Letters to the Editor
snidely
Published Letters: 9
-
men's rights, dammit
[Read the article: A mighty dick]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]i think rj stanford does have a point in this letter:
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006/08/08/daily_mail/permalink/18249578318e93e5a3d301080998f6e8.html
there are ways in which, among some segments of society, women have become more socially free than men. for instance, i had a conversation with a friend of mine about her boyfriend. she was really upset because he didn't reflexively pay for everything when they went out together, despite their having been together for over a year and him making less money than her. paying for things was part of his gender role, in her view. at the same time, though, she doesn't cook, would under no circumstances clean up after him, and in general (very reasonably) wants no part of the traditional female gender role. i've had similar conversations with other friends of about her age (late 20s) and education (fairly exclusive former women's college), though less explicit.
i think it's kind of natural. women's traditional gender roles having been much more confining than men's, women have understandably spent a lot more energy deconstructing their traditional role, with the result that the ways in which it's confining and unjust and not desirable are more widely understood among some social circles. men, because they historically have not had it so bad, haven't spent the same amount of time deconstructing their traditional roles, and so are more likely to get stuck aspects of traditional manness.
obviously this is sort of a limited problem, but i think it is a problem. hopefully it will be solved in a generation or two when more people have model for more equitable relationships.
-
i agree with no name given
[Read the article: Beyond the Multiplex]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]this statement "but [bush] did so because he is/was a man of profound personal conviction, and misunderestimated intelligence, who firmly believed he was doing the right thing for the future of his country" is ridiculous. name one profound personal conviction bush has demonstrated with any degree of consistency at all. anyone? why did we go in to iraq?
there hasn't even been a consistent rationale for that. if the central piece of idiocy of his presidency can't even be said to have a consistent rationale how can he be said to be a man of profound personal conviction?
-
cry me a river
[Read the article: Not in my backyard, either]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]sorry, but i don't see what exactly was so horrific about debra dickerson's experiences. poor, essentially motherless kids asked her for things? poor, essentially motherless kids asked her to rub lotion on them? poor, essentially motherless kids were not grateful for the help she gave them (which literally involved throwing bandaids at the situation)? terrible.
as other letter writers have mentioned, the situation was clearly beyond the control of the children. i find it really puzzling that, if dickerson was so upset by the situation, she never once (as far as she discloses) discussed it with the one person responsible for it, the children's mother. i don't know enough about the situation to say it was a personal failing, but her failure to discuss the option is a very serious flaw for the article.
this piece is in many ways typical of dickerson's work: from wedding crashers to over 35 year old men (who are losers), pretty much everyone is victimizing her. those essentially motherless kids thought they had it rough?!? hah! debra dickerson had to live next door to their poorly maintained yard!!
yet again i've come away from one of her articles puzzled and appalled that i'm paying her to look sanctimoniously down her nose at someone. good work if you can get it, i guess.
-
katrina victims
[Read the article: Not in my backyard, either]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]by the way, a fair few letter writers seem to be confused about one aspect of the article. if this is the only element of confusion in the article it's a record low for dickerson. the family living next door to her were not katrina refugees. rather, living next door to them might have been like living next door to katrina victims. by making the comparison, dickerson manages to slander both groups simultaneously. unlike the katrina families, who she accuses of fomenting a dramatic spike in houston crime waves, the family next door committed essentially no crimes beyond driving bicycles aimlessly.
and unlike the family next door, dickerson presents no evidence on which to accuse katrina families of the kind of child neglect which she describes in the article.
seriously, salon, couldn't you try a little experiment? the next time you go to the supermarket, grab the angriest person in the checkout line and see if he or she can write a fairer, more engaging article than dickerson. i'm fairly confident you'll have a major upgrade in place within three weeks.
-
i may never use these words again, but you could borrow an idea from the scottish premier league
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]in scotland the league splits after a certain number of games, with the top six (i think) teams basically forming their own league, and the bottom six doing likewise. each of the top six teams plays each of the other ones once, and the same for the bottom six. once the league splits a team can't fall out of the top six.
if you did something similar in the nba teams competing for the last playoff spots would be competing with each other and with the uh teams tanking their way to a better lottery position... hmmm... maybe you do need relegation as well.