An Open Letter to Charlotte Allen and the WaPo

Dear Ms. Allen,
I see that you have been racked over the coals today for your column. Let me offer you a few suggestions.

First let me say that OMG you are like so totally right on. Women getting excited about things and expressing themselves freely is like so totally wrong. I mean seriously, we should be training women to only behave in certain ways - to always monitor what they say, to never express joy and (of course) to be quiet, pleasant and contrite. Do you think you could help us get state and federal funding for this? Maybe instead of high school (what a waste for our little brains) - all girls could go to finishing school!

When you wrote "Women 'are only children of a larger growth,' wrote the 18th-century Earl of Chesterfield. Could he have been right?" - I'm assuming that you were referring to yourself. Perhaps you are merely a child of larger growth, could this explain your lack of education regarding history and European views of women in the 18th century? You may want to reconsider your source material.

Thank you so much for bashing books, tv shows and movies about happiness, romance, feelings, spirituality and love! You are so right. Why would any person want these things in their life? I guess those founding fathers were way off the mark when they mentioned life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Silly girly men. They should have aspired to better things like harsh reality, forceful conquests and self loathing depression. Best not to read for enjoyment or enjoy ourselves. In fact, if we keep reading we'll only get - gasp - smarter. We certainly don't want to condone the education of women.

"I am perfectly willing to admit that I myself am a classic case of female mental deficiencies" - clearly you are mentally deficient, but I don't think it has anything to do with your gender.

And finally, thank you for ending with this gem: "Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and read chick lit to our hearts' content and not mind the fact that way down deep, we are . . . kind of dim." - While I'm sure you are right, could you please explain the causal link between being dim and reading chick lit. Perhaps, you could site some research that supports this statement. Oh I'm sorry, did I confuse you with my big words? Maybe you should ask one of your male colleagues to explain it to you.

Best of luck in your future endeavors. I'm sure that I will never hear from you again, as by now you have probably taken your own advice and retired to rest your poor, dim brain

Regards,
The Naughty Librarian, M.A., M.S.

P.S. Isn't it amazing that by the age of 27 my little brain could manage to earn both a Masters of Arts and a Masters of Science. I guess I better quit while I'm ahead. In fact, I think I'm due to start breeding in another couple of years - if only I could do the math and figure out when?!

P.P.S. I am a librarian and researcher. Not only do I read professionally (and teach others how to do it) - I often suggest sources and materials to others. Until the Washington Post issues a real and formal apology, I will be boycotting their publication. Ms. Allen's column is not tongue and cheek, but this blog post is - see the difference?