Letters to the Editor
Rowyna
Published Letters: 105 Editor's Choice: 36
-
ask yourself...
[Read the article: College girls gone wild (and proud of it)]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I completely agree that all this media attention is about one thing - trying to make young women feel bad about their sexuality in order to control them.
As far as 'Tennis Hos' parties go, this is yet another example of making a big deal out of nothing. I like to think of myself as an intellegent young woman. I read the salon, I went to a 'good' college, and I count myself as someone who believes very strongly in women's rights. I also, while attending said 'good college' sometimes went to theme dances an parties in very short skirts. The shortness of my skirt did not correlate with a shortness of brains. Sometimes at said parties I would meet an attractive young man and we might end up 'making out' or, god forbid, having (protected) sex! My god, I MUST BE A WHORE. Or so these hand wringing, head shaking articles would have us believe.
You say you're worried about your young daughter in this climate, but I would hope that by the time your daughter is 20 (college-aged) you would trust her enough to make her own choices and not be shocked an appalled if she occassionally has sex outside the socially accepted confines of a 'serious relationship'.
I also wonder what the people who are wringing their hands in dispair got up to in college themselves. Are we to believe that our parents NEVER EVER got drunk? That they NEVER EVER had sex with people they maybe had just met? That they NEVER EVER wore short skirts, or attended costume parties? Because I find the whole 'girls gone wild' debate a hypocritical media-inspired frenzy designed to take pot-shots at the young women in Gen X & Y.
I am not going to apologise for my sexual freedom to my parents' generation. I'm sorry that if when they went out and had a few drinks and a good time they felt shame and guilt. I don't believe I should.
These 'girls' gone wild aren't girls at all. They aren't prepubecent teens that need 'protecting'. They are ADULTS, and as such, should be able to dress how they want and sleep with who they chose, and if the MS media have a problem with it, maybe they should take a good hard look at their own messed-up mixed messages.
-
feel bad for dolores
[Read the article: My husband has Chinese ancestry but his son wants to keep it secret]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If the kid is 22, shes not a kid at all, but an adult. And her parents should tell her who her biological parents are. It is the responsible thing to do. Unfortunately it isnt the LW responsiblity to do this, however frustrating it must be. The secret will come out, and probably in a way far more damaging than if the woman's parents had just told her the truth.
As far as the chinese ancestory thing goes, I don't think a denial necessarily means that the step son is: "upset because they believe that virtue and human value are assigned by one's genes rather than by one's behavior -- in other words, because of racism". Rather many of us have built a picture of who we are based on our family's history and traditions. To be told that those traditions may not be true/aren't the whole story could be understandable overwhelming to some people. The ironic thing is that the step son is creating another false family history for his daughter, who is not her daughter at all. As such, he may be quite sensitive about, or even scared by, geneology and the idea of family heritage that can be found out through genetic testing.
-
can't we agree to disagree?
[Read the article: Manufacturing belief]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Seems like there isn't enough evidence on either side for a conviction! It bothers me that many of the people using science to back their claim to there (essentially) being no god/supernatural force often start out with such a strong bias that they are almost certainally BOUND to find what they are looking for. The same is true of the 'believers' camp, but that's been pointed out for years.
Making a scientific argument to support your own personally held beliefs and biases will almost always lead to a flawed 'expirament' that suprise suprise, supports what you allready 'knew' to be 'fact'.
Many aspects of religion are total bunk, and have been shown to be so. However the big questions - is there a god, what is the purpose of life, is there an afterlife - remain valid questions that science has failed to adequately rule on one way or the other.
I say, keep looking - to both the aethists and the god-camp.
You never know... maybe in the future we'll find a way to artifically create the 'hard wiring' that the religious call a 'soul' and save it... its not impossible. Nothing is.
I think the picture is just too big for a book like Wolpert's to wrap up into a neat little box.