Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:

JanetL

Published Letters: 126     Editor's Choice: 10

  • defining "hate speech"

    [Read the article: A teenager, a T-shirt and ... terrorism?]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Let's get something straight here: the difference between "hate speech" and obnoxious speech. "Hate speech" is explicitly or implicitly threatening. Obnoxious speech is just....obnoxious. "Fuck this place," while rude and obscene, is not a threat. "Fuck [insert group or person of your choice]" is.

    I'm leery of censorship even when it concerns hate speech, but I think hate speech does differ from simple obnoxiousness in the same way the burning a cross on someone's lawn differs from simple vandalism.

  • opinions vs. fact

    [Read the article: Jennifer Aniston's sagging bristols]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    You know what bothers me most about Derbyshire's puerile blathering -- even more than the sexism? It's the assumption that his opinion is a fact, that everyone really secretly agrees with him, but some are just anable to accept reality. What a jerk.

  • not really novel

    [Read the article: Her fetus was riding shotgun]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    As others have pointed out, this is not really a new scam. Even the quoted article says so:

    Valenzuela said it's not unheard of for women to use this argument to try to use the carpool lane, but it's very rare.

    "The dummy in the car is more common than this," he said.

  • the appropriate epithet

    [Read the article: Pat Robertson: God is punishing Ariel Sharon]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Shouldn't that be "radical cleric Pat Robertson"?

  • beyond the belly

    [Read the article: Fecund foxes]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Like a lot of pregnant women, I found that my hair got noticeably thicker and my skin looked fresher and rosier while I was pregnant. I got lots of compiments on my looks while I was pregnant (more than I ordinarily do) and chalked them up to these factors. I also had a relatively easy pregnancy, so I never felt very uncomfortable, even at 8+ months, and this may have contributed: when people see a large, pregnant woman who looks cheerful and light on her feet, they tend to be impressed.

  • Asking a patient's sexual orientation...

    [Read the article: Doctor's office prescribes treatment to cure lesbianism]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Part of a standard medical history is to ask if the patient is sexually active, and if so, with men or women or both -- because, of course, this information is relevant to various health risks. So even if your GP doesn't ask point blank if you're gay or straight, s/he will generally know.

    None of which excuses the nurse's behavior, which if nothing else was incredibly unprofessional.

  • because....

    [Read the article: Connecticut contraceptive clash]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    But the state's Catholic Church leaders recently decided that the medication can't be dispensed in their four hospitals -- if a woman has already released an egg that could have been fertilized.... this supposed compromise doesn't make sense from, like, a biological standpoint. What's the point of giving out the pill if it can't prevent an unwanted pregnancy?

    The point is that in most cases Plan B prevents ovulation, not implantation of a fertilized egg. So if the woman hasn't ovulated yet, the pill will prevent her from ovulating and thus conceiving. Sperm can live in the female reproductive tract for several days, so it's possible to conceive days after the sperm are introduced.

    Don't get me wrong -- it's an idiotic rule. I just think it's extremely important to be clear about how Plan B works, since there's so much confusion and misinformation about it.

  • a few points

    [Read the article: C-section controversy]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    First of all, promotion of circumcision by doctors began in the 19th century because of the supposed benefits of hygeine and discouraging masturbation. The history of circumcision is well-documented and has nothing to do with a conspiracy of Jewish doctors (who were less numerous before WWII than now, due to discrimination and quotas).

    I gave birth vaginally in the US a few months ago. No episiotomy (the hospital where I gave birth has a policy of trying to reduce the number of episiotomies). No complications other than a slight perineal tear that has healed well (note that there are ways to reduce the risk of a tear, such as going slowly during the pushing stage). No bladder problems that couldn't be fixed with a few Kegel exercises. I was half expecting to have a c-section because of my age (42) and the fact that I'm diabetic, both of which increase the risk of needing a c-section, so I'm certainly not against them. I had pain meds, but I know plenty of women who have given birth without them and were happy with their decision.

    C-section is sometimes medically necessary. It's also a relatively low-risk surgery, and my only concern about elective c-section, as with any elective surgery, is that the patient gives informed consent. But I think it's very odd that people have such exaggerated views of the risks of vaginal birth. Yes, some women do have serious complications of vaginal birth, and I don't want to dismiss anyone's suffering. But there are risks and complications of c-section, too. And most births, as our midwife poster has said, go just fine.

    There's a lot of moralizing in both directions, which I think is misplaced. There is no perfect solution.

  • jumping the gun

    [Read the article: Why Bradsheet?]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Where I am it ain't April first yet. Grumble...Nor where Salon is (note date stamp).

  • what is and isn't standard

    [Read the article: "Too posh to push"?]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    I understand your concern, theglimmering, but a lot of what you say is standard just isn't, at least not where I live. (These things do vary from region to region and hospital to hospital.) My baby is four months old, and even with a doubly high-risk pregnancy (42 years old, type 1 diabetes) I didn't have most of the interventions you describe. I knew going in that I'd have an IV and fetal monitoring -- with diabetes, it would be stupid not to -- and I eventually requested an epidural. But that's it -- nobody even mentioned forceps or vacuum extraction, even though the pushing stage was pretty protracted (over two hours). No cameras, no episiotomy. As far as I know, shaving and enemas have not been common practice for at least 10 years. My baby was at my breast less than 10 minutes after she was born; I don't know anybody who was kept from her baby for longer than that unless she had had a c-section. And I didn't have to insist on any of this, even though my own OB wasn't able to be there, and I didn't have a birth plan -- because none of these interventions are standard at the hospital where I gave birth.

Most Active Stories

Read More

Letters Help

Daily Delivery

Salon headlines in your mailbox