Letters to the Editor
calcareous
Published Letters: 286 Editor's Choice: 48
-
What is in a word?
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There are some nuances of meaning in this discussion, so caution is merited. Referencing the wiki, there is a difference between egalitarianism and feminism, and it has nothing to do with gender. Per the wiki, egalitarianism is a philosophy, and feminism is a political movement.
Interestingly, in the article on feminism, in the "Men and Feminism" section there is this quote:
"A number of feminist writers maintain that identifying as a feminist is the strongest stand men can take in the struggle against sexism. They have argued that men should be allowed, or even be encouraged, to participate in the feminist movement. Other female feminists argue that men cannot be feminists simply because they are not women. They maintain that men are granted inherent privileges that prevent them from identifying with feminist struggles, thus making it impossible for them to identify with feminists."
It isn't suprising that in a movement as large as feminism that there is some diversity of opinion about who or what they are fighting for. Careful not to consider feminists as all having the same viewpoint.
I've personally never cared for the word feminism because it focuses on women, and as a man I am left wondering if my rights were also important. I've always had the suspicion that some feminists were of the notion that as a man (and a white one at that), I enjoyed some special status where my rights were not threatened, and thus that I required no advocacy. I assure you that is not the case.
Another issue I've had with the word feminism is that in addition to men, it excludes people outside traditional genders. Please don't forget the intersex and transsex people of the world; they especially need our support in their struggle for equal rights.
Rather than egalitarianism, I think a more accurate word that would describe feminism without the gender focus is the anti-discriminatory movement, too bad it doesn't roll off the tongue as well. I think that the agenda of feminism (equality for women) can be more effectively advanced under the flag of anti-discrimination, because engages a larger body of people in support, and the goals are identical. The same is true of people who focus on racial discrimination, or economic discrimination. They are pointlessly narrowing their base of support.
By contrast, the purposes of those who would discriminate are served by the fractured opposition they encounter, and the success they enjoy is to a large extent by their ability to divide and conquer. You can count on them continuing to exploit this weakness as long as we give them the opportunity to.
-
reason to panic
[Read the article: Republicans fear black voter surge in the South]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If I were a southern republican, I'd be panicking because the policies of the current administration have proved so unpopular and are effective only at making matters worse.
If I were a black southern voter, I'd be sure to be going to the polls because my country is going to hell in a handbasket.
Don't let the Republicans dodge the consequences. Obama won't be bringing them defeat, their own policies will.
-
the purpose of panties
[Read the article: Awesome or awful? Self-cleaning underwear]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One of the primary values of the clothing we wear most closely to our bodies is that it DOES absorb sweat, odor, particles, and whatever else our bodies dish out. Safely collected on the fabric, the fabric can then be washed and worn again. Our bodies aren't going to stop being human just because we don the MRE of underwear (agreed, Leeandra Nolting nailed it). In the case of solids (ie: the ignoble skidmark), I suppose it would become a fine powder that would dust out of our pant legs into our homes, workspaces and world. As for liquids, you would be just one step closer to staining your clothing and revealing to others your release.
-
Fake?
[Read the article: My wife left me because the dolphins at Sea World gave me an erection]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I ask all of you self assured people to consider the possibility that this letter is not a fake. That this person wrote in for help about a rather embarrassing situation, and that you responded to their request with hooting and catcalls.
Nor is this all that scandalous or wierd - the human mind is a complex and untidy place, and just because somebody is spontaneously aroused by something unusual on one occassion doesn't mean a damn thing more than that.
Even if this person possesses a dolphin fetish it is NO BIG DEAL. A fetish is thought to be the result of the brain making an association where most people wouldn't, like between feet and sex. Brains make associations, and they do it without our asking. This isn't blameworthy.
It is understandable that people might consider this odd, and if the guy had been thinking quick he'd have made up a story about that redhead in the front row with the attractive figure, but he was caught off guard as would be most people. His wife's initial reaction wasn't all bad - she got the kids out of there, and gave him a second to recover, that was productive at least. Calling things off is an over-reaction however, if she is willing to put her kids through an unnecessary seperation just because of her preconcieved notions of normalcy have been violated, I'd say that by her human weakness she isn't being a very good parent. They are already going to a therapist for peets sake, talk to them about it first.