Letters to the Editor
smallfox
Published Letters: 111 Editor's Choice: 8
-
@ Harrington
[Read the article: Amanda Peet gets her shot on ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The "shield" is meant for infants too young to be vaccinated, and the elderly whose boosters may not be as efficacious anymore or may be suffering from a repressed immune system. If one is stupid enough not to vaccinate one's own children, they frankly deserve to get sick, but the problem is they infect the innocent. Anti-vaccine parents are fear-mongering, scientfically unfounded public-medicine parasites, undoing decades of life-saving research and innovation with chicken-with-its-head-cut-off shrieking about autism. If you can't show some medical reason why you can't get vaccinated (I'd have a severe reaction to a smallpox jab, which is thankfully not an issue *because* of good innoculation programs in the past generation) you shouldn't be allowed in a public school, any hospital or clinic, daycare, retirement home, or place of employment.
-
Also -
[Read the article: On the ballot this November: Obama, McCain and a definition of when life begins]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If the fetus is a separate and distinct person, can the mother terminate her parental rights by giving it up, thus requiring the gov’t to provide a suitable artificial or surrogate womb? If they are unable to do so, can they arrest the woman as an unfit mother to ensure she doesn’t fall downstairs, drink pennyroyal tea, or fast for weeks at a time? If so, how is this not slavery? Can they administer gov’t-mandated daily pregnancy tests to all women, require they save and submit for testing any miscarriage material, and criminally prosecute any doctor or woman who attempts to hide a miscarriage/potential murder? Can they prevent all women from traveling outside of Colorado at any time, lest they’re seeking an abortion?
Come on, Colorado, these are burning questions we need addressed so we can adjust the administration and treatment of our wombs accordingly for the impending turn of 1984.
-
Yeah, Dick,
[Read the article: So much for my happy ending]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Unless you happen to be a wealthy and/or attractive and/or powerful man, and then you can have all the sex you want. Or, conversely, if you’re a homely, obese, disabled, or otherwise “unattractive” woman, you’re having about as much sex as the average homely, obese, disabled, or otherwise “unattractive” man. (In other words, not that much, unless you found a good person who loves you, or you’re willing to bite at anything.) Either gender can get sex if standards are non-existent. I’m not sure what you’re complaining about. Contrary to popular belief, 90% of us womenfolk are not sleeping with 5% of the male population. Modern society is not a pride of lions.
Either way, I go to female massage therapists for a reason, and if another woman enjoyed going to a male who "specializes" in sexual gratification, more power to her. The difference between a sleazy men’s “happy ending” parlor and a woman propositioning her male masseur is the difference between a street corner and a high-end escort service. They’re both sexual favors for money, but there’s a pretty big chasm between the two. (Also this article was not specific, but there’s also a difference between genital massage and oral sex.)
-
really?
[Read the article: "You don't feel like it, but you do it for him"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"If he makes threats, displays anger, or does other things that make her feel unsafe unless she gives consent, then he has coerced her--and that is a problem, but I am loathe to call it rape, just because the Women's Movement does."
Then what the hell WOULD you call it? Coercing "consent" with threats of violence is *definitionally* rape and not by the "Woman's Movement", but by criminal codes which predate the woman's movement (apart from suffrage) by several decades. Believe it or not, rape doesn't require a woman to be beaten within an inch of her life first.
-
Dick-ese, translated
[Read the article: So much for my happy ending]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I consider the "average man" any sleazy dude with a functional penis, and I consider ALL men so sex-addled and lacking basic morals and self control as to have sex with any average-looking unknown woman who asks for it."
I hate to break it to you, but as an average 20-something woman, I can promise you that sex is not sigificantly more accessible for average women then average men if one has some minimal standards of appearance, personality, and STI screening (either posessing or seeking). My short, average-looking but gregarious and well-educated partner has had a steady stream of sexual partners and girlfriends since age 19. You sound like a bitter, unattractive man who hasn't realized that a great number of women rank traditional attractiveness significantly below more important personality and educational traits. ...But presumably you're less than gifted there, too.
-
@ Ransom
[Read the article: Is a black princess that hard to imagine?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Song of the South is blatantly racist, and moreso than Gone with the Wind, but I am sure not the most racist thing to come out of pre-1960s Hollywood. The movie centers around a carefree-ex-slave stereotype telling Brer Rabbit stories to squeaky clean white children. The cartoon portions are not inherently racist because they're animals (and therefore free of any cartoonish exagerrated blackness) and the stories themselves are black folk tales. The bookending live action is a little cringe-worthy to the modern audience, though.
At any rate, I do empathize with Disney's damned if you do, damned if you don't position. I concur that this would've best been approached by hiring a black female children's/young adult author to write the story and approve the script, and having black character designers on staff. (The character design linked to looks innocuous, however.)
And as for everyone up in arms about the demoralizing, anti-feminist bent of the "Princess" line, you do know that "Princess" is used by Disney in that cloying "every girl is a princess" way, don't you? They've refocused their "princess" genre to girls who are princesses in name only (or not technically princesses at all, or only marry into it -- Mulan, for instance, or Belle) and are "princesses" in spirit. It's not really my taste, but it's not insidious, and little girls like active heroines who still get to be pretty and wear a tiara. I did as a small child, and it hasn't warped me.