Letters to the Editor
chowder
Published Letters: 16 Editor's Choice: 1
-
a film with a conservative message in more than one way
[Read the article: Abortion, shmashmortion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Even though I am pro-choice, I enjoyed the movie and laughed a lot over it...much the way I enjoy reading a Jane Austen novel even if I don't necessarily agree with her politics.
It is a movie with a rather conservative message, not only when it comes to abortion. Irresponsible, pot-smoking, porn-watching slacker learns to grow up, get a real job, and become a dependable family man. Glamorous career woman in a superficial industry decides that "family values" are more important than partying, finding a handsome, successful and mature mate, or even possibly advancing in her career. However, with regard to the last item, it turns out to be a win-win situation because, it turns out, viewers love mothers-to-be; the message here being that women don't necessarily have to choose between motherhood and successful career, another real-world problem the movie glosses over. Happy ending in this case = deciding to keep the baby and forming a nuclear family unit. That the couple doesn't actually get married (if I remember correctly) is one way in which it deviates from a conservative worldview, but despite the lack of a contract, they form a traditional family unit nevertheless.
As I said, I didn't really mind the conservative message, probably because the movie handled it without being didactic. I didn't feel like I was being preached to that I should make the same choices the characters did. How the movie avoided doing that is worth thinking about, but I don't have time to go into it right now.
Most of the posts I read that saw the movie as anti-abortion seemed to assume the filmmakers were caving to public pressure. Has anyone considered that maybe the filmmaker set out to make a film with a pro-family message? (I have not seen the director's other films so I can't compare them.)
One other thing that did bother me a bit about KU that no one else seemed to have mentioned (if they did, I missed it) is the beauty and the beast theme. This is yet another movie that sends the message that women can look past a man's shortcomings (lack of maturity, lack of income, lack of physical attractiveness) and learn to be happy with a less-than-perfect man, but which doesn't call upon men to question their superficiality in judging women.
-
nothing new
[Read the article: Sexing up grade school]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ripple is right--there is nothing new about this idea. When I was growing up a lot of girls had "play" makeup that came in atrocious bright colors--a lot of pink, of course. I even remember a group of girls in the third grade putting on the makeup at recess and wearing it in school. Of course, that's when the teacher got angry and yelled at them: "You look like a bunch of cheap teenage hookers!" Ah, those were the good old days...
-
BB, I hope you won't mind a little rewriting:
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Gary Owen: This cartoon is full of shit. It's pointless!
Anonymous: No, it's an allegory of religious intolerance. It's very subtle and intelligent.
Gary Owen: No, you moron. People are being blown to bits, and this is about a cutesy little penguin peeing in the tub. Tee-hee.
Anonymous: No, it's insightful commentary about people who blow each other to bits over religion.
Gary Owen: IT'S POINTLESS!!
Anonymous: INSIGHTFUL!!
Opus: People are so silly, but whatcha gonna do? Stop it!
All: Arrgh! Ow! Ow! Grrr!
-
Why not require a waiting period?
[Read the article: Too young to tie your tubes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It would be one thing if the woman was making a spur-of-the-moment decision. I can understand why a doctor might want to prevent a woman from doing something she might regret if s/he thought it was not well thought out. However, it sounds like this woman was very determined to do it. If I were a doctor in this case, I might have a good talk with the woman making sure she realized it was irreversible. Then I'd tell her to wait a certain length of time (maybe 6 months to a year), and if she still wanted it after that time, I'd do it. What right would any doctor have to say s/he knew better after giving the patient that much time to consider it?
-
Can we just stop with the reductive, pseudo-scientific bullcrap about gender differences?
[Read the article: Scientists: Chicks like pink]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Now we have an entire generation of women thinking the reason they like to shop, shop, shop is because they are biologically wired to hunt for berries and that it has nothing to do with the power of marketing and inherited gender roles.
The problem with this study, as most of the letter writers were smart enough to realize, is that it sets out to prove something we already realized would be true--that women like pink more than men--and comes up with an experiment to prove it. But since we already knew adult women would like pink, proving that it's true is not the interesting part. The interesting part would be *why* this is so, but their "evolutionary" explanation for why has nothing at all to do with the study, and is not supported--and probably could not be supported--by any evidence whatsoever.
These kinds of phony evolutionary explanations are usually there just to support the status quo and make people think their gender roles are fixed and unchangeable. Although in this case it is relatively harmless, in other cases this is not so. Broadsheet, I think there are much more pressing things to be discussed in this forum--please don't waste the platform you've been given on this unhelpful, trashy pseudo-science. Or if you must, please dare to say something intelligent about it.