Letters to the Editor
SueNJ97
Published Letters: 161 Editor's Choice: 3
-
The arguments I see are susually about something different
[Read the article: The double standard of student-teacher sex]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And it has been addressed here, sort of.
Some people have pointed out that many people don't view the Female teacher/male student (even underage) as a predatory situation because, well, he's 'getting lucky'. I see this one argued on the air all the time, admittedly, it's usually by the talking-head-in-charge and his minions, not by anyone with anyone with professional training in psychiatry, sociology, social services, etc. They are always so, so, careful to point out that they wouldn't be bothered if it were their son, but they'd want the creep locked up if it were their daughter.
Personally, I see no difference in the two types of preditors and anyone who trys to make excuses for women in this situation, either by saying it doesn't harm the kids, or that they are somehow 'different' than their male counterparts, is adding to the problem. Period. And, if it isn't psychologically damaging to the boys, why do they try to keep them from testifying? That's what happened in the case with the teacher in Florida that all the talking heads were drooling over and saying it couldn't have been that bad. It's a sex crime. Prosecute it like one. Women claim they want equality, this comes with the territory.
I, btw, don't view actual sex between two underage kids in the same way. That's an issue for the parents...not necessarily the law.
However, this all brings me to my second point. Leaving this topic aside, where I have seen significant 'sympathy' if you can call it that, from the male side, or at least, you could say, they don't it seriously, I am just appalled at the tendency of both the psychological experts and many women's groups to simply want to hold women less accountable than men in the same situations. And I'm not talking about a woman who's been beated who gets a gun and shoots the abuser. I can understand that one. I'm talking about the acceptance of things like, 'well, she loved him', so she did it for him, which is the frigging argument I've heard about Karla Humulka vs. Paul Bernardo from women and experts, and it just floors me. People would never accept it about a man. I'm talking about the fact that when there were several cases of women killing or assaulting other women for their babies, 'experts' tried to justify the behavior in a way they would never do for men. Please. I understand that part of equality is supposed to be equality before the law. Don't justify criminal behavior in women that you would never accept in a man.
-
Also late to this
[Read the article: "The Other Boleyn Girl"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As other people have pointed out, the reviewer doesn't know much about the history of the period. Henry WAS considered the most beautiful prince in Europe in his youth. As someone said, it was a gift from his mother, but really, what that meant was, he bore a remarkable resemblance to her father, Edward IV. Who also, btw, started to get fat and lost his youthful beauty around the same age Henry did and, if he hadn't died soon thereafter, might have had the same (health) issues in later life.
Henry was a bit of an intellectual for royalty in those days, although he wasn't as interested in the more radical religious texts as Anne Boleyn was. He was interested in what would get him what he wanted...which was both a son and her, at the time. The evidence from his letters is that he did love her as much as someone as selfish as he was capable of love - but that didn't keep him from turning on her and her family, visciously, when he didn't get what he wanted. But, since they had had no problem doing whatever was necessary to gain power themselves, this isn't exactly something where you can say they should have been surprised. You can say that they might not have deserved what they got - certainly, nobody who simply played the 'political game' deserves what happened to them. But certainly, they should have expected it.
In terms of Henry being an intellectual for royalty of his day, basically, as the younger son, he was the 'spare' and had been left with his tutors for most of his early life until his brother Arthur died. He was interested in music, poetry, and had a fairly decent knowledge of scripture and law, whether his conscience really 'bothered' him about Katherine or not. His court attracted some relatively interesting people and scholars, even before the break with Rome. He wasn't always the monster of legend and he wasn't a dumb jock, either. He was incredibly selfish and had the power to enforce it. Given the period, nobody should be surprised. Also, considering the fact that his father and then he had exterminated almost all of the remaning Yorkists (except his mother) on incredibly flimsy evidence and were, well, praised for it - why is anyone shocked at what else he would do.