- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Her criticism of Flanagan is in two forms:
First, Flanagan apparently isn't sufficiently true to her values -- she doesn't live a life of enough moral purity for Walsh. In which case, say, Martin Luther King should be ignored, as should Thomas Jefferson. King cheated on his wife, and Jefferson owned slaves. What a load.
Second, there's just plain personal attacks and characterization of Flanagan's writings in the nastiest, mean-girls-at-recess way. She tells us Flanagan is "confused" and "sociopathic" and "intellectually dishonest" and has written a "scary Soviet propoganda pamphlet." This is the equivalent of telling another fourth-grade girl that her shoes are stupid and ugly because they're the wrong brand. Flanagan says feminism has caused "heartache" but nyah, nyah, nyah, she's unhappy herself. Way to change the subject there, Joan. Slick. Instead of a response or a different position, just make an unrelated accusation. Whatever you do, don't address the actual point Flanagan is making. Just smear her. Less work. Read the next few sentences carefully, Joan.. Flanagan is writing about feminism. Walsh is writing about Flanagan. The two subjects are different. DIFFERENT.
If you dislike her personally, fine, attack her personally. But at least have the decency to come right out and say that you hate her, instead of dressing all this excrement up as some kind of political stance. It isn't. For whatever reason, you are out to get her. So just do it.
