Charlotte Allen Live!

A couple of notes before you get to the (very long) post below. I did try to make it as short as possible while still expressing the tone in the pseudo-chatroom but it is still lengthy. The comments in italics are mine- everything else (spelling mistakes and all) comes directly from the Washington Post site.

The overall reaction? Most of the people were angered by the article and made valid, constructive points. One guy got in an irrelavent low blow that Ms. Allen doesn’t deserve (I do have standards, damn it). Her comments about tone make it seem as though John Pomfret was covering his own ass with those “tongue in cheek” comments. She admits it was meant to be humorous but not to the extent that he implied.

If you want to read the full transcript, WaPo has it online here.

Washington: When I read this, I immediately thought it was written ironically. Were you surprised that so many people took it literally?

Charlotte Allen: I wouldn’t quite use the word “ironic,” but yes, I meant to be funny but with a serious point–that women want to be taken seriously but quite often don’t act serious. Also, that women and men really are different.

Washington: You write that you doubt women’s representation in such fields as law (the Supreme Court) and medicine (brain surgeons) will rise much in the 21st century. However more women than men currently are graduating from law school and medical school. Could you please comment on this apparent contradiction?

Charlotte Allen: That’s absolutely true, but the proportion of women at the highest levels of these fields is going to remain relatively small, I predict.

Silver Spring, Md.: Yes, women’s reasoning is sometimes clouded by emotion, but so is men’s. Why is “swooning” so much worse than murderous rage? How are “Eat, Love, Pray” and “Grey’s Anatomy” any more self-indulgent and fantastical than “On the Road” and James Bond movies? Are romance novels a less realistic picture of male-female relations than “Big Butt Sluts #23″? In short, why do you consider men’s irrational distortions forgiveable, while women’s are a sign of lower intelligence?

Charlotte Allen: I agree that men do many dumb things, and many men have dumb tastes.

(That was the end of her answer. She should’ve just added: “But my career excels when I judge women.”)

Memphis, Tenn.: Ms. Allen, I am confused about The Post editors’ “it was satire, stupid” defense of your article. Could you explain why (or how) you thought the reader could have (or should have) picked up on the satirical tone? I recognize that this question may provoke a response not unlike the Supreme Court’s “I know it when I see it” approach to obscenity, but I have read a lot of satire, and I just don’t see it in your article. Perhaps you could give me a quick and dirty review of my eighth-grade English class?

Charlotte Allen: I’m not sure whether I’d characterize the piece as satire, but I’d certainly characterize it as humor: my poking fun at the dumb things my sex does.

( A small subsection of a gender that wasn’t even accurately represented)

Washington: Why did you write this piece?

Charlotte Allen: Totally for fun.

Washington: Do you believe caring for children, men and the weak is something that should be valued less in society? I ask because you seem to imply that they are tasks only fit for the dim, and unworthy of an intelligent mind. What do you think about men who are caregivers?

Charlotte Allen: Quite the opposite: I think that caring for children, men, and the weak are the most important things that can be done. It’s women who have devalued them by mocking stay-at-home mothers, etc.

(Maybe her anger at the reaction of the Obama supporters stems from the fact that those women should be at home with their kids instead of getting all political?)

Alexandria, Va.: Loved your column — you spoke honestly about things that most people are reluctant to discuss openly for fear of being labeled sexist or anti-feminist. I think most of the critics don’t seem to realize that you were not saying that women were the only ones who could be stupid — men can be just as clueless, but men and women are usually stupid in different ways, and you just happened to be discussing some of the congenital flaws of the fairer sex. Certainly there have been no shortage of columns in the past dissecting the shortcomings of men!

Charlotte Allen: Yes, men are fair game, and it’s considered perfectly OK to make all the fun of them we want. But make a joke at a woman’s expense, and–woo!

(Yes, your joke was hilarious. You should work for the Onion, your humor is so brilliant. And if men are fair game, why are most of your articles about demeaning women?)

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?

(Of an entire gender- to which you belong- being stupid? Great arguing tactic.)

Boston: Do you make any distinction between women (people who are biologically female) and women’s culture (the books, TV shows, and products that are marketed to women)? It would seem to me that women are smart, and the stuff sold to women is stupid.

Charlotte Allen: My question then is: Why do women buy this stuff?

(Social conditioning, lack of available alternatives, men buy some “women stuff” too…)

Pittsburgh: You weren’t “making a joke at the expense of women” or “poking fun” of our foibles. You wrote a mean-spirited, factually inaccurate, vicious diatribe against a majority of the world’s population, and expect us not to be offended because you thought it was funny. Guess what: humor is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. You really must think us stupid not to realize that funny jokes don’t call the listener out as “dim.”

Charlotte Allen: You can’t please everyone.

(Or, based on the reaction to the article, very many people at all. But you can piss off a lot of people of both genders and make a newspaper you are affiliated with look horrible.)

Woodbridge, Va.: Congratulations on a hilarious article. Do you think the hysterical response to it provides further proof that feminists have no sense of humor?

Charlotte Allen: Is the pope German?

(That’s Charlotte Allen in a nutshell, right there. What about the men who were outraged? Are they just pussy whipped?)

Washington: Okay, you said you didn’t see it as satire (and clearly you haven’t written satire). Have you ever written humor before? Because you have written articles critical of women who don’t fall lockstep into your idea of how women should act. Given your previous writings, why should anyone have thought “oh, now she’s being funny”?

Charlotte Allen: I’m not sure which articles you’re referring to. Isn’t it obvious what’s funny and what’s not?

(It would take a serious step back from reality to not realize that the thousands of people that were offended by your article just missed a blatant fact. Obviously, your humor isn’t obvious or you wouldn’t be in this chat defending yourself.)

Unbelievable…: I am flabbergasted at your puzzlement regarding the outrage about your article. What would your reaction had been if a man wrote such an article? Would that have been okay? I’m guessing The Post wouldn’t have published a male columnist writing that women are stupid. It’s really easy to put out provocative, poorly supported idea,s and really hard to recover from the damage they do. Shame on both you and The Post!

Charlotte Allen: Why can’t a woman make fun of women? Are women such a sacrosanct subject nowadays that they’re off-limits for anyone to write about them except in a reverent portrayal of them as victims of men? I don’t buy that.

(I’m going to mildly defend Ms. Allen here. The Post would have published a male writer saying women are stupid. Their editorial staff is laughable. Women can absolutely make fun of other women. They should not let it be classified as satire when it obviously wasn’t and the article should be well written to begin with…but I digress.)

Knoxville, Tenn.: So, um, after skimming your previous responses, apparently you were somewhat serious in the overall point you were making about women’s dumbness. Then my question is this — how can you think this would be funny, when you’re basically regurgitating all the old arguments for women’s inferiority, with very little humorous spin at all? If someone were to write a piece like this about Afridan Americans, do you think they should consider it funny? Even something like this about men — arguably the least repressed group of human beings throughout history — would be in poor taste at best. So what made you think people would take the disparagement of women’s intelligence lightly?

Charlotte Allen: People are always writing pieces just like mine about men. It’s called feminist humor. As for African-Americans, for heaven’s sake! Women aren’t a historically oppressed minority; they’re half the population or more! What–are we women always supposed to portray ourselves as victims of patriarchy? That’s absurd in 2008 when we have every conceivable opportunity.

(Women aren’t a historically oppressed minority? Are we talking the history of the human race here? I think there might have been one or two (or thousands) of examples otherwise.)

New York: In addition to writing here that women are “dim,” at the Independent Women’s Forum you’ve written that Hurricane Katrina might have been “the best thing” to happen to New Orleans, which is full of “whiners … chiseling us taxpayers” out of money. Is that supposed to be satire too? Your sense of humor sure does seem hateful.

washingtonpost.com: What Really Happened After Hurricane Katrina (Independnet Women’s Forum, Oct. 11, 2005)

Charlotte Allen: I said Katrina was the best thing to happen to New Orleans because it finally opportunity to a huge number of New Orleans residents living in passive dependency on welfare to get out of New Orleans and change their lives for the better. Thousands of them did exactly that–which is why there hasn’t exactly been a huge flood of those former residents flocking back to live in passive dependency and do just that. New Orleans itself now has a chance to change into a more self-reliant city. As for the “whiners…chiseling taxpayers out of money,” I was referring specifically to the large number of fraudulent claims for Katrina relief–well documented in news stories.

(Because abject poverty is always a lifestyle choice made out of laziness and not a complex socioeconomic issue).

Washington: Women aren’t a historically oppressed minority? Who are you, exactly?

Charlotte Allen: Huh? I’m a woman, part of a historically attested-to half of the human race.

(We’re back to Charlotte Allen needing to buy a history book or five.)

New York: “Women aren’t a historically oppressed minority.” Really? So we’ve always had the right to vote, not to be raped and have control over our bodies? Can I have some of whatever wacky antifeminist weed you’re smoking?

Charlotte Allen: Minority? Not when I last counted. And when did women get the vote–1921? 1923? Rape was a capital crime under Roman law. You know–the Romans, 2,000 years ago. As for “control over our bodies,” I guess you mean abortion. Wasn’t Roe vs. Wade decided in 1973?

(I’m guessing that the rest of the world doesn’t count to Ms. Allen since there are still countries where rape is permitted and women can’t vote. There are also thousands of people in the U.S. today who would very much like Roe vs. Wade to be destroyed.)

Washington: Were you trying to start a constructive debate with your opinion piece? Do you think that’s happened? I think by concluding that women are “dumb” because of real sex differences that exist just pisses people off, and thus precludes any real debate on this issue — and it’s something I think should be explored openly. Name-calling doesn’t get us anywhere.Charlotte Allen: I called no names, but to be quite honest, I wasn’t trying to start a debate, constructive or otherwise. I was just expressing my views.

(Give her some points for honesty.)

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?

(That “anonymous” comment was low, not funny and not helpful in anyway. I don’t like Charlotte Allen’s opinions but she doesn’t deserve that.)

Washington: Can you please further explain your definition of “historical”? I understand that the feminism has made serious inroads in opportunities for women today, but what about 10 or 20 or 100 years ago?

Charlotte Allen: Women have been gaining equal rights since the 19th century, when laws were passed permitting them to hold and control their own property on marriage. The suffrage movement got started a century ago, and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal to discriminate against women in hiring, promotions, and pay. All good things. But it’s now nearly 50 years since those landmark laws were passed, and it’s time for women who want to get ahead to quit complaining that they can’t get ahead.

(Slavery and segregation were outlawed awhile ago, too. Should black people stop complaining that they can’t get ahead? No, gender and race are not equitable issues but I make the point regarding history and its correlation to the current culture.)

Washington: Neither the Post nor Charlotte Allen has, in either the original article or in this chat, explained who Charlotte Allen is. Could someone please give me a sense of her background so that I have at least a vague idea of the context in which to judge her work?

Charlotte Allen: Charlotte Allen’s background? She was born in Pasadena, California to a struggling trial lawyer and his Peru-born wife who emigrated from New York in the lawyer’s Packard when Charlotte’s other was eight months and three weeks pregnant with Charlotte. They lived in a little rental cottage with a big fig tree in the back yard, and were so poor that baby Charlotte had to sleep in a dresser drawer for the first month of her life…

How much of this stuff do you want?

(I think they meant relevant biographical, educational and work experience- like mentioning the IWF and what it is.)

College Park, Md.: I’m interested to know how the piece ended up in The Post. Did they solicit it? Did Ms. Allen shop it around to different papers?

Charlotte Allen: The piece wasn’t solicited. Ms. Allen shopped it to the Post alone.

(Her editor should be answering these questions beside her. He accepted the piece. It is rather low to shove her out front and center and deny any wrong doing.)

Washington: Your response to the person who asked about your background was evasive.

Charlotte Allen: Evasive? What do you want to know–whether I’ve been convicted of a felony? If you want to know more about my writing, Google me.

(No- the first time she was being a bit of a smartass. This time she’s being evasive.)

Woodstock, Va.: Oh, come on. What are your credentials?

Charlotte Allen: My credentials? No, I didn’t go to J-school. Last I heard, you don’t need “credentials” in order to get published. Want to know where I went to college? Stanford University, where I graduated with honors in English and Classics. So there.

(Why so combative? No one asked you about “J-school”. The Stanford part was relevent- a background in Classics shows in a lot of her writing. But she’s still not answering the question of what her writing history is directly and I’m wondering why.)

Flushing, Mich.: Dear Ms. Allen: It’s pretty clear you could have gotten away with a similar article demeaning men. It’s done all the time and any who complain are dismissed easily. It has been pretty clear for some time that you cannot write such things about women. My question is why you thought you could get away with it. Do you have evidence that the taboo is weakening?

Charlotte Allen: I hope that articles like mine will weaken that taboo. But right now, just to hint that men and women as groups have different aptitudes is to risk the fate of Larry Summers. Fortunately, I’m not president of Harvard.

Just looked at my computer clock, and I see that I’m running overtime. Those of you who still want to chat, please send me an e-mail. I respond to all signed e-mails, although I give the rude and/or obscene ones short shrift. Thanks, all of you; this has been quite enjoyable for me.

(Larry Summers references are getting a bit outdated, aren’t they?)

If you would like to contact Ms. Allen, her email address is charfleur@aol.com.

Tags: Charlotte Allen, Washington Post