Just read this update on Feministing:
Apparently that Charlotte Allen editorial that I blogged about yesterday provoked a large backlash among readers because The Washington Post changed its headline from the assertive "Women Aren't Very Bright" to the questioning "Why Do Women Act So Dumb?"
Now we only act dumb.
EDIT: On Politico: Washington Post Outlook editor, John Pomfret, said that Allen's article was supposed to be "tongue-in-cheek."
I don't care. What did publishing her editorial accomplish besides pissing off a lot of would-be readers? Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion (and let's face it, Allen's opinion is probably hugely profitable for her), but why publish something that is only going to hurt people? What was the merit in publishing her opinion? It advanced nothing but the ludicrous idea that women are inferior. It made sweeping generalizations, and that is NOT a basis for sound argument, and personally, I believe that ONLY sound arguments should be allowed to be printed. It shouldn't have been published, and The Washington Post should just own up to their grievous error.
AGAIN: In case you missed it, Charlotte Allen annoys me [thanks to Dark Matter for showing me the way to a concise listing of why Charlotte will never be on my good list].