Letters to the Editor
Claddagh
Published Letters: 40 Editor's Choice: 4
-
The Phenomenon of the Smart, Successful, Single Woman
[Read the article: Yes, Maureen Dowd is necessary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thoroughly enjoyed Rebecca Traister's take on Maureen Dowd's book, and it is insightful pieces like this that make Salon a great publication. I must say I was utterly surprised - and at times appalled - to read so many vitriolic responses to a piece that portrayed a real social phenomenon from a balanced perspective. Although I haven't read Dowd's book - as it appears few posters have - Traister's article focused on one uncontroversial question: can a woman lead a fulfilling life without a man? The answer from both Dowd and Traister - yes . . . and no - is equally uncontroversial. Yet Traister's article has drawn a barrage of criticism from men and women alike ripping on the two women as selfish, internally flawed, and even suffering from "penis-envy" - an indication that women might not have come as far as we'd like to think.
As much as her critics would like to dismiss her, the phenomenon of the smart, successful and single woman is not unique to Dowd's experience. As she points out in one of her columns, studies have shown that a woman is 40% less likely to get married with every 16 point increase in her I.Q., while a man is 35% more likely to get married with the same 16 point increase. Many women, including Dowd, have blamed this dynamic on men: men are intimidated by smart women and therefore would rather marry their secretaries, leaving lots of smart, successful women home alone. Dowd's critics blame her: if she weren't so demanding and critical she would be happily married. Perhaps. But I know far too many women - and men - who were not so demanding of their mates and are very UNhappily married.
I'm sure that part of Dowd's "problem" is that she is looking not just for any husband, but for her intellectual equal, and she isn't willing to settle. But why is that so wrong? The phenomenon of the smart, successful and single woman is only perplexing in contrast to her male counterparts, many of whom seem perfectly happy to marry a pretty face regardless of whether she can hold an intelligent conversation.
What is really intriguing about Dowd is that she has NOT married, in spite of an abundance of suitors, while many in her situation would have gone through not one, but several, husbands. As cynical as Dowd is, this suggests that she actually retains a somewhat innocent belief in true love - even if it's something she might not ever experience. So in contrast to the disappointing Sex-in-the-City ending with the smart, attractive Carrie Bradshaw running into the arms of her unimpressive ex-boyfriend, Dowd is the strong, attractive woman who decided that she's better off going it alone than to settle for Mr. Not-Quite-Right. Whether you agree or disagree, it is a feeling that clearly resonates with many of today's smart, single women.
-
Insulting to All Catholics
[Read the article: Cosmo, it ain't]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not one to subscribe to the Catholic League paranoia of bigotry against Catholics, but Lynn Harris' article that pulls one passage out of the Bible and characterizes it as "Church teachings" is nothing short of insulting. If Harris wants to criticize the sexism of Catholic church teachings, there is plenty of material to work with and a simple internet search would have put it at her fingertips. Instead, Harris pulls out a quote from the Bible that has nothing to do with Catholic teaching and which I haven't heard in my 30 years of going to church and 12 years of Catholic education. While the Church certainly has its flaws, it also has some very valuable social teachings on economic justice and non-violence and I would hope that those teachings would be included in the magazine that Harris comments on. I have never read the publication, so I can't comment on its substance. It would be nice if Harris held herself to those same standards.
-
What Would Make Me Happy Is for John Tierney to Stop Telling Me What Will Make Me Happy
[Read the article: The happiest wives ...]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is impossible not to notice the recent trend of male newspaper columnists, particularly at the New York Times, telling women that pursuing a career will render us unhappy, lonely and unfulfilled. Aside from the offensive substance of what these men are saying, do they realize that telling women what will make them happy is in itself arrogant and condescending? Somehow the men on the editorial pages of the Times feel that they have some superior knowledge of women that makes them particularly qualified to expound on women's innate sense of fulfillment. Interestingly, the male writers - who are purportedly so concerned with women's happiness - fail to even touch upon many things that obviously would make women happier, such as better health care, affordable day care, and equal pay and equal treatment at work. On the other hand, these men can't seem to find enough ways of saying that a woman will be happy only if she stays at home, has lots of kids and forgoes a challenging career. One can't help but conclude that these men are less concerned about women's happiness than with reinforcing traditional gender roles of female subservience. It is at the same time outrageous and sad to continually see columns like Tierney's in our country's most prominent newspaper. What would make me happy is for men like John Tierney to stop telling women what will make them happy. We can figure it out ourselves, thank you.
-
The Logics of Abortion
[Read the article: The baby and the petri dish]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I couldn't agree more with DSC that this is an unfair debate that could just as easily be played on the pro-choice side. It is a shame that War Room wasted so much space on this colloquy. Although I'm pro-choice, there are at least as many inconsistencies in that position as the position of the pro-lifers. Abortion is a difficult and complex issue and any attempt to simplify either the pro-life or the pro-choice position in one hypothetical question is both arrogant and narrow-minded.
-
Before His Term Is Over . . .
[Read the article: Behind Bush's "new way forward"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Can somebody PLEASE tell George Bush that he's not a character in a Shakespearean tragedy?
Great piece by Sidney Blumenthal! It really captures the increasing absurdity of this administration.