Letters to the Editor
Linney Uston
Published Letters: 255 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Not for the irony-impaired
[Read the article: Feminists don't have a sense of humor?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, white college-educated woman: Your story has touched my heart. Never before have I met anyone with more problems than you. Please accept this token of my sincere sympathy for the foul miscreants out there who suggest your sense of humor might need a little loosening-up.
-
So in other words...
[Read the article: Why do female leaders have to be "iron ladies"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...you consider "mannish" to be an insult.
Hm. Interesting.
-
Hrmph
[Read the article: A casualty of female hunters?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah, it's a really silly argument with questionable evidence to back it up. I think Broadsheet is right in laughing at this one.
-
I've never understood the claim...
[Read the article: Britain in "moral collapse" over rape?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...that rape is some kind of "social norm" which is actively encouraged by society, which seems to be the general consensus I get about it from the feminist blogosphere.
But if that statement were correct, it would be acceptable to rape a screaming woman in full public view on Main Street and nobody would bother to do anything to stop it. Obviously, that isn't true.
So either feminists are completely unscrupulous about using overblown rhetoric to hype this topc, or... well, actually, I can't think of another possibility.
-
By the way...
[Read the article: Britain in "moral collapse" over rape?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Seeing as how Broadsheet went all completely loony about Duke U, I guess we really shouldn't be too surprised that they reacted to this news from the UK's "rape culture" with their predictable feminist-brand gullibility.
Oh lookie here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=493352&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490
"A woman who made eight separate false claims of rape or sexual assault has been spared jail."
Eight times, eh? Gee, I thought making a rape accusation was oh-so self-vilifying that women don't do them dishonestly?
-
"No" would always mean "no" if a lot of women didn't need to feel virtuous.
[Read the article: Britain in "moral collapse" over rape?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Q: What part of "no" do you not understand?!
A: Whether or not you only said "no" to be modest.
Let's admit it: some women out there say "no" so they can avoid feeling "dirty".
How many times did you get frustrated that a man you wanted to have sex with failed to "take it to the next level" after you said "no" when he first touched you?
-
Kind of reminds me...
[Read the article: Crying "witch!"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...of the wave of Satanic Ritual Abuses cases which popped-up around the country in the mid-1980s. It's a very bizarre story in which social workers whipped-up a public frenzy about children being ritually abused in their day cares- sometimes sacrificed on altars or in basement torture chambers- and were sodomized, forced to drink urine, etc. These included such high-profile media circuses as the McMartin preschool trial, Wee Care Nursery School abuse cases, the Kern County ritual abuse cases, Fells Acre ritual abuse case, and the West Memphis 3.
What's amazing is that no altars or basement chambers were ever found and many children themselves denied being abused. This was a real-life witch-hunt in which dozens of people (mostly male day-care workers, incidentally) were put into jail. And some of them still ARE in jail today (Wiki "Gerald Amirault" if you've got the time.)
Oh, and you know what's really interesting about Satanic Ritual Abuse?
Front and center among the social workers who ginned-up this frenzy were prominent feminists, with Ms Magazine and Gloria Steinem putting their fully support behind the cause.
Falsely accusing day-care workers of abuse seemed like such a good way of attacking Teh Patriarchy at the time, I guess...
-
Gerald Amirault
[Read the article: Crying "witch!"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ah, turns-out he was released in 2004. Silly me.
-
Yeah, sexism in medical care is a bad thing...
[Read the article: Is there sexism in lifesaving?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...but come off it: by any objective measure, women are usually better-off when it comes to health in every major category.
What you've done, my dear, is cherry-pick to make women look like the victims. But that's what you always do, every damned day, isn't it? Pick the tiniest of cherries to make women into victims, even in situations where they're better-off.
You're so amazingly predictable, Carol! Do you know that? Tell me: Do you ever get tired of always using the same old exhausted backwards reasoning over and over in which women are always to be portrayed as worse-off no matter what the situation is?
That you fail to grasp that women enjoy, in the main, better health yet you obsessively focus on the few microscopic areas in which women receive differential treatment and then call this "sexism"? And that you claim to pore-over these figures and not see that women are usually better-off in health? It's pathetic, dearie. Truly. It's like your intelligence has been driven to such a low level that it's impossible for you to see what's in front of your eyes.
I could, if you want, give you a whole list of gigantic ways in which health disparities overwhelmingly FAVOR WOMEN. But in your twisted desperation to always make women into the victims no matter what, it will count for nothing because sexism is something that NEVER EVER favors women in your mind. Even when empirical proof is hitting you in the face, you still won't be able to see it. How I pity you.
I swear, I expect you to one day pen an entry about how women are hardest-hit by the hole in the ozone layer.