Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Casual Interest
Published Letters: 43 Editor's Choice: 3
That there was so much hostility about this article. I'm sure there will be more. But really, I didn't find the article's tone so offensive. It's true, sperm is commercialised to a degree these days just like women who sell their eggs or become surrogate mothers for cash. And as the previous letter writer suggested I think the anger seen in the letters only proves Moore's point that this isn't yet a concept men on the whole are comfortable with. That's fine, no reason to be angry about it - I'm not comfortable on the whole with women selling their eggs to desperate infertile couples but I can live with it.
And why on earth do people keep saying Moore has no idea what she's talking about? The woman has taken part in the whole system after all. What, being a lesbian disqualifies her? I would think her associate professorship in sociology more than qualified her alone. Sociology is the study of people and society and if she's taken the trouble to get as far as she has in it I would say she knows more about how to research a topic and have her say about it than most of us. Coupled with personal experience I would give her a hearing. And before you start, I'm just a single, hetero woman who actually just found the article interesting.
I'm a cat owner and also have also had to bring in a roommate. My cat was dumped outside my house, I tamed her, raised her and love her. She's not much for people in general so I know exactly how she should be treated. The LW no doubt knows this too and while you *might* say she's being a tad obsessive I understand completely where she's coming from. You don't invest so much time and emotion into something to have someone else treat it frivolously and ignore your wishes as to its care.
There are also other things that have to be taken into account. In any 'moving in' situation there would have to have been full disclosure of the cats before the moving. Since all parties accept the cats the owner has the right to expect a minimum standard of treatment of them (that really should be set out before the date - LW maybe your bad there?). I had a roommate move into my flat once who knew how I treasured my cat and how she had to be treated due to her rough start. One night she was standing outside his door and I heard him tell her to move or he'd 'kick her to death.' Needless to say he was gone the next day. Even in jest *nobody* has the right to treat your animal contrary to how you want. The LW can certainly dictate how she wants her cat treated but if it wasn't set out beforehand she'll really have to finesse the situation so it doesn't blow up. And maybe think twice about a roommate in the future? I would rather be a little poorer each week than worry about my beloved pet.
I think you misread me. My roommate was not 'jesting' when he threatened my cat. I meant that the LW's roommate seems like she's just joking around with the cats but that doesn't mean the LW doesn't have the right to request the behaviour to change.
If two people contract to live together in the knowledge that one person has pets they have to expect certain things like hair and litter boxes etc etc. The owner has to (or should in my opinion) clean up after them, feed and care for them so I think they have every right to suggest how they're handled. There is no common 'ownership', just common space shared by all. Hey, if the roomie pays for a vet bill or does clean up or feed them then she's got rights but otherwise no.
What???
I'm not talking about a painting on a wall, I'm talking about a living creature. If I'm worried that you might be doing something that could hurt it then yes, I have the right to ask you to stop and you should listen. Maybe I have to spell this out:
1. Both parties agree to move in together knowing full well two cats come into the bargain. The non-owner should expect reasonable mess incl. hair, kitty litter etc. The owner should be responsible for this.
2. Both parties are agreeing to share a space with the cats but ownership would ALWAYS rest fully with the original owner. She's paying the vet bills, feeding and cleaning (hopefully). This doesn't mean the other roomie doesn't have access to the cats or can't interact with them but she really should listen if the owner asks her to stop doing something with them that concerns her.
3. Same goes if the cats are doing something that annoys the roomie. Owner's responsibility, always.
If that makes me a dictator then Hitler was really something else.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
