Letters to the Editor
Dana Runs
Published Letters: 152 Editor's Choice: 15
-
The irony is killing me
[Read the article: Campaigning while female]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wading through the letters, I notice an amusing juxtaposition.
On the one hand are numerous letters arguing against the notion of sexism in the photo rampage. "Pshaw!" they say dismissively. "That's not sexism! She's just being closely examined as would any other frontrunner."
Against that backdrop is the multitude of letters screaming aghast about how unfair it was to conclude the piece with a single sentence referencing John Edwards' good looks.
Wow. It's getting so you need goggles in here.
http://danaruns.typepad.com/danarunstheworld/
-
LaurieNY and aka Smith
[Read the article: Campaigning while female]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You ladies rock. Thank you for the good read. :)
-
@ chsmith08
[Read the article: Campaigning while female]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Are you by chance a white male?
An argument can be made that the sex and/or race of a candidate that is anything other than white male is indeed a matter of some import. While in the abstract every candidate should be evaluated by the content of hir character rather than the equipment zhe is packing, I feel compelled to offer this observation:
We do not live in the abstract world.
Symbolism is hugely important in driving the American agenda. The symbolism of a black or female president would inspire great change in our society. Most women of a certain age (and I'm not talking all that old) in America can recall being indoctrinated with the message that math and science were for boys, not girls. Girls just weren't "good at math," you see. And while such overt fucktardation may not be running rampant in our schools anymore, the message is still being sent to girls that their opportunities are more limited than those the boys enjoy. Imagine the inspiration a woman president would be!
The effect may be even greater for the black population. And the ripples from such a stone falling into the cultural pond would travel to the farthest reaches of the country.
I don't mean to be over-dramatic. But, you know, women are still dismissed as inconsequential by a significant segment of the U.S. population. I think Wrinklegate is an example of that. No man would be dismissed for a few wrinkles, and no one would question whether America might be put off by watching a man age in office. This flap is the result of a cultural dismissal of women in general as insignificant and unimportant.
Try walking a mile in these heels, and you'll see. In fact, I think it would be a wonderful thing if Rush Limbaugh and all his cronies were forced to live for a year as a woman. They'd change their tunes lickity-split when they realized that no one was listening to a word their shrill, bitchy voices were cackling about.
Sex is an important issue, as is race. It is historic. And the election of a woman or a black man to the presidency would forever alter the American landscape. If you dismiss the impact, you simply don't understand. Much like the goldfish who is unaware of the water in which it swims, white men tend to be blind to the privileges they enjoy for which others continue to struggle.
-
@ gwool
[Read the article: Campaigning while female]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You say,
Again you ignore comments about clumsiness and all the rest which are inconsequential physical attributes on a par with appearance, athleticism, height, or weight, which have all played a role in past elections -- rightly or wrongly.
I think you're missing Laurie's point. Let's see if I can put it in a simplified way.
Just like male candidates, a female candidate would be criticized for being clumsy or fat. But a male candidate is NEVER criticized for having wrinkles. I can't make it any simpler than that. If you don't get the difference, you just don't.
On the broader point of the dubious lucidity of the electorate, it's true that people vote for the most inane reasons. And it's a fact that, with the possible exception of Nixon, the better-looking presidential candidate has won every election since 1960. So we do, as a whole, peer too shallowly at our choices. I mean, voting for a guy cuz you'd like to have a beer with him???
You could simply have reminded us that, "the masses are asses," and been done with it, if that is your point.
-
@ aka Smith
[Read the article: Campaigning while female]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks. I may indeed have been the first to coin the term Wrinklegate. Or maybe not. But you knew it was inevitable, right? Droves of people are destined to invent this particular wheel all on their own.
But the compliment made me feel smart for a second, there, and I appreciate it.
-
@ mizbinkley
[Read the article: Maybe Romney had a dream]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The legacy of brave people doing bold things lives in us. By the transitive property of do-goodery, we are brave people who've done bold things.
You owe me a new keyboard, since I spit Diet Coke all over the present one while roaring at your post.
You rock, girl!
-
"A renewal of hope"
[Read the article: Bill Clinton gets passive-aggressive]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What precisely does that mean, anyway?
Seems to me, Obama's plans and positions are almost identical with the other major Democratic players, differing only around the edges. How -- specifically -- is he different?
I'll bet no one can tell me in anything but bumper-sticker sloganeering.
He's a fine candidate, and someday he might be a really substantive guy. His heart is in the right place, anyway. But, for the life of me, when I put his and Hillary's plans side-by-side, they look very, very similar.