Letters to the Editor
Elisabeth-Anne
Published Letters: 4 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Dr. Fisher's Theory...
[Read the article: Cupid's science]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually, it's not hers at all. As mentioned in the article, the idea of classifying humanity into four temperaments dates back to the Ancient Greeks. However, her claim that adding a biological component to the theory is something new and innovative is laughingly, maddeningly wrong. That's how it all started! It was once believed that each human being had a balance of four humours, and the predominant humour determined their temperament - choleric (what Fisher calls the negotiator), phlegmatic (the director), melancholic (builder), and sanguine (explorer). The idea that an abundance of blood or bile determines your personality has, of course, long since been dismissed as unscientific. Fisher's ideas about estrogen, dopamine, etc. playing such specifically delineated roles in developing personalities is every bit as unscientific. She splits the types rigidly along lines of biological gender. While gender does play a role in temperament, it's simply not true that all men are [fill in the blank] and all women are [fill in another blank], no matter how fervently so many people would like to believe it.
You know which famous figures would fit into Fisher's "Estrogen" category (Idealist/NF according to other models)? Goethe, Martin Luther King, Jr, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, among others. Fisher's theory seems to imply that these men were temperamentally "female" (in the strict way that she envisions that term). But are they really less "manly" (however you may define that term) than, say, a supposedly-testosterone-fueled "director" (Albert Einstein would fall into that cateogry. So would Marie Curie, for that matter.)?
And finally, the terms Artisan, Guardian, Idealist, and Rational were not thought of by Plato (He did name similar categories, but he did not use those words). They come from the work of David Keirsey; though I'm sure he would be flattered that his words were mistaken for those of one of the greatest philosophers of all time!
Speaking of Keirsey, I would recommend his Please Understand Me, which explores the ideas of temperament and personality types without resorting to Fisher's quackish nonsense.
-
I know just what Faludi means...
[Read the article: The 9/11 backlash against women]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]9/11 happened during my senior year of high school, and the effect on my female classmates and me was deleterious. We all promptly declined those acceptance letters to colleges and universities nationwide, stopped planning future careers, found husbands, and started raising broods of future patriots.
Oh, wait. No we didn't.
Of course, anyone who inventories American culture and society will find plenty of cringeworthy examples of misogyny (just like you can find cringeworthy examples of anything, from racism to lousy taste in movies). That does not mean that there is some evil, amorphous conspiracy afoot to "sweep women back into the kitchen." It simply means that sexism still exists, and that there is still a need for feminism. Meanwhile, my contemporaries and I are busy starting up our careers in various fields. Somehow, the image of Lisa Beamer eulogizing her husband on TV didn't cause us to whimper and then run back to the protective arms of the patriarchal past. Because we have minds and are able to think for ourselves, remember? Isn't acknowledging that supposed to be an important part of feminism?
In an article on racial equality and civil rights a few years ago, a Salon writer stated that emphasizing oppression and victimization to the exclusion of all else is demoralizing, and, ultimately, not a good way to build a collective consciousness. Why does no one ever apply this to women?
-
Come again?
[Read the article: Life will kill you]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The question was asked:
"A recent report from the American Cancer Society found that breast cancer death rates are falling. To what do you attribute that?
And the answer:
".....One possibility is that we stopped doing as many mammograms. There have been budget cuts, as you may have heard. With fewer mammograms, then you'd be finding less breast cancer."
Think about the logic of that statement. With fewer mammograms, fewer cases of breast cancer would be caught in time for successful treatment - and the death rate would rise, not fall.
And anyway, the original question asked about death rates from cancer, not incidence.
-
See that girl in the picture with her face covered?
[Read the article: Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's me, hiding myself in embarrassment at being lumped into an apparently homogeneous group known as "young women," all of whom share the exact shame political perspectives.
Speak for yourself, Rebecca Traister. And one more thing: Back off!