Letters to the Editor
-
Girl on girl action
I want to make two points:
1) Ya know, I hate it when we women are our own worst critics, no matter what flavor of woman we are so easily criticizing. Whatever happened to the utopian idea that we women stand together against harsh, simplistic stereotypes (or was that only if they were like YOU)?
2) Who really cares what anyone says about anyone?
-
The article actually said:
" The reporter, Libby Copeland, seems to want McCain to come off as a bimbo. . . Similar logic has governed media portrayals of Paris Hilton and Jessica Simpson. Half-baked assertions that these women are merely "acting" like sexified dimwits."
In otherwords, Charly here was critiquing the media's portrayal of McCain as a bimbo. And it is noteworthy that the Republican party, for which McCain is blogging, campaigns on anti-intellectualism and women-as-fluffy-bunnies-not-human-beings.
To Libertyson, I am a young woman, and a Hillary supporter, and I have never said something like Obama has an "overwhelming need to beat people over the head with his intelligence." Maybe it's immature women rather than young women who feel defensive upon reading this article.
-
More than just a little judgemental...
I have to say, more than a critique of the Post profile this column comes off as a major slam of Meghan McCain. Perhaps she doesn't come from the same mold as Chelsea Clinton (the seemingly perfect first daughter), but why does she have to? You betray some ugly prejudices ("fake baked", "bimbo") in what is ostensibly a media critique. Why not just drop the pretense and change the title of the piece to "Meghan McCain Pisses Me Off"?
-
"Hilary's campaign amounts to nothing more than a bitter, messianic, ego trip"
this [comment] comes off as a major slam of [Hillary Clinton]. Perhaps she doesn't come from the same mold as [Obama] (the seemingly perfect [canidate]), but why does she have to? You betray some ugly prejudices ("[bitter]", "[messianic]") in what is ostensibly a [broadsheet article] critique. Why not just drop the pretense and change the title of the piece to "[Hillary Clinton] pissess me off"?
-
an immediate reply to "beigelights" defense of Wilder's mean-spirited, catty article
Dear "Beigelights",
You're correct; a previous letter-writer was off-base in suggesting that Ms. Wilder referred to M. McCain, Jessice Simpson, or Paris Hilton as "sexified dimwits".
Ms. Wilder was characterizing/"critiquing" the media's portrayal of these women. I'll give the "sassy" Ms. Wilder a pass on that particular bit of bitchy, self-congratulatory name-slinging.
However, "Beigelights"?....do recall that the intrepid, media-critiquing Ms. Wlder of Broadsheet began her sentence by referring to at least a couple of these women as "witless starlets".
To wit....she is critiquing the media for portraying-as-"sexified-dimwits" those whom she's already referred to as "witless starlets"?
As for your implication that the entire Republican party "campaigns on...women-as-fluffy-bunnies"? Tell that to Elizabeth Dole (or for that matter, several other prominent, patently female&Republican battle-axes).
Moreover, I do indeed believe that you've "never said anything like "Obama has an 'overwhleming need to beat people over the head with his intelligence'."
I haven't gathered that anyone's ever thought that of Obama, although a surprising number of Americans (like the letter writer to whom you replied) have thought so of Hilary. that's just the way the cookie's crumbled.....
Finally, why do you assume that any young woman who had a problem with Wilder's nasty-spirited article was "defensive"? Perhaps such a young woman might recognize bad behavior,sloppy writing, loosey-goosey logic, and mean-spirited invective when she encounters them in a single, smart-ass "article"?
I'm neither young ("immature") nor female, and I sure as hell don't feel "defensive".
The fact remains that one can probably assume that this is a country which counts among its citizens more Meghan McCains than Chelsea Clintons.
Perhaps one could reasonably claim that this country would be better-off with more Chelseas than Meaghans?
In that case...Broadsheet might reconsider what it's doing....or what it "wants" (presumably that's not just snarkily sniping back and forth among the choir about how STUPID every other writer and publication is).
Wel...I don't have time for this....let me just conclude by saying that this article was utterly typical of Broadsheet. Think about it.....all "Broadsheet" does is preach to the choir (I know that I'm repeating myself)......and a lot of young woman who might be a fence-sitter (and might actually care about fashion, friends, boys, and other non-exactly-THE-ENEMY! concerns) would automtatically reject the whole business.
to cut it short?...presumably you want to teach/enlighten/(pick your verb) people?
Well?....you don't ever get very far by starting your speech by calling them stupid.
Creeping Jesus....
David Terry
www.davidterryart.com
-
Because this is the way Salon attacks people, just be honest about it
They repeat all the harshest and most untrue things about someone. They report the most negative story possibly imaginable. They summarize every detail of it for four to five paragraph. Then in the last two sentences they go, "But of course we don't agree with that." Yeah, right.
Thank goodness dozens of posters finally called Joan on this with that absurd Michelle Obama story they kept running all week. They all said the same thing as I am. You can't run a story listing an endless litany of negative attributes of someone, dig up all their worst quotes, go on for three quarters of a page and then toss in two sentences saying you disagree but never explaining why. It's a subtle form of attack and one we're all onto. I don't care about that. But if you want to attack someon have the guts to do so and don't bury it in other people's opinions then disengenuously claim you disagree with it. That's cowardly.
Respectfully has anyone actually read the GQ piece on Meghan McCain? Because I have and it's clear the author of this piece didn't, they simply read a summary somewhere.
-
You make a good point
DTerry. Despite calling it's audience stupid, however, I think the piece made some good points about the portrayal of McCain. And I should clarify that the Republican party promotes docility in the massess of women, not the figurehead battleaxes who are its mouthpieces.
I certainly don't think everyone is defensive if they don't agree with the piece. But accusing the author of attacking young women who like lipgloss and then insulting Clinton supporters sounds childish and defensive to me.