Letters to the Editor
watch_this_space
Published Letters: 114 Editor's Choice: 21
-
I've asked my sister
[Read the article: Do I have to be a mommy to "opt out"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]to do what you want to do. She signs everything now as "auntie." This is our first kid and her presence will help me finish grad school (because we both know kids don't need you much after about two decades).
I don't know what the future will hold (she could meet someone in her new town and get married and have kids of her own), but that's true of any situation. She and I have pretty good communication and I don't think we'll have many problems with authority and territory, but I think we'll have some (just as I'm sure I'll have them with my husband, my parents, and my in-laws). Parents are going to have to negotiate all sorts of roles with all sorts of people--that shouldn't stop you from being a presence in these children's lives.
I think your background would also inspire your nieces and nephews if their parents didn't explore the world in the way you have. That is something very important that you can share with them as they move into adolescence. I think it is invaluable to have role models who chose to carve out all sorts of different lives (some get married, some don't; some go to college, some don't; some explore the world through travel, some don't). You have a lot to offer these kids beyond just changing diapers.
I think you're blessed to have the opportunity and the choice to be a part of these children's lives. Imagine how loved they will feel when they learn that you chose them. I can't imagine a better gift to give them that your time, your energy, and your experiences.
Who knows, maybe after a couple of years with the kids too, you might not be so pessimistic about making change in the world.
good luck (and go!)
-
someone explain to me how
[Read the article: Miss America: Crime fighter]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]these guys are charged with a crime. I'm no law expert, but I'm sure someone around here is. (LeCastor?)
Unless I'm wrong, these guys aren't sending pictures or engaging in sex chat with underage girls (and why don't they ever pose as boys?). They're doing these things with adults posing as girls. So how is that a crime?
I get that you can charge people for intent (don't get me started on that), but the possibility of these guys talking or meeting a girl is less likely to occur in these cases because it is entirely orchestrated by adult law enforcement. I mean, if they're charging them with intent, isn't law enforcement creating the very conditions under which intent becomes possible?
Do these guys just have bad lawyers or am I missing something?
-
so what if they did?
[Read the article: The new skinny, sex-crazed you!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]what if the evil scientists *were* trying to make a pill to both lose weight and increase women's sex drive?
Why is increasing sexual desire a bad thing? I firmly reject any discussion that automatically equates increasing female sex drive as something that is bad for women. As far as I know, this pill won't force women to have more sex in bad relationships with men, or force women to have more sex with men in general, or force women to have more sex in bad relationships with women, or force women to have more sex with women in general, or force women to have sex at all.
Why do we think when and if women get their hands on a pill to increase their libidos, they'll stay in bad relationships? This sounds like the religious right saying that women can't understand how bad abortion is, so they'll just criminalize it so the women won't have to worry their purty little heads about it.
Are there more significant and pressing health issues affecting women than decreased libido? I'm sure there are more immediate life-and-death issues, yes. But this is a quality of life issue that I'm sure is quite significant for some women. Stop with the patronizing.
-
Emily
[Read the article: The new skinny, sex-crazed you!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm unclear about your reference to the "persistance of sexism" that this post demonstrates. Is increasing women's libido sexist? If so, how? Is decreasing women's appetites sexist? If so, how?
Blanket labelling of various social phenomenon as "sexist" is sophmoric at best and bad thinking at worst.
I think neither increasing a woman's libido nor decreasing a woman's appetite are inherently sexist. Here's why. By labeling these things sexist, you're already assuming that women's libido is only increased for male sexual pleasure. I have a number of problems with such an assumption. First, it ignores the fact that increasing a woman's libido may be beneficial first and foremost to the woman. Second, it assumes that women's sexual partners are always men. Third, it assumes that women will have sex with men they shouldn't be having sex with (bad relationships). Bleh.
I'm sure you can fill out the same analysis of faulty assumptions for the weight loss component.
Doesn't alleviating potential problems (low sexual libido and large appetite) for women outweigh the risk of reinforcing stereotypes about women? Couldn't we make the same argument about affirmative action? 'You know lady, I'd love to give you this higher paying job, but I wouldn't want to stereotype you.'