Dear Prof. Holbrook,

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my February 10 column in which I commented on the message of then-recent women’s marches across the world, particularly in DC. It is nice to know I have readers and I am glad I succeeded in initiating thought and discussion.

Before I address the questions you asked me, I would first like to clarify a statement you may have misinterpreted.

You stated: “I disagree, however, that the women protesting against the election of a man who would speak about women in this way are ‘a bunch of Hollywood has-beens’ who ‘preach about how great vaginas are or [about] blowing up the White House’.”

These words were mine, but I did not use them to describe all participants of the women’s marches. I described the majority of marchers as “people who want to make a difference in this country” and “millions of women standing up for what they believe in”. The people I refer to in the line you quoted are only who I said I saw in “videos from the women’s march on Facebook and TV”.

I therefore do not believe the “Hollywood has-beens” are the true representation of the marchers.

You asked me to comment on Pres. Trump’s infamous words that made “pussy” the center of America’s attention. Here we agree completely. What he said is disgraceful, disgusting, and quite unpresidential, like many of his statements. I tend to keep my political views out of my pieces, but I will say here that I did not vote for Trump in the primary, before the tape was released, or in the presidential election, after it was released.

This response should come as no surprise as I also had issues with crudity of many of the protestors. I don’t take sides on things like this because of politics, I take them based on presentation. An indecent politician and an indecent citizen are both indecent people, however else they define themselves.

Which brings us to another of your questions. You compared the “social expectancy of women being proper” that I pointed out to an oft broken expectancy we have that presidents and lawmakers be proper too. I think we agree again. I detest scandals about politicians lying, cheating, and hacking their way to power (or procreation). I do not believe this is the majority of politicians in the world, but it is a shame to see the lousy ones fail to meet the moral standards we hold them to.

So why did my article target women’s marchers and not politicians? This publication calls itself a “newspaper”, so it must cover “new” stories. “Politicians ruin their image with vulgar behavior” is a headline older than our nation. I have no vendetta against feminists, I just saw that the women’s march was trending and used it to get a message across.

This takes us to your question of whether I “insultingly [twisted] the symbolism of the pink hats to fit [my] thesis”. First off, I don’t believe I made any more of an insult out of the pussy hats than there already was, seeing that “pussy” is already used only as an insult meaning someone who is weak or in uncreative dirty talk.

As for twisting the meaning, I absolutely did. I would like to direct my readers to a column of mine from October titled “The killer clown problem is exactly as stupid as it sounds”. In that piece, I compared America’s fear of people in clown costumes to its fear of immigrants and black people. I didn’t really write an article about clowns, I wrote an article about hysteria and twisted clowns into it because it was timely.

Similarly, I didn’t really write an article about the women’s march. I wrote an article about extremists tainting a message that more people stand for, which applies to any group. Because of Donald Trump, many people hesitate to call themselves Republican. Because of Kim Davis, many people hesitate to call themselves Christian. And because of Madonna, many people hesitate to call themselves feminist.

I will address your concerns with my rhetoric last. I described some of the protestors as “insane”. By the word’s exact meaning, I am sure most of the extremists are not actually insane. Of course I did not use the word in its exact meaning because I did not feel it was necessary. It was not necessary for me to be prudish or polite in my piece at all.

Why wouldn’t I hold myself to the standards I hold the protestors to? Because I am not trying to appeal to lawmakers and change the country. I’m here because somebody just got in a long line at C Shop and they’re not gonna stand in that without something to read. I set out to entertain 20-year-olds and, at best, get them talking in line.

I hope I have clarified my statements satisfactorily. If any of my readers have further questions or comments, I encourage you to contact me directly so that I can continue to write new content for each issue of The Crier.

Sincerely,

Craig Watkins ’19

This piece was written in response to a letter to the editor from The Crier’s last issue, published Feb. 24, 2017.