Letters to the Editor
mikeyfil
Published Letters: 32
-
L.W.M.--I think you're missing a few points
[Read the article: Misadventures in logical reasoning -- and lessons learned from the Spitzer scandal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's see, I'm "missing the point" even though I'm an anthropologist--so, we can use anthropology as a tool to uncover our own unexamined or unconscious biases and then maybe change our cultural understandings and possibly our social institutions and this is what? wrong? useless? "we can't concern ourselves with other cultures"--why not? we have nothing to learn from others? What exactly is your understanding of social/cultural anthropology?
"We make laws based on this culture"--isn't this exactly the same argument the Bush admin (Bolton?)made about looking at how other cultures/countries consider torture? That we made our own laws and could do whatever the fuck we wanted without regard to the international community?
What are you saying, our culture doesn't change? Our laws don't change? They shouldn't change? How did women ever get the vote? How did slavery end?
Referring to an op-ed piece? Please, spare me the snide attitude. For one thing, Kristoff knows a lot about violence against women, which is a reality that doesn't seem to hit your radar. And, since I was responding to a guy who seemed to think that because Japanese people didn't have issues about public nudity, that this somehow meant that gender bias against women doesn't exist there, I thought the NYT piece might be a good start for him. You too, apparently.
"Violence against women is about the same"--No, not really. Raping women in warfare is one thing that has skyrocketed. I recently returned from a 2 year study of a part of India where violence against women (dowry murders, beatings, harassment)has increased 400% in the last decade--and this, in a state known for its left wing ideology and where men pride themselves on how liberal and enlightened they are and refuse to admit that their self-image is bullshit---sound familiar?
So you think violence remains constant--and? so? The issue isn't important? No possible connection to prostitution?
Even in the "free and consenting" atmosphere of the service Spitzer employed, women were told they had to have sex with men twice per hour, whether they liked it or not. And one woman who needed to cancel an appointment to pick up her kids was threatened with being fired--yeah, sounds like a lot of choice to me! What free agents!
Re plastic surgery/eating disorders: you really don't see any connection between these and women seeing themselves as objects to be sold? Really? Is "chill pill" the best response you can offer?
"It's called patriarchy. Surely you've heard of it." Again, spare me the attitude. And maybe you can enlighten me as to the contradictions in what you're saying. So, patriarchy exists--and what? So what? Get over it? Change it? What? On the one hand, you seem to be agreeing that the balance in male/female patrons/prostitutes is nowhere near the same. "It's called patriarchy." Are you implying we should all just accept it? No doubt it would make your life easier. But then you go on to say that "Here in America, many rich and powerful women do rent boy toys." So what is it? Do we live in a patriarchy where things aren't equal or in a country where women pay for sex at an equal rate? Surely you aren't claiming that the ratio of either "rich and powerful women" is equal to "rich and powerful men" or that the number of women who pay for boy toys is at all comparable to the number of men who use prostitutes.
"Missing all the points we do make and arguing ones we never make." Who, exactly, is "we"? The royal we? You and GG? And here I thought you were all for personal freedom and, man, I just didn't get that it is YOU who gets to determine the limits of this discourse and what other people get to say or not say. How silly of me. I thought I was responding to a blog that raised a lot of different issues and that I was free to discuss them.
And that is really the whole point, isn't it--you attempt to shut people up with ridicule or by telling them what to do ("chill")-while you scream about how you're entitled to every freedom and turn a blind eye to anyone else's reality if it might mean your freedom is impinged upon by taking their reality into consideration. After all, only your experience matters. I guess it's called patriarchy. Ever realize how infected you are with that attitude?
Spitzer's NYC downstairs neighbor wrote about how, due to the building's air ventilation system, she had to endure hours of him screaming abuse at his wife. You know, if he wanted to keep his life private, maybe he could desist from screaming. Or maybe he could treat his wife a little better. Thank god he had a place to go--the Emperor's Club--and a woman--Kristen--he could treat with consideration and respect.
Does anyone else get the impression that some of the posters here maybe routinely treat women like shit? This discussion has so gotten under their skin they need to try to control it. What is up with them?