Letters to the Editor
meerclad
Published Letters: 9
-
We are the new bachelors
[Read the article: Looking for Mr. Mediocre]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I enjoy the single life. I date who I like, live where I choose, and travel extensively for pleasure. I don't buy into the hype that single, professional women are all desperate to find a man who earns more than they do. In fact it's completely the opposite.
We women are the new bachelors. We are the swingin' single males of our generation. Most of the men my age in my profession have settled down already. Good for them, but why should I do the same? Maybe my wandering eye hasn't yet found the right boy to take home to dad. I don't see why I should buy the cow when I can afford my own farm.
As the article says, "At the end of day, the most important thing is to be with someone who treats you well." The time may come when I meet a cute administrative assistant or kindergarten teacher who feels successful enough in his field that he's not intimidated by mine. So I'm not saying I'll never settle down... I'm just saying he has to hook me.
-
Sympathy, but...
[Read the article: A man's right to choose -- a second take on Dalton Conley]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I sympathize with the frustration men must feel about being "trapped" by a woman's pregnancy. It's interesting that this issue once again comes down to control. Control--over whether a woman chooses to bear a child. We can't argue with biological fact. A man's physical involvement in pregnancy ends with sex. That is why the extent of his choice must be limited to the sexual act.
As for a veto power or legal mechanism to absolve the man of financial (as opposed to moral and ethical) responsibility for the child, this clearly would not be in the best interest of society or the child. Let's not forget how incredibly recent enforcement of child support is, when it is enforced. I find the hyperventilation over this issue extremely suspect. As another poster wrote, men have always been able to walk away, and often do. Is the real objection that this has begun to change?
-
Why don't you...
[Read the article: A bitch weighs in on "King Kong"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Come back when you've actually seen the movie.
-
Outrage and the Right
[Read the article: A little year-end outrage]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why should I be outraged by the comments of ignorant celebrities?
I thought the Left deplored the hatemongers of the Right who stir up hypertension and outrage with their manufactured scandals. I'm sure most Democrats have objected to the tactics of right-wing bloggers who cherrypick a remark or two and offer it up as representative of the Left. How is this article any different? Are the remarks of talking heads really worthy of an emotional response?
It's not that I agree with the quotes. They are "outrageous". But over the Christmas holiday and the so-called war against it, I've reflected on the anger and disgust I've felt while reading about these skirmishes in the culture wars.
The left-wing blogosphere is becoming a mirror image of the Right wingnuts they despise.
-
These are a few of my favorite things...
[Read the article: The best and worst in television]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Battlestar Galactica - It's overrated for a reason. BG is very, very post-9/11 and probably the most topical thing in SF since the original Star Trek. It's a little ironic to insult the show for being xenophobic when that's almost certainly the point. This show will hook you if you give it a chance (and wade past the obligatory hot Cylon sex).
House M.D. - The formulaic plots sometimes allow real genius to break through, as in last season's "Detox" and "Three Stories" (both Emmy-nominated). Hugh Laurie is brilliant as the title character. Too bad the other characters aren't equally fascinating. After I got the season 1 boxset I was hooked. I'll catch up with season 2 when it's out on DVD.
Commander-in-Chief - This fascinating show may not be very believable, but it's an exercise in wish fulfillment worth watching for Geena Davis' wardrobe alone. 6' of statuesque Amazon queen is not campy at all. Why is the Presidential Power Couple so much hotter than their teenage kids?
-
The system is unfair because biology is unfair
[Read the article: Roe for men?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why don't we just pay money to everybody who has children so the men who are actually responsible for them don't have to? Isn't that what this is about?
If men can unilaterally terminate their financial responsibilities, I suppose women could too, since that is only "equal". I guess that leaves society holding the bag again. Note this has nothing to do with adoption, where both natural parents are involved unless the father cannot be found.
I am curious how this proposed system would actually work. For all those men who would potentially make an "up or down vote" on their obligations toward their offspring, how many would sign away their financial responsibility and then turn around and try to insinuate themselves into some sort of relationship with the child? Could the custodial parent retaliate on the grounds the father disclaimed his rights, or does the child's interest in a relationship with his/her father win the day? Does the child lose inheritance rights, too? A return to de facto illegitimacy? Do we end up with more weepy tales from Men's Rights Activists about womenfolk who won't allow a father access to his own offspring?
What we have is the best unsavory alternative among ever more unsavory alternatives. The sexes are not equal in biology; they are equal in their right to bodily self-determination. Since pregnancy takes place in a woman's body this means the system is unfair. Neither is it fair to deny a child the right to parental support when a parent is available. Neither is it fair for one person to force another to undergo or not undergo an invasive medical procedure based on economic blackmail.