Letters to the Editor
natasha simon
Published Letters: 19 Editor's Choice: 1
-
so it's better to let these kids languish?
[Read the article: The other side of international adoption]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While Ms. Na is entitled to her opinion, and she's got some valid points, I disagree that there's some larger evil here. Most birth mothers in foreign countries are in pretty dire straits, (and in the case of Africa, are quite often deceased) and it would take a massive feat of social engineering to fix that problem even on the most basic level. Find a home for the children that exist where you can, and work on providing access to birth control, education, jobs, etc otherwise. Otherwise, it's the same argument the wingnuts make that if they take away birth control and the right to abortion, people will all of a sudden stop fucking so damn much. Bull.
Besides, adoption in Korea has changed alot recently, as I'm very familiar with. (We're currently waiting to find out when my son will arrive home for the first time.) We've chosen an 'open adoption', which is a pretty new thing, internationally. If my son's birth mother ever wants to meet her child, or if he wants to meet her, the information exists. Small world, nowadays, dontchaknow. And the Korean government is trying to encourage more in-country adoption by placing all children who are relinquished by their parents 'on hold' for 6 months. As far as I know, it isn't working, at least for the boys. (Girls, as potential dress-up dolls or something, are apparently more desirable for adoption, from what I understand)
As far as the whole-why-don't-people-adopt-US-children routine,... While it's great that some people want to adopt troubled children, or at least those with troubled families still partially attached, it really isn't an option for everyone, and quite frankly, as a soon-to-be adoptive parent, I refused to be shamed into making that choice. I have enough drama in my life, thank you. I'd rather not jeopardize my health, my marriage, or my sanity by getting involved in a situation that I know is above my comfort level. More power to those who feel they can, but I'm not one of them. (And yes, the those issues could potentially exist with the situation we're in, too, I know.)
-
@ maddog
[Read the article: The other side of international adoption]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I feel awful that the implication from Natasha and others that US kids are "troubled" or "partially attached," and therefore less desireable of adoption by US families! This is not true!
Sigh. Read what I wrote. I said I personally know I couldn't a situation where I never know if my kids are truly mine, or if their usually-an-addict mother would show up on my doorstep saying she was cleaned up and wanted them back. God or the FSM bless those who are willing to go through it though. The kids in those situations are no less deserving of love and stability than any others; it's just not a situation that everyone can handle, IMO.
-
Those who can't do...
[Read the article: Math doesn't suck, it buys you Gucci]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...Apparently, write for Broadsheet.
Carol? Honey? We get it. You and math aren't friends. Now please, stop bashing those of us who hang out in a different part of the sisterhood.
My PhD is in engineering, and hell yeah, I went through a long and protracted 'but the boys won't like me' phase. It probably didn't fully end until I was 19 or so. Most of us geek-babes take a while to embrace our inner nerd. Today, my eff-me heels and membership in IEEE coexist quite happily, but damn, I would have given alot for a sexy AND smart role model or two back in my grade school days.
-
well...
[Read the article: Chaste women + promiscuous men = impossible]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There are alot of assumptions that aren't being stated here. The first thing you need to know about any statistical study is how they define their population. Are they truly surveying a representative sample of the sexually active individuals out there?
Let's say you've got a crew of um, ...friendly, women out there. Are they at home to receive the researcher's call? Likely no. Too busy out fornicating, natch. Likewise the lonely wallflower, at home with her Bible and knitting needles. Probably only too happy to speak about how she's saving it all for her one tru wuv. (And yes, I'm aware that the 'we're not at home to get the phone calls because we're more fun' routine is straight out of the republican playbook, but it actually could apply here.
So in short, these researchers are a little too quick to discount men going outside their sample population to what they call the 'prostitute' population, as quite likely, this is where the logic falls apart. Stated another way, you'd have to make sure that each of their purported partners was inside the study population in order to support the claim they are making.
From a scientific point of view, the only way a researcher could truly prove a difference in male/female promiscuity one way or the other would be to corral a large group of people (1000+) on a research farm somewhere, and radiolabel the guys' sperm or something, then follow the evidence. Obviously something like that is out of the question, from an ethical standpoint, although I'm sure someone could find willing participants. And even then you'd have a hell of a time separating out effects of behavioral modifications due to the lab environment.
Or *shrug*, you know, we could just stop obsessing so much about each other's sex lives.
-
Amusing role reversal...
[Read the article: Will brides decide the 2008 election?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I for one find this hilarious. The government certainly seems to have its sticky fingers well inserted into the marriage sphere nowadays... so what's wrong with slipping the bridal slipper on the other foot?