Letters to the Editor
Christopher1988
Published Letters: 567 Editor's Choice: 40
-
That was the point of your last line?
[Read the article: Dear Readers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I assumed that, in the context, readers would see this as the hyperbole it was, a provocative exaggeration to prove a point."
Except the hyperbole only went one way. You didn't say "May the best man or woman--of either sex--win."
You claim, "The first important point to make, which I tried to make in the story, is that gender is not the same as sex." But if they are both taking opposite gender roles, then this isn't a woman-woman race, it's a man-woman race where the people owning those labels don't possess the traditional genitals.
When you say "may the best woman win" you are clearly defining both as belonging to a single gender, and in terms of what it means to call a male candidate a "woman" you are putting him down, whether intentionally or not.
And I still don't get why, if this article was meant to be provocative, you used a sardonic tone to question the candidates' choices, but not not the perceptions of the people at those rallies. You say now that you find their categorizations "a bit funny" but that's not what came across in your article. You seemed to accept their gender categorizations, rather than find them perplexing. Indeed, that final line confirms your agreement with traditional gender designations rather than questioning them.
I guess my point is, and this is no new criticism of Salon: where are the editors? Why could not someone see, before this piece was printed, how unsuccessful it was at making its own points? Are there editors, or do individual writers upload their pieces themselves? It really looks like the former. A good editor would have noticed the difference between what you wanted to write and what you submitted. And it's hard to say "well, you can't predicted reader response" when the response of readers is nearly uniformly negative. Clearly there were tactical errors in the construction of the article. And no one between the creation and the publication of the piece apparently saw them.
Granted, it's great that you responded, and that you care about how your writing is percieved. But it seems like over and over Salon doesn't really listen to its readers, and in fact the ongoing question from readers in a variety of letters pages is "where's the editor?" Apparantly the fact that readers' general perception is that good editing isn't occuring, and the fact that this is an ongoing problem for the readership, really doesn't make much of an impact on the staff.
Is the staff just too tuned into the same mindset to get when you aren't conveying your ideas to outsiders? Do you not care if "outsiders" do or don't get it? Is this really meant to be a "salon" in the old-fashioned sense of exclusivity and either-you-belong-or-you-don't?
I don't understand.
-
Glad to see the bunnies get their due.
[Read the article: Rabbit Bites: "Family jewels" or "Danglin' fury"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Personally, I thought this one was only okay, not great. I think the ones around the Playboy bunnies were probably the best, overall. And the Alec Baldwin one. The knock knock jokes are cute.
-
A phone call?
[Read the article: My Southern grandmother is dying, and I don't want to go back]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If your so over it, and just feel blank, can you feel enough generosity to call the poor woman? The way you may help an old lady across the street that you don't know from Adam and don't have any emotional connection with? If you're hearing about not having called from relatives, that means she's hurt, and has mentioned it. I'm guessing, no, you can't feel generous, because you are still dealing with the baggage of your childhood. But I think you can act generously.
So make the call. You will, I believe, some day regret not having done so, after you've processed your child and teen experiences more. And you will be doing something that makes a dying woman feel very good. Do this even if she revives a dozen times. Like going to the gym, or studying for a test in a class you hate, just do it.
At first I was turned off by your callous tone. I thought "How can a decent person..." but childhood and its effects on us are impossible to gage. Maybe none of us can look back on them rationally. Or emotionally respond so, now. I can see where you're coming from, and I think I can empathize.
But call her.
-
Hmmm...
[Read the article: A Southern, and liberal, Lady]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No I am not dissin the role of good white folks my problem is that there are so few of them around...
Wonder how that comment would be taken if the word "white" were replaced by "black"...
-
So, Clinton can insult his wife, send her to lie unknowingly for him and tell the nation a direct lie.
[Read the article: Why David Vitter matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But a conservative who visits prostitutes must be condemned.
Nifty.
-
Just Seemed Like a Puff Piece
[Read the article: The Salon Interview: Elizabeth Edwards]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A few softball questions, and no real challenges. And though I genuinely despise Ann Coulter (and her blathering about how liberals were trying to make her stop talking was ridiculous), I'm irritated by the picture Salon paints of her. She doesn't like to debate? She's made a career debating liberals on television (most famously on Politically Incorrect). Why do we have this idea today that truth only matters when it comes to people we like? Salon distorts Coulter, and distorts the verdict on Scooter Libby (no, he was no convicted of outing a CIA agent, and no jury was ever convinced he was responsible for the leaks to the media). Just like conservative sites will distort the image of Hillary or Elizabeth Edwards, and tried so desperately to convince America that something fishy went on with Whitewater. That the distortion here comes from the left doesn't make it more acceptable.