Letters to the Editor
LeCastor
Published Letters: 1916 Editor's Choice: 86
-
KStone
[Read the article: Do male athletes deserve paternity leave?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for the semi-compliment, i guess :) I'll try harder to be less obnoxious.
-
Thinking critically about your own beliefs
[Read the article: Unhappily ever after]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Louis,
First of all, Carrie Lukas is a hypocrite and a shrieking harpy, not exactly an impartial source.
So let's begin. It seems you're really into "family values.":
-But your lack of sensitivity to the American character, and values, is galling.
-When you choose to force sex on someone's kids - because you and you alone think sex is cool - you're not showing respect for others. You don't have the right. You're not the whole world.
-You just can't go throwing it on society like it's always their fault that, for instance, you don't like kids. There's nothing healthy about not liking kids just like it's not good to hate whites. We were once kids. Kids are cute and need our protection. Once they're out of our sights, we fuck like rabbits. Get it?
-But we were in bar - not day care - or watching a family-friendly football game.
I'm not really into family values. I don't know why you think you know or represent "american character and values." I don't know if there is even such a thing. The trannie walking her dog down the street in Chelsea is just as American as James Dobson, but i don't know if they share any core beliefs. This is a free country, we have these things called amendments, i'm not required to respect any of your imaginary american character or values. Most importantly, i wish you would apply critical thinking to your own beliefs and see how backward, bourgeouis, and traditional they are.
I am not sure what you mean by "forcing sex on someone's children." I am completely and totally against rape. If you mean sexy ads, or Jackson's tit, i don't think that's forcing sex on anyone. Now, when you write "because you and you alone think sex is cool," I almost want to stop right there, because that is phenomenally misguided. "you're not showing respect for others. You don't have the right. You're not the whole world." I don't have the right? Oh abso-fucking-lutely I do. I'm not a parent-- that's my choice. And i'm not obligated to parent other people's children. If i want to walk down the street having a very graphic sexual discussion with a friend, no one has the right to tell me to stop.
As for not liking children, I definitely don't blame society for it. There's nothing to blame society for -- it would be like blaming society for not liking celery. And i don't think there's anything wrong with it. And just because we were all children once doesn't mean i have to like them or have them. That logic doesn't hold up.
And i think it's hilarious how you are proud that you were watching a "family-firendly football game" at a bar with your friend. You're an adult, not everything that you do, see, think has tobe family-friendly. YOu're allowed to think about a whole range of non-family-friendly things, and perhaps it would do you some good to indulge in them.
"Yeah, you think other very accomplished people are not driven, supperaggressive, egocentric or almost lunatic? You think Donald Trump is all peaches? Please. those qualities are admired in men."
Not. In the media, maybe, but most guys don't want to hang with The Donald for the same reason most women don't: the hair. (LOL) Seriously, those aren't good qualities in anyone, and men hate them as much as women. You really have a fucked up picture of men.
You know, i just love how you think that you know what all men and women hate, and you're enlightening me. Don't you think that's a litte arrogant? I don't have a fucked up picture of men at all, but where i live (meaning my social environment), being driven is a quality you would boast about at a job interview. So is being aggressive, super-hard-working, etc. Maybe we just live in very different social circles.
"Doesn't make it any less valid of descriptive of the problem."
If there is a problem. Like the search for "enlightenment", it very well could be an invented problem with no solution. I mean, how would you know, being so outside of it? Like I said, Jane Goodall changed science without becoming offensive. And, as evidenced here, Friedan's influence isn't helping you become anything but angry.
Well, i guess i have a few points -- (1) Enlightenment invented a problem with no solution? I mean, are you a conservative christian too? It just gets better and better. (2) Now it seems all you're criticizing Friedan for is being "offensive." I don't really care if she's offensive. I like women who are offensive. I love to curse. I don't like little mousy gooidy-two-shoes virtuous pious little women, (3) If you read the feminine mystique, you'll see that Friedan didn't invent anything, and the problem has a very simple solutions -- women, just like men, should have the choice to work outside the home.