- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
It is problematic for a publication like Salon, especially with its particular readership, to romanticize the sex appeal of people working in oil fields and other hard labor "blue collar" jobs (do we even say blue/white collar anymore?). First, it's sexist because female laborers are surely not exalted for their sex appeal. Second, it's all well and good to find strength and masculinity sexy, but until we start valuing the actual labor it is condescending to drool over the laborer.
That's an interesting point, and maybe it's true of some of the women posting here. But, um, actually, a lot of men get turned on by women who know how to use power tools, and--well, I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but girls with guns are just more fun. (Which is supposedly some of the mystique surrounding Sarah Palin--but I'm not sure she ever shot her own caribou, to tell you the truth--I think her father filled her tag.)
Your second point gives me pause, simply because in the environment in which I grew up, practical, manual labor in the public interest *is* valued over social power, prestige, advanced degrees, etc. So who do you mean by "we"? We as a society? We as college-educated, middle-to-upper-middle-class women? I mean, a lot of the men in my husband's family have been skilled laborers and soldiers, and they drink lousy beer and have terrible taste in movies, but I think I can separate that from the fact that they're strong, capable, smart, and kind, and that they instilled in my husband (a college professor) the need to work with his hands. Are you saying that most of the women posting here can't make that distinction? (This is a genuine question, and not rhetorical sarcasm.)
