Letters to the Editor
blunderdog
Published Letters: 509 Editor's Choice: 10
-
American Society and Power Institutions
[Read the article: Tough titties]
[Read more letters about this article: Here](Singling out "American" because that's what I know. Sounds like that's what Jessica knows too.)
Modern global capitalism is a savage system of competition for personal gain which seeks to deprive an individual the right to live if they decline to participate. In the US, it is the single most important form of domination and power dynamics, followed at a close second by physical violence.
Both of these dynamics were created by men, and are dominated by men. Not suprisingly, considering that for the minimum of tens of thousands of years of human societal development, men were the architects of the institutions which have determined that these are the two arenas that are of prime importance.
Women (as a group) don't earn as much as men because they (as a group) are less compelled to define every aspect of their success by their earnings. Women (as a group) are less violent than men because they are less driven to define their personal power in terms of physical dominance.
The strongest evidence for this is the widespread perception of the women who DO successfully compete in either violent or capitalist endeavors as misguided, bitchy, "less than women," etc. That perception is prevalent among both men and women, successful and unsuccessful. Conversely, men who do not succeed as capitalists or physically dominant are perceived as inferior, lazy, worthless, etc.
This is not in any way to suggest that there is anything _wrong_ with women who choose/prefer to seek ascendancy in those arenas. Just as there is nothing _wrong_ with a man who doesn't seek to compete in the same ways.
Rather than focus on the discrepancies between men and women in the currently dominant power structures (capitalism and violence), it may be more beneficial to question society's rigid subscription to the currently dominant power structures as the only ones worth valuing.
In other words, perhaps the (relatively unfair) competition for success which is so entrenched in American culture is fundamentally misguided, and rather than seeking equality in a rigged contest, feminists (and society overall) would see far greater benefit from the development and encouragement of societal structures which value virtues/acts other than primitive competition for resources such as money and displays of physical strength.
Ultimately, it seems to me that all persons would benefit from a true realization of feminist goals, and society would be much healthier as more alternatives to all people were developed.
(It was pointed out by Goodman, in a book called "Growing Up Absurd," that childrearing, the gender role proscribed for women in the 50's, is of profound importance, and virtually all perceptive members of a community are aware of this, even though it is not valued by the dominant "organized society" he wrote about. The past 30 years of anti-feminist effort by male-dominated institutions appears to me an effort of fearful men to prevent and reverse the encroachment of women into a power system which men themselves question as "comparably" meaningful. Does a rich man really believe that he is doing "good" of a similar societal value of a mother raising her children? Does a woman who appraises that man?)
-
50...million?
[Read the article: Living in the shadow of climate change]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Europeans settled the Americas after 50 million locals died off from disease (The American Dieback).
If I might ask, where one might find such a statistic?
Fifty million people on the Americas prior to 1700...seems off by a few dozen percent at least.
Bangladesh is in such dire straits and miserable circumstances already, it's hard to imagine that the flooding is going to make much of a difference. I'm thinking it'll be pretty incredibly lucky if the Bangladeshi population is destroyed by coincidence (effects of global warming) rather than warfare.
-
Silent Coup with the Next POTUS?
[Read the article: Democrats bear responsibility for restoring habeas corpus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Forgive my cynicism here, but couldn't we support the bill and just work to elect a Democrat (or, hell, any non-Republican) as President in '08?
I know it's crazy, but the easiest way to "fix" this problem once and for all might be for the duly-elected President to imprison a bunch of Republican House and Senate members as enemy combatants. To make the best of it, lock up a bunch of wingnut pundits, too. I'd LOVE to see footage of Brit Hume in a 4'x4' cell in Gitmo. (I'd buy a TV and sign up for cable for that, in fact.)
The backlash would most likely demonstrate the inanity of the existing law and motivate the PUBLIC to demand the necessary change.
After the outrage over the silent coup, the President would release all the "enemy combatants" and declare that it was just a strategy to accomplish something which would have been "politically impossible."
Considering that the Republicans have spent the last 12 years "gaming the system" to accomplish short-term political goals and have gotten away with it, I'd assert that this is a course of action which can at least be entertained.