Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I'm guessing that Ms. Williams, for some entirely interesting reason she doesn't choose to disclose, although she isn't otherwise afraid of disclosing much, assumes that her readers are idiots.
Any adult of at least normal intelligence who reads this piece would be struck by a number of remarkable questions.
Why does Ms. Williams persist in the care of a physician with whom she can't, by her own admission, speak comfortably and candidly?
Why does Ms. Williams persist in the care of a physican who, by her own admission, is spookily out-of-touch with female postpartum physiology and sexuality?
Why is Ms. Williams, who describes herself in a very public way as an overachieving "Type A" personality, spookily out-of-touch with reasonable standards for American medical care and practice?
While I personally don't mind vivid accounts of female sexuality written by intelligent and lusty women, this piece wasn't really such an account.
Although Ms. Williams couldn't quite bring herself to do it, this piece was really about sub-standard medical care and about Ms. Williams' lack of knowledge about medical care. A good editor -- one who really looked after Ms. Williams' best interests as a writer -- would have easily identified the core concerns of this piece and encouraged Ms. Williams to examine them in a more thoughtful and well-informed manner.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
