Letters to the Editor
LeCastor
Published Letters: 1916 Editor's Choice: 86
-
Choice Feminism
[Read the article: A special Broadsheet farewell ...]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First, tragula:
But I would label Flanagan a Traditionalist, not a choice feminist. People who argue that women should stay home make the same mistake as people who argue that women should focus on careers--telling other people what to do with their lives.
But that's one of the annoying things about "choice feminism." It pretends to be about choice, that choosing to be a heartless lawyer bitch is just as valid as being PTA mommy.
But for some reason, most choice feminists can't just sit idly by as those of us who chose something other than children (or in addition to children, or chose children in addition to something else) pursue those choices. They have to mudsling and call us bad mothers and "unfulfilled women." For some reason, these hypocrites, who according to their own advice should be taking care of their children instead of spending hours each day penning tirades against career women, have to put us down. Live and let live, choisers. You chose your choice, now live with it without feeding your vast inferiority complex by constantly arguing that you're better than we are because you chose children. At least, that's what it seems like.
And while I'm sure there are still some closed doors to women, and some real workplace discrimination, I don't believe in the wage gap. The feminist revolution has mostly achieved its goals in our part of the world-- and is now busily trying to gain added advantages for women at the expense of men.
Well, to be polite, it's a matter of point of view. As for you "nt believing in the wage gap," to me this sounds like not believing in physics. I personally know women who for some reasons are paid less than their male colleagues in many positions, at large reputable companies in very highly qualified positions. Are all these women underachievers? Are they all coincidentally less capable than the men? Many of them don't have children at home, and they put in just as many hours as the men.
Deering:
Thank you for articulating so well what I've been feeling about "choice feminism" but haven't been able to put into words. Indeed, it is the same old traditionalist crap dressed up as "choice."I have no problem with women like this existing -- what pisses me off is that they try to call themselves any kind of feminist.
-
Broadsheet needs to get on this Alternet article
[Read the article: What else we're reading]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is bad. Really bad.
The author argues that success makes women have eating disorders and that success without wisdom is disasterous (why this only applies to young women and not young men, i don't know).
Bang head on desk. Repeat.
-
Why stop at modelling? Let's go after the ballet and opera
[Read the article: Anorexia claims another model]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ballerinas are probably all also under BMI of 18, so let's make sure we have ballerinas that aren't "too thin." Forget that it may no longer be beautiful -- fuck aesthetics, fuck personal choice, we just need to stop making fat women feel bad, right?
And at the other end of the proverbial scale, opera singers are probably all overweight or obese. So, let's get those unhealthy people off the stage, and replace them with thinner opera singers that don't promote bad eating habits. So what if they're not the best voices, we need to not have people that are too thin or too fat in the public eye, right?
Well, wait, i don't hear anyone complaining about how many people excess weight kills every year -- it's much more than anorexia. But it's your goddam American right to eat as many popato chips as you want and be huge. But if you decide not to exercise that right, you're seen as promoting "unrealistic" expectations of the female body, you're "sick," you're "starving."
-
It's a question of excess & proportionality
[Read the article: Shocking incident]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First of all, it's unclear whether these "cops" are even cops or just UCLA security, which makes them even more culpabale.
More importantly, we have laws and common law in this country about proportional force. For example, to claim the self-defense defense, in most places, you have to show that you used proprtional force to counteract the threat you perceived. IF someone is coming at you wtih a plastic force, and you shoot them with your gun, you won't be able to claim self-defense.
So, the same thing applies to cops. The supreme court has ruled that cops don't have a blank check: for example, cops cannot shoot to kill a suspect who is fleeing arrest for a felony charge. REad about it here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2131373/?nav/tap3/
I'm not familiar with all the specific case law, but it seems that with the unaided eye/ear, the cops definitely did not use proportional force.
-
Kate, it's people like you who are the scariest.
[Read the article: Shocking incident]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As apu famously said to homer, " I don't know which part of that sentence to correct first." The whole last paragraph of your post betrays such a lack of understanding of any concept of individual rights and protection of citizens from government's power, that you may be beyond help.