thank you so very much. pot, kettle. kettle, pot.

Actually, as I teach freshman comp, I can tell you that this article would get a better grade than a C... depending on the topic of the assignment.

The vitriol saved up for every article Ms. Dickerson writes is, well, more evidence of the frightening trend of asshole racists coming along with the asshole misogynists and weird in-denial conservatives who seemed to have recently taken a shine to writing comments on Salon articles.

Weird, right?

Dear Ms. Zacharek:

Those of us who engage in experimental story telling do not do so in order to supplant "tranditional" story telling. You should ask yourself what instinct in you causes such disgusted responses to things different than what you are used to or expecting. You write not as though you are merely bored by it but as though it's a burden upon your soul. Did you ever bother to wonder at who the hell decided the right way to tell a story? Who are these people anyhow? Just because it's what you're used to, doesn't mean it's the only way or the best way. Frankly, it's a pretty dumb oppositional binary. I expect this from people with fundamentally inflexible minds--you know, conservatives. I don't mean politics (though, in many cases, probably). I mean someone not capable creative thought. It still amazes me that it's obvious, on the one hand, that you are perfectly capable, but then you flat out refuse to bother taking these "kinds" of movies seriously on the out-set. It's clear, in other words, that you have always already decided not to take them seriously before you sit in you seat with you popcorn (or whatever you snack on while watching movies).

I tell my students that when they come across stories or movies or ideas that they feel an intense desire either to dismiss or destroy, before they take that next step, smug and self-righteous, down the path of mere conformaty for the sake of comfort, they should always ask why they have the reaction in the first place. Question the reaction, and then, if they can, try to justify it in a thoughtful, fair consideration.

"Straightforward, unvarnished storytelling" is not dead. I don't know why making different art implies that it is. The story dictates the form does not mean that all love stories should look essentially the same. Also, your dismissal fundamentally ignores the (very real) changing landscape of culture and tranference of information and ideas and, therefore, the actual ways in which people think and interact with said culture and ideas. And, I will never understand why you go out of your way to slam anything remotely experimental and then lift up the most silly, pointless, run of the mill movies. It's like you give extra points the more "straightforward" and "unvarnished" a movie tries to be before considering the subject matter, or, frankly, the artistic impact, effort, and interaction with the audience.

I had thought, for a time, that you were getting better at being fair and open to different ideas about movies and storytelling. Not so much now.

Too bad.

Southern cities like Atlanta more than give SF a run for its money in this department--and mostly with home grown runaways. Seriously.

but Nestle is a company that actively engages in forced child-labor (otherwise known as slavery) for that precious damned chocolate.

i don't give a good god-damn if there's a woman on the board or not.

buy fair trade. seriously.

Too much gay?

so, just counting the stories that are up right now which go back to 29 June, let's see:

pimps, female politicians, kuwaiti women voting, anti-choice bachelors sacraficing for unwed pregnant women, whether the glass ceiling is a myth, a reading list that doesn't include anything remotely gay, squeezing into small clothes, underwear to lift the bum, dads and pregnancy (soooooo gay), DIY ladies, and Melinda Gates.

Gay? NY Appeals kicks back gay marriage, the Chancellor of UCSC killed herself and was gay and a scientist. Corporations are offering benifits to gay employees, and.... maybe, I suppose, female golfing either gay or super femme...

WOW! SOOOOO GAY! SUPER GAY!

and, you know, stupid guys who can't count and easily dismiss feminism as maybe being gay don't help to the perception, do they? and, you know, it really matters if people think we're all gay because that diminishes the point, doesn't it? I mean, women can be free but dykes?! yuck... they don't like the penis and that's wierd! the very fact that you defend the position of someone who's weirded out about gay stuff being mentioned in a "feminist" blog shows one thing... one thing only... and, it isn't you logic skills:

clue-less