sick, sick.
    I know this is a “opinion article” is wrong on so many levels. On all levels, really.
    But the fact that, just because I was born a woman, and in America, some people automatically consider me to be dumb (-er than men), abrasive, unworthy of affection, perhaps less qualified to be a “woman” than some grossly inaccurate caricature of Asian/European/”exotic” women, is overwhelming sometimes. I need a day off from the patriarchy. Let me know if anyone can locate the island of the Amazons so I can fly my invisible plane there ASAP.

  9. Posted March 2, 2008 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    I read this on Firedoglake this morning and have been boiling all morning with all my silly little female emotions. I’m sure I was not the only person who emails the link to the ladies at Feministing.
    I sent the following to the Post:
    “If the Washington Post is so concerned with expanding its female readership as to have assembled a task force with that very aim in mind, I’m wondering how such a self-hating, poorly researched and insulting article as Charlotte Allen’s made it to print. It perpetuates debunked pseudoscience about male and female brains and relies almost entirely on flimsy anecdotal “evidence” of Ms. Allen’s experiences.
    I feel sorry for misogynistic women like Ms. Allen, and it really is a shame she thinks so little of her own gender; the contempt I feel is reserved solely for the staff at Washington Post responsible for printing this drivel. Then again, it’s probably just because I’m so “occluded by random emotions, psychosomatic flailings and distraction by the superficial,” being one of those feeble-brained women Ms. Allen complains about.
    Regards,
    Amber Aldrich”

  10. Fisher
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    I sent the following:
    To the Editor-
    I applaud your commitment to expanding the diversity of voices in the Outlook column. Might I suggest though, that a disclosure in the byline that “Charlotte Allen” is in fact the nom de plume of a 5th-grade boy would make the context of the piece much clearer.

  11. Thealogian
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    Now, if she had written “Republican Women” everywhere she had written “women” maybe I could get on board–I do agree that there are quite a few stupid Republican Women, for that matter, Republicans. But of course the WaPo would never allow a piece to be written about some as general as “Republicans”–oh, wait, you mean “women” are just about the biggest group of people your allowed to indict upon the public altar of asshattery? We’ll that theory is out.
    Seriously, the WaPo and the New York Times for that matter needs to learn that publishing hate-speech has financial consequences. Women are the majority of readerships in many communities. Vote with your dollars, boycott and explain why we’re boycotting.

  12. seabrook
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    I study 19th century racial and sexual ideologies, and I feel like the commentary around Obama’s campaign is straight out of the 19th century right wing playbook: ‘irrational mobs,’ ‘irrational mobs of screaming women,’ ‘irrational mobs of screaming women, socialists and people of color.’

  13. dedf
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    They write these articles to get a rise out of women….and then laugh at all the comments they receive I am sure.

  14. Posted March 2, 2008 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    I wonder what would have happened if they put up a piece labeled “Black people aren’t very bright.”

  15. Posted March 2, 2008 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

    I nominate this for the Special Edition Sunday: Shut the Fuck up Video. A new compliment to Friday Fuck you’s

  16. Posted March 2, 2008 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    I nominate this for the Special Edition Sunday: Shut the Fuck up Video. A new compliment to Friday Fuck you’s

  17. kissmypineapple
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    Why is being emotional and intelligent always considered mutually exclusive?

  18. Misspelled
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    I just reread Reading Lolita in Tehran and am a third of the way through Persepolis for the first time and was already feeling depressed by how many anecdotes of woman-hating in Iran during/after the Islamic revolution were familiar from my own life in the U.S.
    Needless to say, this has not helped.
    There is literally nothing that is not wrong with this article. I feel ill. You, Charlotte! Out of my gender.

  19. l.short.1230
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    This kind of shit is so stupid. In terms of intellectual capabilities the only difference between men and women is that there is an extremely minor (but technically statistically significant) between men’s and women’s spatial ability. Its the only demonstrable difference, and anyone who actually studies this kind of thing will note that the difference is too small to make an actual difference and that other variables make a much bigger difference. I don’t know that I explained that right.
    However, anyone else note that this was inspired by women’s support of Obama?

  20. Andrew
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    I love the little points she throws in about how her husband eats over the stove and shuts all the curtains in their house – but only when she’s not around! Cos ya gotta train your men, ladies! Ah, steriotypes.

  21. Fiz
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

    Here’s my letter! Kinda long…
    To the Washington Post editor:
    I regularly read the Post online and recently contemplated subscribing but your article “We Scream, We Swoon. How Dumb Can We Get?� featured on the front page ensures that I will certainly not subscribe nor will I visit your web site again.
    In suggesting the women are weak, emotional, and unintelligent, Charlotte Allen relies on easily debunked “science� and personal opinion to present a truly offensive, stereotype-laden argument I usually associate with sexist propaganda.
    In an attempt to express how this reads to me, let me switch “women� with “black people�. For example:
    “I…wonder whether black people — I should say, ‘we black people,’ of course — aren’t the weaker race after all. Or even the stupid race, our brains permanently occluded by random emotions, psychosomatic flailings and distraction by the superficial. Black people “are only children of a larger growth,” wrote the 18th-century Earl of Chesterfield. Could he have been right?â€?
    or try:
    “I’m not the only black person who’s dumbfounded (as it were) by our race, or rather, as we prefer to put it, by other members of our race besides us. It’s a frequent topic of lunch, phone and water-cooler conversations; even some civil-rights activists can’t believe that there’s this thing called “The Oprah Winfrey Show” or that 50 Cent actually sells CDs. A black friend of mine plans to write a horror novel titled “Office of Blacks,” in which nothing ever gets done and everyone spends the day talking about watermelon.â€?
    I assume that you would never consider publishing an opinion piece so full of racist tripe. That you are willing to give platform to such an offensive and outright misogynistic perspective is both sad for you as a “reputable� news source as well as genuinely offensive to every single female reader you once had.
    Signed,
    Dr. (name removed)

  22. l.short.1230
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    “Men’s and women’s brains not only look different, but men’s brains are bigger than women’s”
    It has been shown time and FUCKING time again that this has no relation to intelligence on an individual level.
    Any IQ test that leans heavily toward spatial abilities (there is actually only one very specific spatial ability, but I can’t remember what its called off the top of my head) is going to favor men. This is a very minor difference, as I said before, is not going to affect science and math abilities on some grand sweeping level.
    Her ‘evolutionary explanations’ are massive pop culture oversimplifications of actual archaeological work. This isn’t the 1960′s kids, no one who studies this stuff actually believes the ‘man the hunter’ myth anymore. (not that there aren’t people who don’t do sexist/racist studies) This stuff is complex, and under constant scrutiny. dammit that pisses me off.
    This pisses me off because I know people out there believe this.

  23. caiis
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    I am so angry about this that I can barely form sentences.
    What an ignorant, insulting, offensive excuse for writing!
    Why would the WaPo ever even think about printing this bullshit?
    Just more proof the “liberal” media doesn’t exist.

  24. Andrew
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    I don’t get how in one moment, these anti-feminists will go on about evolutionary biology (“…hunter-gatherer days, men were the hunters and needed to calculate spear trajectories…”) and turn around and say the world was built in a week?

  25. Posted March 2, 2008 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    Misspelled, that is the problem. She doesn’t want to be a woman anymore. She wrongly, pathetically believes that if she spews enough Victorian bile about her ‘fairer sex’ that she will become an honorary MAN. That’s what they have in common see *snark*, she and men, their misogyny. Sorry not gonna happen Charlotte. Take your two X chromosomes and deal with them like an adult.

  26. Posted March 2, 2008 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    “Women are really really stupid! To back this up, here are some opinions from women. Although you probably shouldn’t pay attention to their opinions, because they’re so stupid. Which proves my point.”
    … oh shit, I think my feeble little ladybrain just exploded.

  27. Posted March 2, 2008 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    “Women are really really stupid! To back this up, here are some opinions from women. Although you probably shouldn’t pay attention to their opinions, because they’re so stupid. Which proves my point.”
    … oh shit, I think my feeble little ladybrain just exploded.

  28. Calla
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    …so feeble I apparently can’t avoid double-posting. Sorry.

  29. ellestar
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    Here is my letter to the Washington Post:
    “To the editors of the Washington Post:
    I was appalled to hear of your recent article by Charlotte Allen in your March 2, 2008 paper entitled “We Scream, We Swoon. How Dumb Can We Get?”
    I’ll answer that question in a way that I hope those who work at your paper are intelligent enough to understand at some level: I’ll never be dumb enough to ever purchase or subscribe to the Washington Post.
    I’m not dumb enough to ever give any money to a newspaper that prints articles by “journalists” who cannot be bothered to obtain proper citations for the accusations and claims made within the article.
    Nor am I dumb enough to lower my standards or self-respect to ever give a single penny to a newspaper that prints an article that is so disrespectful to me and my gender.
    I’m not that dumb. In fact, I think the fact that you’ll not see any money from me, ever, is pretty damned smart.
    I imagine that your objective for printing this article was to tantalize and scandalize readers so much that they continued to read and purchase more newspapers.
    How ironic that this article will have the exact opposite effect on me and probably most of the women with whom I share the news of your decision to publish such tripe.
    Sincerely,
    [ellestar]”

  30. Lime
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    The fact that opinions like that are still “worthy” of publication in a major newspaper is the reason why I’m just plain amazed that Sen. Clinton is even a front runner for the nomination.

  31. e
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    Wait, not knowing how many pairs of shoes I own is proof of my stupidity? And here I was, thinking it was proof of my successful career that allows me to buy myself all these great shoes. What a stupid girl I am.

  32. Posted March 2, 2008 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    Women are so stupid, it’s not like they’ll ever make a majority of a class at my med school.
    …. oh, wait. :O

  33. Becki Jayne
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    My letter…
    Dear Deborah Howell,
    The op/ed by Charlotte Allen in your March 2, 2008 edition entitled “We Scream, We Swoon. How Dumb Can We Get?” can easily be disproved.
    I am, and many other women are, too smart to ever read such sexist tripe without laughing at it or ridiculing what is obvious drivel based on nothing scientific or objective, AND we’re much too smart to ever buy a single copy of or subscribe to The Washington Post, whose editors are immeasurably stupid for having published Allen’s misogynistic piffle.
    Buh-bye.

  34. EG
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

    Wait, not knowing how many pairs of shoes I own is proof of my stupidity? And here I was, thinking it was proof of my successful career that allows me to buy myself all these great shoes.
    I thought it was a sign that I have more interesting things to be thinking about and that I don’t give a flying fuck how many pairs of shoes I own. But then, I’m also very good at math, so what do I know?

  35. Posted March 2, 2008 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    I thought it was a sign that I have more interesting things to be thinking about and that I don’t give a flying fuck how many pairs of shoes I own. But then, I’m also very good at math, so what do I know?
    Really? Because I thought it was a sign I had so many more interesting things to count, like college degrees or books!
    But wait just one minute, obviously I’m too stupid to even graduate fourth-grade, and all my books are cookbooks, and I’m much too busy preparing souffles and skirt steaks for my dutiful husband to count them!

  36. Patrick
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

    *”Here’s Agence France-Presse reporting on a rally for Sen. Barack Obama at the University of Maryland on Feb. 11: “He did not flinch when women screamed as he was in mid-sentence, and even broke off once to answer a female’s cry of ‘I love you, Obama!’ with a reassuring ‘I love you back.’ ” Women screamed? What was this, the Beatles tour of 1964? And when they weren’t screaming, the fair-sex Obama fans who dominated the rally of 16,000 were saying things like: “Every time I hear him speak, I become more hopeful.” Huh?”*
    Ah, that’s some good old fashioned family sexism.
    I can’t believe I just read that. No, I can’t believe she wrote it. No way, I can’t believe it ACTUALLY GOT IN THE PAPER.
    SOMEONE hates all the women voting for Obama, apparently.
    Excuse me, I need to go find the acid shower. Be back soon (blind).

  37. Posted March 2, 2008 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

    I read this article on the WaPo late Saturday night and at first thought it was going to be a satiric article. But then as I read more (and wondered what the ultimate point was) I became very disappointed and angry. How dare Allen use selective statistics (which could be interpreted in other ways) to prove her weak case that women are “dim”.
    She’s proud she can’t count? I attribute that to laziness. Even monkeys can count.
    Thanks to women like her, women like me who work in male-dominated technical fields continuously have to work twice as hard to prove we really do know what we’re talking about.
    I still believe women’s worst enemy is other women.

  38. Posted March 2, 2008 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

    For those of you want to understand why Clinton’s campaign has failed so miserably, here’s the part of the article you should be paying attention to.
    [Then there's Clinton's nearly all-female staff, chosen for loyalty rather than, say, brains or political savvy. Clinton finally fired her daytime-soap-watching, self-styled "Latina queena" campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, known for burning through campaign money and for her open contempt for the "white boys" in the Clinton camp. But stupidly, she did it just in time to alienate the Hispanic voters she now desperately needs to win in Texas or Ohio to have any shot at the Democratic nomination.]
    As someone who’s had a chance to observe Obama’s immediate staff firsthand, I can tell you that the people who work directly with Obama are top-notch. Obama’s aides and advisers who follow him around the country from event to event are highly competent and on the ball every minute, and I think perhaps that is where the real advantage of his campaign lays. From what I’ve seen he’s done a fantastic job of surrounding himself with the very best people available, a trait that bodes well for his presidency.

  39. olympia72
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

    You know, Aaron, you didn’t need to provide that gross quote (from a source who is, um, less than unbiased) to back up your belief that Obama’s staff is awesome. Using that quote to bolster Obama’s staff makes them appear LESS awesome.

  40. Posted March 2, 2008 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

    Goddamn. Even I’m not that desperate to get published.

  41. EG
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 10:41 pm | Permalink

    Wow, Aaron, trying to threadjack much?
    Try to stay on topic. The issue is the publication of this astoundingly misogynistic article in a mainstream newspaper. If you’d like to discuss Clinton v. Obama, find a more appropriate venue.

  42. meeneecat
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 10:43 pm | Permalink

    Aaron, this is no place for you to be pushing your politics or candidate. And it’s certainly no place for you to be going off on a topic that’s completely unrelated to the post. In case you didn’t read this is a thread on the washington post article. If you can’t stay on subject here than you need to find another thread. Why should I, or anyone else here, have to remind you of something called respect and etiquette?
    Regarding the article, I don’t know how they got this published in the first place. After finding out about the the LA times editorial, it almost seems like the Washington post had to “one up” them on insulting and degrading women. Why is it that degrading women is apparently so fashionable to these hacks. Disgusting. I doubt the author even took the time to look up statistics on the accomplishments of women (see some statistics at the bottom about women earning degrees). I don’t mean to make this a boys vs. girls thing, but girls DO graduate at higher rates than boys at ALL levels of education. Of course this doesn’t mean that boys are stupider than girls or girls are stupider than boys, because I think there is more to intelligence than what is tested in school. But it proves the point that an argument for one sex being more intelligent than the other, is, well a stupid argument in and of itself. But still how can the author argue that women are so “stupid” when they so obviously excel at many things. The only conclusion I can make from this article is that it’s another exercise in self-hatred. This author has no respect for women, and no respect for herself.
    Some of the accomplishments of so called “stupid” women.
    “For every 100 girls who graduate from high school 96 boys graduate”
    “For every 100 women who earn a bachelors degree from college 73 men earn the same degree.”
    “For every 100 women who earn a masters degree from college 62 men earn the same degree. ”
    “For every 100 women who earn a doctorate from college 92 men earn the same degree. ”
    (The National Center for Education Statistics)

  43. meeneecat
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

    Okay, Aaron, I can see how your post is sort of related to the story, the editorial did talk about Obama and women’s reaction to him. Maybe I hit a knee jerk reaction there with telling you, that you were totally off topic. I guess I just don’t agree with your anecdotal evidence about his campaign staff and what that has to do with anything in the article. Nor do I think you should be assuming that everyone here thinks Hillary’s campaign (as you say) “failed miserably” – when you said that, to me it sounded like you were pushing your ideas about a particular candidate (by making assumptions about what the rest of us feel about Clinton’s campaign). I thought you were being a little presumptuous there. But perhaps you can elaborate and relate what you said to the article, specifically the issue of “women being stupider than men” as Charlotte says in the editorial. Do you agree? disagree? What does that have to do with Hillary’s or Barak’s campaign? Explain.

  44. Posted March 2, 2008 at 11:12 pm | Permalink

    “I am perfectly willing to admit that I myself am a classic case of female mental deficiencies–I don’t even know how many pairs of shoes I own.”
    So if I count my shoes, will that be a definitive proof of my intelligence? Will I get a Nobel Prize for counting my socks?

  45. stanna
    Posted March 3, 2008 at 12:19 am | Permalink

    Also concerning driving:
    “Those statistics were reinforced by a study released by the University of London in January showing that women and gay men perform more poorly than heterosexual men at tasks involving navigation and spatial awareness, both crucial to good driving.”
    Gay men get dragged in as well. No word yet on lesbians…

  46. Medicine Man
    Posted March 3, 2008 at 6:59 am | Permalink

    For the love of God, please tell me that article was a hoax. I can’t believe that tripe like that actually got published.

  47. Posted March 3, 2008 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    Thanks Fiz, you got what I was thinking right on. A paper publishing this about race would risk being shut down.
    But calling 50% of the population stupid, that’s more than alright, because it’s just an opinion! And it’s a woman saying it.
    It’s just too much of a paradox for my feeble sensibilities. Woman expecting us to …believe her when … she says women are stupid … but she’s a woman and therefore stupid …
    I don’t get it.

  48. LacyK
    Posted March 3, 2008 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    I just finished my letter to the editor and I canceled my subscription. Does anyone have a recommendation for a respectable national daily newspaper I can subscribe to in its place?

  49. Shinobi
    Posted March 3, 2008 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    Seriously, can we vote her out of the gender?
    Her and Ann Coulter, GONE.

  50. Twoformirth
    Posted March 3, 2008 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    A female friend of mine plans to write a horror novel titled “Office of Women,” in which nothing ever gets done and everyone spends the day talking about Botox.
    Amazing, how she knew exactly what goes on every day at my office! I mean, sure, it’s a non-profit rape crisis centre for women, but talking about Botox is just so much more important than helping our clients. And it’s just so darned hard to work! I mean, keeping our centre going for more than 30 years with little to no funding, managing to find and apply successfully for really, really complicated grants, making sure we’re doing enough outreach into the community, recruiting and keeping all our (obviously, dumb) female volunteers and trying not to get shut down by our interfering government funders is really not worth the effort! Now that Charlotte has been kind enough to open my eyes, I’m going to tell my coworkers, and we’ll probably just shut the place down and scurry home to cook dinner for our husbands.
    Pfft. Botox indeed.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

223 queries. 0.851 seconds