Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 228 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Here's the disconnect in this article, for me.
[Read the article: What's so bad about "sweetie," anyway?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]From the article:
But one of the odd qualities about the questions applied to this story has been the focus on whether Obama's intentions were premeditated, or stranger still, malevolent. Surely they were neither. As Goldberg said, the senator likely "meant ... no disrespect." ....But having good intentions, and good policies, does not mean that anyone is incapable of offense, disrespect or condescension.
1) What's odd about those questions? If someone is accused of doing something wrong, don't their intentions matter?
2) The author agrees that Obama's intentions were surely not malevolent, and that Obama meant no disrespect. Yet, at the close of the same paragraph, the author says that Obama still may be guilty of disrespect.
How can you be guilty of doing something, if you are not guilty of doing it?
Maybe the author means Obama is guilty of *unintentional* disrespect? Mmm....Okayyy....but just by saying a term of polite endearment, that **others** may sometimes use in a disrespectful context?
Isn't that slicing it a bit fine?
Might that even be projecting disrespect where it's not otherwise in evidence?
And then further on:
Also troubling is the perception that "sexist" must equal "ill-willed" if it is to be deemed offensive....just because a word is not meant as an offense, does not mean that it isn't diminishing, paternalistic and disrespectful.
I'd like to zero in on something here: the only thing that can "deem" if a word is offensive, dimishing, partronizing is: whether or not people who are on the receiving end feel offended, diminished or patronized by it.
Really. Period. That's it.
I can't "deem" a word offensive or disrespectful for others. And neither can the author. That word used in conversation either has those results on others, or it doesn't. Either way, our individual moral judgements as to a word's "rightness" or "wrongness" is 100% beside the point.
Now, what we can do is see how people react to the word, and try to understand why. And try to adjust usage accordingly.
But if the word is not offensive or considered oppressive to a significant majority of the affected group, then you know what? By definition, it's not.
So, talking about the word "sweetie" in a moral "right or wrong" sense - or ANY word, in fact - simply doesn't work. And worse, this can lead us to think that it is possible to define individuals as being right or wrong to use those words, even if there is NO negative intent, AND people aren't offended on the receiving end.
The real enemy, which the author is right to want to struggle against, is sexism. But words like "sweetie" are just not anywhere near the source of the problem.
The problem is people who are actually and intentionally being diminishing and disrespectful.
-
Ms. Traister, this isn't *that* slow a news week.
[Read the article: "Hold on a second, sweetie"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I mean, really.
1) Obama was "caught on tape" saying sweetie? Come on, what is this? Inside Edition?
2) As for statements like this being magnified during the campaign - this is not a process you are outside of. You are not a spectator. You are an active participant in magnifying this. Or did your original Salon article and now this video spontaneously generate?
3) As for some of your other statements -
a) "sweetie" is not only "not the most sexist" - it's simply *not* sexist.
To repeat: there is nothing about that phrase, in and of itself, that is oppressive in any way, shape or form.
If men and women in all walks of life use the phrase professionally and personally towards each other in all sorts of situations, the consensus required to brand a single word "sexist" simply does not exist.
People can debate this, I suppose - but it's kind of like debating if the word "bread" is classist because someone said to their employee, "I'm paying you too much bread." No consensus among the supposedly harmed, then it's not harmful.
b) ditto for "sweetie" being "dimunitive" - which seems like a way to imply "diminishing".
Since a large number of professional women don't think the phrase is diminishing used towards them, then that means it isn't sexist and offensive - by definition.
c) it doesn't mean that gender is still "in play" if gender is involved.
But ah well. No doubt this non-issue will continue to be in play until something real happens. It just grinds my goat to see it.
-
Hillary lost because she is not as good as Obama.
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sure, I expect sexism played a part in some of her struggles. I'm also sure racism played a part in some of Obama's struggles. So those both cancel out as excuses.
What remains is that:
1) while Hillary has run a great campaign, Obama has run an *amazing* campaign.
2) while Hillary claims greater experience, many of her claims have been shown to be actively disingenous. She was not fired upon by snipers when she claimed that she was; she was actually for NAFTA when she claimed she was against it.
This also speaks not only to her experience, but much worse - to her character.
3) She voted for the Iraq War resolution and has yet to even admit that this was a mistake. She didn't even review the necessary reports before making this decision. Obama, on the other hand, had both the judgement and intellectual courage to denounce it - while he was in the middle of a tough primary battle.
Her judgement has been proven faulty on the most important foreign policy question of our time.
A woman can be President, and do just as good a job as a man. She can also do this job just as *badly* as a man. Hillary has convinced a majority of voters that she is the latter woman.
-
@ domini - thank you.
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is my perception and experience that you are exactly right.