Letters to the Editor
melthough
Published Letters: 1336 Editor's Choice: 103
-
Robert
[Read the article: Panic rooms]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't see those images because I don't have a television and I rarely watch movies. I also don't read the New Yorker, although the reason has nothing to do with violence and everything to do with snobbery, stupid cartoons and bad poetry.
I would be happy, however, to read the resources you have used to reach your conclusions about the epidemic of violence against men perpetrated by women. We live in a violent culture. I think men have many culturally created problems for which they do not receive support or learn appropriate coping mechanisms, and I believe that is one of the problems feminism ought to address - and I think feminists have, in fact, had a role in trying to teach boys AND girls nonviolent problem-solving and other social skills in the public schools. But feminism begins at home, as does violence. I know a mother who encouraged her son to hit people who made fun of him on the playground because she "didn't want him to be a pussy." So obviously we have a ways to go here. For me the point is not to snipe back and forth about who is being victimized by whom but to help people who need help, and to try to create a world where fewer people do.
-
No one is denying the importance of the symbolism
[Read the article: Clinton vs. Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Though I don't quite follow all the name-dropping, Silverback, I think you are missing the point of this post. Electing the first black person or woman is historically and symbolically important - and, as the author points out, long overdue. What she objects to is treating the candidates as symbols. They must be candidates first. If Condi Rice were up for the presidency, I would never, never, NEVER be tempted to vote for her. Not for one nanosecond. Not because she is an inappropriate representative of the category of person I would love to see in the Oval Office, but because intellectually, politically and ethically she does not represent my idea of what America ought to be and do. And, to a lesser extent, I feel the same way about Rodham Clinton. The media has been very bad the last several years at representing candidates AS candidates. The thing I remember hearing most about the current occupant was that he was a "nice guy" and people "felt like they'd love to have a beer with him." Because reporters liked that about him, he got positive coverage and Gore was portrayed as chainsaw sculpture despite his intelligence, knowledge, experience and UTTER WHOMPING of Bush in the debates.
I think it's totally appropriate to hold the feet of our media to the fire, as suggested. Because we are not voting on whether we want a black guy. We are voting on who is going to get us out of the tar baby in the middle east with the least damage to everyone, restore our democracy, face the facts of environmental disaster and begin to repair our international reputation. I don't give a damn if it's a green Zoroastrian polka-dotted seven-times-divorced cross-dresser. THAT is what we need to be talking about, not race, gender, clothing and "electability."
-
Well said, lww!
[Read the article: American Girl: Lessons in shopaholism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't really have an opinion of American Girl dolls, since my children are not of the age to want or receive them yet. I do believe that a good doll is worth spending money on if it's going to be one of your only toys - but obviously that is not the way most people in America live, and if the poster who said they're just mass-produced junk being deceptively sold as "fine" toys, why not spend that cash on a one-of-a-kind Waldorf doll made by the hands of a human being out of natural materials?
Anyway, American Doll aside, I too am totally disgusted by the parents in this article. I cannot believe the way children "these days" (I can't believe I'm saying that) are being indulged by parents who evidently have no limits of their own and therefore don't know how to impose any on their kids. It's sickening. Literally. I feel ILL. I don't think we can really blame this company, but it is a horrid spectacle nevertheless. As a mother of three, I felt a little guilty a couple weeks back when people were criticizing couples for having more than two children because of the worldwide population crunch. But look at the resources these people are using on one child! I don't feel guilty anymore about having three children who live in a one-hybrid-car house that is heated with carbon-neutral wood pellets, who walk to school, who eat locally produced food whenever possible, and who already know how to sort their waste into compost, recycling and trash (of which we make very little). When the inevitable environmental disaster arrives at the hands of totally clueless, selfish consumers like this, we will know how to take care of ourselves. And we will gladly welcome them to our home to teach them how to spin, weave, raise chickens and make their own toys.
-
CondeNet
[Read the article: What else we're reading]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The super-alpha girls who want to talk about Miu Miu [designer shoes] can do that," says Jamie Pallot, the editorial director of CondeNet. "And the nerdy ones can talk about," he pauses, looking to his colleagues for assistance. "What do the nerdy ones talk about?"
The nerdy girls are the ones who needed that bracketed explanation of what Miu Miu is (i.e., me). I find the whole MySpace phenomenon disturbing all by itself, having just written an article about Internet sexual predators. So, super-alpha or super-omega, BE CAREFUL, girls. You might think you're talking to your buds, but there's a reason they call it the Worldwide Web. There are some attentions you don't want. Some 50-year-old guy could see your "shrine" online and try to find you. Just make it so he can't, OK?