Some further reflections on the infamous article...

I think the first thing that bothered me about it is the fact that the author is stereotyping, and she doesn't seem to realize that she is. If she had made disparaging comments about people of a particular race, or gender, or religious group, her editor would have (at the very least) told her "we're not running this". But since it's knitters, well, that's OK. Just like it's still OK (at least in some circles) to disparage fat people, gay people, people who live in trailer parks, or even academics (yes, I've heard some pretty nasty things said about academics), knitters and other crafters are an easy and still-acceptable target.

I'm not saying I dislike parody. I laughed pretty hard at the "Martha Stuart" bits on SNL. But I do dislike meanspiritedness.

I think the author of the article is better than that, but she gave into a weak or selfish impulse.

The second thing she did that bothered me was to buy into a conspiracy theory - that somehow, the presence of Laura Bush in the White House has something to do with this newfound popularity of knitting - and that it signals that in the not-too-distant future, women will be fired from their jobs, forced to wear "modest" clothes, required to stay home and mind the kids, etc. Conspiracy theorists of any stripe immediately make me distrust anything else they say.

I do hope, after all the irate letters she has doubtless received (I didn't bother to add my opinion to the avalanche) that she doesn't write ANOTHER column on "gee, those knitters sure are b*tchy people!" But with some people, you never know.

Actually, like several knitlisters have commented, you also tend to feel sorry for someone who is so closed-minded and who apparently does not understand the joy of being able to create something with one's own two hands. And yes, even cooking is a form of creation. And yes, it is possible to derive satisfaction from providing food for people and having them enjoy it.