Letters to the Editor
-
What master wordsmith penned that headline?
Brilliance! Who would have ever thought to twist around the words of a common phrase like "Happily Ever After" and produce such a zinger! Most of us would probably take at least 5 seconds to think of that, and another 1 second to dismiss it as a tired cliche.
Keep up the great work, Salon copy desk! You make us proud.
-
Doubts About Salon
Honestly, I am having doubts about Salon. The horrible picture accompanying the Traister article (as it appeared this morning, with an African-American woman in chains) was really offensive. Where is the editorial apology? Just sneakily changing the photo is not OK. Did I miss something?
As to the Forbes article, well my God, where do I begin? I guess one of the biggest insults to women contained therein (and there were SO MANY) was the implication that women who don't graduate from college are stupid drones quite willing to accept that they are only good for baby makin' and house cleanin'.
Is this yet another effort to pit women against one another? You know. Feminist vs. non-feminist, working vs. stay-at-home moms, college grad vs. non-college grad.
Sorry if I sound paranoid, but this whole thing is nasty.
-
re:deering/no name given
I'm noticing a lot of no name givens and the majority of them are pretty much in support of that article Forbes published. For the author who wrote "deering" and also wrote this "Most men marry a much more successful man." And also told pretty much all of us to take off our "rose colored glasses" as he screwed his surgeon friend "with benefits". Please do us a favor and take off your rose colored glasses. Most men can't marry men since same sex marriage is still, unfortunately, banned in the majority of states with the exception of one state (Mass.) Second, it is clear you are misogynist in your own ideals for a relationship. Your relationship with that surgeon "girlfriend" is hardly the best example of a heterosexual relationship at all. So there is no need to preach to other women about what is best in control and issues between both genders. You, sir, are hardly the man to go to for relationship advice, not to mention that relationship is hardly one to brag about. Third, don't ever reproduce. Reality is harsh enough as it is with what is happening in the world and we don't need your spawn polluting the cultural landscape with your jargon.
-
Thanks RT - and That slideshow...
I like Rebecca Traister's article very much. I'm sorry I missed the chameleon-like color change of the woman-in-chains graphic Salon put at the start of it. Whatever the hell that signified.
RT nailed it for me when she said that all some people could do was laugh. I found the Forbes article funny as hell. I felt that their slide show was where I really entered the true woo-woo of the moment.
Each slidehow point was underscored by a photograph - "You'll get sick more" (I'm paraphrasing the titles, I can't recall them exactly due to my giggling) had a picture of a guy blowing his nose - my God, run, these women have cooties, man! For the "She'll commit adultery" one, I think (but can't confirm since Forbes pulled the article) that the photograph aspect ratio changed changed so that the photograph was longer than it was higher, presumably to underscore the fact that .... gasp! They're getting horizontal!
Whoever contrived the "dirt" for the "your house will be dirtier" photograph never had a two year old.
I'm grateful that RT recognised that Forbes (among other things) treated men like half wits without the skills to clean house - literally and metaphorically - if they want to.
Thanks!
-
Money can't buy happiness, but. . .
It can sure help families get through life. I think this Forbes article was somewhat tongue-in-cheek and its message totally irrelevant to most people. (By the way, I have to chuckle at the idea that working gives a woman the opportunity to hook up with adultery partners. You should meet the boring and tedious schlumps I deal with in my job!) I especially agree with Moira's statement: "Only the rich - like the people who own Forbes - can afford a wife who doesn't work."
Really, $30,000 a year isn't a lot of money these days. Unless the husband is a big, big earner, with a really secure job (good luck finding that!) the two-income setup is pretty much a necessity, as are efforts by both parents to maximize earnings. The don't-marry-a-working-woman advice has little meaning to parents who need to secure decent health benefits. And look at it this way: Without two incomes, there can be a lot more work pressure on the sole earner.
Yeah, working for a living can suck for husbands AND wives, and I would be a lot happier if money rained down on my from the sky and I didn't have to worry about earning that paycheck. But money doesn't rain down on me from the sky. As I am not in that Forbes-ownership group, duty to my family necessitates that I be a "career gal." Family life would be a lot worse around here if we were living below the poverty line.
-
Re: Picture
I never saw the picture that was allegedly changed from a black woman to a white woman, but since enough letter writers have said it happened I guess it is true.
Here's what happened:
Salon editor/writer/whomever: "You know what? We are going to have the guts to say that race is so invisible to us, so unimportant, because we are so progressive and open minded, that we will put a black woman on the cover of this article, and she will have a chain around her neck to symbolize the slavery of women who don't work and who marry rich men. We need more black faces on our site anyway."
Someone else at Salon: "Yeah, that's a great idea, but don't you think that some people will take it the wrong way?"
Someone else at Salon: "They will be a tiny, narrow-minded minority. The rest of them, our true readers, will say 'wow-that's awesome. They have a black woman with chains on their website, but I didn't even think about slavery. I know exactly what Salon means, and good for them! I thought about the theme of the article, which has nothing to do with race! I am so goddam progressive!'."
Someone else at Salon: "You know what? You're right!?! And those who think immediately about slavery had better just look in the mirror and ask themselves why they still think that way. They must be racists! Let's run it!!"
Five minutes later....
"OH SHIT! WHAT HAVE WE DONE!?!? CHANGE THE PICTURE, NOW!!!!!"