Letters to the Editor
BooDooPerson
Published Letters: 10 Editor's Choice: 1
-
My concern about government...
[Read the article: Where the aldermen are all women]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...is how it's run—not by whom.
If it's a well-functioning, non-corrupt tiny town in Texas that's great, and I'm sure it's entirely because of the women they have running it and the forward-thinking ideals that make it possible. If it's a horrible cesspit of a town, then they can take credit for that too.
Also, I would like to see some more detailed demographic information. If, for example, the voting is overwhelmingly along gender lines when given two candidates to choose from but there just happen to be more women-- well that's not very progressive. Cute story, but no substance :(
-
Self-identification and 'Sexism'
[Read the article: Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When you talk with someone about Hillary you may be talking about her, or you may be talking about 'what she represents' (women in general, successful women, feminists, a Clinton, Old Guard Democrat)
Someone can be substantively opposed to her policies and also be a sexist. They could also actually just hate 'that one,' and have opposition which has no substance politically but is itself also not sexist.
It's worth considering that this 'subtle sexism' could result from the listener's self-identification. Say you feel an implicit connection of some kind because Hillary is a woman (or you've both lived in Scranton) and someone is attacking Hillary harshly.
If, without an identifiable cause, this makes you feel uncomfortable it's likely due to that identification, along the following lines:
1. Hillary and I are both women
2. Guy A is talking about Hillary (and not me) negatively in a way that makes me uncomfortable
3. Since the comments were about Hillary and not me, but make me feel uncomfortable it must be an attack on our common trait (woman hood)
4. Sexism identified
One should always keep in mind that they are not another person.
There's also the possibility of sexism towards the woman speaking, rather than towards Hillary. Say Guuy B dislikes Hillary and you make hokey or unconvincing defenses of her to him- hE may assume you are supporting her because you are both women and he's not convinced of your justification.
He may then act in a rather derogatory, sexist manner- this is due to a misjudgment, and causes another. He may rather have no problem with intelligent, capable women- he may rather be upset by your perceived lack of those traits and/or attempted association with them by proxy.
Any angle presented here could be provided just as effectively from the opposite end of the stick, and every possible interpretation is through a keyhole. Fine fluff, if I didn't think it did an honest disservice to engaged citizens expressing their political beliefs freely without being accused of sexism.
-
College Make-Out Sessions =/= Lesbian Encounters
[Read the article: Can't "lesbians" belong to us all?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]At some colleges, in fact, there is disgrace in not being a lesbian.
DID NO ONE ELSE GET THE SARCASM?
This wasn't sarcasm, by my reading. Sarcasm is falsely praising something in a way which conveys actual scorn or disdain. I do not believe that Sarah hates schools (real or imagined) where hetero girls are the minority or outcast sexual orientation, or at least I believe she is not as upset by the idea as the alternative, which is the prevailing standard in most environments at present.
I think she was referring to all-women schools, such as Smith, with a strong gender solidarity ethic. Also, a number of the cliches/social conventions you mention in your listing don't even fit the criteria of lesbian, unless by lesbian you mean bisexual, horny and indiscriminate or attention-starved.
While those may be associated terms in current usage within the age group being discussed, that water really doesn't need to be made any muddier than it already is by bad attempts at 'jokes' with no punchline or defense of same jokes as being funny because they're true.
-
'Not competetive'
[Read the article: The sex that plays fair?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is an outrageous claim against women, especially given the context.
The other team was going to have 3 points scored against them whether they helped her around the bases or not. The only reason to refuse would be to spite her and sully her record.
Competition is performing your best and winning for it, not artificially devaluing others in an effort to appear better by comparison.
-
To calcareous, Nancy Ott
[Read the article: The sex that plays fair?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please read the article a bit more closely.
They are allowed to substitute a runner and as such would have gotten the 3 runs regardless of if the other team had been a bunch of heartless robots.
The only issue at hand was whether the one woman would receive the points on her record that she earned with a hit. If you want to discuss the sanctity of legitimate statistics you can argue this point, but as to winning/losing- they had no control over that.
-
Farewell Mr. Manjoo
[Read the article: Goodbye to Machinist]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I haven't commented in Machinist before, but I will now to express my sadness at your departure.
I used to check Salon, Slate and TNR every day during my downtime at work. Now as my workload has increased, I've cut it down to just Salon—with your emigration I'll have to make time for Slate in my day again!
Best of luck at the new digs, and I hope to see more of the same. Don't go changing!
-
12 weeks of the 12 months
[Read the article: Equality holds women back? Huh?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So the best part is that to create 'parity', Nicola Brewer suggests men be granted 12 weeks leave after the birth of a child- this of course doesn't change the fact that women still receive the full 9 months PRIOR to the birth. So this will bring the leave parity to:
Women: 9 months, +3 months
Men: 3 months, *if* Ms. Brewer successful.
I understand the difference between carrying a child and caring for a pregnant spouse but this still isn't close to parity from a manager's perspective.
The 'worst' a male employee can do is break away for 3 months, before which you would have approximately 9 months prior notice. Women could still get pregnant and immediately begin their 12 month leave without prior notice.
I think the 3 months post-partum for both parents is a necessity to assist new or growing families, but it will not change the discrimination against women capable of bearing children.