Letters to the Editor
btrader
Published Letters: 149 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Thank you cindypsych
[Read the article: Have a daughter? You wimp]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Your response segues nicely into Linney Uston's recent post. A study is done...and a correlation observed. The next step isn't to get all pissed off because a study contradicts your personal experience or offends your sensibilities. The next step is to formulate a hypothesis and then go about testing it....with particular emphasis on trying to disprove the hypothesis.
It's so evocative of the bruha over Larry Summers speech at Harvard way back when. My favorite part of that controversy was a female biology professor either at Harvard or MIT commenting on Summers' speech by saying, "[when I hear stuff like this, it makes me want to leave the room and vomit]." You discredit an assertion by actually researching and testing it, not behaving like a child and/or letting us know it upset, insulted, or offended you.
It's generally a good idea to avoid lines like "scratch my face off" or as Carol wrote today, "But earlier this week an article about some ongoing research out of New Zealand downright infuriated me." Same thing goes for the line about vomiting, if for no other reason than because it would be offensive to some folks with eating disorders. The sad truth is that phrases such as those, more often than not, broadcast your ignorance of the topic in question while, ironically enough, galvanizing your sisters to join the chorus of confirmation biases.
Just because a line may make a good sound-byte to someone who shares many of your beliefs, doesn't make it accurate, mature, or intelligent. However, an accurate, mature and intelligent line may actually make a good sound-byte not only to your ditto heads, but also to the world at large.
-
Hmm
[Read the article: Can abortions lead to mental illness?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While the mental health risks of legal abortions without counseling seem to be debatable and worthy of further stud....at least, I hope, we can all agree that the physical (and mental) health risks of illegal abortions are beyond debate, as we have plenty of years of empirical evidence from which to draw.
-
@Mr. Smith
[Read the article: Can abortions lead to mental illness?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When god's on your side, you're actually not being vicious....I was about to pose the question: why would anyone who was alive when abortion was illegal actually want to reinstate the ban? And then I started thinking, once god and religion enter the equation, there's really no room for rationality.
-
@ le_chat_rose
[Read the article: Have a daughter? You wimp]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Indeed, Broadsheet is a blog. Does this somehow excuse it from adhering to a certain standard, journalistic or otherwise?
I do not believe it's unrealistic to expect folks posting, reporting and/or commenting on something to have a modicum of knowledge on that which they're posting/commenting/reporting.
I'd make the case that allowing one's visceral emotional reaction to trump all other motivations for posting, especially when it results in the broadcasting of ignorance and the obfuscation of the topic, is not only counterproductive to "the cause," but also stupid.
Having said this, ad hominem attacks do show up far too frequently for my taste, and I've certainly been guilty of some, but what else is to be expected from the internet?
-
two more cents
[Read the article: I'm 21 and addicted to pot -- but I'm doing just great!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I suspect one of two things is happening here. Either the LW is so high that she's in denial about her functionality, or her anxiety over the pot smoking is just the result of paranoia.
Bottom line, drugs affect different people in different fashions. Some can be high functional, some simply have zero tolerance. And for many, their body and mind's ability to cope/function will change over time.
As for the greatest risks associated with her behavior, right now I'd say they are of the vocational and, of course, legal variety.
So yeah, I've offered nothing new.
-
More 'Observations'
[Read the article: Rape is like force-fed chocolate cake?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We're dealing with a simile here, not an analogy right? Regardless, it's still a profoundly disgusting/ignorant/awful statement.
Having said this, the point I believe many of the male posters try to make, and fail to, is the following: Many modern feminists are incapable of objective introspection. For example, in one of yesterday's letters threads (bra burning), there was a pissing match over whether the writings of older feminists, which were hate filled and spiteful, was relevant. One poster argued that it was unfair to give these writings a free pass and that words were equivalent to actions. Others argued that the writings and rants were ultimately irrelevant as they never led to action, weren't taken seriously, and aren't shared by most 'modern feminists.'
Now, we have a feminist blog, pointing a finger at a fringe right wing party, akin to the klan/nazis, that has almost no real power globally, not to mention in the UK. When some try to point out that that these are only the words of an irrelevant man who is part of an essentially irrelevant political party, the feminist chorus is, "[it doesn't matter! We need to shine the spotlight on this misogynist garbage.]" The only real difference is that we're talking about current events vs prior events.
Some of the "evil men" who post, and are labeled trolls, believe it or not, are actually making absurd arguments using language and logic that is often identical to many of the blog posts here. I'll single out brightstar because I don't think my words will offend him. Sometimes he completely misses the point....other times he's spot on in holding up the mirror. The irony being that, with few exceptions, the feminist response to his posts are the same.
If feminism were capable of more disinterested thought and self-reflection, its words and actions would be so much more powerful. The goals, whatever they are (As they seem to change daily) would be easier to achieve and, perhaps one day, the movement would be as relevant as broadsheet believes Maureen Dowd to be. Even if that were to happen, there's no way I'd stop reading her.