Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
HesterEastman
Published Letters: 300 Editor's Choice: 21
Didn't Angelina Jolie adopt a baby last week or something? Is this another one? I'm all for adopting babies in need but going around the world collecting them like they were souvenirs is getting a little weird ("ooh! let's get a matching black one!") And of course, using them to build up your madonna image in order to further your career is really nauseating.
Sure, don't we all know men (or women!) who after marriage changed their politics, became more ambitious, liked to talk more and suddenly decided to leave behind the beautiful place they've always lived and have put down roots?
Seriously, I'm not picking on men, it's just so sad to hear yet another woman say "I thought I'd change him after we got married". LW: he is who is and it has nothing in common with who you are. Marriage does not make anyone a better person. If you're lonely now, it's only going to get worse and the time he told you you were beautiful is going to become less and less of a consolation.
...as long as they include "education" on what it's like to be a mother. Perhaps the prospective patient could be required to babysit a newborn in the middle of the night, or spend the day with a single mom or sit in with a female lawyer being denied partnership because she took a maternity leave. Perhaps watch as a woman gives birth and then signs the adoption papers as the baby is taken away? Later, we could send them down to the welfare office and show them WIC and food stamp forms. Then show them the ultrasound.
Maybe he's thinks he might be gay, maybe he knows he is, maybe he's just curious about sex. There's no reason for the parents or the kid to label him at this age. Let him figure it out.
But I also have a 13 year old son and I agree I would talk to him about curiosity being ok and having porn in the house is not. But the LW should think very carefully about his own attitude and what he'll be conveying to his son when he has this talk. The letter mentioned that he and his wife don't think it's "normal" to view gay porn. If you're going into it with the attitude that being gay isn't normal, he's going to pick up that message and not talk to you about his already confused feelings. This talk could end up setting the stage for a lifetime of talks or a lifetime of not wanting to tell you anything. Thirteen year olds are prickly creatures!
Do feminists encourage false negatives in rape? Have feminists worked so hard to champion rape victims’ rights that they believe without question? I think these are fair questions.
It's interesting how some people here are blaming and questioning feminism in this case. Yes, there were feminists quick to accuse these Duke players but feminists were not the only ones. Look at what the main stream media (including Salon) did with this story. There was a rush to judgement from a number of camps but this in no way can be blamed on feminists. The number of stories that analyzed the conflict between "privileged white athletes" and local "black poverty" show that this story, like most others, is about sensationalism and our collective rush to judgment, not about feminism.
I agree with you on both points: this is about a lot more than feminism. I think Harris' allegation that this will send a message that woman shouldn't report rape is way off. However, it will make it that much harder for some people to believe the next woman who brings a rape charge. It's funny how people are quick to jump on feminists in this case and not, for example, blame overly zealous DA's as a whole.
The lack of a common definition of feminism is a problem with almost any discussion of feminism. It really muddies the debate to have so many people afraid of the term.
Sad that the Chinese can only attempt gender parity by promoting more, but different, inequality.
But the Porn for Women book is very funny. Because that's what it's suppose to be - a joke.
Are we closer to a world of harmony and inclusiveness than we were before this all started?
It would be nice to think so, but I doubt anyone believes it. Today's NY Times has a very good opinion piece by Harvey Fierstein about our prejudices and how selective we are in what offends us. He points out the prevalence of homophobic and anti-fat jokes which are deemed acceptable while racism and sexism are deemed offensive. Basically, he sums up "The real point is that you cannot harbor malice toward others and then cry foul when someone displays intolerance against you." Check it out.
A toy? A gun is a toy to you? This is what is very scary about gun culture. How can something that's sole purpose is to kill be a toy? That's warped. I don't care how thoughtful he is or how many times he calls himself "sane", this is nuts.
I don't know why conservatives are complaining about the Imus firing - it's a perfect example of market-driven elimination. Imus was fired when the advertisers pulled out. Isn't that what conservatives love? This need to find a liberal conspiracy is pretty far-fetched and obscuring the fact that Imus was fired for what they should think are all the right reasons. When the sponsors stop advertising on Rush's show, he'll be fired, too.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
