The e-mail exchange between the Carol Channing of political commentators, Susan Estrich, and LA Times editor Michael Kinsley is truly enlightening. By copying her e-mailed demands for immediate publication to outsiders, Estrich has publicly immolated herself in a spectacular blaze of vitriolic feminist-fueled self-righteousness:
My suggestion that your publishing it would be better (for you too) than my having to go outside somehow constitutes me blackmailing you is so outlandish that it underscores the question I’ve been asked repeatedly in recent days, and that does worry me, and should worry you: people are beginning to think that your illness may have affected your brain, your judgment, and your ability to do this job.
Estrich was apparently angry because Kinsley declined to publish her letter, a rant about the dearth of women’s views on the Times op-ed page, ironically written in response to Charlotte Allen’s editorial–in the Times–on rabid feminism. (I checked–despite Estrich’s dismissal as someone she’d “never heard of”, Charlotte Allen is, in fact, a woman.)
In Estrich’s mind, Kinsley’s decision has nothing to do with whether it’s worth publishing; it’s the result of impaired acuity caused by his Parkinson’s Disease.
Lesson learned, class: Don’t you dare speak out against “women”, as they are defined by militant feminists like Susan Estrich. If you’re a man, like Michael Kinsley, you’re mentally defective; if you’re a woman, like Charlotte Allen, well, you simply don’t count.