Letters to the Editor
healthyskeptic
Published Letters: 671 Editor's Choice: 14
-
-- Craig A. Johnson
[Read the article: "I'll be post-feminist in a post-patriarchy"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have held for years that the so-called Women's Liberation movement was quite simply the natural formation of a 'collective unconscious' among women that baby making had been demoted. In effect women did not and were not choosing liberation. Nature had 'liberated' them in order for earth to achieve human population/resource homeostasis.
True in part, but vastly over simplified.
For one thing there were technological factors which also contributed greatly. Modern intellectual work and machine assisted labor as well as improvements to nutrition, such as accounting, washing machines,and refrigerators, reduce the need for gender segregation of labor. The need for male upper nody strengh to labor, and female domestic specializations such as breast feeding and home schooling, are reduced in developed countries.
You're essentially making a market analogy, which is correct, to a point. i.e. As the need for childbirth declines moving away from agrarian life, and as technology helps in meals and domestic tasks, the value of "women's work" is reduced. Similarly, the desire to modernize creates demand and opportunity for office workers and riveters. Similarly for men, the value of all brawn no brain "men's work" is reduced, and there are greater opportunities for intellectuals. And to some extent men had the advantage as historically institutions of technology had been almost entirely male, in large part because "women's work" such as child bearing, breast feeding, and child nurturing was an entirely nonfungible role.
But where your analogy is simplistic is to assume that the "women's liberation" movement was simply following the cultures market needs. Markets and culture aren't rational. There is momentum in markets and culture. The Women's movement had to overcome that and deserve credit. The golden era of the Women's movement said "we can do it" and was focused on postivity and equality.
Contemporary feminists often lack this perspective and many are the dregs of various essentially nihilist movements, such as Dworkin. They lack understanding of the underlying fundamentals of culture, and are inclined towards emotionalism, especially militancy and angst. Rather than seeing this all as an overall rational evolution of humanity from gender segregation by necessity towards greater liberation, they prefer to emphasize deliberate oppression and are extremely cynical.
Hence the continuing decline of feminism since the militant aspects of second-wave, with third-wave having the same essential flaws with cosmetic improvements.
-
Real journalism on Salon
[Read the article: Men prefer a Mrs. to money?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Real journalism on Salon, such as contributions by Hersch and others, is scarce. The vast majority of what Salon puts out is garbage.
I suspect their rationalization for the tabloid stuff like BS, which they must know is garbage, is that it pays for the good. Of course, it also pays their salaries, so they're not exactly impartial.
That is of course the same moral dilemma as the MSM has faced for decades. How to run for-profit news, and at what point does a "news" organization sell-out and begun doing more harm than good? Considering the media keeps worsening as tabloids increase, and there is almost no attempt towards "middle brow" mainstream culture any longer, and considering the financial incentive of publishers to continually push the envelope to keep themselves employed...
It's not surprising Salon has utterly sold out, and that nothing is sacred. The prostitution of issues, even feminism by a female editor, as demonstrated on BS, is another symptom of the decline of media and popular culture in a vicious cycle.
-
oh I forgot, it's a free choice.
[Read the article: Doctors: No more designer vaginas!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Third wave feminism already decided that one. As long as the woman is "doing it for herself" it's OK. So actually, Flory can probably be outraged about A + B. lol.
And who determines what's OK, what women meet the standard standard of "freely chosen for oneself?"
Why, 3rd Wave feminists of course. Who tend to see everything through a lens of supposed misogynistic oppression.
While Second Wave Feminism told women what they should and shouldn't do for the greater good, for Women's Causes, seen through a lens of cynicism and misogynistic paranoia; Third Wave tells women what they should and shouldn't freely choose for themselves if they want to be accepted by fellow "empowered" women, as seen through a lens of misogynistic paranoia.
See? It's, like, totally different.
-
Also notice the way Flory derides other women?
[Read the article: Doctors: No more designer vaginas!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Notice the way Flory calls any woman having cosmetic surgery to be "pornifying" her vagina?
Flory essentially says derisivly: look at all those poor stupid women, with no individual sense of aesthetics, mere slaves to The Misogyny, Pornography, and Horrible Men.
Only the Champions of Women's Studies can save them. Tell them what's desirable and what's not. Explain to them what their real desires are, and when they've been brainwashed by The Misogyny.
Clearly, if an accomplished and intelligent woman wants to have a face lift, or cosmetic surgery to her vagina or breasts or whatever, she should first consult with a Women's Studies Major, such as the BS contributors, or bloggers on feministing or such.
Truly, the most capable women in our society are surely not the mathmeticians, the business leaders, the physicists, the scientists, the doctors, the career people, the full time mothers, the academic school administrators, and such.
Our best and brightest are surely the vaulted Women's Studies Grads, known for their vast accumulation of knowledge through diverse studies, experience, and collected wisdom.
-
Good article, for a change
[Read the article: Excuse me, there's a lobbyist in your nursing bra]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That is actually a good blog article that gives a decent summary of the actual news article, and doesn't lose it the way most BS blurbs do, or allege men secretly want their children to be stunted by lack of nutrition or something similarly insane.
Lobbyists trumping science is an issue that effects everyone.
While it may effect mothers and children most directly, it's a human rights issue (the right to truthful representation by government) and public health issue.
It's a humanist issue.