Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 203 Editor's Choice: 13
-
Two headscarfs: Pelosi and the female British Sailor
[Read the article: To Damascus with Nancy Pelosi]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How beautifully illustrative that the pictures of Speaker Pelosi choosing to wear a headscarf and the female British soldier forced (exclusively among the British captives) to don religious clothing appeared simultaneously. Yes, symbols have meaning, and one of those meanings is cultural respect. But that doesn't mean that we're supposed to, as Conason proposes, entirely blow off the concept that one of the meanings of headscarfs et. al. for women is submission and shaming, not the free proffering by that woman of "respect." That's why I recoiled when I saw the images of Pelosi. Context matters.
For women, exclusively, there's a thin line between being empowered or shamed by religious imagery, and it's a line that I wish that Pelosi had contemplated more before her trip. If she were a private visitor or tourist, it would be fine for her to don religious headgear. But she went to the Middle East on a diplomatic mission and also, quite specifically and symbolically, as a powerful female elected official holding a post previously denied to American women on the basis of gender. As such, is it too much to ask of her to stick to places where she isn't asked to (exclusively and visibly) don a contentious religious symbol of female humility, which is what the headscarf has become? I think she took some courageous steps in the Middle East, and I'm glad she went, but all things aren't as equal, or as benign, as Conason implies. How ironic that, simultaneously, that female British soldier was being forced to wear a headscarf while her male peers were treated differently, a message that has apparently infected a British public now primed to pillor the young woman back home for being a female soldier in the first place.
Such is the (important) slippery slope that women confront in religious settings (yes, I would never wear bare arms in a Church; nor would my brothers wear shorts in one, but that type of "respect" is not what we're talking about here) and, tragically, outside of them. And, more tragically, in political settings, where submission by female elected officials should never be a compromise. And, even more tragically, in the Democratic party, where too many guys of the Conason/Stephanopolous camp are all too eager to dismiss concerns about excluding and oppressing women (see, as I've cited before, the first chapter of Stephanopolous' autobiography, where he waxes poetically about the surge of power he felt being in the places in church 'where women couldn't go' and being allowed to carry the Bishop's regalia, which women couldn't touch: you see the Clinton years unfolding, uncomfortably and unconsciously).
Conason once again shows the unfortunate Democratic-boyos tin ear when confronted with the mere notion of female oppression. Too bad he doesn't cover that with a scarf.
-
Now that we know he stalked females and was noticed doing it
[Read the article: "I think he was just a confused kid"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Maybe the next time, and the time after that, and so on, when somebody acts out so threateningly toward female classmates that others turn him in, the response won't be to do...nothing serious. Probably, though, it will be. Probably, the next wounded, ominous, crazy guy who acts out against women won't be interrupted in his hunt, either. Because that would involve acting as if it is exceptional and problematic when a young guy, or anyone else, goes after women with rage strong enough to force his male peers to turn him in, as, according to former roomates, was done here, ineffectually, before the killing.
When the rest of us take threats against women, hatred against women, seriously enough, and stop making every excuse under the sun for it, then maybe we'll have some warning against this type of tragedy. Nearly every school killing has some element of frustrated male rage directed initially against females, and many feature specific targeting of women. Rather than chattering about other things, perhaps it's time to acknowledge this and address it.
Or do nothing, like all the other times, and then act all surprised again.
-
hatred, enacted
[Read the article: "It's like when 9/11 happened"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Could Salon possibly pause before banging its reflexive drum and remember, for a moment, that what really happened here is that a man acted on HIS hatred and killed dozens of innocent people? That's the hate crime that happened. Those are the victims killed by hatred.
-
The personal isn't political?
[Read the article: Supreme Court upholds ban on "partial-birth" abortion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]OK, so I know that "News and Politics" and "Opinion" are for the big boys, and "Life" is, like, the other stuff. Why is this other stuff? Smacks of putting the "women" stories in a little weekly section and calling it "for the ladies." Which isn't fair at all to the quality of the Life section, by the way. Nor does it explain why Garrison Keillor's (beautiful) insights about snow, children, life, etc. reside in Opinion. But if a Supreme Court decision regarding women's bodies isn't considered news or politics, then what exactly is News and Politics? Boy stuff? A night at the Vagina Monologues for you all.
-
Prior crimes were committed
[Read the article: Deadly prose]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This article is interesting but, like all other coverage of Cho's prior acts, wrong. It is against the law to surremptitiously photograph a woman's legs under a table, against her will. I don't know the exact state law, but I cannot believe that Virginia has no law against voyeurism, peeping or stalking that couldn't be applied here. The school chose to ignore student complaints that included women refusing to attend class because they felt they weren't safe in Cho's presence. This was a serious failure to protect, and there is serious liability on the part of the school here, and when everybody gets done dreaming about gun control, perhaps somebody who complained will hold the school responsible for refusing to act on those sexual threats.