Letters to the Editor
melthough
Published Letters: 1212 Editor's Choice: 98
-
Precedent
[Read the article: Goodbye to all this]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn Greenwald first posted at Salon as a War Room guest writer too. I hope there's a spot (and a paycheck) for Digby's Hullabaloo here in the near future. (Including the still from Network, please.)
-
On Projection
[Read the article: Roundup: Fake wombs and (even faker) female superheroes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Lacking any positive skills to help people, her only skills was to create an enemy of her own imagining, tailored completely to fit her rhetorical skill set. To demonize the enemy...."
Well, since you put it that way, she sounds like a healthy skeptic to me.
Do humanists such as yourself have any positive views to share regarding the negotiating position of the culturally feminized in relation to the macho power structure? Because if so, this would be a good moment for a non-militant, shades-of-gray, open-minded person like your healthily skeptical self to have out with them. Otherwise, morbidly obese, militant victims like me who thought we were talking to a rational human being might have to come to our senses and stop reading.
-
PPD article?
[Read the article: Hillary's chest war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The teaser for the PPD article links to the 'chest war' post. I guess all roads lead to HRC's cleavage these days ... but could we have the PPD thing too, please? Thanks! :)
-
Yes, the political blackmail is annoying
[Read the article: The politics of postpartum depression]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But OTOH, I am not afraid of what they find out about post-abortion depression - assuming they conduct large-scale, objective, peer-reviewed research that includes women who have spontaneous miscarriages and stillbirths. If post-abortion depression is a real thing, whether distinct from depression after a miscarriage or not, it is probably hormonal like PPD and can be treated - and with none of the fears some of us have had about passing antidepressants to our babies through breastmilk. Hooray!
We are not going to get rid of the argument that abortion scars women for life unless we actually do a massive, objective study - one that controls for the fact that perhaps there's a teensy weensy possibility that women who are prone to depression and mental instability are more likely to have unplanned pregnancies in the first place? I say bring the study on. There is nothing to be afraid of. Heck, I'll be the first volunteer.
-
What Guys Learn
[Read the article: The costs of asking for a higher salary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]healthyskeptic writes: "Guys learn at a young age how to spar and kid with each other in a friendly, but competitive, manner. And without stepping on toes."
And what are your gender-neutral thoughts on why girls don't learn that set of skills? And what purely humanist, gender-neutral solution do you propose?
This is what I don't understand: you identify a systemic, gender-based problem (girls do not learn skills crucial to negotiating for fair pay) and then you argue that we need an inidividualized, gender-neutral solution (you are vague on the deatils, but apparently feminism is militant victim-mongering and "humanism" is the only answer). I would love to buy the gender-neutral product you are selling, believe me. But do you see why I am skeptical about the claims you are making for it? I just don't see how you can 'do' humanism without specifically addressing gender and race as subcategories of humanist thought and action. And that is exactly what I believe they are. I do not believe "patriarchy" is a "conspiracy." But there are identifiable, systemic problems that do not just go away when you call people names. Is it humanitarian to write off feminism?
-
Dale Carnegie courses!
[Read the article: The costs of asking for a higher salary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's going to solve EVERYTHING. Thanks for the heads up.
-
Dear skeptic
[Read the article: The costs of asking for a higher salary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't know why I'm bothering, because every time I kid myself into believing you are a rational interlocutor, you start calling me names. But here goes.
Your focus on negotiating skills is a red herring. The negotiators were not the subjects of the study. The negotiators were actors; presumably they have a handle on affecting various skill sets, which is why the people doing the study chose to hire them.
The real subjects of the study were the would-be bosses. The study found that, despite watching the SAME actors making the SAME case, male and female "bosses" reacted differently. It is their reaction that is at issue, not the negotiating skills of the actors. Female "bosses" penalized everyone who asked for more money, regardless of their sex or concomitant negotiating skills. Male "bosses" penalized only women. So the study does inherently attempt to account for differences in individual negotiating skills, by attempting to make them irrelevant.
Which brings me back to the point I have been trying to get across. You can learn all the great skills you like, but you will still be presenting them to someone in power. And some people in power are star-bellied sneetches who won't be able to see past the lack of a star on your belly to all those great skills. I couldn't agree with you more that getting obsessed with that fact is counterproductive. But it is a known, systemic problem that you can't solve by changing your mannerisms.
It is good to be skeptical, but a true skeptic questions the validity of a study AFTER reviewing its merits, not before.
-
h0tr0d
[Read the article: The costs of asking for a higher salary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"These type of studies would gain a lot more creditability if done by a neutral source."
You mean that secret race of androgyne scientists we've been hatching? HOW DID YOU FIND OUT???
My problem with this study and all studies of gender is that there IS no neutrality. For me, the "why" is, "Why are you asking this question?" But I don't write them all off just because they attempt to address gender differences. One has to look at them case by case and attempt to judge them on their merits rather than their conclusions.