发布时间:2019-12-12 06:55:48|2016年香港波色生肖诗| 来源 :桂林银行


  In response to a letter from Kimberly Probolus, “A Woman’s Plea: Let’s Raise Our Voices!,” The Times urged more women to write letters, and asked readers why they thought men outnumbered women on opinion pages. Here are some of the more than 350 responses.

  To the Editor:

  The first thought that came to mind after reading about the problem of underrepresented women’s voices in letters to the editor was that to sit and write a letter would be a luxury. A luxury of time. A luxury for which my circle of educated, hard-working women (outside or inside the home, usually both) do not have time. The idea of fighting for one ... more ... thing. There aren’t enough women’s letters being chosen for print? Sigh. Well, “add it to the list.”

  Maybe the stereotype is true that women like to talk more and are better at verbalizing their feelings. I talk to my best friend over the phone while multitasking, of course — doing dishes or laundry, cooking or commuting — and my “nasty” thoughts and feelings are out. But to sit and write a letter? What a luxury.

  Add it to the list.

  Amy Carlson SturlaBethesda, Md.

  To the Editor:

  The first draft of this letter began with words along the lines of, “At the risk of stating the obvious, may I ...?” — inadvertently illustrating the point I was about to make.

  From the classroom to the boardroom, men shush, dismiss, mock, interrupt, mansplain, plagiarize and punish women’s voices. Women are schooled not only to ask permission, apologize, hedge and upspeak, but also to self-doubt and self-censor. Men, by contrast, whether in possession of brilliant or mediocre thoughts, grow up assuming their ideas have merit and deserve the space they take up.

  The would-be woman letter writer’s hesitation falls on a spectrum that has “Why bother? They won’t publish it” at one end and “Nobody would be interested” at the other. So I am answering The Times’s call to write more letters, and editing out any apology for doing so.

  Jan UnderwoodPortland, Ore.

  To the Editor:

  The Times’s decision to work toward “gender parity” on the letters page creates a larger problem than it solves. The reader who noted the lack of female representation on the page wrote that “you will never know whether your letter wasn’t published because your name is Kimberly and not Karl.” The editors’ response assured readers that publication decisions are made without regard to gender, but men, myself included, will now wonder if we missed out because the editors needed to meet an unofficial quota.

  It’s hard to say why men write more letters, but the notion that this is inherently problematic is concerning. The Times should focus on encouraging people from all walks of life to write and publishing the best of those letters. Setting specific goals only creates the perception, right or wrong, that demographics are a factor in publication decisions.

  Matthew Aaron SamilowWeston, Fla.

  To the Editor:

  It has never occurred to me that someone would want to hear my voice.

  I love reading and have many strongly held beliefs about current events and politics, but I have never considered that someone outside my immediate social circle would want to know what I think and why. I think I am underqualified to comment on such a public forum with such a wide audience. I’m not sure if this is because I’m a woman, or because I’m brown or because I’m young, but I often defer to others to speak. I can’t speak for other women, but maybe it isn’t just me who feels this way.

  Chloe PerezWashington

  To the Editor:

  A major reason that letters to The Times skew male is probably that traditional definitions of “news” skew male.

  Readership studies over the decades have consistently shown that women have a greater interest than men in topics such as personal relationships (work, family, friends), child development, educational and social activities for children, ethics and values, the environment, personal safety, health and nutrition, consumer information and balancing multiple roles.

  The topics of particular interest to women were defined as “soft” news and were therefore of lesser prestige to cover unless they had a “news hook.”

  When I was director of editorial development and vice president/editorial for E.W. Scripps newspapers, I challenged our newspapers to rethink their coverage: Tally the amount of news space, staff time and budget devoted to topics of particular interest to men (traditional coverage of politics, business, sports) versus topics of particular interest to women. I believe that “news” can just as validly be defined as activities and events that affect large numbers of people.

  Women have known for decades about sexual harassment in the workplace because they experienced it firsthand. It should not have taken lawsuits and the arrest of Harvey Weinstein to push sexual harassment into the news spotlight. Similarly, working mothers’ difficulties with balancing multiple roles did not need the attention of Japan’s prime minister to be “news” to millions of working moms.

  Susan MillerCarmel, Calif.

  To the Editor:

  I think this is such an important discussion, but I don’t think it can be had without consideration of the role harassment and intimidation play when women speak their mind. Several years ago, I submitted a piece to my local paper on an instance of casual racism that my husband had recently endured (I am white, he is not).

  The day it was published, I arrived home to an intimidating and hostile message on our home answering machine, not so kindly suggesting that my family and I should leave the state/country. At the time, our children were young, and to say that it was frightening is an understatement.

  To this day, when I think about writing to the editor of any paper, that event affects my willingness to do so.

  Suzanne YangSan Jose, Calif.

  To the Editor:

  I am a flag-waving feminist and female reader who has had at least a dozen letters published by The New York Times.

  While I am always pleased to see letters written by other women, the paper’s response to Kimberly Probolus’s plea to see more women represented horrified me. Fewer women write in, which means that a conscious effort or outright policy to include more female respondents will, by definition, lower editorial standards.

  I have always been extraordinarily proud to see my letters published by The Times, presumably on the merits of my correspondence. If this one is published, I may feel that I somehow was a beneficiary of a quota system — or charity.

  Raleigh MayerNew York

  To the Editor:

  Kimberly Probolus hopes for a future in which we will be able to open any national newspaper and see women’s voices represented in equal proportion to men’s in the opinion section. I share these same hopes, and am also optimistic this future is near. When I look in the classrooms and hallways of my high school, I see young women taking the lead in social justice work everywhere. In fact, our student activist numbers skew heavily female.

  Our young women are leading important conversations on issues related to race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and politics. They are spearheading efforts within our school’s community and beyond our walls to work toward justice on a variety of issues including consent, racial equality, gun safety and climate change.

  Given how fiercely and passionately these young women have fought on these issues while in high school, I have no doubt that they will continue to insist on being heard in their efforts to bring about real change in our world. The “nasty, scribbling women from all over the country” of whom Ms. Probolus speaks are already here. Now if only we adults would work harder to dismantle the dated systems of oppression that stand in their way.

  Naoko AkiyamaOakland, Calif.The writer is a teacher and Upper School Dean of Equity and Inclusion at Head-Royce School.

  To the Editor:

  I think the reason you don’t see as many letters from women is that men complain and women just get to work to fix the problem.

  Denise SchmidtLedyard, Conn.

  To the Editor:

  I was surprised to read Kimberly Probolus’s letter claiming that letters to the editor are “the most democratic section of the paper” because anyone can contribute. My observation is that most of the printed letters are from either politically, professionally or academically connected people whose expertise in the field seems to qualify them to have their opinions shared with the readership.

  I have submitted several letters in the last few years that have not been printed but I assumed it was because I did not have expertise that would make my opinion “important” enough to appear in print, not because I am a woman. Is the preponderance of printed letters in the last few years from “experts” rather than the populace in general?

  Thea HambrightWoodstock, N.Y.

  To the Editor:

  While I believe that women’s opinions are certainly underrepresented unless they claim some expertise, I would not want a letter of mine selected because it is from a woman. Yes, my gender, along with my age and experience, forms my response to much of what is published in these pages, and yes, I believe women are needed in leadership of all aspects of civil life, but “parity” in selection of letters to the editor simply checks the gender box and ultimately devalues the writer.

  I support efforts to encourage women to participate in greater numbers, and selection of letters to reflect the rich differences of opinion that exist.

  Joyce AdamsPortland, Ore.

  To the Editor:

  I can think of two reasons women don’t write letters and comments. Our opinions are so often ignored that sometimes it doesn’t seem worth the effort to speak up. What woman has not had the experience of saying something in a meeting that everyone ignores until a man says the same thing five minutes later?

  And then if our opinions are acknowledged, we are more likely to be criticized for them. We live in this Goldilocks world where what we say is either too hot or too cold and rarely just right.

  Good for The Times for encouraging women to speak up. I try to do the same thing in the classes I teach.

  Susan S. SamuelsonBostonThe writer is a professor of business law at Boston University Questrom School of Business.

  To the Editor:

  You write: “This gender disparity problem is not unique to the letters page.” What are you people talking about? Is the Native American disparity problem also not unique to the letters pages? I probably could think of dozens of disparity problems and they would all be nonsense. What about the short people disparity problem? Gay people disparity problem?

  Please do not bother to report back in 2020, because you are reporting on a nonexisting problem. Please stop bullying women to do things they do not want to do!

  Sam TaylorColorado Springs

  To the Editor:

  You say you “make your selections regardless of gender,” but can you verify this to your readers? Do you, for example, have your editors read letters with no name attached? If so, wonderful. If not, you could not possibly be making your selections “regardless of gender” for surely implicit bias plays a role in this important issue you claim to wish to shed light on and attempt to remedy.

  Thank you for bringing attention to this issue and continuing to do the work of acknowledging when, where and how you can do ever better.

  Kristen DallumSeattle

  To the Editor:

  Women do not write for the same reason women do not speak up — because we fear we will not be believed. We fear this because we are consistently not believed. We report harassment and assault and abuse and we are not believed. It takes groups of us stepping forward in order to be (finally) believed. The systems in place meant to protect us routinely fail us.

  Writing requires ownership of one’s voice. Being a woman entails myriad experiences in which we are made to question our voice. When women are abused and ignored, they are taught that their voices do not matter. And if our voices do not matter in the face of violence, why would we believe that they matter at all?

  Kelley SmithBoston

  To the Editor:

  Going forward, if I sign a letter “Michelle Kurcias” rather than “Michael Kurcias,” is it more likely to be published? Please do not let political correctness override quality of content.

  Michael G. KurciasFloral Park, N.Y.

  Because of the large volume of thoughtful responses we received, we will publish a second round of letters soon.



  2016年香港波色生肖诗【春】【日】【的】【赏】【花】【宴】【上】。 【风】【和】【日】【暖】,【入】【宫】【参】【加】【赏】【花】【宴】【的】【少】【女】【们】【争】【相】【追】【逐】。 【谢】【沅】【沅】【做】【为】【未】【来】【三】【皇】【子】【妃】,【尚】【书】【府】【嫡】【长】【女】【被】【人】【簇】【拥】【着】,【一】【身】【艳】【丽】【的】【打】【扮】,【经】【过】【精】【心】【打】【扮】,【应】【该】【是】【三】【皇】【子】【喜】【欢】【的】【样】【子】,【她】【知】【道】【今】【天】【可】【以】【见】【到】【三】【皇】【子】,【自】【己】【有】【多】【娇】【艳】,【不】【由】【高】【昂】【着】【头】。 【表】【妹】【王】【菁】【在】【她】【身】【边】,【告】【诉】【她】【这】【样】【更】【好】【看】,【看】【着】【她】。

【小】【狐】【狸】【此】【时】【正】【在】【围】【着】【夏】【紫】【钰】【身】【边】:“【封】【封】,【姐】【姐】【已】【经】【来】【到】【腾】【龙】【大】【陆】【了】,【我】【们】【快】【去】【找】【他】【们】【吧】!” 【夏】【紫】【钰】【看】【了】【小】【狐】【狸】【一】【眼】,“【小】【九】,【难】【道】【你】【没】【发】【现】,【此】【刻】【已】【经】【没】【有】【他】【们】【的】【丝】【毫】【气】【息】【了】【吗】?” 【听】【到】【夏】【紫】【钰】【这】【么】【一】【说】,【小】【狐】【狸】【开】【始】【感】【受】【她】【之】【前】【感】【受】【到】【的】【气】【息】。 【突】【然】【间】【她】【小】【脸】【一】【垮】,【好】【像】【是】【没】【有】【她】【的】【气】【息】【了】,【这】【到】【底】【是】

【基】【斯】【队】【长】【这】【边】【一】【切】【进】【展】【颇】【为】【顺】【利】,【而】【另】【一】【边】,【威】【廉】、【沃】【尔】【夫】【和】【白】【狼】【一】【行】【也】【没】【什】【么】【波】【澜】【地】【抵】【达】【了】【塔】【尼】【亚】。 【相】【比】【内】【地】,【塔】【尼】【亚】【这】【里】【的】【战】【争】【氛】【围】【要】【浓】【厚】【得】【多】。【毕】【竟】【是】【边】【境】【港】【口】,【一】【旦】【开】【战】,【这】【里】【首】【当】【其】【中】。【据】【说】,【为】【了】【保】【护】【自】【己】【的】【钱】【袋】【子】,【五】【天】【前】,【埃】【里】【克】【侯】【爵】【已】【经】【派】【遣】【了】【一】【员】【将】【领】【率】【领】【着】【上】【千】【人】【的】【军】【队】【进】【驻】【了】【塔】【尼】【亚】,【以】

  【被】【念】【叨】【的】【顾】【谨】【之】【和】【权】【胜】【蓝】【这】【会】【儿】【已】【经】【回】【到】【了】【府】【上】,【坐】【在】【凉】【亭】【里】【看】【着】【雪】【花】【漫】【天】【飞】【舞】,【煮】【了】【一】【壶】【梅】【花】【酒】,【喝】【的】【酐】【畅】【淋】【漓】。 【顾】【谨】【之】【觉】【得】【鼻】【尖】【有】【些】【痒】,【就】【捏】【了】【捏】【鼻】【子】,【然】【后】【说】【道】:“【这】【么】【冷】【的】【天】,【倒】【是】【难】【为】【盯】【梢】【的】【洛】【宁】【和】【笙】【箫】【了】!” “【依】【着】【洛】【宁】【的】【性】【子】,【笙】【箫】【这】【会】【儿】【应】【该】【已】【经】【寻】【了】【地】【方】【睡】【觉】【去】【了】,【盯】【梢】【的】【应】【该】【只】【有】【洛】【宁】【一】2016年香港波色生肖诗【傀】【儡】【魔】【嘶】【吼】【震】【天】,【一】【股】【股】【狂】【暴】【的】【气】【浪】【恒】【冲】【而】【来】,【眨】【眼】【间】【便】【笼】【罩】【了】【不】【少】【修】【士】。 【无】【数】【的】【虫】【子】【铺】【天】【盖】【地】,【几】【乎】【每】【一】【只】【虫】【子】【都】【能】【够】【毁】【掉】【一】【个】【修】【士】【的】【护】【体】【圣】【罡】,【那】【种】【近】【乎】【让】【人】【绝】【望】【的】【感】【觉】,【让】【所】【有】【人】【都】【有】【一】【种】【毛】【骨】【悚】【然】【的】【感】【觉】。 “【是】【你】!” 【一】【声】【声】【怒】【吼】【传】【来】,【无】【数】【的】【虫】【子】【组】【成】【了】【一】【个】【巨】【大】【的】【人】【影】,【随】【手】【挥】【动】【之】【间】,【便】【有】

  “【哥】,【你】【啥】【意】【思】【啊】?【鬼】【仙】【仙】【的】?”【小】【月】【儿】【怯】【怯】【的】【问】。 “【哥】【的】【意】【思】【很】【简】【单】,【以】【后】【千】【万】【别】【在】【陌】【生】【人】【面】【前】【显】【示】【的】【你】【的】【不】【为】【人】【知】【的】【本】【事】,【世】【上】【坏】【人】【不】【少】,【知】【道】【吗】?”【说】【完】,【又】【敲】【了】【小】【月】【儿】【一】【记】【脑】【瓜】【崩】。 “【可】【别】【瞎】【说】,【还】【惦】【记】【我】,【惦】【记】【惦】【记】【你】【的】【乱】【桃】【花】【吧】,【与】【其】【扬】【汤】【止】【沸】,【不】【如】【釜】【底】【抽】【薪】。”【小】【月】【儿】【小】【声】【的】【嘀】【咕】。 “【你】

  “【怎】【么】【了】?【你】【说】【话】【呀】!”【叶】【心】【安】【拍】【了】【一】【下】【他】。 【慕】【瑾】【黎】【看】【着】【她】,【暗】【暗】【吐】【了】【口】【浊】【气】,【淡】【声】【说】【道】:“【没】【事】……” 【其】【实】—— 【有】【事】! 【大】【事】! 【他】【很】【想】【指】【着】【这】【该】【死】【的】【小】【王】【八】【蛋】【的】【鼻】【子】【问】【问】“【遍】【布】【全】【球】”【的】【前】【男】【友】【是】【几】【何】?! 【但】【他】【不】【能】! 【前】【段】【时】【间】【才】【信】【誓】【旦】【旦】【地】【告】【诫】【她】【不】【要】【拘】【泥】【于】【往】【事】,【忘】【却】【前】【尘】! 【一】

  【乔】【子】【雪】【正】【要】【联】【系】【人】【送】【曹】【阿】【姨】【的】【时】【候】,【陈】【玉】【突】【然】【说】【让】【她】【去】【送】【曹】【阿】【姨】,【让】【乔】【子】【雪】【还】【是】【多】【点】【时】【间】【劝】【劝】【洛】【云】【梦】【去】【医】【院】【的】【事】【情】。 “【三】【小】【姐】【身】【子】【不】【好】,【要】【多】【注】【意】【休】【息】,【我】【这】【老】【太】【太】【没】【用】,【什】【么】【也】【帮】【不】【了】,【我】【回】【去】【一】【定】【要】【求】【菩】【萨】【保】【佑】【你】【和】【乔】【总】【这】【样】【的】【好】【人】。” “【曹】【阿】【姨】,【你】【能】【别】【回】【去】【吗】?【在】【这】【里】【多】【好】【啊】,【我】【觉】【得】【你】【在】【这】【里】【也】【开】【心】