Letters to the Editor
healthyskeptic
Published Letters: 671 Editor's Choice: 14
-
Dworkin and 2nd and 3rd wave feminists
[Read the article: Roundup: Fake wombs and (even faker) female superheroes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Much of today's militant feminism is still Dworkin, just superficially different. If you look at the core issues, the gender hostility, and the approach to many issues it's straight from Dworkin and militant feminism.
3rd wave basically just says you can be thin and wear makeup and other superficialities, and that's ok, so long as "you're doing it for yourself." But, they're still quick to presume it's misogyny if a hetero man is in any way involved. It still encourages a victim mindset, is still paranoid and fear mongering, still militant, and still disproportionally angry lesbians.
For example, Dworkin long argued beauty standards for slimness were misogynistic. Of course obesity killed her.
To this day, the #1 health epidemic in the developed world is obesity, effecting men and women. Obesity is to developed nations what HIV/AIDS is to Africa, a huge health crisis. Any humanitarian wants to end obesity killing and disabling men and women in huge numbers.
But feminists to this day continue to insist beauty standards for slimness are misogynistic and refuse to admit obesity is unhealthy, or try and fudge the standards for obesity. Which is directly descended from Dworkin and her ilk.
For example, on many of the militant feminist blogs Salon links to, they frequently talk of "size diversity" and request that more feminist sites have "plus size" models. By "plus size" they mean obese. Some have submitted pictures, and they're certainly obese. It's common for them to say all movie stars are anorexic and too skinny, even the actors like Jennifer Lopez.
These are people who are ill like Dworkin, and they're being pandered to and used for ad revenue. It's just sick.
-
That was supposed ot be witty?
[Read the article: Roundup: Fake wombs and (even faker) female superheroes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]ahhh... No.
First of all, militancy is antithetical to humanism.
Militancy, at it's core, needs to have an enemy, an other group to portray as threats and to completely dehumanize. Whether it's Imperialism, Fascism, Stalinism, Religious Fundamentalism, cults like Jim Jones or Dworkin, etc, all militant movements share that trait regardless of whether they're large or small, weak or powerful.
It's fundamentally tribal and violent. Dworkin for example thrived on victimization, and became a leader only as her followers perceived her as useful weapon against men.
She could never form a positive solution. Could never for example run a hospital, or build a bridge, literal or metaphorical. She couldn't even take care of her own health.
Lacking any positive skills to help people, her only skills was to create an enemy of her own imagining, tailored completely to fit her rhetorical skill set. To demonize the enemy, the heterosexual male, and human history.
Which are also the common traits of her followers and many of the residuals of the feminist movement since it went militant.
-
-- LydiaS
[Read the article: Roundup: Fake wombs and (even faker) female superheroes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Right. The X-Men aren't exactly deep, but many are women, and they do tackle tough moral issues at the teen level.
Bratz is good in the sense it's non-violent. Dancing for example is great. But Bratz problem is the characters are totally vapid. They've no more substance than Barbie, less than X-Men and other comics, and are just commercial shit really.
As A wiki entry put it well:
"Another adverse effect claimed by critics of the Bratz line is the high level of economic materialism that the characters, and even the name "Bratz" itself, seem to promote. [1] As with many other children's toy and entertainment companies, Bratz has been accused of perpetuating a sort of bland, mind-numbing route of cultural presentation lacking in reverence and intellect. Along these same lines, many say that the variance in characters is provided only as a means to sell more dolls, and not to diversify the product customers receive. An arguable example of this may be found in the construction of the character May Lin, as discussed above. The character's personalities are said to stem collectively from objectives of fashion hunger and manipulation of the opposite sex, two popular marketing routes in the global economy for deterring human beings from exploring their own existence, and instead prioritizing based on the prevalent mass media content at the time."
-
-Juliebird
[Read the article: Battered and fired]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The company for which she worked fior is funded by state money. It describes itself as a child welfare agency, using state funds, federal funds and donations. In other words, it *is* "the state" in a practical sense.
Ahhh, no.
It is not "the State" in any sense.
The Government of the State of New York, the place where tax dollars and elected officials go, that is "the State" in a "practical sense" and every other sense.
The State funds that private company in part, along with parents and foundations. The State, and that company, are two very distinct entities.
That company's specialty is not the welfare of battered women. The State has, or is supposed to have, welfare agencies which do specialize in that.
That companies specialty is the care of children, i.e. they are a kindergarten. And kindergartens and DV are not a good mix.
Nice way to make a fool of yourself.
-
As i said
[Read the article: Couric goes to bat for Lohan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]LL is clearly messed up, and needs help. She can't handle fame. She needs to be totally away from cameras for a long time untill she gets her head right.
But Salon and Couric are complete hypocrites. They've been pimping her all along. Even this thread is pimping her for page views to sell ads so Joan Walsh and Traister can pay their bills. The hypocricy is absurd.
Walsh could issue a statement tomorrow: a principled argument to ancel all Hilton, LL, and so on tabloid coverage. so could Couric.
But the won't, because:
"whatever sells"
Is the rule they live by. And if it means pimping screwed up people to a screwed up audience, so be it.