Letters to the Editor
Teensy
Published Letters: 184 Editor's Choice: 7
-
i have it
[Read the article: Abuse me, abuse my pet]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]abusers are people with really low self-esteem. people with really low self-esteem make grand shows of themselves in an attempt to hide the fact that they actually feel worthless. nice guys with healthy self-esteem are less noticible. women with low self-esteem are attracted to men like this, because the flashy illusion is very seductive to their egos (i.e. "if i'm with this flashy guy, it must mean i'm pretty special").
it actually happened to me once at a very low point in my life. luckily it was with a guy who knew at a very deep level that he could not control his monstrous behavior, and he let me go because he knew that if he didn't he would seriously hurt me.
i would also like to add to the list of reasons that women stay, the fact that abusers systematically undermine the self-worth of their victims with constant insults. the guy i dated would wake me up at 4am insulting me. it would end with me leaving his place on my bicycle in the rain by 5:30. this happened more times than i care to admit, and than i could have ever imagined in my life prior to meeting him. it didn't scar me, luckily. it was just weird, but it gave me great insight into the problem.
-
thoughts on troll-baiting
[Read the article: Abuse me, abuse my pet]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and why I don't encourage it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/magazine/25internet-t.html?hp
Emily Gould's internet transgressions were slightly different, but her reasons for doing it were exactly the same.
people like our trolls, here, are addicted to the reactions they get. they get gigantic boners every time they post something and it gets a rise out of the crowd. one of them is now claiming that people on this forum "respect" him. it's preposterous.
i've been watching this phenomenon for years, and tried many tactics in combating it on various forums, but really the only way to get it to stop is to ignore it. they're not trying to enlighten us with their contrary opinions. they probably don't even totally believe what they say. they're just getting their rocks off.
so, when you read this crap, and you're tempted to respond just please remember:
1) many well-meaning people have tried before you to get them to be reasonable. reasonable ain't what it's about.
2) when you respond you are actually encouraging this obnoxious behavior, which tends to crowd out interesting, reasoned debate.
this probably won't help either, but whatever. i tried. again.
-
yuck
[Read the article: Yours in holy "manimony"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]this was fucking hilarious...
"The problem could be that I don't have enough brain cells to pound these two different cases into similar enough shapes to make them comparable." -jwr_12
but the subject is yucky.
i'm sure people have all kinds of complicated reasons for wanting spousal support when a marriage ends, but most of the time i think it's nasty business. i can see it if there was an explicit agreement that one person would be a stay-at-home parent, but otherwise I hate the whole notion of community property, and keeping the spouse in the manner to which he/she has become accustomed. it's gross. maybe it's because i liked my life as a single person, and it's not much different now that i'm not single, and it wouldn't be so strange to transition back to it, but i can't imagine feeling like someone i've broken up with owes me money or stuff that i didn't earn. it seems shallow and undignified, and i hope my friends smack some sense into me if i ever start down that path.
i know this article is about men receiving support, but since it's mostly women who get it, and i assume not all of them are stay-at-home moms, i have to comment that alimony is not good for womens' liberation. it's just encourages dependence.
-
@ silenced
[Read the article: Yours in holy "manimony"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]sorry, if my opinion hit a nerve with you, but what does "investing in their marriage" even mean? i am assuming you don't mean raising children, because i already addressed that. i really just don't see how as a matter of public policy an able-bodied adult should be allowed to take things that they didn't earn, just because they were legally married to someone who made more money. i have yet to hear a story where such an settlement was anything but vengeful, and i just don't think the courts should be in the business of regulating romantic behavior, as tempting as that may be.
it's not so bad to stand on your own two feet, even if you have to reinvent yourself at a different economic level. i think there's a lot of dignity in it. obviously i'm not the only person who thinks so. mwhite1249 put it even more bluntly than i did, and he got a star. i guess that means you don't like me. am i supposed to go cry now?
-
actually, Malusinka
[Read the article: Ellen to McCain: Walk me down the aisle?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]the situation that Phunkjunky describes is exactly what they have in the Netherlands. You can have a religious wedding if it's your thing, but you can only be legally married by municipal authority. You also don't have to get married to have all the same rights as married people. you can have a "living together" contract, and also gay people can get legally married if they want, and God can't do anything about it. So it is possible, and it's not that people are so sophisticated there. It's they're just very clear that marriage is first and foremost a legal financial contract (not that it should be), and that is where the government interest ends.