Letters to the Editor
Sandra M
Published Letters: 578 Editor's Choice: 139
-
Post no more
[Read the article: Journalist Jill Carroll is free]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please do not keep us posted as more details emerge. This story already has an ending written, to wit:
"In a short interview with a Baghdad TV station, Carroll said: "I was treated well, but I don't know why I was kidnapped." She also said that she was never beaten by her captors, or threatened with beatings. She was kept in a room with a window and had access to a shower, she said, but didn't know where she was."
I wish the media would resist milking the inherent drama in the situation and for once, ONCE, not write and air repetitive stories that go over and over the same details with new adjectives. There's nothing new to learn here. There is no more NEWS here.
Except maybe how the translator's family is doing - and maybe raising some money for them? That guy was just murdered execution style. So why does he get only a few words, while Jill, safe and sound, will doubtless have thousands more poured out on her behalf - not because the public demands it or even *wants* it, but because in an era of 24x7 news, tiny things become big, big things become huge, huge things become all-consuming.
Enough. Salon covered the story. She's released. She sat in a room w/ a shower and ws not harmed. There's no more story here. Let's move on - there IS still a war.
-
Greer Cashman's Hassidic definition of "women need security": Men Require Their Women To Not Require Variety
[Read the article: What else we're reading]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Jerusalem Post journalist asserts: "Let's be honest! Man is not really a monogamous creature. If he were, you wouldn't have so many men betraying their wives. Man requires variety and woman requires security. And security for many women means knowing that you are not alone, that you're part of the tribe."
I could buy into this argument if men were as noncommital about their women's need for variety too. The problem is, most men who want variety wish to blind themselves to the fact that their women would probably like the excitment and illicit thrill of being courted, listened to, desired and made love to by a sexy stranger as they themselves do. They desexualize their wives - 'she wants security, a family' so as to not feel threatened by the spectre of a more virile male able to unleash her sexuality in a way he cannot, or no longer wants to.
This "men are not monogamous by nature but women, being born asexual with no needs of their own, ARE monogamous because security and children come before their own biological needs" crap needs to stop. Monogamy is perhaps not a natural state. But jealousy is. And most of us who are in love and want to be with someone understand that while we may occasionally be attracted to others as we proceed down life's path, and it might be fun to act on that attraction and not get caught and it won't be anything more important than a romp in the hay so what's the problem really, we definitely do NOT want our spouse doing the same thing because we know how badly it will hurt, how it will undermine trust and emotional intimacy and of course the sexual passion. Monogamy is the choice both men and women make to avoid having that jealousy inflicted on us. Anyone who believes the crap this journalist is spouting has never been truly, passionately in love....or simply wants to believe it, because it's a hell of a lot more fun (and easy) to live unconsciously than consciously.
-
On the contrary, dismissing 'for women' crap IS good for women
[Read the article: Glamour exposes "the new lies about women's health"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I couldn't disagree more with Lynn Harris's assertion that " even if women's magazines aren't your thing, consider that dismissing them out of hand doesn't help anything "for women" get taken seriously."
Huh? The article blurbs on the cover of Cosmo and Glamour are almost exclusively devoted to how to lose weight, how to drive him crazy in bed, how to figure out what he's thinking, how to put on make up , how to firm up, how to get attention and self esteem through massive consuming of clothing, outrageously expensive handbags and shoes, and a creme- or powder-baesed product for every feature and square inch of skin. Go ahead and buy three issues of each for the next three months. Make an excel spreadsheet with three columns: Dumb tips about sex, dumb tips about makeup, dumb tips about weight loss, and Other (content telling you that you aren't thin/pretty/confident/smart/successful enough but here's how to fix it). I guarantee you you won't have many, if any, homeless cover blurbs - these categories about cover the terrain.
I reject this terrain as 'for women'. It's for vain numskulls. Sure, it's a nice brainless way to pass the time during the occasional plane trip. But has anyone hever finished a magazine like that and felt edified at ALL? Much less truly entertained? I always feel slightly slimed, and think what a waste of time and money (not to mention brain cells).
I refuse to concede that just because that's what's out there 'for women' is somehow justifiable, because we must defend anything under the 'for women' banner or we're not good women. Bullshit. Those magazines create and prey on insecurity. The message is: you are always a work in progress, you need endless fixing, and we have endless products for you to buy (including the content that is our 'editorial' product) to fix you.
I don't buy into this, and I don't buy the crappy women's magazines. It's not for any women *I* know or want to know. Yes, I DO dismiss it out of hand - and I will continue to do so, until something decen takes it's place. If we don't dismiss the crap, there will never be any room for anything better under the banner of 'for women'. So let's make room, else we women we'll forever be marginalized as the witless consumers of Lifetime, Cosmo and Glamour.