What's kind of funny is that even the 'positive' letter they chose wasn't totally positive--guess NOBODY really thought this article was the epitome of greatness.

I feel like Katha Pollit really simplified the problem in her reply. Since Charlotte Allen attacked supporters of Obama, and then went on to call Clinton's entire campaign stupid, I don't see this as an article attacking women who support Obama specifically as much as offending women everywhere.

Well, my letter made it in, but I'm more than a little embarrassed it was whittled down to just the IQ issue.

Raabia, I'm so glad you wrote that letter--- it was an excellent point that needed to be brought up.

But yeah, what was with everyone only getting two paragraphs??

Charlotte Allen gets a "women are stupid" soapbox and all who disagree with her get-- what-- 200 words?

This makes me want to SMASh something

It was overtly noticeable how little of each person's letter they included. Are we not capable of reading much now too? Are they just skimming by on minimal requirement to print letters?

It was overtly noticeable how little of each person's letter they included. Are we not capable of reading much now too? Are they just skimming by on minimal requirement to print letters?

Well, if the rest of the printed letters were anything like mine, they were critical of not only Allen, but the whole editorial staff that for some reason paid for it and sent it to print even though it was awful writing by any standard. I guess they didn't feel like posting more than one or two sentences of "what the hell is wrong with you?"

"I guess they didn't feel like posting more than one or two sentences of "what the hell is wrong with you?""

Their printing of letters is as much of a joke as their changing the title. I call bullshit on the whole thing.

I thought this one said it all:

Have you lost your minds? I can only assume no one at The Post has a daughter.

ROB KILLION

Way to go Rob! Great to see feminist men speaking their minds in the media.

I also wasn't crazy about Pollitt equating Allen and Hirshman's articles (the latter was really about why women should vote as an organized bloc, which, regardless of your feelings about that kind of strategy, does not begin to approach what Allen wrote.) But I like the end: "I'm looking forward to further installments, like 'Female Suffrage: A Big Mistake' and 'Why Education is Wasted on Women.' Followed by yet another round of, 'Why Don't Women Read The Washington Post?'"

And we all know what the answer to the last one will be. Women just aren't as interested in the rough-and-tumble world of politics. It must be a biological thing.

WaPo owes its readership an apology. Printing a smattering of letters is weak.

Oh, I forgot to mention that reading them, I also thought, "I would love to tell Raabia how totally kickass her letter was." (I missed it if you posted the full letter here before.)

I e-mailed the Post's ombudsman (or rather, ombudswoman) to let her know that I'd be cancelling my subscription since I'm too dumb to read her paper. She just e-mailed me back, and apparently she's writing a response/reaction to Allen's piece this Sunday. FWIW. She did write - direct quote - "I'm with you." Should be interesting...

Heather Mallick over at CBC news had some thoughtful speculation about why a few women get picked as representatives of all womankind, and wrote some rather funny probable reactions to men being similarly typed. Article is here.