Letters to the Editor
LeCastor
Published Letters: 1916 Editor's Choice: 86
-
RespectfulWeek
[Read the article: Newsweek's women woes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sontag...
One might want to remember or hell even check, maybe take a glance, and see how Susan Sontag described her relationships and her sexuality. You'll find she didn't. Never came out as gay, never mentioned being in a homosexual relationship. This was an aspect of her life Sontag never talked about and never wrote about (to my knowledge but I'm pretty certain here). So who exactly are you critizing in the end? Newsweek or Sontag? Strikes me that Newsweek is being much more respectful of Sontag than Broadsheet is.
-- N
Fascinating. So if Saddam Hussein never called himself a dictator, Newsweek shouldn't call him one either?
It's "news"-week, not "respectful"-week. In the interest of reporting on cultural icons like Liebowitz and Sontag, probably exposing many of their readers to both of them, and especially their relationship, not mentioning that they were partners and gay is... a material ommission.
-
Jim, you're enraged with traditional gender roles, not feminism.
[Read the article: Let's get it on]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Feminists have ensured that joint custody legislation rarely gets passed and have spent countless taxpater monies railing against and demonising men. This of course means (wink, wink) that child support goes to women most of the time.
Feminist groups raised money for Andrea Yates' defense, ensuring that a woman who hunted down and murdered her five children in cold blood was deemed "not guilty".
Feminist groups also turn a blind eye towards domestic violence against men when it is perpetrated by women. I recall Annew Richards joking about running husbands over with cars in reference to the Clara Harris case. Sickening.
Can you provide any links or citations supporting these allegations?
Even if a man does get hitched to one, sex seems to be the last thing American women are interested in, especially when they are married. This book is a complete canard. The Beaver again seems completely divorced from reality.
Certainly marriage is the last thing American men should consider, given the feminist incursions into Family Court, and a life of sexless nagging ahead of you.
If you decide not to give up your livelihood, children and house to a termagant who is fully supported by the state, no matter how abusive to men or children she is, then you should get married. God help you!
Yes, some, even many, marriages may be like this, but they don't have to be a ball-and-chain sort of affair. Not all women are nagging sexless harpies. You know that as well as I do. It's just convenient for you to say so. Don't you know anyone who is happily married? You sound so enbittered.
It's no wonder men are avoiding marriage in this country. Perhaps American women, especially feminists, should marry each other. After all, as Ti-Grace Atkinson once said, "Feminism is the theory, lesbianism the practice".
1) It's not american men who are avoiding marriage. Increasingly, it's americans of both genders.
2)After all, 50% of marriages don't end in divorce, so you don't have to end up in family court or abused or paying alimony. Newsflash: not all wives are shrewish nagging parasitic husband-beaters. Imagine that.
3) If you think things are better in other countries, you're gravely mistaken. In most comparable countires (like Europe, Japan, South Korea, China, etc.), that presumption that women get custody of the children is even greater than here in the US. In many mediterranean countries, there's no such thing as women paying alimony to men, but there is in the US.
4) I'm from eastern Europe, and the attitude there (and in places like South Korea) is still very strong that once a woman gets married, the husband should support her, etc. They are very traditional socities, and even though women may get educations, traditional gender roles rule. And those traditional gender roles (women are fragile, need men's support, are better parents, men should pay women support for children and themselves upon divorce, etc) are what you seem so upset about.
-
I don't understand why the interviewee is upsetting so many people
[Read the article: Let's get it on]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]MPace,
I think she sounds reasonable. If have found that whatever you're doing in your marriage works for you, be it that your sex life is satisfactory, or you don't have sex and don't mind, or whatever, then just ignore her. She's speaking to people who want to change their married sex lives because they are dissatisfied with them. If you're satisfied, then why does her advice for those not satisfied offend you so much?
Also, from your letter, you write "[s]he should have to support a few kids on a blue collar salary and see how bloomin' erotic she is at the end of the week." No one forced you to have one child, or multilpe children -- it was a choice you made. Clearly, you valued having children above having a lot of disposable income. I imagine you didn't suddenly go from being a VP at JP Morgan to a blue collar job -- you knew what you could afford, and you made the choice to have children. Don't get angry at this person for suggesting luxuries (motels = luxuries?) you now can't afford because of your choices.
You made a choice that having children on a blue collar is more important to you than being "bloomin' erotic at the end of the week." Why are you so angry at the interviewee?