Letters to the Editor
-
To MerelyMortalMale
"Right. Wimmin want to wear what they want, whenever they want, however they want. What they DON’T want is for men to respond the way they want, how they want, whenever they want. That's verboten."
So, are you saying we really should wear clothing that covers us from head to toe, not a bit of leg or hair or midriff in sight, in order not to be raped? On a hot day when you guys can walk around in shorts with no shirt we should wear a long dress, headscarf, and long sleeves lest our body provoke you into barbaric behavior?
I was discussing the clothing demands made by men in restrictive, fanatical religions, not the average American man.
I believe most American men are able to express their enthusiasm for a woman's appearance appropriately, and that heterosexual women appreciate their enthusiasm. I also believe that the majority of American men would never rape a woman just because she is revealing part of her body. While I wouldn't advise a young woman to walk around in skimpy clothing late at night while alone, I would never agree that if she shows such bad judgment she ought to be raped and not complain about it after. The same thing goes for drinking to excess--it's a dangerous thing for a young woman to do--but she shouldn't be raped for it. Would you say that a young man who drinks himself senseless and was raped by another man deserved it? I doubt it.
I do love these letters that demonstrate an assumption that all feminists think alike on various issues. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Beating up the man-hating feminist straw-woman is easy, but that's all she is, straw.
-
We in the West also dress our women differently
On the beach, women have to cover their breasts. Yes, there are nudist beaches and whatnot, but in general, men go topless, and women don't.
Imagine if a country started saying that we are oppressing our women because we force them to cover their breasts, and the women that choose to cover their breasts, they are being manipulated or forced into it, or are brainwashed.
It's probably the same reaction for many people brought up in some cultures when we talk about the oppression of women covering their hair, or legs: it's an inherent part of the culture, and no amount of outsider lecturing is going to change the people's minds en masse, in the same way that I don't think most Americans would suddenly be perfectly fine with women going to topless at all the beaches, not least the women themselves.
Cultures ARE in fact different, and we can't have a solopsitic view like America is prone to have.
-
There
Subodim's letter, pg. 4
--B Breathed
-
Wait a minute
That's the cartoon that got censored?
Why??
It's not as if Breathed made that up. Those things have been around for at least a couple of years now. How is it objectionable to point it out? It's not like it's a deep dark initiate's secret or anything.
I don't understand this at all.
-
Which one?
Berkeley,
Which of Subodim's letters on page 4, the one where he explains the cartoon or the one where he says you're not funny anymore?
Either works for me.
-
I was reading how in Tehran, Salon's eastern annex,
That the mullahs are on a new 'crusade' to enforce the Chador and the Burqa and that upwards of 150,000 people have been arrested for being 'western'. Moreover how as a result of this new resurgence in theocratic harshness Iran now suffers a massive brain drain. Now THAT is comedy.
-
Subodim's letter (as mentioned by Berkeley Breathed)
Obviously BB meant the one that explains the allegory related to our (America's) behavior in Iraq and towards the rest of the Middle East. While I got that too, I felt that was a point that liberals have made over and over again and anybody who doesn't get it by now probably never will.
Given my personal history, I was more interested in what I consider the B plot, the question of whether a woman, American or Middle Eastern or some mixture of the two, is brainwashed if she chooses to wear something considered socially or religiously appropriate, as well as whether men are right to demand that women cover themselves up. I think these are equally valid points to discuss.
I'd also like to give a shout out to any other former Hare Krishna devotees out there and invite them to my forum for recovering ex-devotees. Follow the link from my name, below. :)
-
confused
I did not see this ad the way everyone else did. Maybe it's my age. I saw it as a political statement. This woman and most likely her husbad, are from the hippy period and because of his comments and loud demands she has "obeyed"...AND I saw it as our superior attitude in Iraq where we know what is right for the people and if we demand and scream it will happen. Something like the book, it was a book wasn't it? "The Ugly American"?
I would like to know if my thoughts are totaly off base or on target.
-
AND...
One more thing. Why was it censored? Perhaps we should be talking about censoship.....
-
Opus
I loved it. Lola,modestly dressed,represents women rebelling against our ever more deviant popular culture. Some will think this is about muslim traditions, but to me it's about standing up to sexist oppression in America.
-
This is a good cartoon
It's clear that this cartoon is about America's 'we know best' attitude to the Middle East (and the rest of the world for that matter) and the contrary reactions this is likely to provoke.
What is a mystery to me is why it was censored. It's clearly not an attack on Muslims and would not be understood as such. So why censor it?
The only possible reason must be, as other letter writers have suggested, that it offends the MSM's prevailing narrative about how the world works and America's role in it.
Sinister.
-
opus
Steve, thinking he has solved the problem, walks out the door congratulating himself with his back turned so that he can't really see what's going on. It's funny because it's so typical.