Letters to the Editor
Sandra M
Published Letters: 578 Editor's Choice: 139
-
Anger is neither masculine nor feminine
[Read the article: Clinton angry for all the right reasons]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Boston Globe, NY Times and other newspapers all referred to Gore and Kerry as angry and unhappy. Howard Dean was referred to more than once as hysterical. There is nothing 'gendered' about these comments - they are simply reflective of the candidate's apparent emotional state, and more often than not are reasonably accurate interpretations of tone and manner. Hilary has been called brittle - well, the words I'd use are 'strident and stiff' - she is one of the worst public speakers, male or female, I've ever heard. She never speaks in her normal voice - she always seems to be shouting in a register an octave lower than her normal speaking voice. Pointing this out isn't anti-feminist - what's gendered about noticing someone is shouting? Someone needs to teach her how to use her diaphragm to project better, that's all.
It seems to me that M. Dowd is the one to raise the spectre of sexism. Hilary is simply saying 'when they attack you instead of your ideas, you have them running scared - they are paying attention, and that's a good thing.' Amen to that. It's Dowd, evoking harpies and Glenn Close, that is diminishing the debate, turning a comment about Hilary's 'anger' into a anti-feminist polemic, when the opposite is true - Hilary is being criticized in exactly the same way, with exactly the same words, as the men - Gore, Kerry, Dean - who have run before her. It might not be *nice" or even particularly *accurate* - but that's equality, baby.
Life is unfair enough for women, without pot-stirrers like Dowd *looking* for inequality where none is being demonstrated.
-
Communication is not as important as compromise in a committed relationship
[Read the article: Singles going steady]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Being in a long-term relationship means learning how to let the other person have their way when you least feel like it. It means listening to them say, for the hundredth time, 'where are my keys' and just gritting your teeth instead of snapping at them "I never touch your keys! Geez!" It means that, when they interrupt you for the thousandth time, you just mentally roll your eyes because, though you've asked them not to interrupt you, have pointed out how annoying and disrespectful this is to you, they can't seem to help it and you can always bring it to their attention in a calmer moment rather than ranting gleefully about how the 'never' listen to you, how they 'always' interrupt.
Being in love means being willing to consider the other person's happiness at least as often as you consider your own. It means going to his family's for Thanksgiving because it really is more important to him and his mother than going to your own family's home for Thanksgiving is to you and your mother. It means finding a way to graciously let them have their way enough of the time that they feel respected and appreciated. It means finding a way to state what you need, and get what you need, without resorting to nagging, whining, accusing and other tactics involving brutal generalship.
Compromise is the essence of living well together. And while foregoing immediate sex might enable people to see one another more clearly, there are advantages to early sex as well - my SO and I had sex within 3 days of meeting, and our relationship has, for the last 3 1/2 years, been a steady escalation of that passion. And that passion, in turn, has been one of the things I value so much that I find it, if not always easy to compromise in our dealings, then certainly wortwhile. I'm not willing to lose him in a power struggle about money, how we vacation, families, housekeeping, etc. Our bond was immediately physical and immediately powerful - physical love is an important and unique way to express ourselves to one another - it shouldn't be devalued as mere lust. It's a way to build trust and intimacy, share yourself, expose your spirit. It's been one of the (not THE) foundations of our relationship, and the desire to protect it and enhance it has driven many of the decisions i've made regarding how to interact with him - - I've spent a lot of time working on my anger management, my desire to win a fight at all costs, my tendency to get my feelings hurt too easily, etc. In other words, being in love has made me want to be a better person in the relationship. While it might be more ideal to enter the relationship as a more perfect version of myself, that's not always possible - sometimes we need the friction of another person to show us which of our faults might turn into deal breakers, and which are just going to be the stuff of compromise.
Most people have some jerk-like qualities. Training yourself to spot these qualities seems like a futile endeavor unless you are willing ot turn the spotlight back on yourself, as well. You aren't going to find the perfect person - everyone has a flaw or three. Love is what makes you decide if you can ignore or find a way to live with their flaws, or want to take the time to fix your own.
-
That's "abortions available to "savaged sodomized RELIGIOUS virgins"
[Read the article: Abortions available to sodomized virgins only]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Don't go misquoting him, now.
What I can't figure out is why his constituency doesn't rise up and demand he resign his Senatorial seat. Don't these people have daughters? Are all the nonreligious virgins and non-virgin women in this state OK with the position that they should be forced to carry a rapist/sodomist's child because their lack of prayerful purity negates any physical and psychological impact of the violation?
Why isn't this guy being pilloried in the press?