Letters to the Editor
Linney Uston
Published Letters: 255 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Hah
[Read the article: Happy birthday, Title IX]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The rationale (according to our gym teacher and girls who echoed her wisdom)was that girls are fragile creatures who must be protected from their desire of play by boys' rules."
The idea of women being fragile creatures who can't play with men without special protection is an insulting idea. Unless we're talking about sexual harassment and that's when we need to say precisely that women are fragile creatures who need special protection.
-
Minority of the minority
[Read the article: America as a lesbian safe haven?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I find it notable that even though there are 10 times as many requests for asylum by gay men, the overwhelming concern of Broadsheet is the lesbians.
But that's perfectly consistent: prioritize women over men, regardless of sexual orientation.
I remember 8 years ago, back when Salon had actual diversity on gender issues. There were writers like Paglia, Tracy Quan, and the now-reviled Cathy Young. It was possible to hear a variety of viewpoints rather than the same viewpoint repeated over and over.
-
So if it's the "women's" section...
[Read the article: America as a lesbian safe haven?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why no articles praising the views of, say, pro-life women? Do they not exist? You know very well that MANY women out there would not find this section representative of their views at all.
And what section on Salon is devoted to men's issues? Wait, wait lemme guess what you'll say: "EVERY section is a men's section!"
Please. You really think that "Ask the pilot" is a men's section? "I like to watch"? "How the world works"?
Are these men's sections or are they sections about topics in which gender is tangential or irrelevant? Broadsheet is the ONLY section set-up to be exclusively on one gender, using the fallacious BS notion that EVERY section exclusively focuses on men by default.
I don't have a problem with a women's section. What I DO have a problem with is a mindless radical feminism section trying to pass itself off as a women's section.
-
Anyone get the impression...
[Read the article: "She liked to dress provocatively"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That this information is being presented to us by Broadsheet's sources in a slanted, dishonest, propagandistic way?
-
Re: forever known as
[Read the article: America as a lesbian safe haven?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It has a great deal to do with the none-too-subtle feminist animus against heterosexuality. This also manifests in the habit of many straight feminists to act apologetic about having sex with men (ie: the enemy).
-
Obesity is not the problem: it's the beauty standards which are all wrong
[Read the article: Big momma's house]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Surely, as we are always reminded on Broadsheet, our society pressures women into being TOO THIN and anorexia is therefore the bigger problem. Right?
I mean, whenever you walk down the street you see plenty of skeletal, emaciated women falling-over from Patriarchy-imposed self-starvation. Isn't that how it's supposed to work in the feminist universe?
Isn't a slim, attractive figure just a sign of malevolent Patriarchal brainwashing? Isn't being a dugong-like monstrosity just a refreshing rebellion against phallocentric beauty norms?
So confusing...
-
Banal
[Read the article: Chatty Cathy, Taciturn Ted?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've noticed that whenever studies come-out showing differences (or similarities) between the sexes, and if a variety of adjectives can be apply to interpreting the results, the editorial preference is to pick the most negative possible adjective to apply to men and the most positive adjective to apply women.
I see it as a primarily condescending attitude towards women because it's designed to flatter them and make them feel goodas if women always need a little ego boost in order to make it through the day.
A psychologist might see this as a sign of an inferiority complex.
-
Uh hm.
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm pretty sure he recycled the punchline from a Bloom County he did in the late '80s.
-
Here's a fine question for the last 5 pages' worth of commenters:
[Read the article: Chatty Cathy, Taciturn Ted?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why must a "women's issues" blog have a habit of describing masculinity in negative terms 90% of the time?
Why must the word "men" be placed in a negative context more often than not?
Does a "women's issues" blog really have to be full of self-deceptive, condescending views in order make women feel good about themselves?
Wouldn't a "woman's issues" blog maybe acknowledge the diverse views of women, including those who don't subscribe to the radical feminist p.o.v? (i.e.: pro-life women, Christian women, the present work of "dissident feminists" like Cathy Young who used to write for Broadsheet?)
Wouldn't a "men's issues" blog which did the exact same thing (with the genders reversed) be considered at all objectionable by a great many women? Not to mention a great many men who habitually take women's side?
I parted ways with feminism long ago because there were simply too many cowardly women among them who use the ideology as an excuse to chop-down men constantly. Such women are usually amazingly insecure, are happy to wear the ideological blinders which are their only source of self-esteem, and (contrary to claims of socially-sanctioned misogyny) there are very few penalites out there for low-brow man-bashing.
Honestly, now: how much courage do you need to blame others and play victim and pander to prejudices?
Yes, I know this kind of feminist well. She usually has a background in one of the softer subjects like lit-crit or sociology. The only real intellectual question she ever faces is exactly how to blame men in a given situation, not whether or not it's true. And she usually condemns racism constantly in order to distract people from the fact that she's as white as the driven snow and benefits mightily from it.
And, I'm sad to say it, Tracy has so far shown herself to be one of these weak, cowardly founts of banality. I simply call BS when I see it.
-
Re: How does it chop men down to say they talk as much as women do?
[Read the article: Chatty Cathy, Taciturn Ted?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It doesn't. It does chop-down men to say that they talk mainly about self-indulgent things but women (in stark contrast) talk about better things.
It's not the news which people find objectionable. It's the spin treatment given to it.