Letters to the Editor
Amity
Published Letters: 1113 Editor's Choice: 106
-
Really a mystery?
[Read the article: Women are the new men on TV]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The central anxiety of post-second wave feminism has long been recognized, in these pages and elsewhere, as being based in the paradox of this radically new idea of girl power in a society which is still very conservative in how it evaluates marital success.
Put very simply, a man can still marry a woman whose achievements in public life are less than his, and need never worry about what anyone will think of him. But for a woman to marry a man who "takes the back seat" in terms of status is a discredit to her, still in this day and age, and will get her no end of criticism.
And yet isn't that the inevitable outcome of girl power? That some of the girls will be more powerful than all the boys? That they will marry men whom they don't adore with that submissive thrill of belonging to a real ubermensch? Men and women of my generation still have a very hard time with this, and as more and more of them realize that this is it, this is how we're just all going to be ... voila, along comes TV to provide some drama therapy.
But there are some other things to consider here as well. For one thing, the kids are all right. Young guys out of college are increasingly ditching professional service economy career tracks for child-raising, garage rock with their buds, and mountain-man beards (what is up with that?), while their honeys are bringing in the bread in total acceptance.
For another thing, these shows are never (really, even when they pretend) about working class America -- or about nonwhite America, for that matter. Men bitching about how their old ladies keep all their money isn't wacky world-upside-down hijinks in the blue collar bars and bowling alleys of middle America -- it's an old story, maybe even a comfortable one.
And try talking to a black American woman about how crazy it would be if women really did start doing all the work, like in those TV shows, while the men sat around trying to get it together, har har har. Har.
So, rich white people of America, get over yourselves, for crying out loud. You're smart, creative, empowered -- if you of all people can't find some way for this new and exciting partnership to mean less stress and self-absorption for everyone involved, then you deserve to marinade in every bit of anxiety Rebecca Traister has to preview for you.
-
Garry Owen: Let me try again
[Read the article: Petraeus' Pentagon skeptics]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But I don't get where you were going with that line of reasoning.
And here I thought I was being clear when I said:
The last 30 years of national politics ought to be sufficient refutation of [the claim that "facts and logic" are enough] on its face... I emphatically don't believe that you can't present Americans with facts and logic, but to do so you must catch and hold their attention.
If you missed that part, now's your chance to refute it, because I don't see anything in your last comment to me that came close.
But just in case, let me add: the success of right-wing propaganda and truth-twisting since the 1970s has been entirely due to what we may crudely call salesmanship. Good ideas will win over baloney every time, if the people who espouse the good ideas bother to pitch them aggressively. The Clinton administration demonstrated that (and its failures were proof by exception). Many other efforts by Democrats to maintain or regain power during that time have failed because of their inability to recognize the same principle.
And .. sna? Personal attacks? Because I left out an "r" in your name? I'll spell it with 3 if it will make you happy -- just address what I actually wrote.
Or was it because I suggested that the liberal intellectual class is timid and clueless? If you want to refute that, good luck.
-
Where to find the money?
[Read the article: Transgenic public relations: Why is it so hard? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think we'll have to reduce some of the fragmentation of our society with respect to profession...but I don't see any way to do this without decreasing the $.
It almost sounds like what we need is a general increase in public, peer-reviewed funding for scientific research. Who knew?
Having seen up close how academic institutions receive, or fail to receive, corporate grants -- and with all due respect to the earlier Anonymous commenter -- corporate interests do find their way into funding decisions, more often than they should or maybe even appear to. The "Chinese wall" between funding and research is under constant, corrosive attack, not all of it direct. For example corporate donors will find ways to specify exactly which researcher they wish to receive money, with the university or what have you sometimes going so far as to act as a willing laundering agent to obfuscate the trail.
A regulatory apparatus that pays more attention to real science would be nice, too, though there at least we have a situation where citizen involvement (through direct comment and indirect political pressure) is still frequently effective in imposing some degree of responsibility.