Letters to the Editor
slk23
Published Letters: 17 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Another thing
[Read the article: Is the backlash here yet?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Shadow, you make a good point, and it's one that reflects my occasional angst with Broadsheet, i.e., casting things in a "women against the world" kind of way. Stripping aside all of the history and the arguments about from where cultural practices descend, the reality is that society often scorns things that have long been the province of women. However, it's not only women who are scorned when they inhabit that province. I'm guessing that you, Shadow, as a single father found employers no more/less willing to be flexible than your female counterparts did. Similarly, I haven't seen any evidence that male victims of violence or sexual abuse are treated any more compassionately than female victims. (I thought of this during the Mark Foley scandal when various commentators were quick to paint the 16-year-old pages as teases or temptors--they didn't get a pass because they were boys.)
-
To Ondelette
[Read the article: A case for parental notification]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I just wanted to say that I really appreciated your letter. It's great to know that there are people like you out there. People who can say, "This hurt me and deeply, but my grief does not outweigh another's autonomy."
Thank you.
-
To Robert
[Read the article: Six feet under and still ignored]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I assumed that this item was lamenting the dearth of obits for women in the big, national papers where obits are printed only for those deemed worthy by the paper's editors. I didn't think it intended to refer to local papers, which will print obits for anyone provided, as you say, the survivors submit the text. Did others read this piece differently?
-
Personal Responsibility
[Read the article: Blaming the victim?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm all for personal responsibility, especially when it comes to ensuring one's own safety, but the difficulty is that we don't have a common, universal definition for what being personally responsible entails. Sure, we can probably agree that it's not in a woman's best interest to get falling down drunk, particularly if she's in a rough part of town or out among strangers. And, I'm guessing that most of us advise our friends, sisters, and daughters accordingly.
But beyond that, what should we do? Should we specify what hours or neighborhoods are 'safe'? What activities women can participate in without putting themselves at risk? What clothing they can wear so as not to attract the attention of would-be assailants? I guess you can see where I'm headed here. As an earlier poster said, we have to distinguish between good advice, say given by a mother/father or friend, and public policy.
And that's why we women get so alarmed when a public official comes out to tell us what we should or shouldn't do in the interests of our own safety. We can agree on the common sense of the advice, but we worry about how it may be used against us.
-
Ultrasounds
[Read the article: Abstinence-only zealot to oversee Title X?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Andrew, I follow your logic, and I appreciate your point that women should be making an informed decision when it comes to choosing whether or not to have an abortion. But there is a problem with a scenario in which women seeking abortions are offered or encouraged to have an ultrasound. Namely, this is not a neutral offer; it's an offer that, as you say, will likely make it harder for the woman to decide to proceed with the abortion.
Certainly, healthcare decisions often are hard. Dealing with the complexities of medical care and our own elemental concerns about our well-being, we could hardly expect decisions about our health to be easy. However, we should be able to expect that our medical care providers not deliberately complicate our decisions by infusing our decision-making process with someone else's moral standards. There are many, many people who do not consider abortion to be a immoral option. Many people consider it to be a medical procedure on par with getting, say, a hysterectomy or an appendectomy. If you're not attempting to influence the outcome, what possible reason could there be for offering a woman in this category an ultrasound?
Now, you or I or many thousands of other people may not agree that seeking an abortion does not have a moral component, but that's a conversation to be had outside a doctor's examination room. When it comes to abortion, the kinds of conversations that should occur in a doctor's office should be limited to the facts regarding the procedure itself.