Letters to the Editor
melthough
Published Letters: 1264 Editor's Choice: 102
-
@Lynx
[Read the article: Single women eat babies!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That is one of the funniest things I've read in the comments in a while. Sheesh. You would think this was an f word Jane Austen novel. Maybe people would enjoy their dates - and their whole lives - more if they practiced a little more authenticity instead of playing these assinine gender games. When we got married, my husband and I received an archivally framed "poem" in flowery calligraphy from a certain wedding guest that was supposed to be this sage advice for husbands and wives. Memorable lines included "Never let him know you manage him" (we don't manage each other) and "Tell her she looks pretty, even when she's wearing old jeans" (that's pretty much all I wear, and it's not what I'm wearing that makes me "pretty" to my husband anyway). We considered burning it, but in the end some Salvation Army shopper probably thought this serpents' nest of ridiculous gender expectations was a fabulous find.
-
The idea of a "right" to be a mother
[Read the article: Big momma's house]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is a red herring. Couples who want to adopt have very little power, and the system is not fair. Regardless of our opinions on the matter, the adoption system does not support such a "right." The question is what kind of standardized test can possibly be indicative of parental fitness (so to speak). Like most standardized tests, whatever strictures a government or agency attempts to apply are going to be inadequate and are going to benefit some people while derailing other people's lives.
Are they really looking for "a predisposition for problems like hypertension, diabetes and cardiac disease?" No, they are looking for excuses to eliminate prospective parents. They can pick whichever excuses they want, I guess, but this particular one makes me sick. She has already lost 10 percent of her body weight and then they come back and say it's not enough? And I agree that even if her obesity is disabling, they would find it much harder to get away with disqualifying someone on the sole basis of a physical disability. Including hypertension or diabetes.
-
"feminists get a law"?
[Read the article: "Women's caravans" to the rescue]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I believe that might be the stupidest thing I have ever read in the Salon comments. And believe me. That's saying something.
-
@DonaQuixote
[Read the article: "Women's caravans" to the rescue]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is an "E-mail the Editors" link under "Contact Us" on the home page.
-
The population issue is not lifestyle-neutral
[Read the article: Shopping for carbon credits]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We have three children and we live very modestly (we got a halo on the World Resources Institute calculator; not the most thorough one I've used, but we are way above average on all of those calculators). In some cases, not having kids causes people to live less modestly. As a family, we bike and walk almost everywhere (almost regardless of weather - though we have to make exceptions when school is in session but the sidewalk hasn't been plowed). As a family, we buy local food as often as possible and grow some of our own as well. As a family, we take few vacations, none of them by air. As a family, I am sure we use fewer resources than most of the one-, two-, three- or four-person households in our neighborhood. So being child-free all by itself doesn't solve anything if you do not also make modest lifestyle choices.
I don't want to attack the writer, even though I really can't relate to the constantly recharging frother thingie (?!), but if you see what must happen, you must be willing to change your life. You are not taking your choices as seriously as you know you should.
And to the global warming skeptics: before I pull a muscle rolling my eyes, let me just remind you that you don't even have to believe in global warming to see that taking good care of the resources we have means that we will have them for later. C'mon, folks, even my two-year-old is learning that lesson.
-
"a media availability"?
[Read the article: The one that got away]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thought "availability" was a mass noun. Is that what they're calling them now, to avoid the impression that they're actually going to reveal anything important and substantive to the public? It sounds eerily like holding court. Not that we're surprised (that's the "people" we, not the "royal" we).
-
I am happily married-with-children
[Read the article: Oh, horrors: Childless marriages, unwed cohabitation!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]but I think civil union regardless of the sex of the partners is preferable to our current system, which is based on the idea of "sanctity" and can't seem to keep church and state separate.
And I also don't give a damn about "demographic suicide." The general world population is not declining. If people of European descent (including white Americans) are becoming a smaller proportion of the world population, that's OK with me. I don't think it will change much of anything, in the long term.
My husband and I never said a sharp word to one another until we were deprived of sleep and other necessary resources by our BABY. I love my kids, but they are a huge source of stress. They change everything. If you know you don't want children, does that mean you shouldn't get married?
I DO so hope that families really are changing fundamentally in some way, and that we are becoming more enlightened as a culture. And I hope very much that the 'sanctity' bullshit will drop completely out of our rhetoric, our laws, and our tax system. I don't have much faith, but a girl can dream....
-
Anyone who thinks more brain cells = more intelligence has a few misfiring synapses
[Read the article: Small-brained female seeks alpha male]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]or is willfully ignorant.
And even if these female mice are getting smarter in response to the presence of dominant males, maybe it's because under stress they're adapting to devise new ways to steer clear of their overly enthusiastic cell mates. I know I would.