Letters to the Editor
-
in response to David's question
i post more than anyone on your list. but...you like my posts? now nooble (if he was here) would have something to say about that.
You're just part of the "ilk." You guys all sound alike to me.
*tapping fingers while waiting for David to accuse me of being racist against trolls for thinking they all look alike *
-
I am heartened by the male posters
who are sane and respectful and just simply human.
Thank you. It helps to know that you are all out there.
Reading some of the posts that made it on Sierra's posts was scary. I was scared because the posts threaten to do to her what sells in so many films. This new Eliza Cushert(?) film of her being tortured and killed has created a lot of buzz, let alone the whole genre that sells on the premise of torturing women for the pleasure of the audience. What makes us go pay good money to see this? Yes, it's not reality but it is part of the visual tapestry of our collective lives.
I mean, we all insist that virtual life is just as important as real ones. So tell me, do these images really not impact our common collective vocabulary of our image of women?
-
"virtual"
yes, the imagery is horrible. i don't watch. spike TV had an advertisement with a guy getting his took kicked out in slow motion to the tune of "it's a man's world" - without the next line about the need for women. women are portrayed even weirder. i would worry when my teenaged sons would look at pornography. not because of *what* it was but *how* it was. not erotic. just very weird. i was afraid his first sexual associations would come from it (thank god it didn't). i don't know how much this violent imagery affects us. i wish i did. i do know it's *really* important to have boys have fathers. otherwise they actually *might* pick up their idea of sexuality from this omnipresent imagery. my daugher had another problem, but that was with the crazy emphasis on breasts and waists. one huge, the other none. a body type like a siliconed boy. weird. i told her that a really pretty girl didn't have to wear short skirts. and boys didn't really like girls kissing girls. they just imagined those girls kissing *them*. you do your best. they are now 20,21,22 and seem to be doing ok. it's a strange country. but then humans are strange creatures.
-
Thanks for this thoughtful article
I reviewed this excellent article on NewsTrust, our social news site devoted to quality journalism.
To review this story yourself, go to:
http://beta.newstrust.net/.f091b2e/
"An excellent, thoughtful first-person response to the Kathy Sierra affair and the online bashing of women writers, well worth the read.
The author dissects her own personal reactions to online mysogyny, as well as the reactions of others. Her commentary is both heartfelt and lucid, and she discusses intelligently possible remedies to this deplorable trend.
Unfortunately, this phenomenon is not just limited to the web, as suggested by the bashing of the Dixie Chicks in Bible Belt states. It seems to stem from a deep psychological inbalance in some men -- and "their self-loathing expressed as hatred of women", as Walsh thoughtfully points out.
Much remains to be done to curb this unacceptable behavior, and in some cases, treat it as a criime or mental illness; possible solutions need to be implemented across a variety of fields, from better education and parenting, to health care treatments, to civil law enforcement.
And to curb online abuse, a few simple steps worth considering would be to require all posters to identify themselves with their real names, have their comments be rated for civility, and track the reputation of regular contributors, much as we do here at NewsTrust."
Fabrice Florin, NewsTrust Executive Director
http://www.newstrust.net/
-
Fabrice's suggests ratings
(for that "review") Average: 3.8 | Recommendation: 4 | Accuracy: 4 | Balance: 3 | Context: 4 | Trust: 4 | Evidence: 3 | Fairness: 4 | Importance: 4 | Information: 4 | Sources: 3 | Writing: 4 Member Knowledge: 3" the difficulty is that it is hard to read more than one post at a time (lots of clicking). what i personally would prefer is to have ALL letters on one page. no ratings. who cares what someone else thinks in average? accuracy? balance? trust? fairness? and most of all writing? no, i don't want Editor's censorship and i don't want reader's censorship (otherwise, i couldn't post! and i *like* to)
-
the Kathy sierra affair
Hi Joan,
Had trouble getting through some of this article-when I start getting to the negativity and hater mail-I tend to gloss over it. Guess I wouldn't be someone you'd hire to work in customer service huh?
The problem I see with the net-is that because emotion is taken out of emails-of which
communication is part of-facial expressions, tone of voice...so there's more room for
error. I think the internet has made many of us callus-because we do concentrate only on the
words which we hear and not mood, emotion, tone...which are very telling for the state of
mind and mood. In person, we can call people on that stuff "what was that for?'..On the nets
we can't. Although, I have to say on some of the blogs I've been on most people slap others
down when they get nasty "you're on a rant today" "calm down"..."Let me explain.."-keeps
people in check. I myself have ranted-but I realized it I think and called myself on it.
I'm fine now-moved on. Drawing attention to it makes it worse sometime-so the adage "ignore it
it-it'll go away" can work.
Secondly, we've become such specialized people. "back in the day" there was one universal
language through television or the media. Now with all of our diverse people, diverse populations
diverse employment, diverse education, diverse habitats it's hard to communicate with one
language-when that same word can have different meanings. Because people are so absorbed
in thier own lives-they're only looking at the words from thier own perspective-not the other
persons'. Are you understanding me? On the nets-we don't have enough background to know how to empath
to empathize or agree with fro that matter.It is probably for this reason, that the nets has
branched off and compartmentalized according to very specific interests and causes. Middle
ground on any topic is gone. Thanks to good 'ol GB (OK I'm injecting my own politics here)
and his divisive policies and wars-people have very strong opinions about-opinions that are
not likely to be swayed 6 years into this war. It is also the reason that public interest
in MSM has waned, especially when they see networks cozying up to the GOVt. Sorry, but you're
guilty by association. Over %60 of the public do NOT want this war to continue, most of the public knows this USA scandal is an affront to the Cons..To see Newspeople covorting about with this WH while trying to portray yourself as an objective newsource does not sit well with me-and from blogs I've read-from a large portion of the American population. It is for this reason that national news may be a thing of the past.
after all, it will take someone who knows how to unify the language barriers-not keep dividing it.
networks amuse me as they try to expand thier online coverage...which is stupid, considering thier online coverage will contain the same Govt. suckup drivel and propaganda. the public knows this
and are not stupid. It's association stupid-the x-y-z theory. If you want the public back,
you need to get on our side. It's that simple.
Beth in Cary