- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:
Published Letters: 3795
Editor's Choice: 33
@ Doppelganger: I didn't get the impression from Ms(Mr?)Scherer's post that s/he thought this pink trend was important. I don't think the idea was that this is yet another PP (Patriarchy Plot) against feminism. It clearly is not as important as the Kobra Najjim stoning post, and the text, at least to me, clearly reflects this. It's just a moderately interesting item that stroke the author as worthwhile for a short comment. One often sees such things in blogs. Do the others agree that there were no implications of great importance or great outrage in the post?
@ crowbot: I got interested in what you said about red having been the color for male babies and blue for female babies before the 19th century. Do you have any references on that?
Despite the "offended" tone, I tend to agree with mizbinkley here: it's just one more case of publishers doing what's necessary to sell more. I remember when pulp science fiction was published in magazines and paperbacks with gory pictures of scantily clad ladies about to be attacked by long-tentacled aliens... and even today, the covers usually have nothing to do with the story and everything with the need to capture the attention of possible buyers. No implicit sexism at work, just healthy desire for money.
I meant, 'struck the author', not 'stroke'. Damn English irregular verbs...
Aren't you exaggerating a little here? I think the point of the Kobra=supervillain line was exactly to chastise the Iranian government for treating her as if she were one. I didn't dedect any obvious disrespect to Kobra Najjim in this line, though I see how it could be read into it. Why the strong censorship line here ('go back and redo your text!', like an old-style Communist government having undesirables deleted from old historical photos)?...
