Letters to the Editor
calcareous
Published Letters: 303 Editor's Choice: 50
-
serious overreach Carol
[Read the article: Love it or hate it, Valentine's Day is about women's rights]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let me get this straight - you are arguing that a holiday concieved in the "enlightened" middle ages, and then revived in the US in the "progressive" Victorian period by a woman who's father sold greeting cards is about women's rights? This is laughable at face value!
Let us not forget our gay and lesbian neighbors, who offer each other "no fissures in gender relations" to be exposed.
I don't think you can presume that the idea of romanitic love is liberating, or that it necessarily favors women. In a traditional culture, both members of an arranged marriage are participatory, and young men have very little say in the matter either. I would suggest that traditional cultures resist romantic love not because they fear the empowerment of women, but because the resent the undermining of their broad societal values and family structure.
I'm not a fan of the holiday myself, because I believe the commodification of romantic love diminishes it. Lucky for me I have a like-minded woman for a wife. We do sweet things for each other all the time, not based on calander demand. Every day is "Valentine's Day".
-
a few more thoughts
[Read the article: Love it or hate it, Valentine's Day is about women's rights]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wrote: "This is laughable at face value!"
Not a very constructive tone, is it? Sorry, I was just so suprised by the premise of the article.
I think one of the reasons traditional societies don't encourage romantic love, is that they think the business of establishing families and having children is far too important to leave at the mercy of what is often a capricious and short-lived impulse. I would expect that they would point at our divorce rate as evidence of the weakness of this approach.
Also, lets not put the cart in front of the horse. In a traditional society, if a marriage breaks up, there is a hungry woman left to fend for herself on the streets. If you've been following the refugee crisis in Iraq, you'll see a current example of how ugly this can be.
It is very much in the interest of traditional women who aspire to a more western approach to work for economic equality (or even the right to participate in the most conservative cultures) first, and worry about a luxury like romance second.
I have often argued from a viewpoint of cultural relativism here in the past, and it is appropriate again. I simply don't believe traditional societies hate women. They have notions that aren't all that different from popular opinions in the US 100 years ago, and now seen to be resurgent among the family values crowd. These cultures wouldn't exist if they didn't work at some level. Unhappy wives have MANY ways of making their displeasure felt even in Saudi Arabia.
Being of a western and progressive viewpoint, even as a man I wouldn't want to live in that sort of society. However, that is only what is right for me, not right for them. Let them figure that out on their own, the same way we did. It will take time, just like we did (and do, the work continues).
-
On the absurdity of witchcraft
[Read the article: Saudi Arabia goes old school]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Belief in witchcraft is as reasonable as belief in other forms of the supernatural. It makes as much sense as the virgin birth, and corporeal ascention to heaven of Jesus. Or the idea that a child might find golden tablets in the woods, writtent with the word of God that only he could read, but have since convienently gone absent. Or that a congregation might feel the presense of the holy spirit when the preacher invokes it. Bronze age religions are pretty old-school themselves, yet you don't have a chance getting elected president in this country unless you say you believe in one.
Some might say "but I FELT the spirit". Yeah, and I SAW her cast that spell at him, and a week later he had a cold.
I don't know Catherine's views on these things, but for many of you living in glass houses, I recommend caution when throwing stones.
-
Political Theatre
[Read the article: NYC voting snafu may work in Obama's favor]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You can electronically transfer money around the world, without any ambiguity about the sum. Money simply isn't lost, were there a risk of that, the owners wouldn't use the system. This is because money has value.
Compare how money is treated to how our votes are treated. Knowing the methodology of tallying votes, it is clear that an exact count would be a completely freakish event, and even an approximate count would require a bit of luck.
Clearly somebody gains from this, and it isn't the voters.
-
Video Games are good things
[Read the article: The fun and excitement of civilization wars (fought from afar)]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As an active gamer, one of the things I relish about games is that they are clearly fantasy. When I drop a bomb on a city, real people don't die. When I slay an orc, their orc-children back in the cave don't go hungry. I'm able to engage in this fantasy without anybody being hurt. Isn't this a healthy outlet for the human desire to conquer? How is this different from somebody who enjoys detective novels or TV shows? The war hawks who cheer this war from the sidelines are like fans of a crime serial for whom fantasy is no longer enough, and they now need to go out and commit real murders just to get a thrill.
-
The extent of the law
[Read the article: Divorced from religion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The law can guarantee that people have rights, but they can't force people to exercise them. As much as the notion of a religious figure pressuring a woman into something they aren't comfortable with bothers me, when a woman walks into the civil setting and announces they want a divorce under the following terms, then their wishes have to be respected. To do otherwise would be to second-guess their right to make decisions for themselves, which the law clearly grants them.
In addition to religion, many other forces like family, self-doubt, and guilt can pressure people into accepting agreements they wouldn't under better circumstances.