An embarrassment to women journalists

I read exactly this far before I could take no more: 'None of us want to wrap our heads around "complicated" news. We're mushy and suggestible.'

Speak for yourself, and please stop writing trite crap, or if you must continue because that's all you can do, how about using a male nom de plume?

-- B. Johnston

Oh le sigh. Why only last year Heather Havrilesky wrote a piece that begins:

"Freedom goes on holiday

These are the dog days of summer, fried chickens. The hottest, laziest time of year when no one with any self-respect would be working at all, if not for The Man and his incessant, unrealistic demands. The more cultured among you know that this is when most Europeans take their 15- to 20-week vacations and move to the countryside, eating apricot-filled beignets all morning, napping all afternoon and then waking up at sunset to feast on cured meats and fine aged cheeses and big bottles of port. Damn those Europeans! It's no wonder they don't do their part for freedom, all doped up on good cheese and fine wines!

You see, in America, The Man is a neurotic, overworked hosebag who's always breathing down our necks, hoping to boost productivity with his steamy halitosis and his incessant high-fives and monthly awkward bad-birthday-cake breaks. In Europe, of course, The Man spends his summers smoking Gauloises and chuckling over the latest strikes in France. He hops from cafe to cafe all day, sipping espresso with his little poodle, Henri, until it's time to get drunk. And little Henri is allowed into the nightclubs with him! How can the march of freedom possibly matter to anyone who can bring his dog with him into a nightclub?"

http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/tv/review/2005/08/07/i_like/index.html

Who are you to decide for other people what they should use as birth control? i don't try to control how much pepcid AC you buy, telling you that, well, you know pasta gives you heartburn, why oh why did you eat it again? It's a PRIVATE thing, and pharmacists are not supposed to judge you on what kind of medication you get and how often. What if you come in for a refill of percoset or xanax? should the pharmacist not give it to you because he or she thinks that you probably should simply stop long-distance running if you always end up spraining something and need percoset, or that i's irresponsible for you to rely on anti-anxiety medication to manage your problems?

IT'S NONE OF THE PHARMACISTS' BUSINESS!

Repeatedly.

Is this what we've sunk to, calling Paris hilton a slut? So what if she's a "slut"? So what if she likes to have sex with various men? What's the problem? Why is this a negative? Why is this fact converted into criticism?

It's prude, puritanical, and (gasp) Republican.

Salon has had the unoriginal editorial notion that SEX SELLS.

Now say the other part:

That hurts EVERYBODY.

What is this, the anti-sex league?

It may be the choice of the man and the women, but it is NOT the choice of the children.

The very beliefs that support pologamy often also support child molestation; they are both often caused by the same root beliefs in men controling their family, beliefs in women as chattel and sex providers.

You could say the exact same thing about conservative/orthodox christians, jews and muslims, and the children who are born into those families. but we're not going to prohibit those religions or the indoctrination of children into those religions, are we?

Ravenwood hit on an important part of this argument- that some of the women who participate in these relationships are not presented with a complete choice. They are given away by their fathers, promised to a man that they are spiritually obligated to marry in order to maintain their own standing and often, their family's salvation and survival in the community.

How is this different from Indian and Islamic arranged marriage, which happens here in the US in Indian and Muslim communities? Polygamy is really no different.

Also, Laurel, "one-man/one-woman marriage is more highly evolved"??? Wow, you are off your rocker.

It's all true. It has nothing to do with protecting babies -- if it did, these people would be passing out all kinds of birth control on every corner. It's about controlling people's private lives and sexuality though public policies, and it's not just about controlling women. It's about controlling men through women as well. No one, but especially not women, should be enjoying sex for sex's sake. Even our supreme court has realized that sex and procreation are two different and separate things, but these fundies think it's all one entity.

Polygamy is a behavior. Judaism is a religion. The two are not comparable.

>>You could say the exact same thing about conservative/orthodox christians, jews and muslims, and the children who are born into those families. but we're not going to prohibit those religions or the indoctrination of children into those religions, are we?>>

It’s a serious error in logic to say polygamy should be legal because Judaism, Christianity, etc. are legal. Judaism, et al are religions and are protected by the US constitution. Polygamy is a behavior and is not constitutionally protected. A first year law student would understand the difference.

-- moonbat

It's not about the religions being legal -- it's about the indoctrination into those religion of the children born into those families. That's the argument that the previous poster was making -- that the children born into these families have no choice, and i'm analogizing, apart from the first amendment, to other situations in which children are indoctrinated into a system of beliefs without their choice.

i'm sure she'd appreciate losing her virginity to guys with your attitudes?