Letters to the Editor
Anonymust
Published Letters: 2032 Editor's Choice: 74
-
Re: one of bjkeefe's suggestions
[Read the article: Men who hate women on the Web]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One final alternative: Joel Spolsky was talking about the way his forums are moderated. Somehow, the offensive comments are deleted, but the original poster still sees them as apparently there. The long-term result, Spolsky says, is that the trolls grow disheartened at the lack of reaction and go elsewhere.
What is not to like about that idea?! Sounds technically involved, but equally effective.
-
Medical parity
[Read the article: Fatherhood funds neglect moms?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...is really only just beginning to exist for women.
Perhaps breast cancer does get a lot more press, but that's only because the private sector has made it happen. Susan Komen's sister, in particular. The federal government, to the extent it contributes, has only done so because of public pressure.
In reality, more women die from other causes than breast cancer, for which men have traditionally been the study subjects, e.g., heart disease. There are reasons why men are more likely to survive heart attacks and open-heart surgery, some of which we don't even know yet. But we do know that women are less likely to be diagnosed properly, and more likely to be sent home. Being African-American is also more likely to prevent one from getting proper care for heart disease.
You may think that NOW is over the top, and perhaps they are in this case, but if you only knew how I would propose to organize health care, you would really be worried. Except that it will never happen. I do think it should be woman-child (and minority-) centered, just for a little balance, since it has been so white-male-centered for so long, from research to who provides a family's insurace coverage.
Just consider that most of those who live in poverty are women with children. How many of them really have adequate access to health care. Of course, that story is changing a bit now, since so many adults with reasonably well-paying jobs are also without health care. (Time for a new administration with the political will to solve this.)
And then there's the battle women have had to wage just to get insurance providers to cover oral contraceptives (which should be less overall than the unwanted pregancies they prevent). Yet, there was no similar ruckus required for drugs like cialis. Nor have I heard of any pharmacists quizzing men about how they intend to use the cialis, or whether they are married; nor have I heard of any refusing to fill such prescriptions because it would violate their personal ethics. In fact, I really can't think of any morals tests to which men are subjected in order to receive necessary care or treatment. (Another big reason Joe L was so unpopular in CT was because he thought it would have little impact to allow Catholic hospitals to treat rape victims with less than optimal care.)
Granted, I've gone pretty far afield here (it was the Planned Parenthood references that brought up the medical issues) but that is because the challenges to women in getting their own health care needs met, as well as their children's, is still a huge burden for many. Still, I wouldn't begrudge a truly valid program that would enhance fatherhood. I am justifiably skeptical, though, that during this administration such a thing could really happen.
-
That is (at least partly) just the point, Margalis & D Sugarman
[Read the article: Men who hate women on the Web]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The interesting thing about this Kathy Sierra stuff is that she isn't writing about feminism or political issues - it's a technical blog about building a user-base. So it is disconcerting that she would have some internet enemies who would go as far as they did.
Perhaps it's a bit like controlling for variables... and could be interpreted as "proof" that the attacks against Sierra really were motivated by some combination of sexism and/or misogyny. After all, it's not as if she was "asking for it" by writing about politics or some other gender-polarizing topic.
But, if it isn't about her content, i.e., the substance of her posts, then what could it be about? Perhaps just the fact that she's a woman? (Or perhaps that she's an especially attractive woman, who is also very smart and successful, and therefore, appears even more unattainable?) Regardless, death threats (or even just threats to personal safety & privacy) are unacceptable. Even if her content had been "asking for it."
And, many of the complaints you are reading here from women (and some men) also deal with attacks that often have little or nothing to do with content or substance, but instead try, with varying degrees of success to pull the discussion away from content and toward the personal, and for targeted women that usually means some kind of sexual smear or intimidation. Most people, including women, can deal with a disagreement over substance, but personal attacks cannot really be argued against with substance, except perhaps in a meta thread like this one, or by using some technical solution like the ones that have been discussed.
* * *
I won't argue that everyone else doesn't also have their own inherent sense of entitlement (women included), just that some "entitlements" are more dangerous and lethal than others. And, it is true that there is a certain type of man (more likely a boy, or young man) who feels entitled to step on women just because they can. Since they have the equipment for it. And they can get away with it.