Letters to the Editor
-
Scary screeds about Maureen Dowd, written by threatened men
There's something really sleazy about this post, and that's the idea that Salon would use its journalistic muscle to bully a private citizen over their opinion. Now I, personally, don't agree with the man you raked over the coals, but he has the right to his view, and without a corporation (which is what Salon is) specifically targeting him and using his customer comments on Amazon to suggest insulting things about him.
Is this liberal tolerance - attacking a private citizen for having differing views? If he had a television show, then it'd be justified. Same with a newspaper column. But he isn't a public figure, and he voiced his opinion on a website that specifically asked for his comments (are you going to start attacking your own letter-writers next?).
That you have to go this far to manufacture outrage over the response to Dowd's book actually does a powerful job of refuting your argument. Maybe it's just a lousy book? But rather than consider that, you have to go out of your way to find a post on a customer comments site to justify your sense of moral superiority and self-righteousness. How pitiful.
I think what you've done is borderline slanderous, and if I were him, I'd contact a lawyer to see if there were any legal recourse. As it stands, this is just another sad indication that Salon has lost its way.
-
Wow...
those grapes are so sour they hurt my ears.
-
Gee Mr. Ross
My husband married me when I was 23 and he was 24. Sounds right in line with your preferences. However, the kicker is that I made it CRYSTAL CLEAR from Date One that children were not an option. Guess what? He married me anyway. And 11 Childfree years later, we're still very happy being together. I haven't read Ms. Dowd's book or any of your comments other than the post in Broadstreet, but now I wonder? Is he going to leave me for some plastic bimbo who will spread her legs and spit out the kids? Considering that this is a community property state, he makes twice what I do and Oh YEAH, we're still as gushy and goo-ey as we were before we married, I doubt it.
EY
-
Women have expiration dates. Men don't."
If expiration dates are the definitive reason why men are superior to women, then why Viagra? Why do women live longer than men?
Why did the 62 year old woman bear children?
What research supports "older men" having sperm that will produce children that are without
multiple problems?
Why do men need porn to feel that they are "real men"? Could it be that having a partner that
is intellectual, successful and ambitioius theatens their manhood?
Doesn't the research tell us that the reason the species has survived over the millenia is because the females seek out the males who have the best genes? (Wouldn't that exclude the males that need a woman who is subservient and who will take anything that is male and pounds it's chest?)
Real men seek partners who are their intllecutal equal or better. Partners who can determine if and when it would be prudent to bring children into the world. Partners who will share in the raising of offspring, thus ensuring well balanced children who value the contributionds of both sexes to a family.
But then such males would not need to be insensed by Maureen Dowd's tounge in cheek book.
What a shame that those males who rant, don't have a clue!
Intuit
-
Amazon Comments?
Or as they are called, "Customer Reviews?" Was Ms. Traister not able to find some appropriately mysoginistic review in print before she turned to the readers'comments on Amazon? Mr. Ross' "review" is tough to read; it is obviously the work of someone who considers himself very clever, and wants to present this ingenius idea he's come up with as dramitically as possible. Unfortunately, this peice is more coherent than most of the reader comments on Amazon.
The internet is supposed to bring the opinions and thoughts of the world to our computers. Fair enough. But let's keep such drivel where it belongs; let's not write editorials responding to it; this type of thing just encourages people like Ross.
-
Get thee to a nunnery
You know, I'm not a mother and never plan to be one, but I'm starting to feel downright maternal and protective toward all those fertile young twenty-somethings that Ross and his ilk claim so highly prize. Somehow becoming the reproductive vessels of such Sensitive New-Age Guys and bearing little carbon copies of them seems like a terrible price to pay for that nice shiny bit of finger bling and an MRS degree.
And I have to say that if I weren't already married (to a nifty guy who doesn't want to breed and doesn't care about my sell-by date), I'd definitely prefer singlehood over the Type-A narcissists Dowd seems to think are the only eligible men in the world.
Poor Maureen. She apparently doesn't think she can do any better. Who the hell would want to marry a New York uberhack? I'd go into a convent first.
-
for Elizabeth...
I wonder what is sadder. Someone who has bought into divisive "liberal" "conservative" simplistic notions of the world, or a woman who is too dumb to know that she is being marginalized and doesn't mind that she is considered too dumb to be anything but a breeder for the superior male?
-
So hypocritical it's scary
The ongoing assumption here is that becoming a mother is just some mindless, lower-class form of breeding -- that's it's not a relevant, important or interesting occupation, certainly not in the same league as the fantastically important Maureen Dowd. She gets to be famous! Rich! Date famous, rich men! She went to college! She speaks her mind! She's a blue-ribbon bitch. Really. Bottom line. She's just awful. Of everyone on earth women on this board choose to defend, why someone as self-centered, hostile, infantile, superficial and just plain tedious as her? Explain, please.
-
Elizabeth displays very exactly a style of expression and argument
that I have never heard except from young conservative men. I guess progress is truly being made towards equality, androgony, and all those other good things.