Letters to the Editor
CeliaInSF
Published Letters: 494 Editor's Choice: 4
-
@ AKA
[Read the article: What does Hillary want?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I'll bite. How would you protect men against violence?"
In the ways that you mention. But also in our political decisions. I'm still taken aback at how you can dismiss or ignore Hillary's war vote.
One way to reduce violence is if we start rejecting is politically. Don't hit your kids and don't bomb you neighbors. We can get into the merits of self defense but with Iraq and threatened premption in Iran is permission that you can kill people before they even hurt you.
We can look at the way we treat our problems, locking up mentally ill and drug additcted people with the rapists and murderers. all of our social problems are addressed with war - the war on drugs the war on poverty- but I'm less concerned with linguistic war than with actual violence.
I'm going backwards here but another point:
"No, we are still there. Also, do you think that people didn't think these things were wrong in the past? They did!"
Some did, most didn't. It was acceptable until far too recently to beat your wife or or for either parent to beat their child. It was considered a private matter. It was ony in the last couple of decades people recognized spousal rape, date rape or grey rape at all. (Rape bad and crime prior but it was a crime of property not violence.)
All of this we can credit with the first and second wave of feminism. The second wave saw the need for itself - we're you throwing off, discarding or dissmissing the gains of the first wave? Certainly not! Neither is the third.
-
@ micro ms.
[Read the article: What does Hillary want?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Asking if Celia would debate a the merits of a man's desire to rape vs. a woman's desire not to be raped? Obviously untenable and intended to anger. Of course she doesn't wish to, but by setting up a construct for debate that demands a particular argument, you lose the debate because you've shut down the conversation."
Thank you for teasing this out- I couldnt wrap my head around this bizarre assertion. You're right, the premise is off. A clever debate tactic but it doesn;t help much towards understanding anything.
-
@ xufapemu
[Read the article: What does Hillary want?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]OMG could actually be true about Penn? How do these guys keep getting hired? At least Shrum is not in the picture this time.
Forget retiring debt- Hillary should send Penn a copy of that article and an invoice for any cash she has already paid him!
-
walter_map
[Read the article: What does Hillary want?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Oh yes, there are many ways in which she has shown poor judgement. Particularly in not having an actual campaign ready since she was expecting a coronation. Still don't think she should pay another penny to that douche Penn. And not just on this on the Columbia flap too- how do they come up with these guys?
-
@ AKA
[Read the article: What does Hillary want?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for your replies. I've been off doing chores so its late and I'll try to keep it brief.
On your 9:08 note- you said something about being a single issue voter. Well I'm not that- I think the war surpasses a single issue and is interconnected with a multitude of foreign and domestic policy issues. That's why given a choice between someone who was for the war and someone against I'll always pick the patter. Incidentally, I thought Edwards apology for the war vote was enough because he seemed to be honest about it and eager to make it right. I don't think Hillary has show an ounce of remorse - I don't think for a second she was fooled by Bush and her posture on Iran backs that up. (I also agree that Biden is probably the most rational- and knowledgeable about these things.)
Words do give permission to violence. But context also counts. I've tried in my participation in these forums to highlight ugly sentiments when I see them- not all the time (I do have to work) but not trying to police language. I go after the meaning not the words themselves- pushing the hate underground isn't any good. Outlawing a word doesn't change a mind.
I'll have to quibble with your logic a bit on domestic violence- it was socially understood as a private matter, which you agree. But you also say it was socially unacceptable but the law had to catch up. The law caught up when public sentiment changed- due to the advocacy you sight- that changed minds about it being a public, law-enforcement issue.
-
AKA
[Read the article: What does Hillary want?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Also, sex positive feminism is not about sexualizing young girls. That's crass commercialism. And I don't think men who were apt to exploit women ever needed the green light from feminism. Being sex positive is not permission for exploitation.
-
AKA
[Read the article: What does Hillary want?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]On the 13 point plan to change violent behavior:
I agree almost entirely. I would quibble with point 4 on scholarships only in that we should provide universal secondary education without the caveat of having a child- provide adequate health/sex ed -including real info about and access to birth control- and don't punish kids for mistakes if they have kids too soon.
Also in that, provide vocational training and technical apprenticeships for students who are not academically inclined.
I would add:
Raise the federal minimum wage to a living wage.
Subsidize and regulate early childcare/daycare.
Provide universal non-violent conflict resolution programs in schools. Augment that with anger management for troubled children.
Reform the juvenile corrections system. De-privatize that and the adult prison systems. (Nobody should be profiting from crime and violence.
Strengthen the programs that provide prison release re-entry and job training programs.
Provide support for elder care and bolster family leave policies to assist caretakers.
I think these things in addition to all of your points are what is needed in a progressive domestic agenda.
-
Cheers Renegade Iconoclast!
[Read the article: What does Hillary want?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't think that's sexist. Getting off on words and ideas- that's hot!
Alas, you called it right, I'm spoken for. Happily married :)