Letters to the Editor
just another day
Published Letters: 35 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Spending time
[Read the article: Bachelor party]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While I think the question of engagement with humanity as a prerequisite for useful philosophy is a valid one, I don't think Orlet's basic premise is all that troubling generally. Relationships, romance, marriage, these things take time (and lots of it), no matter your gender and no matter your orientation. It's doubtless better for us as human beings to, well, interact with other human beings, but how does it affect the productive output of that certain type of genius obsessive?
I mean, historically, we can pull all kinds of examples and counter-examples. Godet was completely non-functional without his wife (and indeed, in one of the more heartbreaking examples of utter madness, starved to death shortly after she passed away), but I think for a particular breed of only slightly less insane genius, it's pretty clear that other people are just a distraction (Orlet probably has plenty of examples, but Glenn Gould and Beethoven spring immediately to mind).
I would posit the main reason Orlet targets men particularly with his thesis is that there has, traditionally, been less opportunity for women to (ahem) cloister themselves away from the rest of the human race to obsessive chip away at Great Works. In Europe (and mostly elsewhere in the world as well), women have had fewer educational opportunities and have been distinctly likely to be married off whether they like it or not. The spinster has always been far more vilified than the bachelor. If women were even permitted to pursue meaningful artistic or intellectual pursuits outside the narrow realms of womanly pursuits, odds are good that credit for their work was stolen by the men in their lives. And those who sought to break through these barriers have not usually had an easy time of it. Is it any surprise that there are relatively few solitary genius, borderline (or full-blown) autistic female philosophers out there? No, because these are behaviours which have not oft been tolerated in women, even in those circumstances when the educational and financial resources would have otherwise been available.
Would Georgia O'Keeffe have been as productive artistically had she been saddled with a more possessive (or longer-lived) husband? I sincerely doubt it.
-
Lyric
[Read the article: What's in a bat-crap-crazy name?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm aware of a Lyric Willow Badgerville, currently about 4 years old. I don't think Lyric is that bad, as far as fruity hippie names go, and Willow's perfectly fine (although a bit unusual on a boy), but Badgerville always seemed a bit unkind.
-
The more things stay the same?
[Read the article: "Ugh" of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I liked Jill Sobule's song of the same name better.
-
Frankly
[Read the article: The dominatrix]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I started trawling through these letters, but there are only so many hours in a day. Grow the fuck up, people. It is not sexist to bluntly examine the ramifications of the gross, cynical, and, yes, pandering choice of Sara Palin as McCain's veep to be. This is something that has happened, and if you think her looks, her youth, and her supposed sex appeal weren't significant factors in the Republican's choice to elevate her to VP, well, I've got a bridge to sell you.
(It'll cost you about $500 million. See what I did there?)
So swallow your overblown outrage over the tacky image up top and read the article. I don't know if what Gary's talking about will end up being a decisive factor in the election, but it's in the mix, and is as deserving of discussion as any other factor in this bloody train wreck. By refusing to discuss it, you're playing into another of the traps of Palin's candidacy.
If you must be angry, be angry with the people who put Palin out there and who are forcing us to have this conversation, not those like Gary who are merely talking about the ramifications of that decision.
-
Stephenson
[Read the article: Philosophy! Theology! Global catastrophe! Adventure!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This excites me greatly; I hadn't realized quite how long it had been since System of the World, and assumed the next Stephenson novel was still on the distant horizon. And it sounds marvelous.
-
Plenty to be angry about
[Read the article: A pile of Palin sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've posted similar thoughts elsewhere, but I agree. There's something incredibly perverse about condemning as sexist those who discuss the incredible, cynical overtones of Palin's candidacy.
Her (purported) physical attractiveness is undeniably part of the rationale behind her nomination for VP. It's not all of it; her simple appeal as a woman and her impeccable social conservative chops must not be forgotten, but to deny that her ability to draw a particular kidney of male voters had to have been a factor in the decision to put her in the veep slot is to be willingly blind.
And it's not sexist to draw attention to this fact, not sexist to discuss its extremely troubling ramifications. It is, in fact, the opposite. And the inflammatory terms in Cintra Wilson's article? Well, it's not necessarily the tack I would have taken, but I somehow don't think the outrage these phrases mask is rooted in any sort of underlying misogyny.
-
Miscarriage is manslaughter!
[Read the article: Did you just call me a zygote?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Potentially pregnant women should clearly avoid taking any action that might endanger the health of their zygotes, lest they be criminally liable. Take that, female athletes!
-
Canoodling
[Read the article: The Bush/McCain/Palin contempt for subpoenas and the rule of law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Now, there's any reason to believe that Palin & co will ever be held accountable for this. But remember, she's only really an asset to the McCain campaign for the election; as vice-president she's a pretty clear liability.
Is it all that far-fetched to wonder if Palin will be asked to resign come February or so, in light of the (new and totally unexpected!) charges of corruption, contempt of legislature etc. leveled against her? It would be a way for McCain to capitalize on her celebrity without actually being saddled with an inept veep for four years. And there would be plenty of time for the media to erase the memory of the scandal in time for 2012.
Not that there's any evidence that I've seen that this could actually the plan, but it strikes me as both a plausible chain of events and one that is almost purely advantageous to the GOP.