Letters to the Editor
-
Post-feminist
I'll be a post-feminist in a post-patriarchy.
-
Too bad you are only QUOTING from something thoughtful
Instead of having a thoughtful informed feminist commentator who can write about may subjects, including women, Salon does a glib little blog where you can quote little tidbits when someone else does their homework?
That's so 2003, people. You are real journalists, not college kids with a BLOG who can quote and applaud other people's professional writing.
Aren't you?
-
being sexist?
Seems that it would be impossible to defend Miers without being sexist. She is so unqualified that everything about her has been considered a fair tarket. There are comments about the way men dress also if they are in the bottem of the qualified barrel. Ranting about nothing is a stand up routine, maybe it is a columist job also.
-
Re: Sexist piglets
Some of the comments were seemingly sexist but I really
think those comments were just in poor taste and maybe
not meant to be sexist. I am no fan of H. Meirs but I
think the comments really arise out of the tremendous
frustration people feel toward the Bush way of running
our country. The Bush/Cheney/Republican/radical right
wing white southern evangelical religious/Catholic way
of constantly politicizing/spinning/lying about every-
thing has an ever and rapidly growing number of Americans frustrated and angry.
The relationship between Bush and Meirs is also offensive and quite juvenile to many of us who expect
more intelligence and sophistication of these people.
Instead many and certainly I feel insulted that another
'stupidity' is being foisted on us with such typical
Bush/Republican arrogance. They just must think we are
that dumb as to not be able to see through their constant shenanigans and screw-ups'. So we/I just feel
another load of frustration and anger. As a result some
tactless statements come out similar to those directed
at Ms. Meirs.
bob t Conservative/independant/white/
male/Catholic and very staunch
American
-
Fed up
In the same column as Rebecca Triaster reiteration of Ellen Goodman�s scold about criticizing Harriet Meiers for �sexist� reasons, there was a link to a website that analyzes Tom DeLay�s nostrils for signs of botched plastic surgery. So what are you implying?? HMMMM? That the only reason Tom DeLay gained the power that he did is because he�s a MAN?? Or, that the only reason Tom DeLay is now being criticized is because he�s a MAN?? Or are you just poking fun at an ego inflated ass who may now be getting some well earned comeuppance? That couldn�t possibly be it, could it?
I am so tired of being scolded about how or why I should or shouldn�t express my opinion about Harriet Meiers (and Judith Miller too, by the way). I have read every opinion from �You need to support her because she�s a woman� to �Even if you dislike her, you have to be nicer about it because she�s a woman.� Otherwise, you are a traitor to your Sistahs.
You want to know what�s sexist? Sexist is saying that because a Supreme Court seat was vacated by a woman, it must be filled by a woman, as opposed to the most qualified person. Sexist is long winded explanations about why we need a �female perspective� on the court, as opposed to an educated judicial perspective. Sexist is implying that we should overlook Meiers obvious unsuitability for this position because �women have to work twice as hard as men to get anywhere�. (So does that mean it would be ok to put a man who was half as qualified as Meiers on the court, if it were possible to find such a person?)
When people are nominated for highly visible and powerful positions in government, they are subjected to the most public of dissections, as well they should be. Sometimes those dissections are superficial (Look, she shops at Talbots!), but calling them sexist is ridiculous. When W and his minions took over the White House, how many articles were there about the short hours that W keeps, and how much time he spends in the gym? Is this vital information? No. Is it entertaining to make jokes about it. Yes. Is that wrong? I don�t think so, but I don�t claim those chuckles are insightful.
Harriet Meiers offends me because she is unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court. She offends me in the same way that Michael Brown, ex horse judge and infrastructure destroyer, offends me. If I crack wise about the insipid �kitten in a tree� birthday card she sent �the greatest president EVER� am I being sexist? No. Mostly I�m trying to distract myself from weeping.
It isn�t George Bush�s Supreme Court. It�s OUR Supreme Court. It belongs to us, the American people. Bush has shown just how high his esteem is for us by nominating his �pal� and potentially saddling the highest court in the land with a someone who might not be qualified to oversee traffic court. Quit coming up with excuses to make this a 'feminist issue'. It's not.
Don�t tell me how I should feel about this �as a woman�. As an American, I�m appalled and offended.
-
Harriet Miers
I don't think it's sexist to comment on a woman whose primary qualification seems to be that she thinks her boss is "cool." It's great if you work for someone you admire and respect, but please don't get sugary about it.
If she had plenty of other qualifications, THEN the remarks might be seen as sexist. At this point, critics seem to be pointing out the painfully obvious.