Letters to the Editor
smallfox
Published Letters: 111 Editor's Choice: 8
-
@ LeCastor
[Read the article: Quote of the day: It's a gynocracy!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The point is not that no woman, anywhere, is incapable of hating men (because, obviously, individuals can and do have their own issues of sexism / racism / homophobia / etc) but that there is no *institutionalized* misandry anywhere in any public, and to a large degree any private, institution. (As even at very militant, all-womens colleges, the faction of truly man-hating students is vanishingly small, and the school itself is not misandronic). A small group of vehement lesbians practicing misandry really has no effect on any man. Institutionalized misogyny, however, is hugely detrimental to all women, and occurs openly, loudly, and in public venues including schools and government.
The same is true of "reverse" racism.
So meeneecat is right to the extent that it matters -- to the extent that other's prejudice has a negative effect on that group and denies them a fair shake.
-
Xanthro -
[Read the article: Polygamists' progeny]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You fail you understand the basics of CPS. CPS is *legally obligated* to put child welfare first and foremost. Given the nature of the potential victim and the potentially severe consequences of not intervening, a parent has reduced rights when it comes to allegations of abuse. The state must still meet its burden, but it is also allowed to remove the child first, pending investigation. This is very obviously not the case for allegations of spousal abuse as, rightly or wrongly, the spouse is presumed capable of leaving, whereas a child never is. It is the same reason the state has an interest in 3rd trimester abortion, and why at that point the state's interest may trump a woman's interest in terminating. Believe it or not, your rights are not infinite when they may effect the rights of others, especially powerless minors given few legal rights of their own.
Also, what all the moral relativists are utterly failing to mention is that these girls claim they were *forced* into the marriages and raped. Not consensual statutory rape, not just brain washing -- real, deeply damaging forced rape, against the girls' wishes. I cannot fathom a universe in which a reasonable person can be a relativist about a 16 year old girl being forcibly raped by a 50 year old while her parents and community are encouraging and complicit of such a gross violation of her human rights. Not to mention, I cannot imagine condoning an American community that treats preteen girls as breeding mares; a 16-year old with three or four children is very obviously a victim of statutory, if not forcible, rape.
It's awful and unconscionable, and comparing it to disapproval of gay parents is frankly offensive and trivializing. Gay parents don't whore out and allow the rape of their children. CPS is not allowed to remove children who are merely raised is damaging, misogynist cults like a large number of conservative sects are, but ARE allowed and obligated to when the sect is engaged in *criminal* activity.
-
Yeah, you're right,
[Read the article: Indians prefer boys]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Amerigo -- far better for me to carry an unintended pregnancy now and drop out of school and raise it as a single mother than to wait until I've graduated, married, and have a stable home life and income to raise babies. Calling non-medically necessary abortions "convenience" abortions trivialize the immense burden of having children when you're not financially, emotionally, or psychologically ready. I will admit very frankly that any child I were forced to have now would be able to pick up on my resentment, no matter how I tried to hide it. It's not abuse by any stretch, but it's a crappy environment for a kid to grow up in.
And no, I don't think worrying about having a 'retarded baby' later if I aborted now is really a legitimate reason to have an unwanted child. And of course people who choose not to abort by and large *do* love their children, but this is as much an adaptive preference as a true one, as they have little option but to work with what they've been dealt. And even then, a majority of them (not ones who are fortunate enough to have a good home life and kids all ready and just don't want "an extra" but ones who are facing their first, life-altering unwanted or too-early birth) will still be honest and say "I love him with all my heart, but it's difficult and I wish I had been able to wait X years longer."
-
@ Tina
[Read the article: Polygamists' progeny]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]At least one 16 year old had four children already, so it is not at all difficult to imagine that a girl first raped at 13 who is now 30 would have more than 7 children. I am presuming a reasonable percentage of the mothers had been with the cult for quite some time, dropping sprog as often as her "husband" could make her. (Since their whole, ostensible reason for polygamy is to increase baby-making.)
And Xanthro, you are getting progressively more creepy. As I said, there had been *allegations* of rape, which means CPS is legally obligated to intervene. If the state can't meet its burden, the children will be released (and if any of the minors are demonstrated to be mothers, that's automatically rape of the statutory variety). It's not as if the seizure is final, no trial, end of story. And why is it so obvious to you that the call was fake? Odds are extremely high the girl was either 'disappeared' for her transgression or she is too afraid to talk now for fear of reprisal against herself/children/mother/siblings. These people have *no* qualms about tossing out juveniles (ALSO a crime, mind you) and she has nowhere to go as a teenage mother several times over with no education and no family.
Yeah, I'm SHOCKED she's a little reticent to speak up.
Not to mention, that call would have been taped for legal reasons.