Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:

johnfairfax

Published Letters: 188
Editor's Choice: 37

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 10:09 AM
Original article: An imprint of their own

Nothing simpler.

The motivation for this new book imprint for women of a certain age is obvious: To make money from women of a certain age by flattering them with their own book imprint. I haven't noticed any particular dearth of books aimed at women, but if you're starting a new company the most obvious first move is to declare your prospective marketplace empty or under-served...and then assert you plan to fix that error/injustice.

In the end, I can't see these marketing techniques making much of a difference. The imprint will either work or it won't and its success will depend on whether or not they produce books women want to read.

Thursday, August 31, 2006 07:31 AM

You're not lulling me into a false sense of security.

The obvious irony of the subject header "Shocker: Boys not heartless beasts!" appearing in Broadsheet aside...

Friday, September 1, 2006 05:52 AM

How is 'violent porn' defined?

Would Alfred Hitchcock's 1972 thriller "Frenzy," about a charming and handsome misogynist who rapes and murders women in London, for example, be defined as 'violent porn'? The movie depicts a disturbing rape and murder, including nudity. Does the mere depiction of violent sex and rape violate the law or must it appear to the average viewer to be intended to arouse perverted desires? The rape/murder scene is "Frenzy" is disturbing to me, but someone else might find it arousing.

A problematic law.

Friday, September 1, 2006 05:57 AM

What's offensive?

It looks to me as if Mr Millan was making a general statement about the differences between the male and female dog owners he has encountered and the issues they have with their dogs. Surely, if anyone is qualified to make such an observation it would be Mr Millan himself. If it pleases some to extrapolate from his one innocuous statement and attempt to attach a variety of reactionary views to Mr Millan, views he has not expressed, does that not say more about those people than it does about Mr Millan?

Friday, September 15, 2006 08:42 PM

Q: What's more boring than two feminists arguing about who is more of a feminist?

A: Two feminist bloggers arguing about who is more of a feminist.

This is the sort of embarrassing didactism that should never make its way outside a Womyn's Studies class. Why don't we follow this up with an exhaustive debate on dialectical materialism and then conclude the evening by listening to one of Fidel Castro's nine-hour speeches?

And Broadsheet doesn't know any better than to take this crap seriously? It isn't THAT much of a slow news day.

Monday, September 18, 2006 06:30 AM

Pay for what you want

This isn't a public university at issue here, it is a private school. It is run for profit. The solution to this problem is simple. If the women-only school is not viable [read: 'we can't make money doing this'] then raise tuition until it is viable. Then present the students with a choice. If a women-only education is so important, pay for it. If you're not willing to pay for it, there must be other issues more important. In which case, the issue has been resolved.

P.S. Love the 'male gaze' reference. I just had a flashback to a time when I hadn't even been born.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 04:46 AM

I can't cover all the discrimination angles

So, let me see if I get this straight. Plain-looking women are discriminated against all the time in our culture, but especially on television and show business. [And despite the hilarious attempt to hype Campbell Brown's journalistic bona fides, The Today Show is show business. It has been run by the Entertainment division at NBC for years, not the News division.] Also, women with children are discriminated against constantly and held down at work.

However, good-looking women are also discriminated against [even in the entertainment industry!] and so are women without children.

So, let's recap: If you're an attractive or plain woman, you will face discrimination. Also, if you're childless or a mother, you will face discrimination. Does that cover it?

Why don't we just decide that every woman who doesn't get a job she wants lost it because of discrimination -- even when she loses it to another woman and because of women.

And the best part of this: None of it will seem unreasonable to the writers and most readers of Broadsheet. You don't have to go looking for good comedy, my friends. The funniest stuff is all around you.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 01:52 PM
Original article: Digital dieting

You know why they created this product.

Because there is almost certainly a demand for it. And why would that be?

All together now...THE PATRIARCHY!

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 04:48 PM

No love for Sally Ride?

Some 'space tourist' gets paragraphs, but Sally Ride doesn't meven merit a mention?

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 07:44 PM
Original article: What else we're reading

You know why the pay is so lousy?

Have a look at the quality of local news some time. There's your answer. I majored in broadcast journalism in college and was heading toward that career. Thank God I stopped myself in time.

Most Active Letters Threads

727

The commendably missing element from Obama's speech

There was no pretense that human rights is our goal, or the likely outcome, in escalating the war
688

Obama's exceedingly familiar justifications for escalation

The "new" approach to Afghanistan touted by White House officials seems quite old
329

Yes, it's Obama's war now

An uninspiring speech sells a dubious policy, but progressives who feel betrayed have only themselves to blame
278

America's regression

It's almost impossible to find a nation with as many torture advocates as the U.S. has.
186

The poster boy for progressive self-delusion

Read Hayden's 2008 Obama endorsement to remember the way the left sold our centrist president to itself

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon