Letters to the Editor
-
A post worth reading.
"The New York Times (in its typical way, belatedly) recently had an article on what I would call 'black flight' from the world of online video and computer games. It's not that a black guy will SOMETIMES be called 'nigger' while playing, e.g., Halo 2 online; it's that he'll ALWAYS -- inevitably -- be called 'nigger,' if he plays for more than, like, 15 minutes. For minorities, being hit with slurs seems, increasingly, like part of the price of admission to public discourse on on the web -- just as violent, anonymous sexual threats were part of the price of admission for Kathy Sierra.
If this all seems overwrought, you're not paying attention. Start reading the comments boards on "mainstream" sites like CNN. You'll be shocked."
Lil Mac: I got a lot from your thoughtful letter. These last paragraphs shocked me. Sometimes I don't know what goes on in the mainstream world, and the more I find out, the less 'mainstream' and the more 'extreme' it seems.
I wish all this seemed overwrought.
Blessings,
LBS
-
bignose:
The point being? Who cares about what your fucking wife did to you. Join a support group. This is not the place for it.
-
the point is...
...an article that builds a theory about culture based on one incident invites letter writers to do the same.
-
Since men are being attacked and singled out as worse than women (what else is new?)
I think it is appropriate that bignose points out personal examples of crappy behavior by women.
or are you trying to censor him to hide something from the rest of us that we should know about women?
-
either everyone gets to post personal experience or no one does
if you want to stick to statistics all around fine. I'm sure no one would suggest though that instances of male misbehavior are relevant because they are part of a broader pattern, but female misdeeds are all isolated incidents (or maybe we aren't getting the whole story), would they?
-
Same old Same old
Women is a group in society that have always been oppresed and now, when they get a little freedom to say and do what they want, a lot of men get terribly scared/uppset/provoced and and its really embaressing for us men, but its really scary for the people (women) attacked. Like its scary for people attacked cos they are negroes or homos or tuttsis or whatever.
A threat towards a women is always more severe than a threat towards a man, 1; becouse its part of a social structure as old as mankind that has destroyed the lives of millions of people (women), and it strenghtens/reinforces that structure; 2 many women have experiences that makes it a little less easy to just shrug the shit of and get on with life, like a good strong masculin male would do.
And you women who like to ignore the facts of the world and claim that the above is untrue, you do everyone a huge disservice, and I have never understood the motivations behind your blindness.
And never mind my bad spelling, im foreign so you should be impressed I know your puny language at all.
-
Thanks Suge, but I got enough to deal with
>> (black women certainly can be or appear to be violent(and for the same reasons), <<
david sugarman</>, do you think this "observation" may be just a little racist? Like you know what I certainly "can be"? What my mother, grandmother, and all that came before "could be"?
In Texas they're letting a 15 year old black girl out of a seven-year old prison term because she shoved a teacher. A teenaged white girl in the same state burns down her house and leaves her family homeless and she gets counselsing sessions so please do not use government crime stats to prove your absolutely ridiculous statement which has ZERO merit. And I think the white girl is a helluva lot scarier than the black girl. Most sane people would take a shove over a burnt to a crisp house.
How about this: violence-giving and receiving-is about class and social status. Violence is the result (most times) of frustration borne out of lack of opportunity, desparate physical amd emotional need. I'm betting middle class black and white women have the same stats when it comes to violence.
Thanks for nothing you jerk. Do you believe that my existence isyour presonal sociology class? Ahh, but you know the Negro, don't ya? And you've got us negresses pegged to a "T". And white women are dainty, docile little things (which is what makes them vulnerable to hate speech on the web, is that it?). I guess we're so prone to violence that's why you let us wet-nurse and raise your kids generation upon generation.
I mean, ain't I a woman too?
-
Dear Salon:
As an occasional reader of Salon who has only recently discovered that it has letters, I am really disappointed to see the low level of discourse on display here. The fact that an article decrying a vicious attack on a female blogger has devolved into a war of the genders, really makes me question the intelligence level of Salon's readers, or at least the ones who post comments. There are too many letters to read all of them, but after reading a few pages, I don't think I'll be reading the letters written by Salon readers too often. There is just too much crap to wade through in order to get to anything worth reading. By and large, it seems that most of your readers think that critizing people who make obviously crude and sexist comments and photoshop an obviously disgusting picture (one that I'd have nightmares about if it were meant for me) means that in one poster's words, "men are being attacked and singled out as worse than women." It is really sad that so many of your readers seem incapable of distinguishing between a just criticism of some men's behavior and a condemnation of all men. The few intelligent letters were buried in similar garbage so that it is impossible to wade through them. It is too bad, because I had higher hopes for finding an intelligent community here. I strongly suggest you implement the letter editing software Walsh speaks of at the end of her article, which by the way, I found very interesting.
-
I recommend Editor's Choice
Whoever picked the letters for Editor's Choice did a great job. (Sorry you had to wade through all the sewage.) Plenty of disparate opinion and people using their thinking caps, without all the slimy, brown filler. Thanks!
-
"you women who like to ignore the facts of the world and claim that the above is untrue, you do everyone a huge disservice, and I have never understood the motivations behind your blindness."
Even if what you say is true, why would women admit it? This may surprise you, but women don't like to admit that they are weaker or weak or powerless any more than men like to admit it. No one wants to say, "oh, in fact, everything we've been saying about equality? wrong, you are right, almighty man, we are weaker than you. Therefore, you have something we want -- protection -- so what can we trade you for it?" Why would women want to put themselves into this inferior position? Would you? Would "a good strong masculin"?
I know, I know. The idea that women are people, who have as wide a range of personality traits, including stubbornness, pride, independence, as men -- it's scary to a lot of people. well, men mostly, but anyway. But you're just gonna have to learn to live with it, if you can't simply accept this idea, that gender is not a very good predictor of personality, and that women are just as diverse as men, fill the whole gamut, that women are not more delicate, feminine, flirty, charitable, caring, nurturing, nice, cooperative, etc. Whatever of those traits does exhibit itself is simply a result of socialization and rigid gender roles than inherent, god-given personalities, and that disparity will disappear once women are allowed to express any of their personality traits, like men are.
Well anyway, whether you like it or not, we don't want to be damsels in distress. Maybe we should all get guns, just to equalize things.