Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 135 Editor's Choice: 12
-
I'm sure PMS may exist
[Read the article: Women more likely to inherit depression]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]cosmicmojo, like you, I don't suffer much from PMS. And I'm self-reliant and independent and all that. But I just can't agree with the supposition that just because *I* don't suffer from it, and no one I know suffers from it, then it must not exist. I don't know anyone with liver cancer, or epilepsy, or schizophrenia either. That doesn't make those diseases not exist. Hormone levels do rise and fall over the course of a menstrual cycle, and hormones are known to affect mood. When there are "normal ranges" of hormones, there are bound to be women whose levels go outside those ranges. How can you possibly conclude that this is "all in their heads"?
And for everyone else: the flip side of the coin is, just because SOME women suffer from it, doesn't mean that ALL women suffer from it. Or if they do, that they suffer from it in exactly the same way - becoming the bitch from hell. The fact is, those who fund researchers don't care enough about the matter to fund any sort of studies on it. Is the prevalence 20%? 40%? 80%? No one knows. Or if they do, then no one cares enough about the matter to publish the outcome of these studies. I know I haven't seen anything useful on the subject.
-
Why I believe the post is real
[Read the article: "I'm a conservative Christian and this film changed my mind"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The reason I believe that this guy's post is the real deal (and that his "conversion" is authentic) is because he has been able to liken the characters' situation in Brokeback to a painful situation in his own life - leaving the family business. Though he only alludes to it briefly and subtly, it was obviously a BIG deal to him. I can imagine it must be tough to break away from familial expectations and follow your own path. With this movie, he was able to see an analogy to his own life. He was finally able to understand that gays are people with the same struggles, except that their struggles can get them killed. As for speaking out, notice that he only said he thought it was a good movie. He didn't appear to follow it up with "gays are people, too, and I'm now pro gay marriage" or anything like that. It all rings true to me.
-
Thank you, Molly Ivins!
[Read the article: Molly Ivins on how lame Hillary Clinton is]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For the past 6 years, I have assumed that of course I would be voting for Hillary in 2008. It goes without saying. She started her First Lady stint with a roar on universal health care, if I remember correctly. Republicans plotzed at the thought of a first lady having actual opinions on things, and wanting to help her husband, the President, in any way other than looking pretty at diplomatic dinners. I cheered. But slowly she faded back into the shadows, until Bill's second term was over. And then she roared back and won the Senate seat in NY. Hooray again! And I even commend her "tragic choice" comment on abortion, because I think most unintentionally pregnant women would, given a choice, go back in time and not get pregnant in the first place rather than have an abortion. Plus I think that her sentiments were correct - let's get more contraceptives and accurate sex education out there to reduce the need for abortion in the first place.
The little things, like the flag-burning and the video games and all that seemed trivial in the grand scheme of things. They came and went as mere blips of discomfort. And then Ivins went and put them all in one place, in all their tarnished "glory". All of a sudden, she's not such a shoo-in, after all.
This is not to say I wouldn't vote for her. Hillary Clinton would definitely be my choice over Cheney or Rove. Probably even McCain, who, integrity be damned, plays the "support the party even if they're wrong" game. Not voting at all is not an option (and shame on you folks that plan to just stay home!). But I'm really hoping for a better choice. Ivins, anyone?
-
I'm with rabbit
[Read the article: No more "booth babes"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm with "rabbit" on this one. Game companies are actively trying to develop games that appeal to women and girls. (After all, they already have the men-and-boys market all locked in.) In order to make gaming something that women/girls want to do, you HAVE to not alienate them. You HAVE to not make them feel demeaned and unsafe when they show signs of interest in your products. Plus, it being an industry event, you're opening up the companies to the potential for sexual harrassment suits if a female employee is expected to attend this industry event.
That said, given that there is also a genuine market for adult-oriented games, it might make sense for the event to have an adults-only zone, where "booth babes" could be as clothed or unclothed as the market - and the event organizers - will allow.
-
Is overturning Roe really that bad? (yes, Part 2)
[Read the article: Illegal abortion on the rise]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Spike, see what Tricia said. Also, according to conventional wisdom, those 55% live on the coasts, and the 37% live in the heartland/flyover country. That means that women in the vast area in the center of the country will be living in states where abortion is illegal. Not only that, "traveling to a neighboring state" for an abortion will ALSO not be possible. This means that some women will have access, and some will not. The point to Roe is that individual states are not allowed to say "our women can't have an abortion". This makes it a privilege and not a right.