Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
The former Salon columnist talks straight about being attacked by readers, why she's not crazy about Hillary, her wonderful week with Molly Ivins, and what a drag it is getting old.
The letters thread is now closed.
  • Perhaps I'll rethink Lamott

    I previously said I'd enjoyed her writing, perhaps I'm susceptible to emotional writing (perhaps because I don't read that much of it). Still several have made some pretty compelling points here, and if she writes again, I'll have these points in my head in refining my personal judgment about her writing.

    As another poster said, the vitriol here is nothing compared to other places. Yet, I tend to think like one other writer said: her writing isn't so dramatic (I'm paraphrasing) as to warrant the strong attacks on her. In the end, it's still important that people have the ability to write what they think, and I especially appreciate those who back up what they say. Hopefully, Salon is not going to mess much with the letters section, as this is one of the things great about the internet, being able to respond immediately to what's been written.

    As for Hillary, I think her war vote was a big mistake, but it's not an insurmountable one in my view. I think she's a very smart candidate, and I've always been impressed when I've seen her speak or be interviewed. Contrast her with the craven fool we have in the White House now, and she's hands-down a gigantic improvement. No, she isn't the perfect possible candidate, but I don't think one is out there. Even Gore, who I'd support enthusiastically is not someone I'd call perfect. Whoever came out with the wise phrase of "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" couldn't have come up with a phrase more applicable to politicians. So, I hope people will be wise in this election and vote for the better, electable choice (obviously a Democrat, LOL, thankfully I don't have the horrible choice of having to vote for someone truly egregious, like Lieberman).

    Anyway, thanks all you who are thoughtful writers, pro and con, it's great reading what you have to say. The silly sweeping writers that make arguments like "all liberals...", well, your thoughts aren't terribly illuminating, or for the most part, informed. You have the right, of course, to say what you like, just don't be surprised if people don't have respect for your views.

    --Ron Robertson

  • another crazy 36D comment

    People are nicely tearing this woman to shreds. Fun to see. Still did she really not see how many women wrote in with sharp criticism of this grotesquely self-absorbed article?

    36D: They are criticizing Anne Lamott because she has a strong female voice, while also wholly feminine

    Do you honestly think the average person in this country (or any Western country) considers Lamott's hippie, dreadlock, multi-piercing style to be "wholly feminine"? Not too many women like her modelling for Cosmo or Vogue.

  • faux feminism

    PS, that kind of faux feminism is equivalent to the guys who claim to be "real men" because they're fat and hang out at the bar every free moment.

    gender translations:

    F: Real women have curves.

    M: Real men have beer bellies.

    F: Real women are sassy, project 'tude, and anyone who doesn't like it, is a "misogynist"

    M: Real men are macho, project 'tude, and anyone who doesn't like it, is a "bitch."

    F: Oprah inspires me to take action now! (without actually leaving my sofa)

    M: Ahnold shows tuff guys get ahead! (with muscles and without education)

    SOS.

    Is it too much to hope for mutual annihilation between the gender warriors?

    Can we put them on an Island like Survivor, only more like No-Survivors because we just bomb it as soon as they get there?

  • I don't know what to say . . . "Emily, you're great" is a good start.

    Emily, I've been enjoying your postings all day. You have been a voice for consideration. Thank you. I don't know what to say about the alarming letter directed against you, but maybe to say, "Wow, that's a pretty alarming, stupid, horrid letter" is a good start.

    I didn't want to post again, but I think that particularly vulgar, hostile, callous post defined an edge of discourse I don't want to see crossed on these pages.

    Emily, more power to you . . .

    I've found this discussion interesting (and now alarming) in the way it elucidates the ways we think of gender, and the ways in which gender-typing, and misogyny, still inform our discourse.

    There are no simple answers. Alex dares to come out and say he doesn't like many of the women writers on Salon, and I appreciate him for it. He's thoughtful, not brutal, and ultimately his issue isn't with women, but with discourse. In other words, it is possible to talk about difficult issues and not be hurtful.

    Ron Robertson -- I just read your letter. I appreciate your thoughtful, reasoned piece. How refreshing!

    But wow, some of this leaves me shaking.

  • Hey Alex!

    Remeber that time, in Salon letters, when you wrote " Compare that to someone like Debra Dickerson, who basically spends a whole article cleaning out her mental closet, throwing out a bunch of contradictory attitudes, and concluding with some vague statement to the effect of "this sure is a complex issue". "

    That was awesome!

    (I miss Chris Farley - now there's an article for you.)

    And you're right - but don't blame the women writers on Salon - their selection is reflective of editorial predilection. Joan Walsh, I suppose There ARE better writers out there - women and men - but the editor has to appreciate them before they get get a voice in Salon.

    BTW - can anyone tell me what being a 36D and blonde and Christian has to do with femininity? Or anything, really? I guess you don't need to be relevant when defending a cult of personality.

  • The End Game Channel

    The Baby Boomers are the first generation to see themselves age--not in front of a mirror but on television. It's spooky. Seeing Danny Glover in Dreamgirls, I almost got angry, insulted. How dare he play an old guy! Meredith Baxter Birney! Surely she's not concerned with Depends yet. And Sally Field, The Flying Nun, worries about osterporosis? What sellouts!

    I don't think any of us thought we'd get old. As rebels and free spirits, our energy was supposed to innoculate us against the aging virus; the big chill would allow us to blaze on this planet forever. But we're fading, wrinkling, waning like common folk. And it's all on TV.

    I feel like picketing.