Letters to the Editor
Anonymust
Published Letters: 2031 Editor's Choice: 74
-
I would enjoy some street theater, too
[Read the article: A depressing victory for Bill Donohue]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But it would probably be much more effective to put a reporter on this case. Clearly, the man has issues. Somewhere, buried beneath them is a big, steaming pile of hypocrisy, I'm sure. Haven't we learned anything from the past six years, if not more (let's include the Clinton Administration, too).
The right-wing lunatics excel at marrying hypocrisy with overt projection.
I don't know what Donohue's secret might be (S&M, impotence, unadmitted homoeroticism...) could be anything, but I'll bet it's enough to make him resign his highly lucrative position and quite embarrassing real Catholics with his PR-swarm tactics.
-
Oops, typo...
[Read the article: A depressing victory for Bill Donohue]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I meant "quit" embarrassing real Catholics.
-
Words do pierce, no matter how others insist they really don't
[Read the article: Men who hate women on the Web]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I admit that I thought Margaret Spelling's advice to Dana Perino this week was funny, but well-intended, once I'd heard it in its complete context. Just seeing the headline, though, "Pull up your big girl panties," I was nonplussed. And that was nothing compared to Kathy Sierra's story (I was already a non-tech fan of hers), or for that matter, what happens here at Salon, and especially at Broadsheet (and at SYA). I'd already tracked her story from blog to blog days ago, and read the Broadsheet story early, but did not go back to catch the rest of the comments, since I was pretty sure what they would be like. Who can judge her for considering her and her daughter's safety first?
Frankly, I really don't understand why certain men feel such a strong and incontrollable need to express so much hostility on a site like Broadsheet, when it's intended for discussing women's issues, but I guess it's like anything else. Sports are not enough. There are always a few controlling men who just can't leave something well enough alone, and have to twist it to their own ends. Real men, like the ones I have known, would consider such behavior beneath them. Intimidating women? Really! It is so NOT manly, yet it IS on a par with our posturing president's bravado, and his base's insistence that those with more power (or muscle) really CAN claim to be the victim or the underdog. They still don't get it.
Unfortunately, here such trolls have been allowed to prosper. I understand the reluctance to censor or delete, but I don't agree with it when it comes to misogynistic (or other hate-filled) attacks. That speech is not Free.
Most of the women I know who've been in relationships like that left them just as soon as they reasonably could. Sometimes, the comment threads remind me of those awful news stories, like the one with the guy chasing his girlfriend and a friend of hers and a child in a car across a train track where her car stalled (she was trying to leave him), and they were all killed by an oncoming train. But not the guy. Granted, that's pretty hyperbolic, but the degree of obsession is pretty accurate. Ironically, he just couldn't bear to let her go. At my age, I am still surprised at how often a man will think that he can fight a woman into paying attention to him and taking him more seriously.
I can hardly wait until 2008, and a chance for a new model of manhood to arrive.
So, most often I try to read only editor's choice letters (hopefully there are some), and in that way avoid the real stomach churners. Also, I used to sign my comments with my full name, because I think an honest opinion merits a name to go with it, and I included the link to my blog. But a few comment threads some time ago made me realize that probably wasn't such a good idea. So, I edited my profile. Could be worse. At another site, I had to quit using my name and initial and revert to initials only because some creep highjacked my "identity" and posted something disgusting in a comment thread while pretending to be me. I tried to address it with the blog owner, but never received even the courtesy of a reply. However, since then I have noticed that some comments do get deleted. I just don't know what kind. I won't be run off, though. I just use a different anonymous alias, one that is genderless. (LOL, since then, I wondered what it would be like to play a similar trick on a troll, but instead of writing something disgusting, letting him have an epiphany, in which he apologized for all of his previous troll-like behavior. But I didn't do it. Yet.)
On occasion, I will defend the LWs at SYA, who are often sorely abused, or someone at Broadsheet, but not as often as I should, and I'm sorry I couldn't wade through the voluminous thread of the Lamott interview, and offer some support there, to Joan and Anne, as well.
I make no apologies for being one of those who have consistently complained about the tone of the comment threads, while asking for more moderation, and suggesting that perhaps some of Salon's readers need an orientation about what a "salon" is. Think Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas, or Edith Wharton. What, too "nice?" Then you don't know how ruthless they could be. Conformity in thought was not required, but guests were expected to behave, and if they did not, they risked not being invited again. (The key!) No pearl clutching or concern trolling-- they were mavericks after all-- just an expectation of civilized behavior, the kind parents teach their children.
So, how about just banning some IPs and/or ISPs from commenting, while still allowing them to read?
And, yes, I continue to subscribe to Salon, because I still get so much from it... even without reading those things that do not interest me.