Today, in people who are proud of having haters for all the wrong reasons, we have Charlotte Allen

Charlotte Allen wrote a phenomenally terrible piece on how we could prevent future school shootings by having more men in schools, which predictably earned her a denunciation from just about everyone who denounces such things on the Internet (we have reached the point as a society where there are specified denouncers for various types of stories now).  Rather than take note of the fact that lots of people were angry at her because of how wrong (and to pretty much any reasonable person, offensive) her work was and write an apology or take the piece down, Ms. Allen has instead decided to follow her initial article with another equally terrible one, apparently basing this course of action on the idea that if people are angry at you, you're doing something right (spoiler: she's incorrect).  Charlotte, the floor is yours:

Well, at least no one is calling for my “head on a stick” — but that’s probably because Prof. Erik Loomis of the University of Rhode Island is about the only person or entity that hasn’t denounced me for pointing out in NRO’s Sandy Hook symposium that the school could have used a few male teachers on the premises who might have tackled down the runtish Adam Lanza before he did the worst of his damage.

This is actually factually correct--I interviewed several trillion people, organizations, fauna, flora, extraterrestrial entities, and Rush Limbaugh, and not one of them would agree to not denounce Ms. Allen's earlier piece except for Professor Loomis.  Hey, I tried!

It’s no small thing, of course, to stop a gunman, whatever his size, but there might have been more of a chance with a few men on hand.

Do you sometimes read the things you write down afterwards and think about whether they're worth putting on a website where other people can see them, or do you pretty much just type it up and send it in as is?  This is just an awful line of thinking, and I can't believe you are still pushing it.

I asserted that the “feminized setting” that prevails at elementary schools and the education schools that train their personnel creates a culture of “helpless passivity” that puts women and small children at risk when a psychopath like Lanza decides to blow out the doors.

Right, because feminism is "a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for helplessly passive people.  This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for helplessly passive people in education and employment. A feminist is 'an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of helplessly passive people'."  Wait, that's not right.  I guess what you said only makes sense if you define things in a way that is totally different than what they actually mean.

I’ve been reviled by the Holy Trinity of online liberal journalism: David Weigel (Slate), Alex Pareene (Salon), and Jessica Valenti (The Nation). Also: Daily Kos, Media Matters, and Mediaite, just to name a few spleen outlets (you can Google my name plus “Sandy Hook” to see the links to dozens of others). At Esquire’s Politics blog, Charles Pierce gave me the McArdle Award, named after the Daily Beast’s Megan McArdle for suggesting that gang-rushing the shooter would work better than gun bans to avert mass murders or minimize their deadly damage. (Since I wholeheartedly agree with McArdle — and I suggested that very tactic in my NRO symposium piece–I’m honored to accept the award.)

It was pretty helpful of you to link to all the places people told you how wrong you were, so that people can go to those places and see how wrong you were.

You know what's funny is that no one seems to be criticizing the idea that someone should make an effort to physically interfere with the gunman (the McArdle is named for a pundit who suggested specifically that children should be trained to do this, which: what the fuck is wrong with everyone?)--in fact, your McArdle Award mentioned nothing about gun bans or gang-rushing the shooter, and lots about the fact that you insinuated that had there been men or "huskier 12-year-olds" things might have been different.  What's even worse about your whole theory is that some people did the exact thing that you wanted them to--the principal and at least one teacher.  Gender of both individuals: female.

One of Pierce’s commenters wrote that someone ought to “beat the stupid” out of me. Remarks like that are the way that liberal guys demonstrate that they, too, possess testicles.

Finally, even Jonah Goldberg right here at NRO accused me of “blaming the victim.” Et tu, Jonah! I can’t take most of the criticisms seriously, but I will respond to Jonah: No, I was not blaming any of the 26 victims or the parents who enrolled their kids at Sandy Hook. I am, however, blaming our culture that denies, dismisses, and denigrates the masculine traits—including size, strength, male aggression and a male facility for strategic thinking–that until recently have been viewed as essential for building a society and protecting its weaker members.

Just stop.  You are actually arguing that the problem we have is insufficient male aggression, and if you can't see how ass-backwards that is I don't know what to tell you.  Also, "male facility for strategic thinking"?  Plenty of school employees did plenty of quick thinking at the time of the shooting, probably saving a number of lives, and you writing that sentence is basically saying that they tried but could have done better if only they'd been men who are innately trained for these situations.  What is wrong with you?  Do you not see why everyone is mad at you for saying things like this?

We now have Hanna Rosin at Slate urging parents to buy their little boys Easy Bake ovens so they’ll be more like little girls.

So fucking what.

Women are less aggressive by instinct, and they are typically trained to be nice. I praised and continue to praise the courage of the Sandy Hook principal, Dawn Hochsburg, and the teachers who gave up their lives along with her, but with some men on the scene who knew what to do, some of those lives might have been saved.

Thanks, for giving us a specific example from this exact event that proves how wrong you are.

I am also responding to David Weigel, who told me I gotten my facts wrong: that there are actually two men, a custodian and a fourth-grade teacher, on Sandy Hook’s 52-person staff. He’s right, and I stand corrected. This does help prove my point, though:

No, it doesn't.

just two adult men in a building containing 500 people — and it’s not clear that both of them were at work that day.

Just two adult men, in a building containing almost all children who are not adults.  You are clinging to this idea so far beyond the bounds of reason that I can't even figure out what someone would have to show you to get you to stop for one half second and think about whether you might be wrong.  You literally just said that your evidence being invalidated proves your point in the space of three sentences.

Indeed, a visit to Sandy Hook’s staff website is a depressing experience, the sea of women’s names.

I'm in goddamn tears over the lack of men employed there.  You know what's depressing, really?  That you could go to that page, and instead of feeling sadness at seeing the names of people who suffered from an unspeakable tragedy, you feel sadness that there are not enough male names on your screen.

Another depressing page on the Sandy Hook website is the “Safe Schools Climate” page. It’s a page of links to “anti-bullying” resources. Yes, the Sandy Hook staff’s idea of a “safe school” was a school where kids didn’t say mean things about each other on Facebook!

How awful.  This is absolutely irrelevant.  You just wanted some other pet issue you could tie in, but it sounds like you think what we need to protect our schools is...more bullying.  Just fantastic work there.  I wonder why people aren't lining up to sing your praises.

The Sandy Hook massacre was a tragedy, but it was at least in part a tragedy of the collision between feminist delusions and reality.

That's wrong.  You are wrong.  Stop it.  Sometimes people get upset at your writing just because it's upsetting.  Being controversial isn't a badge to be worn with pride.  Sometimes pissing people off just means you're pissing people off.