Letters to the Editor
BettyBoop
Published Letters: 96 Editor's Choice: 9
-
My friend has a mildly autistic son
[Read the article: It's a girl ... please]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]by the time she was ready for another, she needed IVF, and they did what they could to conceive a girl because autism runs in her family and is more common in males. She did have a girl and has since told me that the girl is way more demanding than the boy ever was, even with his special needs. You never can tell. My girl, who never stops chatting, is far more demanding than my boy (who isn't exactly taciturn).
What I find interesting in reading these letters is how perplexed people seem to be that others might prefer girls, as though preferring boys--the longest-standing preference in history--is the only understandable stance. It seems clear to me that since our society has become increasingly automated, computerized and achievement oriented, the stereotypical female traits of compliance and helpfulness are more valued. No longer do we live in a society where sheer brawn is necessary.
-
China and India have way more boys than girls
[Read the article: It's a girl ... please]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]at this point . . . the thinkers who ponder such things have pointed out that this will make these two countries increasingly unstable as the boys age and have no one to marry--too many young males in a society is dangerous to the society.
But my point is: all of you men who think having a surplus of girls will get you laid more, no matter how many girls we breed in this country, we're never going to match the surplus of males in the non-Western world. Maybe by the time this crop grows up, globalization will have calmed racist tendencies, and the American girls will marry the Asian boys, thereby saving the globe from mayhem.
-
Shadow, au contraire
[Read the article: It's a girl ... please]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As China and India continue to take over white collar professional jobs, their citizens will become increasingly educated and wealthy.
-
Oh for god's sake, did I really open up a debate about why
[Read the article: It's a girl ... please]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]western women won't date Asian men? Actually, they will. Hell, I even married one (who is tall, by the way; oh, and our kids are gorgeous and smart, and improvement on both of us. as for the other thing you mentioned, please.)
-
Well, given the sheer numbers in China and India
[Read the article: It's a girl ... please]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I suspect that even if we eliminated all of the single men in Asia under five-ten, the remaining single men would still outnumber any surplus of single women in the West. Ergo: the Western men who can't get laid with even numbers of the sexes (did you say something about wearing dresses?) still probably won't be able to get laid.
-
Um, I don't even have to finish reading this to say
[Read the article: Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]no shit, Sherlock. Everyone knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, even our dumb president. Some people insist they thought he did, but they are either disingenuous or paranoid freaks. The war, plain and simple, was retribution for 9/11, which probably was allowed to happen by our war-mongering president who needed an excuse to depose Saddam. Come'on. This is all old news.
and just think of all the mothers' children, on both sides of the ocean, who have died for this administration's greed . . . so that those fatuous bush girls could inherit . . . that is why the blood shed is happening people.
-
e-pluibus, you and the others with your point are right, of course
[Read the article: Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]but many of us are very cynical about the media. It's going to take a lot more than one, admittedly fine, worthwhile, and information-packed, for me and many others, to give the media a pass on its complacency leading up to the war.
-
Why would you keep basic cable
[Read the article: TV's triumphant overclass]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and cancel premium channels? That's like deciding to cut back on junk food by allowing yourself only candy bars, or something. Very little of interest is on basic cable, and I personally haven't watched it in years upon years (except for Lost).
However, Mad Men is sheer genius. It is. So was The Sopranos. So was Deadwood. I enjoyed John from Cincinnati. Weeds is pretty good. PBS has a lot of good programming, as do the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet. Channels like Noggin for kids have some truly creative, worthwhile and yes educational programs. Here's what I suggest: get a Tivo. Record only the shows that are good. Tell your kids they can only watch the recorded shows. (My kids self-limit to about 5 hours a week of TV because their recorded options are limited to educational and animal.) But if you're going to get rid of cable, get rid of the whole thing, otherwise you don't really know what you're talking about when you say TV has gotten worse. Basic cable has always sucked.