Dear Joan,

I have not read any of the other letters, so I expect I will be repeating what many others have said. I know nothing about the Kathy Sierra affair, but I fully support your general thesis about misogyny on the web. Let me carry it a bit further: there is a general lack of civility on the internet. People - presumably because many of them can be anonymous, or are so far apart that they fear no repercussions for their words, are inclined to be insulting and vicious. When I skim through the comments section of any website, I am often amazed, and depressed, to find so many people attacking others for no good reason. This aspect of the problem has nothing to do with gender. However, this lack of civility is taken up several notches when the object of attack is a woman. Individuals who are already inclined towards being vicious and abusive on the web have access to a whole other world of vitriol when their target is a woman.

I suspect that the general misogyny on the web is greatly aided by the fact that so many websites are pornographic. I don't want to carry this too far without real evidence, but I strongly suspect that a general disrespect for women is reinforced among webheads by their constant and easy exposure to the dehumanization of women, in graphic terms, every time they start up their computers. For a time, until my university improved its filters and I set up a spam box, I could not go into my email without being inundated by pornographic emails depicting the degradation of women.

As part of the solution, may I suggest that anonymous postings to Salon no longer be accepted. Regular newspapers do not publish letters under pseudonyms; I don't think that Salon should do so either. That may go some distance towards weeding out the flamers. I also applaud the idea of getting rid of letters that are ad hominem/feminem attacks and, possibly, warning letter writers who do that kind of thing that their letters may be rejected in the future. As a final suggestion, maybe you should restrict letter writers to subscribers to Salon - i.e., people for whom you have full records and who can be held to account if they are abusive. Alternatively, make it so that anyone submitting a letter to Salon has to login and provide verifiable personal information. I don't know if that is the case already, given that I am a subscriber, but this may also help to limit irresponsible emails.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Editor,

This is an interesting article. Actually, despite being a political scientist and living in Canada all my life, I'd never heard of Rachel Marsden. Of course, the Sun newspapers are absolute trash and I don't read them, so that probably explains it. However, I do remember the Simon Fraser University case very well - at the time, it was portrayed as an example of political correctness gone mad. I did not know that the woman involved was Ms. Marsden, and that is a fact that really does call a lot of things into question. I certainly support the idea of giving people a second chance, but Ms. Marsden seems to have a long-established pattern of stalking. She clearly needs help. I can only hope that she has found some kind of serious therapy and that she really won't be appearing before some criminal court ever again. But, quite honestly, I suspect that this is not the last that we've heard of this kind of behaviour coming from her. (And isn't Ms. Marsden referring to Presidnent Ahmadinejad of Iran as "crazy" a bit rich, given her history?)

At any rate, one less scary conservative in Canada can't be a bad thing. Sorry for foisting these people on you Americans, but better you than us. Besides they fit in better south of the border.

One last point: her co-hosts did not know what the Gulf of Tonkin was? And the fact that Ms. Marsden did makes her a political expert? I would say that's stretching things a bit, but then Fox is not known for the quality of its news coverage, so I guess that's par for the course.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Editor:

An update on this issue: in fact, when the electoral officer OK'd allowing Muslim women to wear their niqab when voting, he was only enforcing existing laws. As it turns out, it is already legal to vote with some obstruction over the face if you can demonstrate your identity in other ways, including filling out a sworn statement indicating that you are who you say. The Globe and Mail's Friday editorial says the following:

"Quebec's rules provide for unusual circumstances. A voter must have her name on the list of electors in order to vote. She must present one of five pieces of identification: a health insurance card, a driver's licence, a Canadian passport, a certificate of Indian status or a Canadian Forces ID card. In the absence of those documents – or if she won't show her face and therefore can't make use of photo ID – she has two choices. She may state under oath that she is the elector listed and present two documents that together prove her identity; or she may be accompanied by a second person who has the right documentation and can attest to the voter's identity. The rules, devised without reference to the niqab, nonetheless cover the niqab."

Note this last part: the rules were devised without reference to the niqab. I suppose they were meant for circumstances where, for some reason, a person's face cannot be revealed or matched to existing documentation - eg. if bandaged or disfigured.

The issue really is one of tolerance and accommodation. Quebec has cast itself in a deeply unflattering light on this one.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine