Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 69 Editor's Choice: 4
-
This is more like it!
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've been growing mildly despondent over the content of this blog lately -- and reading it less; nota bene, Salon page-view bean counters -- but it's only fair to give credit where credit is due, and I happily shall. This is the kind of perspective I, as a pro-feminist man (and father of a daughter) want to see more of on Broadsheet: one which acknowledges that feminism, properly viewed, holds the promise of bringing more opportunity and liberation to everyone, not just females. Equality for women is a prerequisite for equality for ALL. (Which is one reason the extent to which some men feel threatened by it has always perplexed me.)
Prescribed gender roles can be a prison for boys and men as well; when my mother was taking me to ERA rallies in the Seventies, she used to tell me we were marching for the rights of boys to be whoever they wanted to just as much as for the rights of girls to do the same. It made sense to me then and it makes sense to me now, and I tell my daughter the same thing.
It's nice to see some more inclusive content here. Thank you, Ms. Clark-Flory, and keep it up.
-
Um, am I missing something here, or...
[Read the article: Book news and media campaign coverage]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... didn't Anne Marie Cox start out as a blogger?
Where exactly does she get off dissing Glenn as insufficiently respectful toward journalists "like her"? Or perhaps this is just another example of the identity crisis the earlier commenter mentioned.
Wow, success really does change people...
-
Ridiculing "37 and a forfeit"?
[Read the article: Book news and media campaign coverage]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I Wouldn't Call A 37 And Forfeit Gay or prissy, but it is subject to earned ridicule of some sort."
Quite so. A candidate's bowling abilities are eminently relevant to his or her presidential potential. (And masculinity. Even/especially if she's female.)
Some good-natured ribbing? Sure. But what we're seeing is the reading of Obama's right hook as if it's a bone-china cup of tea leaves giving hints as to what he might do if bin Ladin launches another attack on American soil. Let's not give the morons more ammunition to stuff down their bent and rusty musket barrels, eh?
-
There is a worthy defense to be made for Clinton's continued candidacy...
[Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... but this biased tripe ain't it. I call "bullshit."
-
THAT'S the single Editor's Choice letter?
[Read the article: No, Hillary Clinton shouldn't be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Oh, wait -- I just remembered who the editor is. (Kidding, Ms. Walsh, kidding.)
<<The majority of white people who aren't voting for Obama are either turned off by his personality cult following or are all too aware of his complete lack of qualifications for the job of President.>>
I will leave alone the offensiveness of the continuing insistence, by every Clinton supporter from Bill Clinton on down, that those who support Obama are hoodwinked devotees in thrall to his secret alchemical powers. (Obama rolls a 17! He's a Charisma +12 already! OMG, who can withstand his sinister charms???)
<<You can stop race-baiting now. Obama has all but won the nomination. I suggest that you stop calling all of the people who didn't vote for him racists and start trying to convince them that he is qualified to be President, or, at the very least, that McCain is so overwhelmingly unqualified that Obama looks good in comparison.
-- jebldmm >>
I will merely reply that
a) Calling a few of the people who didn't vote for Obama racists isn't the same as calling them all racists. Duh.
b) When Clinton supporters stop accusing everyone who didn't vote for her of doing so out of a latent sexism so deep they're utterly unaware of its presence (Manchurian Voters!), then and only then will Mr. Wilentz have a leg to stand on while making his "suggestion."
I finish with this. I didn't write in response to Joan Walsh's latest round of editorials because I tire of their premise, the implication that because I, my wife, my mother, and countless other people of both genders and all races support Obama, we are oblivious prisoners of our own deep-seated sexism.
That all humans are affected by a myriad of biases both evident and subtle seems to me obvious; we are all charred pots and kettles in that regard. But Ms. Walsh seems now almost to be implying that if we don't accept her reasoning re: Hillary Clinton, we are not only bad Democrats but bad Salon readers. She trumpets having tripled the site's readership during her tenure. For this I give her laud, but I've been a reader of this site for far more years than she's been the editor, and she has no right to insinuate that supporting Salon and supporting Obama are mutually incompatible. I love my country, Obama and Salon. And you, Ms. Walsh, cannot take any of those away from me.
(I'd end by saying I miss David Talbot, were it not for the fact that I would surely be accused of more hopeless, latent sexism as a result. Yes, certainly, such prejudice alone could account for my preference. I mean, triple the readers!)
-
MM Overreaction a Boon for Obama?
[Read the article: Did the "bitter" flap affect the race?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Am I crazy, or is it just possible that this regular cycle of traditional media (or one of the other candidates) seizing on some fairly innocuous utterance of Obama's, disingenuously twisting its meaning, and then wildly overreacting to it actually redounds to Obama's benefit?
I'm wondering if, by the time the average, not-that-plugged-in voter hears about such "controversies," the discussion is so hysterical and obviously overpitched that the reaction of most reasonable people with more important things to deal with can only be: "Meh. Doesn't sound like that big a deal to me."
Just another quirk to consider in this most unprecedented campaign.
-
Contra modenastradale...
[Read the article: Anti-abortion, pro-Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have to differ and say I thought this post was funny, thoughtful, and, while admittedly a bit stream-of-consciousness, nonetheless quite enjoyably so. Brava, Ms. Harris.
-
Memo to self:
[Read the article: Ladies, fight rape with ankle bracelets]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Avoid Italy.
-
In a word, Ms. Walsh: Better.
[Read the article: What Pennsylvania tells us]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you for your reasoned and even-handed post. Sincerely; that's what I, as a Premium Salon customer, want to see out of my favorite web daily's editor. Your wrap-up was particularly thoughtful.
I will add only one thing to what you wrote, viz: "What I don't like about the current stalemate is that so many people who are not Barack Obama insist Clinton's victories have nothing to do with the real concerns of her supporters; they argue it's either racism, or just old machine politics, with Clinton wardheelers paying their dues and turning out votes. "
Respectfully, what I have yet to see you acknowledge is that this phenomenon, which I agree is unfortunate and even reprehensible, is mirrored on the Clinton side by Hillary supporters who insist that preferring Obama to Clinton can only be a reflection of sexism, cult-addled hypnosis, or both. In fact, you yourself have implied such things in previous posts. I would feel far more sanguine about your even-handedness as an editor (not as a person; you absolutely are free to have personal preferences, as are we all) if you could bring yourself to see the inconsistency there.
Keep it up. Thanks again.
-
Hard to see?
[Read the article: Prepare for the assault on "Grand Theft Auto IV"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's impossible to see why it should be any different. The double standard for games versus movies, particularly when perpetuated for the purpose of political gain, is galling.
-
How about we compromise and you be a HUMEROUS feminist? :P
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann apologizes for his Clinton remark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Seriously, I agree with the substance here, notwithstanding that I'm a Obama man. I'm also a feminist -- even when occasionally scolded that I am not allowed to be by virtue of my equipment -- and Olbermann, whom I also love, made a legitimate mistake. Glad to see he owned it; also glad to see that you, Ms. Walsh, didn't fly off the handle but treated the matter with both an even tone and the contempt it deserved.
I feel like we're making real progress here. :-)
Oh, and let's not assume feminism and a sense of humor must be mutually exclusive. (Look at that cover story on Tina Fey and Amy Poelher!)