Letters to the Editor
Margalis
Published Letters: 614 Editor's Choice: 16
-
HappyCamper
[Read the article: Camille's back!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First, I applaud you for putting in some serious effort. Obviously you are thinking about this. I respect that. That said, I don't think your rebuttal is very strong. Whether or not gay men caused AIDS is not the issue I had. If you look at my post, I had five specific objections to what she wrote.
My concern is not that Camille is bashing gay men. My concern is that her reasoning is absurd. Not offensive - inane.
Read this again:
I believe that nature rewards things that are in its best interest and punishes things that are not. Homosexual promiscuity is not in nature's best interest. Certainly not anal sex. Nature wants us to procreate.
I'm not going to repeat my criticisms other than to say they are still valid. There is no context for this quote that puts it in a better light.
If nature wants us to procreate, and AIDS is a way of punishing those who don't, then why does AIDS effect heterosexuals? (ok, I am going to repeat myself a bit) Why are the *majority* (IIRC) of AIDS cases contracted through hetero sex or mother to child? Why does AIDS effect needle sharers?
If AIDS is mother nature's way of promoting procreation - then mother nature is really fucking dumb. "Every time you fuck someone you might die - now go make babies!!" Can you think of a worse way to promote procreation than AIDS?
It simply does not make sense. The premise that AIDS is mother nature's way of promoting procreation and punishing those that don't procreate is insane. Again, I went into more specific detail in my other post.
-
J.C Miller excellent job.
[Read the article: Camille's back!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Many posters have noted how Camille fawns over the manly men and hates the 'effete', but you pulled it all together very nicely.
---
"AIDS is mother nature's way of punishing gays" is exactly the same as "AIDS is God's way of punishing gays." They are identical except one supernatural force has been substituted for another. (In this context mother nature is very much a supernatural force) In both cases this otherworldly force is making some value judgement against gay men.
In the case of mother nature it is additionally absurd in that mother nature does not make value judgements. This is some sort of psuedo-science, 5th grade level understanding of natural selection.
---
To pull a Camille and pull in some history and pop culture, this is similar to what you see in Japanese fiction post-bomb. Mother nature takes revenge is a very common theme. Godzilla is a warrior for and defender of nature, the embodiment of her anger against man. Godzilla is literally a force of nature. The original Godzilla movie was very transparently and purposely created to explore the fear that man was messing in areas better left undisturbed.
Akira is a similar story, as is Nausicaa, Princess Mononoke and many many others. These sorts of stories appear everywhere but are especially prevalent in Japan.
I love those sorts of stories. Imagining nature as a thoughtful, sometimes helpful, sometimes wrathful entity is romantic, inspiring and awesome.
But it is fiction. That is what Camille misses. The reality is that mother nature does not set out to destroy gay people, atomic-bomb advocates, those that would clear forests in the name of industry, those that would...um...kidnap a small slug-child from a toxic forest in order to bait their larger slug-parents into destroying their enemies in a slug stampede (yes, that is essentially the plot of Nausicaa and yes, it rules)...any more than mother nature strikes your neighbor with a lightning bolt because he threw his McDonalds wrapper out by the side of the road.
-
whatevs: huh?
[Read the article: Why I had to quit the John Edwards campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sorry, come again?
Do you think I'm saying that because feminists disagree internally it invalidates their cause?
I think women's equality is a great cause! I'm just explaining through inciteful, revealing, gossipy anecdote why the term feminism needs to be retired and why people refuse to identify as feminists.
The term itself makes a lot of people like me uncomfortable, even though I support equality for women 100%. I'm for equal rights, I'm not a feminist - and I'm not alone.
The reason I brought it up is that I saw that definition of feminism on Pandagon - that feminism is just equality of sexes. I don't think that is really what it means, at least in many circles. Look at how many times Amanda called herself a feminist in her article and claimed that she was targeted in part for her feminist views. Don't *most* women her age believe women are equal to men? (Feminist Majority answer - "yes!") Is being a feminist in the simple equality sense really against the norm and something to be singled out for?