Letters to the Editor
lonewolfy
Published Letters: 300 Editor's Choice: 19
-
@ Wanak70
[Read the article: Attack of the "freemales"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think on a fundamental level you and I may have to agree to disagree about the effects of marriage.
Don't get me wrong - I completely understand when you talk about certain joys of the single life, e.g. silence on a beautiful dawn. (As my moniker "lonewolfy" might indicate, I've had extensive experience on a life path of single-dom; this experience has been overall a positive one, though certainly speckled with some -ve/lonely moments.)
In addition, I understand/agree that many traditional marriage scenarios may be constrictive in some ways. Yes, it may be hard to write the great 21st century novel or achieve a new echelon of meditative inner peace when you have a spouse's (and/or child's) needs to also factor in.
But what I'm trying to say is this: free will can exist not only for an individual, but for a romantic couple as well.
Yes, no doubt compromise is involved - but there is NO inherent reason that you cannot pursue most/all your goals and dreams while betrothed to a kindred spirit.
(After all, if he/she truly is a kindred spirit, then the last thing they would/should ever want to do is inhibit or curtail your ability to live a Life that satifies you!)
************
If you want to be able live your life 100% completely and solely on your terms...if you want to make decisions without ever compromising, or having to answer to or reason with someone else, or having to take someone else's situation and sentiments into consideration...
Well then the only way to do that is to remain single. I agree on this.
{BUT, by the way...is the above really even possible for single people? After all, most of us still have to compromise with relatives, friends, co-workers, bosses and so on. For better or for worse, "No man (or woman) is an island"....whether you are married or single}
But - for me, anyways - trading a bit of the autonomy that the Single Life gives me in exchange for a mutually satisfying companionship with a kindred spirit is worth it. I think that is the crux of the issue right there.
Cheers,
lonewolfy
-
I could write a 1000-word defense of my position...
[Read the article: Whiz-bang commercial: Awesome or awful?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...but instead I shall choose sweet, sweet brevity:
The product? Awesome!!
(And an effective counterpoint to a somewhat siller belief of some feminists: that the existence of urinals gives a sexist, ummm, "advantage" to men.)
The commercial? Also AWESOME....
-
Maybe it's time for a "pre-coital agreement"?
[Read the article: It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's Abortion Man!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Something along the lines of:
Article 1: 'Mr. X will fulfil Ms. Y's request of using a condom with spermicide. In exchange, Mr. X is granted Article #3.'
Article 2: 'Should Ms. Y somehow still become pregnant, she will have sole authority in determining whether to keep baby or have an abortion.' (which is the way things are now, anyway.)
Article 3: 'In the event that Ms. Y chooses to keep the baby, Mr. X is under no obligation to assist with child's upbringing.' (He may CHOOSE to do so - on a voluntary basis.)'
***********
Naturally, it seems like no woman would sign a legal document along these lines.
Then again, one could argue that no woman would have signed a pre-nuptial agreement, say, 40 years ago. But in the present time, anyone (male or female) with a significant difference in net worth/salary from their spouse-to-be would be crazy not to demand a pre-nup.
So whaddaya think? Does a "pre-coit" sound reasonable??
-
Seems like a subversive pro-life message
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Firstly, the quote from the doctor was utterly perfect and priceless; I just hope some Broadsheeters don't default to a "that was sexist/misogynist!" response simply because the doc happened to be male...
************
Technically, it is perfectly legal to do what Shvarts claimed/denied/then claimed again to do: get knocked up, induce an abortion, and repeat the process as quickly as you can.
Of course, this kind of behavior in the real world has nothing to do with the typical experience/scenario of a woman making a choice to have an abortion...
BUT if you are a rabid pro-lifer, then Shvarts' project must seem like a dream come true - a delicious way to "expose" the horrors of legal abortion, regardless of how ridiculously detached from reality Shvarts' actions were!
This leads me to think this is all a guerrilla tactic on behalf of the pro-life movement. And - as extremely radical smears of abortion rights go - it sadly seems to have been effective in drumming up lotsa publicity.
-
Censoring suicide sites will not help
[Read the article: In Japan, the Web prompts suicides by hydrogen sulfide gas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Take it from someone who once attempted suicide a long time ago: if you wish to kill yourself, a lack of detailed information or advice is not going to stop you from making an attempt.
The only truly effective suicide deterrences the Japanese government can seek?
Determine and address the root causes, build support networks and try to effect social change.
Yes, yes - these efforts are a thousand times more difficult than mere 'pro-suicide' Web censorship...but, unlike the latter action, they may actually work.
-
Feminism is the new funny?
[Read the article: Feminism is the new funny]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yup - every time I read Andrea Dworkin's assertions that romance, heterosexual intercourse and marriage are all unqualified acts of rape, I laugh my head off!
-
@ Sandra M
[Read the article: Feminism is the new funny]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There's a difference between "serious" and "humorless".
Serious: fighting for equal pay, an end to domestic violence, etc.
Humorless: Accusing someone who is doing nothing but eating a banana in your presence of sexual harassment. (and yes, this has actually happened.)
****************
Kudos to Tina and Amy for showing that the feminist stereotype of being "humorless" doesn't apply to all members of the ideology - MacKinnon and Dworkin aside.
-
Every creed is cursed with a few crazies
[Read the article: Watch "The Love Guru": Go to hell]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And it SHOULD go without saying, but in post 9/11 times the statement below is sadly always a necessary accompaniment to articles like these:
The few Hindu fundies who are spouting this "blasphemy" crap in no way represent the beliefs and opinions of the several hundred million other sane Hindus on this planet.