Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 12 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Broken link
[Read the article: Embryos: Property, or people?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There's a broken link somewhere in this post, I think, because all the posts below it on my browser are completely linked.
-
Drunk Plates
[Read the article: Pink: It's not just for girls anymore]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Konky:
Drivers in Ohio who are convicted of driving drunk do have to have special license plates. They're this garish red color.
I agree with BitchPhD. They've already served their sentences, they don't need to be hung out in public and shamed, too.
-
For Life?
[Read the article: Pink: It's not just for girls anymore]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mark 'em for life? Why not just give them a life sentence in jail if we're going to say that sex offenders will never change their ways? I agree that certain types of offenders need extra watching over once they get out of jail, but I hardly think that a life-time of public humiliation and misery fosters rehabilitation and productive participation in society.
-
Fluff-free Salon
[Read the article: Our Jennifer fixation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When I read all these letters bemoaning the new fluffiness of Salon, I wonder what site they've been reading the past few years. Salon has always had fluffy articles. At least the Salon I read does. I don't know what CSPAN-clone y'all are expecting, but it's never been at this URL.
The Salon I know and love publishes articles about politics and culture. And whether you like it or not, celebrity-obsession is a big part of Western culture. For those of us who live in a high-brow world where we like to pretend we'd never care about something so low-class, there's always the choice not to read. Or wait til Monday when the publishing schedule is at full pace.
-
Compensation
[Read the article: A man's right to choose, take five]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The legal picture would look like this: a woman would still retain her right to abort, unless a man was willing to compensate her for her time and use of her womb.
And if the woman dies in childbirth, what then? If the birth of the child she doesn't want is so traumatic to her body that she is no longer able to bear any children that she might want in the future, what then? How does a man compensate her for a long healing episiotomy? The permanent changes in the shape of her body? The lingering emotional effects of giving birth to a child you did not want?
This would have to be a very rich man indeed to fairly compensate an unwilling baby factory -- I mean, woman.
-
How to approach?
[Read the article: Daphne Merkin's woo]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How to approach this item? It seems obvious to me: there is no part of the female body that is free from endless critique and that is not in need of surgical enhancement.
-
Woohoo! More objects for the Male Gaze!
[Read the article: In search of the fat and fabulous]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When we revile fat women, we make them something less than human. But when we parade fat women dressed up as dolls in beauty pageants, we are still making them something less than human.
The solution is not to objectify as many different types of women as possible, but to stop objectifying ALL women.
-
How wise and insightful...
[Read the article: In search of the fat and fabulous]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wow, Rob. How self-absorbed must one get to believe that A) one's own preferences are universal despite all evidence to the contrary and B) said evidence to the contrary only indicates that everyone besides oneself is delusional?
Do you have a diagnosis to go with that big talk of yours?
-
What about the women?
[Read the article: Can we save Roe by ignoring South Dakota?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think way too many male "liberals" think that Roe v. Wade is good in and of itself. That's not true; what we want to preserve is the right to have an abortion. Roe v. Wade is just the tool we use to keep that right. And if we never use a tool, we may as well not have it at all. Likewise, if we don't defend Roe v. Wade to protect our right to have an abortion, what's the use of having it at all?
And let us not forget, the right to have an abortion isn't some vague theory that's fun to debate in our sitting rooms while smoking cigars. Real live flesh and blood living women need to have abortions. This is life and death for actual breathing human beings with families and friends and dreams and goals. We can't just abandon them because they have the misfortune to be stuck in a state that wants to take away their rights. They are PEOPLE. They have just as much value as a blue state woman and they are just as deserving of the right to choose their own destinies by exerting control over their bodies. Their deaths from unsafe abortions are just as tragic. Their lives diverted to unwanted motherhood are just as sad.
When the South wanted to break away from the Union in order to continue enslaving human beings, we did not say, "fine, go ahead! Be a bunch of loser racists! We don't like you anyway!" We said, "No, you're not going anywhere, and no, we're not going to let you continue to enslave human beings, because that's wrong."
The exact same thing is happening right now. We cannot just allow states like South Dakota and other states where abortion is functionally unavailable to enslave their women. Because it is wrong.
This is not a game. This is not theory. This is not an exercise in "framing" nor is it a useful campaign talking point. This is real life with real women's lives on the line. And we need to take a stand.