Letters to the Editor
Juliebird
Published Letters: 2072 Editor's Choice: 107
-
@ Parson Jim, neilpaul and others
[Read the article: Working fathers of the world unite!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The anonymous poster below has a point. Why is it that the constant plaint of misandry seen on the internet, television and in the press is somehow seen as legitimate, even tacitly approved of in so many feminist circles?"
Excuse me, but we are not talking about "the media" and "the feminists". WE are talking about the responders to this column. I went back and reread the letters. Here's what I learned:
the woman who complained about her husband was poster #25.
The man who complained about his wife being lazy, fiscally reckless and neglectful of her children was poster #16.
Poster #16 got a free pass from you, but poster #25 earned your ire.
Additionally, in the first page of 13 posters, I counted 4 snarky statements abou women in general, and one backwards compliment (that ended in a slap in the face) bt Robert Franklin.
The second page was mostly devoted to brightstars delusions and their rebuttals. You add all of brightstar's ravings, and the snarky anti-women coments jumps to 8 or 9.
Parson Jim, I'd worry far less about the hypocrisy of "the feminists" and more about your own, and your compadres.
-
@Amerigo
[Read the article: Cleric: Your sexy outfit is killing me!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The exchange of ideas on these boards is infinitley more satisfying if you respond to what people actually write in their posts, instead of what you imagine they write.
I didn't say Americans were more "advanced" (whatever you mean by that) or more "virtuous". I refuted your (rather biggoted, in a "Noble-Savage" fantasy way) preposterous statement that there was "less sex crime" in "traditional societies."
-
@Canuckistan Bob
[Read the article: Cleric: Your sexy outfit is killing me!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I didn't say that all my list applied to all "traditional societies" or to Islamic societies in particular. I wasn't even necessarily referring to current societial or cultural practice. I was responnding to Amerigo's ludicrous statement that sex crimes don't happen as frequently in "traditional societies."
Nineteenth (and early twentieth century, but let's stay in the era of hoop skirts and bustls, shall we?) America was a "traditional society." Women dressed modestly. Women could be (and were) raped or by their husbands without criminal charges being filed. (This didn't change much until ... oh my god, the Feminist Movement! Wow, who knew?) In short: sex crimes happened in our "traditional society" but we didn't recognize them as such at the time.
I'm a little startled that you assume I think people who worship Allah are monsters. I would think that reading any number of my posts would make it clear that I do not hold that view. (And I agree with many of your finer points. In fact, I have posted numerous times about infublation being a holdover from Pharonic Egypt, and not a practice of Islam. But, the practicioners of infibulation are in one of Amerigo's "traditional society:" a small subset of people who live in that part of the world and may or may not practice Islam. As for the stoning: rare is something different than never, isn't it?)
(Here are some more anti-West "traditional society" crimes so you don't think I think all Westerners possess superior virtue: hanging, burning or drowning women for alleged sexual congres with imaginary demons; executing women by beheading for adultery (Hello Anne Boleyn!); forcing girls as young as 14 to marry an adult male and consummate the marriage: which was investigated by the US giovernment only after one such young girl escaped from her "traditional society" within US borders. Her own community thought her marriage was completely ok, and Giod's Will besides. And not a one of them owned a Koran).
-
@ "guaranteed access" anonymous
[Read the article: Cleric: Your sexy outfit is killing me!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How little you must think of men, if you assume men are always willing to have sex with whatever woman who says "yes."
All the men I know have turned down women on occasion. For a variety of reasons (not attracted, not the right time, not feeling like it, not wanting to take advantage, married/committed to someone else, etc etc etc).Because they are men, not animals in heat.
Women hear "No" from men on a regular basis. I've not conducted research surveys to see what the comparative ratios are, but I'm sure your fantasy world of "Only women say no, Men are always rup for it, just waiting to be asked" does not exist.
-
fact my a$$
[Read the article: Cleric: Your sexy outfit is killing me!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]paranoid delusion, yes. gross exaggeration of a society where men and women have control over their own sexual choices, yes. "Fact?" No. Not even close.
What you describe, though, if you reverse wher you wrote "man" and "woman" pretty much sums up most "traditional societies" of any creed or geographic location. In "traditional societies" women are not to engage in sexual activities unless their husband initiates it, or they are raped. The paranoia about women from initiating their own sexual relationships created everything from witch trials to FGM to chastity belts to purda to nunneries to "separate sphere" nonsense. A woman who said "yes" without permission was, at best, branded a whore and at worse labeled a witch. A woman who said "no" without permission was ... overruled.
Men, up until very recently, were always able to have sex on (their) demand. A sampling from various social groups, times and locations: Wives were obligated to service. More than one wife provided a backup. Mistresses considered a necessary accessory. Professional women were readily available, with some brothels under the protection of (Christian, folks!) church leaders. Women were considered just spoils of war, to be used at will. Women were considered tradeable goods.
Now, in America, women and men have equal choice in when to say "yes" and when to say "no." Pardon me if I (and most sane people) call that progress. Even if your claim that women are "guarenteed" a night of passion whenever, while men must beg in the streets for a little tenderness, most of us are in better shape here and now than when and where men were the deciders of "yes" and "no."