Letters to the Editor
watch_this_space
Published Letters: 115 Editor's Choice: 21
-
chris1988
[Read the article: Katie Roiphe's morning after]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree that some of feminism is a major industry. My previous comments were attempting to highlight Roiphe's position within said industry.
My problem isn't that Roiphe is making money; my problem is the conditions under which that money is made and the conditions that arguments like Roiphe's perpetuate. Those conditions include Roiphe presenting a supposed "alternative voice" about gender inequality, when, in fact, she is simply saying the material conditions of the world are just fine thanks, and that the only problem is women's attitudes towards those conditions. Her glib response about being unhappy three hours after picking up Legos misguidedly attends to the 'victim', instead of focusing on who benefits from the work of picking up the Legos. I find nothing alternative about Roiphe's argument. What I think is more "alternative" is to focus on those who benefits from women (or men) doing more than their fair share of the housework. So Roiphe is also obsessed with victimhood, at the expense of ignoring who benefits from such inequality, and, most disturbingly, she is making a career off of telling women to change their attitude. This, to me, sounds more like Oprah Winfrey than feminism.
I can see how Roiphe feminism would be attractive to some women. It is much more difficult to make systemic change in society than it is just to smile while you pick up the Legos.
I'm not suggesting that Roiphe (and others like her) shouldn't have jobs in academia or shouldn't sell books either. I'm merely responding to the ideas Roiphe presents in the interview and the biographical information Traister offers about Roiphe. I think if you suggest Roiphe has every right to be included in "feminism" and to make money off her books, then I certainly have a right to critique the message she's attempting to sell.
-
my solution
[Read the article: Fishing for boys, pedicures for girls]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why can't both sexes do both?
Here's my solution: Send all the kids off on a nice hike first thing in the morning before it gets too fucking hot (and will get all of the kid energy to tolerable levels). Eat lunch. After lunch, kids go inside for 'personal grooming health and safety' lessons. Have lessons on how to use nail clippers, how to treat calluses, how to pull out bee stings, and, yes, how to keep your nails healthy and even pretty if you want. After a good enough hike, soaking your feet feels good to everyone.
Personally, this sounds like a great day to me. Of course, I get pedicures because I like the fact that someone will rub my feet for a half an hour. The painted toenails are just icing on the cake.
(I also agree with the post upthread by manyctnj, but I think that the limitations girls face by being relegated to decorative, indoor activities is far more limiting in terms of exposure to physical exercise and ability than boys who want to make jewelry but can't. I do, however, think boys are limited in terms of their knowledge of caring for their bodies in comparison to girls.)
-
plus size ads
[Read the article: Plus size, minus a few years]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't think Harris's description of wading through big gulps is entirely inaccurate. I literally had to push a Halloween candy display out of the way at the local Safeway today to fit both my cart and my eight-month preggo belly through the lane. There is no longer anywhere to set your handcart down; the floor space is now dedicated to a cookie display. The candy display was for bags of Halloween treats (right next to the 'traditional' candy bar/gum display on the right-hand side of the aisle). That makes for three separate spaces dedicated to selling junk food.
(I won't go into the fact that Safeway is the 'cheap' grocery store here in town, and how the local hippy organic granola stores don't have cookie displays in their aisles.)
So while I agree about 'personal responsibility', you have to acknowledge the rate at which we are inundated with ads and displays of certain 'foods' has never, ever been at this level.
-
the basic premise is
[Read the article: Bob Herbert argues against prostitution, again ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]that sex for money is bad and exploitative--more exploitative than what's possible in the typical wage relationship.
All other arguments about prostitution are equally applicable to other types of work. For example,
-"many minors enter the sex industry"
....and many minors don't enter other industries? You can work in most states at what, 15? You can work on a farm at what, birth? Until there's data that show that prostitution brings in minors disproportionate to other fields (food service especially), then the unstated assumption is that minors are somehow more exploited in performing sex for money than say cleaning out McDonald's bathrooms for money--an assumption that I find highly debatable.
-"it is very difficult to leave the industry"
...see above. More difficult to leave than your shit job in your shit small town? How is "difficult" being quantified?
Again, point out the specifics of prostituion as an occupation and show how it is incommensurate to other occupations.
-"the legalization of prostitution typically increases illegal prostitution by legitimizing the exchange of sex for money."
...again, how is this any different than any other occupation? Some people who wait tables are on the books; others aren't. All of these arguments can (until someone produces data about prostitution's specificities) be equally applicable to most other occupations. I think there are some good arguments about outlawing prostitution, but saying that it as an occupation is somehow more exploitative than other occupations is not the way to argue against prostitution.
Oh, and the idea that we don't already exchange sex for money is hilarious. The last time I checked, I could order Skin-a-Max, download a Vivid video, or even buy a dildo to stick in my body at any time. All of these corporations (and their employees--including the ones having sex on film) can take my money for sex, but I can't walk out to the corner and solicit myself?