Letters to the Editor
weeping for brunnhilde
Published Letters: 1197 Editor's Choice: 3
-
@ debaser
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Heh heh heh.
:)
Feel free to email me at weeping_for_brunnhilde at yahoo.
I'm happy to rustle up some bibliography, or assist in any way I can. Just let me know what kind of stuff you're looking for, if you can.
The first book that leaps to mind, though, is Eamon Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars.
(A colleague of mine once referred to it as "a Catholic tract," though, so there you go.)
-
@ Lobelia
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Beautiful post, Lobelia. I too find it disheartening that Joan seems inclined towards the superficial when deeper is called for (imo). Perhaps she'll get there.
"When one is morally outraged, it can turn into compassion and clear sight, as in MLK Jr's example. Simply being offended, staying offended, and engaging in tit-for-tat payback is the absence of vision, does nothing to promote courageous action or clear sight."
A resounding hear, hear.
And this is what Obama clearly gets. He sees so clearly what's going on in this country, about how fears and anxieties and bitternesses are continually and deftly exploited, pitting us all against one another, causing us to lash out and/or hunker down in our corners.
And so here we are, in a war without end, drifting towards the abyss.
Here's hoping cooler heads prevail and that we can all find it within ourselves to find our inner cooler head. (God, what an awkward turn of phrase.)
-
@ David
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you, David. One of these days I'll figure you out, just you wait.
-
@ Deeper Truth
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Racism is not an either/or proposition!
Please, think about that.
You write: "(The Clintons are not and have never been racist - their quotes were taken out of context and spun against them.)"
There are many things wrong with this statement, but the assertion that they are not racists, as if "a racist" is some kind of essential condition or identity, gravely impedes our understanding of racism. (Same with sexism, btw.)
Please, please, be careful not to idly throw around such assertions.
Try to think of racism not necessarily as something someone is, but rather as a cultural complex that we all participate in, to varying degrees. Think of it like a language, something that organizes experience, not necessarily as something you recognize by people in hoods burning crosses.
Really, I'm not trying to be glib, I'm imploring people, everyone, to think seriously about what racism is, to get beyond the simple racist/not racist binary.
It's quite possible one can act in a racist way or betray a racist thought on Wednesday but not on Thursday. "Being a racist" is not some kind of static, essential condition.
Please consider that.
-
@ yelladogdem
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm sorry if I sound condescending. How might I communicate what I'm trying to communicate without being condescending?
Because I'm really trying to express something I think is important here and if I'm condescending, I'm impeding understanding. If you have any suggestions, please, I'm all ears.
"It's quite possible one can act in a racist way or betray a racist thought on Wednesday but not on Thursday. "Being a racist" is not some kind of static, essential condition."
Have you ever been to the Deep South? It's hard to believe that Bull Conner was not racist 7 days a week in his heart, mind and being.
No, not glib, but condescending? Yes."
Now, as to Bull Conner, I'm not exactly sure what your point is, you'll have to spell it out for me, but what I can say is that my point is precisely that pointing to Bull Conner as the quintessential racist is somewhat facile, just as it is to point to David Duke or whomever.
I don't mean this in a condescending way, so forgive me if it sounds like it, but are you aware of the "banality of evil" concept?
That's what I'm talking about.
I was about to go on, but I'll stop here, for now, because I don't want that we should talk past one another.
To that end, I'd ask you to elaborate on the point you're making about Bull Conner.
-
@ Celia
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Please. I can't think of anything that is much more sexist than that. It boggles."
Sexy? What's wrong with sexy?
(Sorry, couldn't resist. Anyone, anyone?)
-
@ celia
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well I should hope not!
:)
-
@ TRenee
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for the support. I appreciate a collaborative approach to problem-solving, so thanks for your participation and for complementing so articulately the point I was trying to make.
-
@ Aka
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"However, they don't want to stop it because Hillary is their favorite victim for bullying. She is simply a cultural stand-in for all achieving women."
To some people. (Perhaps even most, but that's getting speculative.)
Believe me, please, believe me, your point is well-taken with me.
I just wouldn't go so far as to reduce her person/her candidacy to being a "cultural stand-in for all achieving women."
There's a lot more to it than that.
I personally find her repellent (most of the time), but I really really don't think that's because of my deep-seated anxiety of ambitious women.
In fact, my mother, someone who worked her ass off to succeed (in law school, with a family) raised me to be a feminist. She retained her own name at a time when I don't know that I knew any of my friends' mothers who did that.
So I was well-disposed to Hillary back in 1992, when she was Hillary Rodham, and cheered when she defiantly said the stuff about the cookies.
But the first thing about her that disappointed me was when she became Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Not a huge deal, of course, but symbolic. It disappointed me.
Basically, she and her husband have been disappointing me ever since, all through the 1990s.
All of which is to say that yes, she certainly is the cultural stand in you say she is to many, many people.
Just not to all of her detractors, is my point.