Letters to the Editor
woodside
Published Letters: 34 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Oh please, Mr. Thoma
[Read the article: Is Barack Obama a libertarian paternalist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...like we're not manipulated into specific choices or into selecting from a narrow range of choices 24/7. There must be a ton of studies showing that, of all the decisions impacting our lives, we make very few of them. Modern marketing and political strategy seem to be based entirely on manipulation.
The question isn't whether we'll be manipulated but how we will be manipulated. Do I object to being manipulated into saving for retirement, eating my veggies, using less energy, and contributing more to my community? No. Particularly if I still maintain the option *not to do these things, all of which are generally agreed to be good choices by people across the political spectrum.
I know I don't always have enough willpower to make good "long-term" choices. Help is appreciated.
-
@jebldmm or anyone who can explain it
[Read the article: MSNBC on the "pregnant man": "I'm gonna be sick"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't get it. Why isn't Thomas Beatie a legitimate transgender person?
-
@Xrandadu Hutman
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What's sexist about the "scolding mother" commentary is that it's difficult to imagine a male politician being called a "scolding father" under the same circumstances.
"Multiple personality disorder" is also an insult it's difficult to imagine a man directing at another man. It's related to the "hysterical woman" (PMS, can't control their emotions, want to control others close to them) sterotype.
Keeping a husband on a short leash is something typically ascribed to overbearing wives (see stereotype above).
It's hard to imagine a KFC ad disparaging a male politician's figure.
Bros before hoes. Not sure what's *not sexist about a poster calling a woman a ho. No way can it be interpreted as an endearing term in that context.
I can imagine why the first three didn't occur to you as sexist. They probably only seem sexist to people who've been hearing that kind of crap repeatedly for a long time (see also educated black people annoyed to be called "articulate"). But I'm pretty mystified as to why the other two did not seem like a big deal to you. Unless you're a person who gives a lot of iffy comments a pass (which isn't necessarily a bad thing unless you can't comprehend why some people choose not to give those comments a pass). That's another factor in this discussion that I'm sure someone has mentioned: people set their offense alarms at different levels.
It's clearly ridiculous when someone is hypocritical and gets up-in-arms about one kind of -ism but defends the other. But a lot of disagreements about discrimination happen between generally non-hypocritical people because their offense threshholds are just different.
For example, my partner witnessed an office conversation in which a co-worker named McDonald whose parent had just died was teased by friends about inheriting lots of money (because of the golden arches). McDonald said, "Actually, I don't think the people running McDonald's are named McDonald." Co-worker #1 snorted, "Yeah, probably Lowenstein, Zimmerman, or maybe just plain Stein." Co-worker #2 responded with her own list of Jewish-sounding names. And it went back and forth to see who could come up with the longest, most stereotypical Jewish name.
I think that's appalling and racist. Some people, pointing to the fact that Jewish people do run some shit in the United States, think it's just funny, and a subset of those people would feel similarly about "humor" directed at their own tribe. And my point is that neither of these positions is likely to be conceded because there's no hypocrisy on either end. There's a fundamental disagreement about how to treat people and whether or not perpetuating stereotypes does harm to humanity.
I have no problem agreeing to disagree but I just wanted to let you know a little bit about how the other side thinks.
And for those reading quickly, let me repeat that I think the behavior of the office-workers in my story was appalling and racist. I also think the song "Kung-fu fighting" has racist lyrics. But no, I am not angry, and no, I do not lose sleep at night over it.
-
@Hutman
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]By "first three" I meant "Shame on you Barack Obama," "multiple personality disorder," and "keeping a husband on a short leash."
From your original post: "We see what's-his-name Cafferty from CNN, saying that Clinton sounded like a "scolding mother" when she did her "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" tirade the Saturday after the pre-Texas/Ohio debates. Is this sexist? I dunno, personally I think "Shame on you!" really is like a "scolding mother." (Cafferty also refers to Clinton having "multiple personality disorder," which was also not uncalled for or sexist.)"
So, bout the scolding mother comment, you wrote: "Is this sexist? I dunno." I would argue that means that it did not occur to you as sexist. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that it did not occur to you as *unequivocally* sexist.
About the personality comment, you wrote that it was "not...sexist."
And about the "short leash" comment, you suggested it might just be about Clinton treating someone like a dog ("not sexist") even though you also allowed for the possibility that it might be about Bill, in which case, according to you, it would be "rather sexist."
So no, I don't have reading comprehension problems. But perhaps you do. It's my partner who works with the idiots, not me.