Letters to the Editor
Linney Uston
Published Letters: 256 Editor's Choice: 5
-
@fetboy and others
[Read the article: Is there sexism in lifesaving?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Western (and non-Muslim) Women are pressured by advertisers and employers to "show more skins," so it is not unreasonable to assume that women would be more effected by the hole in Ozone Layer.
That was a joke, right? If so, it was hilarious.
As for the others: I find it curious in the extreme that there's a great clamoring for empirical evidence that women aren't worse-off, when only the most rinky-dink evidence ever suffices to convince you that women have everything worse. You already seem to know all the conclusions before any research has begun, so any amount of evidence, no matter how mountainous, isn't going to make a dent in your prejudices. I know very well that you're going to be fantatics regardless of what I say or do, you aren't interested the least in "emprical evidence". You're only interested in finding reasons to say "nope, that doesn't count" which is something you aren't eager to do to any of the psuedo-studies which are presented to us unquestioningly by Broadsheet.
The undeniable fact is that men die earlier of all the following causes of death: heart disease, cancerous cysts, cerebrovascular diseases, accidents, obstructive lung disease, pneumonia and influenza, diabetes mellitus, suicide, chronic liver disease, hardening of the arteries, inflammation of the kidneys, homicide, blood infections, infant mortality and AIDS. This is according to the Statistical Abstract of the United States, and it's been this way in every year it's been published since the late 60s. By the time heart disease starts to become a major killer of women, most men are already dead. Failing to ackowledge or even notice these disparities is a pretty moronic failure on the part of Ms. Lloyd, a person who is supposed to be soooo bloody clever at spotting any kind of sex-based disparity.
Blacks die earlier than whites in 12 of the above categories and you would not hesitate to say that that's a result of their health needs not being adequately attended to. Well, men die earlier than women in all 15 categories and now I can see you all struggling to think-up novel and creative ways to blame men for their own deaths, when you'd never ever blame women for any disease which afflicts them EVER.
Most astonishing of all, Carol Lloyd claims to study these matters religiously, yet can't see any disparity in heath matters which don't disadvantage women, leading her to label whatever she finds "sexism", completely ignoring the areas in which she enjoys enormous, vast advantages. So, yeah, she knows plenty about about "sexism" in health issues, just not the kinds that favor her.
The phrase "gigantic freakin' ignorant pretentious moron" comes to mind right about now. But I sure wouldn't want to insult anybody.
-
He's a question for the BS commenters:
[Read the article: Debating Clinton's datability]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why is Hillary never questioned about her service in Vietnam and why isn't she hassled for cowardice when it turns-out that she didn't serve?
Only male candidates are put into this position, so why isn't it "sexism" to never put Hillary into the same position?
Or is this one of those obvious questions that never occurs to you hyper-intelligent Broadsheeters?
-
So her argument is basically...
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Some men are jerks, therefore I can be as big a jerk as I want."
It really goes no further than that, does it?
Anyone ever notice that a suspicious number of feminists are simply adolescent assholes who've discovered that feminism provids them with a convenient shield to hide behind?
-
Sorry of this is a little off-topic, Broadsheet:
[Read the article: Who you callin' a "ho," Santa?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But I think this kind of news story falls-into your general sphere of interest:
http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=55792&provider=top
8 and 9 year old boys were accused of raping an 11 year old girl. How on earth could you have not noticed this?
Here's a quote...
“The father of one of the two 8-year-old suspects spoke with WXIA’s Kevin Rowson and said his son told him that everything that happened in the woods was consensual. Brandon LeBlanc said the girl accused the boys only after her parents had learned she had sexual relations... “This is a clear case of a girl who didn’t want to get in trouble with her parents.”
Speaking on CNN, Acworth Police Chief Mike Wilkie reacted, “We can certainly understand why a father would speak defensively of his child.”
“That accusation has an implication that children at that age can consent to that type of act, and, of course, they cannot. That’s illegal, they cannot have consent, so we have to go forward with the charges that we have.”
So an 11 year old girl can't consent, but an 8 year old boy can consent? How does that work, exactly? Girls are always so much more mature than boys, right? And remember: Teh Oppressive Patriarchy always judges and punishes women more harshly than men, so how does this logic go?
And isn't it odd that the girl only said she was attacked when her parents threatened to punish her? I mean, we all know that women don't lie about rape... Like this one, for instance http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2007/11/sexual_assault
In fact, you wonder a lot of things about this child-rape case: how can a 3rd-grader even have sex? Should "playing doctor" be criminalized as well? In the videos about this, the girl seems a lot bigger than the boys who attacked her, so how could that physically work?
And seeing how feminist agitation about sexual harassment has led to the expulsion of kindergarten boys for hugging their classmates, wouldn't you agree that this kind of thing is a logical extension of feminist agitation about rape? No? How can it not be?
Broadsheet, you awake? I thought no female victim ever escaped your view?
-
No one's trolling Bob
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No one at all. I mean, the idea that we women should be penalized for showing extra skin in the workplace? Why, it's almost as ludicrous and stupid an idea as punishing male co-workers for asking us on dates!
...oh, wait. We actually do believe that men should be punished for doing that. Ha ha. Never mind.