Letters to the Editor

• Huge Friendly Request, Joan

  [Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Joan, this might be an unethical and inappropriate request, so forgive and ignore me if so, but I'd like you to respond to those of us who don't shock you, to those of us who you really think resemble the normal Salon reader. I'd like you to write your next blog as if in conversation with those of us who are struggling with you but who agree with you how awful and, yes, sad it is that people still refer to woman as whores and hold such awful and dangerous views.

  My hunch is that as Salon grows you are going to see an increase in vile and utterly inappropriate responses to your posts. It must be tempting to lump many of us who are having strong reactions to you into the the more extreme group. And I bet it is also tempting to aim your responses at the most dramatic comments. To be honest, it has gotta be easier to defend your latest post in relation to those who think that only a slut or whore would write what you did. I mean, what can you really say to those folks?

  For personal reasons, you may need to respond to them. If so, fine. But it seems to me that in reading so many of these comments that your blogs are generating there are gobs and gobs of us who have somewhat intelligent response in regards to what you are suggesting. I have this fantasy that you would be using your time to go back and forth between real ideas and legitimate discomforts, ignoring the trashy comments and slimy attacks.

  It's not that I think you are stupid for feeling happy about Rush quoting you. He has a huge audience and, yes, it proves a certain aspect of the kind of point you are making, but why are you ignoring the kind of conversation that can be useful. I don't mean:

  "Oh, so sorry, you smart Salon readers have proved me wrong!"

  I just mean that you are in charge of a website that produces highly intelligent responses to all sorts of subjects and conversations. Rather than write your next blog on the superficial level in which you contrast extreme repugnance with your rather balanced approach, why not lift up the rock on this conversation and expose the presumptions that are being made on both side.

  Do we know how to be certain about such things? Let's talk about that. Joan, when you give an example of how mean people's words are towards Hilary, I think about what people are saying about Barack. I think you have a point in regards to how much easier it is to call a woman a bitch than a black man a nigger, but are you comfortable taking that piece and concluding that we have isolated the best metric in gauging the role racism has played as well? If you think that the public use of those words gives us a clear picture of what is implicitly and explicitly working for and against these two fine candidates, I want to know why so?

  I'll admit that my request is based on my specific need to feel like I am really engaging in these types of conversations. When you come back with blogs about how happy you are that Rush helps prove your point against these really gross Salon readers, I get it.....(I really do) but I'm also disappointed; because each time I see that you have a new blog I still assume you are going to be digging in and engaging me and those readers who want to explore the roots of our political/cultural tendencies, hopes, worries and confusions. I'll admit that these are my needs (although I think the type of Salon reader you cherish is aligned with this) and I'll admit that it is my projection of who I think you are that has me excited to read your each and every blog. I don't need you to love Obama or Hate Hilary.

  At this point you are very safe with each. You hardly grill them at all and you hardly praise them too deeply. From the tone of your posts one can gather you have a general respect for each and a general suspicion of each (for different reasons). And if you are going to continue writing from the point of view of these general inclinations, that's ok, but I still would urge you to shift to issues that are not so......donuty (I don't know why i chose that word)....

  Anyway, I know that the gross "salon" readers might grill me for this, but who cares: I look forward to your next blog. I hope that you may shift away from the kind of analysis as of late and that you might really look closely with those of us who get into the fuzzier places of discourse. Anyway.....when I get frustrated and can't really contact the "source" I get saracastic (as my last posts indicate). I know that sarcasm, especially in cyberspace, can read very darkly. It's not from me. The four year old in me that still does some magical thinking wants to ask you personally to always pretend you are writing to those of us who simply want to go deeper into the assumptions behind the conventional political/cultural presuppositions. When you really go there, it's not about if Barack is better or worse, more or less the victim of racism. You gain the benefit of not needing to have pointless arguments because you open up a landscape of conversation where everybody knows they are not an expert and they simply appreciate you introducing them to the important fuzz. Of course the gross "salon" readers will be experts and they will increasingly hate you and remind you of how stupid you are and all the rest. But the four year old in me has this feeling that you'll ignore them almost all the time.

  Permalink Monday, April 7, 2008 10:56 PM