Starpower home.

There really is a place for a gal like me. Sigh. Will report next week on how the Cousin Lovers and other acts were. And the barbeque, provided it's chickens.

Men are better! Women are stupid! Just ask her...

As a woman who is also a feminist--and believe you me these two things are not one in the same--I am getting pretty angry (get it? angry feminist?), anyway, I am actually getting weary of women writing articles that are patently anti-woman.

This article calls us silly, stupid, inferior, and like children in bigger bodies.

Where on Earth did this attack come from? What prompted this woman to write this "we suck, here's why" nonsense? Are some of us that freaked out that one of us may actually become the next President? A snippet: Women's foolishness is usually harmless. But it can be so . . . embarrassing. Take Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign.

Wow. I'm all Barack, all the time, but if he were to not pull off the nomination, I'd be perfectly happy for Hillary to be our nominee. I went to a rally for her and left feeling more confident that she'd work for Americans' best interests and not only fulfilling her own aspirations (even if she and Bill remind me a bit too much of these two and their win! win! win! no matter what! attitudes). All the same, to call Senator Clinton's campaign foolish or embarassing based on the fact that she's a woman is disrespectful (not to mention sexist). To do so in an article about how dumb all women are and using a presidential candidate as a prime example is just wrong.

To call women as a whole a bunch of stupid, silly people while citing men's superiority in feats such as driving cars and not watching Oprah is something that a woman being published should be allowed to do. Because a woman should be entitled to express her malformed opinions based on ridiculously selective evidence and randomly-attached thoughts just like a any man should. For Ann Coulter, a Bill O'Reilly. It's all ignorance.

But what's this Charlotte Allen so bunged up about? Why the anti-woman? She mocks women's support of Obama as well, so it's not simply an anti-Clinton piece. I'm sure of the message: we're semi-useless outside of the home, I get it, but I'm not sure about the motivation. This Q & A with her does little to clarify, beyond saying it was all just for fun.

What's more baffling is that it's in The Washington Post, a publication I thought was above gratuitous pot-stirring.

I don't get it. I'm dumb. I better go bake cookies.