Letters to the Editor
Christopher1988
Published Letters: 670 Editor's Choice: 46
-
Liked the first one
[Read the article: "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm a fan of the early issues of The Fantastic Four, which I've read in reprints. I'm a fan of the first movie, too, which is not true to the spirit of the comics, but which I loved and enjoyed for being lighthearted, escapist entertainment. When people talk about how Batman Begins deals with the "darkness" of Bruce Wayne, or similarly talk about the "message" of Spider-Man, I want to laugh in their faces. Sorry, when I want darkness, I will (and do) read Doestoevski. The cheap depiction of childhood trauma or the simplistic statement that "with absolute power comes..." doesn't do it for me.
And in saying that, I am not saying comics can't handle complicated subjects, or that Marvel didn't push the envelope in terms of creating characters more human and more complex. I am saying the movie franchises don't investigate the depths their print inspirations have done. I'm also saying I find it distressing that people who have no interest in art house movies, who have never seen anything by Godard or Truffaut or Lynch, who never read complex literature, nevertheless treat the superhero franchises as a perfect depiction of the dark night (or knight, if you will) of the soul.
I got a kick out of The Fantastic Four, something I cannot say for Batman Begins and Spider-Man 1 and 2 (skipped the last entry). I like the idea of comic book entertainment that entertains rather than bludgeons. The cold, Wagnerian effects of most comic book movies leave me unimpressed, and don't connect what I loved comics for as a kid in the first place.
-
No Question
[Read the article: ABC's of gender]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My older niece in particular was very aware of gender roles and from the time she could talk was classifying things as "girl" things and "boy" things. At one point, and she can't have been much past three, she told me "Boys have short hair, girls have long hair." Bear in mind, my hair reached my shoulders at this point.
I said, "Well, I'm a boy, and I have long hair."
She said, "Yeah." Then a slight pause. Then: "But boys have short hair, girls have long hair."
Gender identity is very important to kids. Distinguishing "who I am" is first and foremost defined by "what I am and what others are." So the most obvious things about "boy" stuff and "girl" stuff are very important in forming a concrete self.
This doesn't mean they have swallowed a load of garbage, or are warped for life, either. Both my nieces do plenty of what would traditionally be called "boy stuff," and their very assertive, too.
-
Anonymous,
[Read the article: Her sexy T-shirt says "Kitty Not Happy" -- is that OK at work?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually, she did. He says: "She informed me that Kitty was a cartoon character."
In other words, she told him to get a grip, and he pressed on anyway.
That's another part of this that makes it creepy, and part of why I think she might have been mocking him, telling him that if her clothes (a freakin' cat t-shirt!) were a sexual come-on, then his use of French was, too.
I get that there is a divide here between those reading this as “just” a cat t-shirt, and others reading it as a double entendre (though not everyone in the latter group thinks this is a problem). But if the shirt has no message, why she did she only start wearing it when she was unhappy? It's clearly a message of some kind, and even if not sexual, is conveying a personal message that can't help but be read in relation to her marriage, since she's been sharing her personal issues with her co-workers.
To me, if you are right, and she words were designed to put him in his place, and the shirt had no sexual implications, she is proving that, in addition to acting unprofessionally, she is incredibly stupid. If LW is the creepy guy you suggest, “you sound sexy when you speak French” is a HUGE misstep, as it will acutally encourage him to read continue to read her words and clothing choices in a sexual light. No one dealing with a jerk who is using even the pretext as a sign a girl "wants it" can be handled with playful words and an ironic manner.
However, in terms of what her response means, I think it's a bit of both. Clearly she wasn't coming onto him. But she was sending a message: "I'm being sexual, but I'm not directly acknowleding it, so you can't do anything about it. Square." She's playing games, and that's simply unprofessional. And even if LW is a stuff shirt fuddy-duddy, his response as recorded here was professional. Not "Hey babe, that's hot, but not in the workplace, huh?" Rather, "This isn't appropriate dress by the standards of this company." And "While this may be a cartoon character, we are both adult enough to see another meaning, let's keep this a professional place."
If you have read that letter from another Anonymous, the one in the military, I think he gives a clear example of what the LW might be going through, and why a man's feelings should be considered in situations like this, as much as a woman's would (undoubtably) be if the roles were reversed. Personally, I think the response the LW is getting is too harsh, and I think his follow-up letter here in response to the comments was convincing.