Letters to the Editor
LeCastor
Published Letters: 1916 Editor's Choice: 86
-
Parson Jim
[Read the article: When Big Brother tackles domestic violence]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah, the law definitely doesn't pass american standards. The law here would be gender-neutral.
But have you thought that, maybe, just maybe, you wouldn't need a law like this if indian men didn't do these things.
-
Jimmy:
[Read the article: When Big Brother tackles domestic violence]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]LeCastor
Oh yeah, the law is always rational. That's why we now can imprison people without due process or habeas corpus.
We wouldn't need that law if bad guys didn't deserve it.
Do you really believe a man should be imprisoned and fined for insulting his wife? For not providing her with enough income? How very sexist and whorish of you to expect such entitlements - you've come to expect female legal privilege living here in the US, haven't you.
Sad, Beaver, very sad - but typical of sexist feminists.
Oh well, bigots come in every form these days, and some of the biggest ones are female.
-- Parson Jim
Laws are tailored to each country, my friend. If men insulting their wives is a big problem in india, maybe it should be the law. You can't just transpose a law tailored to indian society and analyze it with american "rose colored glasses." In the US, i don't think men should be imprisoned for insulting their wives because in the US, a woman's word is worth something, there are battered women's shelters, there is welfare, etc., and most importantly, insults and curses upon women do not tarnish their reputations forever like they may in many parts of india. An insult against a woman, especially by her own husband, in some parts of india could condemn that woman to complete ostracism.
And the same analysis goes for income -- in many parts of india, it may next to impossible for a woman to find a job that she can sustain herself on. It's a very different place.
I don't expect these entitlemets, i don't need anyone to support me or the law to protect me from insults, but i may think very differently if i lived in a very different culture with very different roles and expectations for genders, that change depending on marital status.
-
"Biological Differences"
[Read the article: Turning back the clock on single-sex education]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Kevin,
FYI, the whole y chromosome, it's got 78 genes on it. 5% of those are the same as other genes on the X chromosome or elsewhere. And there are about 30,000 genes. If you do the math, the genetic similarity is 99.7%.
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=38
Granted, I don't know how many genes differentiate races. From what I understand, it's a pretty stupid question to begin with, because there "races" are not self-contained units. Everyone's a mix of a bunch of things.
In any case, i really don't understand why people want to hype up the 0.3% difference.
It's true, the US constitution and the Supreme Court do not treat race (strict scrutiny) the same way they treat gender (middle scrutiny), but that's just the way it is now. 40 years ago, distinctions on gender were not treated with any scrutiny at all. Our legal standards have changed, but they do not define biology.
It just seems like people are looking for reasons th segregate the boys and away from the girls. Used to be just "girls are stupid" or "girls are a temptation" but that doesn't fly anymore. Now we rely on genetics, which is an invaluable scientific field, but i think is irrelevant in this case. If we base our argument that women and men are genetically different and that's why they should be segregated, how about testing for the "smart" gene, and segregating kids on that instead? Or the "violent" gene, or the "alcoholism" gene?
I guess my point is that the genders' "differing" learning styles, just like their genetics, are fundamentally almost identical. Both listen, both write, both learn from pictures, etc. etc. etc. Yet some people want to focus on the minute differences and I don't know why. But whenever people are segregated by gender, almost always, the women get the short end of the stick.
-
Regional Codes
[Read the article: Replaying GOP racism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am from the Northeast, and I also don't see the racism in the ad.
But i think it's possible that it is incredibly racist, and i'm just not familiar with the "code words" used in the South to talk about race. Which could be very depressing, because if it is true, it just shows how incredibly divided we are regionally about race in America.
-
She wanted a baby and her hubby didn't
[Read the article: I think my baby is my ex's -- and my husband doesn't know]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It sounds dumb, right? What she's saying..."oh, i got myself into this really stupid situation, help me!"
But i have a completely different theory on what happened.
The lady wanted a baby, her hubby didn't it. Maybe she never even took Plan B, maybe she's lying. There's a reason she didn't even bring up abortion. So she got herself knocked up by her ex in a one-night-shot, and would figure out how to tell her husband it was him.
Everything was going perfectly, but now there's these clubfoots and genetic defects, so she's gonna come clean. I guarantee if the baby weren't weird, she wouldn't care, she wouldn't have written the letter, she would have no moral qualms whatsoever.
So many women have the illusion that a baby will make everything great. Notice how she said that her relationship with her hubby as so great during most of her pregnancy.
Well, lady, you've got your Dantaesque punishment. You wanted a baby in spite of your husband's wishes, you decided to pretty much force him into it, and now you're getting a club-footed baby that your husband will KNOW isn't his.
Live with your stupid, selfish, manipulative choices.