You're famous, your books are being published, you're on TV in an expensive sweater set.

You can thank a feminist.

It's bad manners to slap the hand that fed you.

Bingo! The New York Times Book Review would have you believe she makes fun of herself, but she seemed not to even understand Colbert's humor--at one point, Colbert joked that about going back the feudal system in which women could be "lobotomized" (his word) for not servicing their husbands, and Flanagan bobbed her head up and down as if this was perfectly acceptable. If she truly believes women soley exist for men, perhaps she should keep herself off TV, off the computer...why doesn't she just off herself?

And how can anyone who has so obviously benefitted from the very same social changes she attacks not realize how ridiculous she appears?

Almostt makes me want to kill my New Yorker subscription.

When the Colbert Report first started, some critics said that it would be impossible for him to get guests. Who would be dumb enough to allow themselves to be the patsy to his satirical schtick? Well we have our answer. And they say feminists have no sense of humor? The woman ate up all of his faint praise like it was one of her own carefully home-cooked meals. I can not believe how dumb this woman is and I can not believe she is writing for the New Yorker. She clearly is not worth the energy being spent on her. So let's all ignore her. Starting... now!

Now you know where the new Phyllis Schlafys are coming from...

Or head up ass?

I've watched the inteview more than once, and I still can't tell for sure.

I mean, this has to be a very intricate po-mo practical joke, right?

'Caitlin Flanagan' is clearly just the satiric construct of a performaance artist who's a lebian/wiccan in real life.

Right?

I agree with moondoggy. Otherwise it's just too hard to take. This HAS to be a stunt and she's either a brilliant satirist or a savvy businesswoman who saw a gullible market and sold to it.

The very end where Caitlan says - "talk to my editor, SHE'S right over there..."

I'm sorry, but a female editor? According to Caitlan's world view, shouldn't her editor be at home drying diapers and servicing here husband? Where do these people come from?

Did you people catch a contact high from Joan Walsh's bile, or are you all disgruntled New Yorker subscrip holders? Basically, she decided not to engage Colbert in debate, so she played the yes-woman. It's been done by guests before, you know: they just concede to their comedic superior. She doesn't really long for feudalism, and she's certainly not dumb.

It's like when Pitchfork or Stylus piss on the Panic! at the Disco album; at the heart of it, you know they're right, but too much damnation makes you wonder about the critic. Flanagan: privileged and nutty and self-satisfied and successful, check. Next.

How Caitlin Flanagan could have been so utterly clueless that she was being set up for such scathing satire is amazing. Might that be a result of excessive exposure to the ham-handed attempts at humor by the shopkeepers of right-wing talk radio?

I'm thinking that that lobotomization may already be underway.

She's probably laughing at the people writing all of these letters. Wake up!

The easiest way to make a killing today is to write a crappy book --- either a crappy self-help book, a crappy polemic, a crappy self-congratulatory "I've made it, why can't you?" book, a crappy memoir made up of gross exaggerations and outright lies ... you get the picture.

Flanagan wanted to be a millionaire. There are tons of books on how to be everywoman; she simply said "Fuck that, I'm going to write one that's the exact opposite and I'm going to get tons of publicity just on the very nature of the topic itself."

And she did. She's getting tons of publicity and tons of money for being a contrarian, like so many other people today. She figured "Hitchens and Paglia are cleaning up like bandits, why can't I? I'll pen an antifeminist, pro-1950s housewife load of horseshit and it will sell itself. I'll get to go on a shitload of TV shows. That will get my name in lights and I'll be invited to all the cool publishing cocktail parties."

The "controversy" is meaningless and the outrage directed at her is knee-jerk. She successfully marketed an idea and people bought into it. She's no more worthy of political or social seriousness than your average motivational speaker appearing at the local Marriot conference room this weekend.

Yes, and she has that look of a harridan, also. Pinched and sharp jawed and self-righteous. VERY WEIRD HAIRSTYLE!

Here's why my “outrage is not knee-jerk” and why women like Caitlin Flanagan are bad news. If Joan W. and the letter writers covered this already, so be it.

You expect a relic like Phyllis Schlafly or a fool like Ann Coulter (who cannot write--oh, her books are badly written) to make asses of themselves with their anti-woman, anti-feminist b.s.

It's different when an articulate, educated, votes Democrat, pro-choice (so she says), humorous, self-deprecating woman who writes for the New Yorker no less, BLAMES FEMINISM for a whole host of things, including husbands not getting any action unless they're forced to take their wives to Olive Garden.

It’s like blaming democracy for George W. Bush being president. (ok, you could probably lay some blame there, but that’s another letter.)

This is more than Caitlin Flanagan being “contrarian” and finding a gimmick to make a buck. She really believes that feminists are family killers and make “women not respected in the home.” It's a kind of self-hate that she is trying to project/market to women who will listen.

And the irony of it all is mind blowing.

P.S. I think she looks like a young Ethel Kennedy, but sadly the comparison stops there.