Letters to the Editor
cdunlea
Published Letters: 152 Editor's Choice: 35
-
Crying? Please.
[Read the article: Cheers for tears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I fully support Cecelie Berry's opinion that crying should be allowed in the workplace--so long as she feels it permissible that men express the intense emotions we sometimes feel in the way it comes natural to us. That would include (but not be limited to) shouting, cursing, punching walls or furniture, or even hitting someone when they really screw up. Sexual banter would be tolerated and even expected, as well as the occasional advance. After all, why limit our natural outbursts of emotions to one form? Or a form accepted by just one gender?
If this modest proposal causes her or other women to squirm in discomfort, so be it, because the alternative is a double standard as unacceptable in the workplace as the actions listed above. I'm not talking about crying on hearing of a death or accident, but using it as a negotiating tool. As a business owner, I can tell you that I could not accept a female employee bursting into tears to justify a bad sales quarter or sloppy work habits any more than I could accept that from a male counterpart. It embarasses co-workers and illustrates poor self-control. So, if Ms. Berry plans to work for herself, she can express all the range of emotions as she sees fit, but so long as women have to work with men a line between what is acceptable and unacceptable by the group must be drawn.
-
Our destiny is tied to theirs? Really??
[Read the article: Well, we're glad things are going so well, then]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I prefer the Anthony Robbins/Zig Zigler approach:
You are the master of your own destiny.
-
Butter sculptures and prime rib??
[Read the article: Inside the Iraqi forces fiasco]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Part of the article (referring to "Little America") reminds me of what an old friend told me. I met "Tom" (forgive the pseudonym, he's still in public life so far as I know) twelve years ago as he was finishing his Ph.D at the Maxwell School at Syracuse. He was older, had served in Vietnam as a captain in a logistics battalion, and eventually resigned his commission in disgust and went to work for the CIA as a field officer after that.
When he described the culture of the military at that time, he said to think of it not as a traditional army you read about in history class, but rather as a very bloated, 1950's American corporation, with the generals as vice presidents. In Vietnam, he said, priority was given to making sure things like Kansas City beef and Scotch got through to the generals, even if that meant medical supplies or even ammo for the forward units had to go on the next truck. The brass rewarded those logistic personnel who kept luxury items coming by promoting them and, most importantly, keeping them in the rear instead of the field. Questioning these priorities would simply get you transferred out. Like in the article, mission-critical supplies were often slow to arrive, delayed or simply forgotten--unless a general's career was tied in with the unit being deprived.
Apparently, the US military is still attached to that culture.
-
WTF???
[Read the article: Raising Cain]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This article raises sooo many questions. Why did she have kids in the first place? Who put these kids in her to birth? Is she a lesbian who decided to get the turkey baster, or was a man in the room? If so, what sort of relationship, if any, did she have with him? And how does that cloud the picture? If someone is going to bare their soul in Salon, they may as well show us the whole picture.
Apart from the fact that we are left to wonder in what possible context the article is in, I have to wonder what, in DJD's mind, makes her think she is qualified to raise a son by herself at all, never mind one who's the product of 1970's social engineering. As the (married) father of a bright, happy, funny girl, I can give her so much love and guidance, but I would be terrified of raising her myself. I do not know how to teach her the things girls--and women--must know to adapt socially in the world. I'm not talking mascara and menstruation; I'm talking about how women interact with each other and what they feel. I have never been a woman any more than DJD has been a man, and neither of us has experienced the emotions, drives and passions of the other sex. If DJD cannot understand men, how can she explain maleness to her son when he needs that guidance?
It's one thing to be robbed of your role model parent through death or divorce. It's entirely another to intentionally deprive him, resulting in emotionally crippling him.
-
False dichotomy
[Read the article: Choice momism?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Being a good parent is more important than being a married one."
Why are the only possible choices presented single, go-it-alone parenthood or marriage? What does matrimony have to do with child rearing? Nothing.
The true choice described is between raising a child by yourself or doing it in partnership with another person--spouse or partner, other sex or same.
But given that a good parent is one that tries to raise their child as best they can do, why would anyone intentionally choose to deprive the kid from the advice and role modelling of another adult? In other words, what sane adult willingly enters parenthood thinking they know best and are capable of raising children without a helping hand, or a partner to help out? I understand that millions of parents are forced to do that every day--the operative word here being "forced". We've all been forced to cope with the circumstances we've been dealt. But why intentionally choose something that is not, any way you slice it, in the best interests of the child, simply because you can't or won't deal with another adult relationship? And what kind of message are you sending to your child--that s/he's an island, doesn't need anyone's influence or love in the word to make it?
This go-it-alone attitude strikes me as Rumsfeldian, both in its design and its likelihood of success.