Letters to the Editor
Anonymust
Published Letters: 1976 Editor's Choice: 74
-
Thank you for the thought, Casual Observer
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Unfortunately, that wasn't the reference I was making. I was referring to an even more gratuitous comment here by someone who should have known better. He was calling Norah O'Donnell a crappy-headed ho. And I'd had enough. [After Imus, this one could only have been pre-meditated.]
I've actually seen the clip with Imus, and read the transcript, and, even though it's no excuse, I could see how it could have happened. Live radio, and all. Who doesn't make mistakes. But that doesn't excuse him, especially because it wasn't nearly the first time. Nor was it the first time he'd promised to change his ways. The market has spoken regarding Imus. As for McGuirk and Rosenberg, who knows...
Still, what WAS news to me was how many (mostly) white (mostly) male members of the the political and pundit class appeared on his show to hawk their books, while avoiding the darker side... I really think every last one of THEM should be held accountable. And, yet, today, I heard some RW pundits wanting to hold political candidates accountable for their appearances on Imus, or for raising money from Rap stars. Please!!! Tom Oliphant? Jeff Greenfield? To name just two? What is their excuse? Hip-hop made them do it? [The new "twinkie" defense...]
-
I appreciate your response, WT
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I believe you have every right to call anyone out who uses it without full cognizance of the context, and without acknowledging that he's taking advantage of the built-in psychological advantage -- always unfair -- which usage of the term confers on him. William Timberman
And I will continue to do so. One thing about Salon is that at least I don't have to worry about my comments being deleted if I call someone on their use of epithets. Believe it or not, there are progressive sites where one cannot question the posters' use of such terms without being banned. The irony! At Salon it is the Trolls who worry about being deleted, but they have little to fear. Go figure...
-
Thanks to you both, WT and Jay
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are both getting right at the very heart of what makes sexism/misogyny so entrenched and seem so pervasively hostile for women... that the worst names you can call ANYONE are (generic) words that mean female-- and subservient.
I hope this topic is done for now, so I can go back to mostly lurking on this blog.
Still, if anyone is interested, the best televised discussion I've seen about this was on MTP today. I caught it online. About 20 minutes in (after Zinni interview), Russert, Ifill, Harwood, Brooks, Robinson discuss Imus and his firing. In fact, they finished the hour with it, and left two other stories on the table. Ifill was stellar.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10005066/
Thanks again!
-
Thanks, LWM... I didn't see your response until after posting that "last" comment
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thought we were in agreement, too, but wasn't sure you knew. So, I wanted to be clearer. I don't usually have this much trouble being clear... it's just this topic.
Fwiw, construction workers in my area seem to have been getting some kind of training. I work near a campus with a lot of pretty, young students, but... not a peep do you hear. My quarrel, if that's what it was, is/was not with those who have less sophisticated tools (I'm not that unreasonable), but with those who do have more options for expression, but choose not to use them, preferring to let us all be painted with the same broad brush.
And there was quite a brouhaha on the internets a few months back about the c-word. In this case, it began with its use on a progressive blog about a RW woman, and another progressive blogger (also male) calling him on it. From there, all hell broke loose. Particular mention was made of its use in the UK, mostly men using it for other men. The consensus, at least as I read it, was that it still didn't translate here. (Some men trying to get women to go along with it, others calling them on it, women (mostly) wanting nothing to do with it.) If you're interested, I'll find the links for you, but otherwise, I'm content to let that one go. (Whether or not epithets could ever be reclaimed (by either their cohort, or by white men) was part of that multi-threaded discussion. Again, the consensus was skepticism at best.)
"and though they are the soul of brevity, lack wit as well as charm" sounds more like a reference to Parker: "Brevity is the soul of lingerie" ...I think that's what she wrote.
-
Still waitng to move on...
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Neither O'Donnell nor Coulter are defensible-- I never said give either of them a pass-- but then neither is calling any woman a crappy-headed bush ho defensible.
Except, apparently, on this blog where it seems preferable to conflate a legitimate complaint with the divisive strategy of an "esteemed" troll.
Yes, that's real nice.
-
LWM, nope I'm not a Randian
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]although I did enjoy reading Atlas Shrugged many,many moons ago. Still, the quote is spot on. That book has probably done a lot of damage.
And your link to Shakespeare's Sister was one of many links to that brouhaha I mentioned. It would take about a week to read them all, including comments. At the time, I thought of drawing some kind of tree for my blog showing all of the links and the back and forth, but then one of the other bloggers (a woman of color) compiled a comprehensive list of links. And then a few more did, too. So, I let it go. (The main difference between SS and me is probably age-- I'm older. Still, her conclusion says it all.)