Salon | Letters to the editor

_______________FIONA APPLE: LIVE AT THE WARFIELD BY NATASHA STOVALL (12/16/97)

I highly object to Ms. Stovall's implications that Apple is less of a feminist on account of her good looks and sexual allure. "How can someone who serves the patriarchy so efficiently possibly be a force for good?" wonders Stovall.
Stovall also writes, "Apple's combination of 'come hither' and 'I'm so vulnerable' annoys a lot of people, especially female critics, myself included. It seems that we would prefer as our spokesmodel someone a little less conflicted, a little less needy and a little less pretty. It's hard to make a feminist case for Apple, because she satisfies so many postmodern male desires: She's smart, creative, beautiful, skinny, tough-but-vulnerable, wide-eyed, a little bluesy, seductive."
I wish Stovall wouldn't profess to speak for all women. As a feminist, I am proud to have Apple as one of many spokespeople precisely because of her many charms all rolled up into one mind and body. Hasn't Stovall learned by now that there should be no conflict in a woman being simultaneously intelligent, attractive, sexually alluring and sexually active? Stovall sounds like an anti-feminist, implying that a woman cannot be anything she wants to be, that she cannot be all these things at once. Would Stovall criticize a man for being less of a feminist or a good person or whatever if he was at once attractive, sexy and intelligent?

-- Lori Roniger

_______________NO McNUKES BY ROS DAVIDSON (12/17/97)

I've begun to wonder just what sort of standards you apply to interview subjects. Food & Water is a group that doesn't even pass the laugh test. Their "scientific" claims generally inspire laughter among scientists (One molecule of benzene can cause cancer? Sixty percent of vitamins are destroyed by irradiation?). They also repeatedly twist the truth -- it's all well and good to point out that some amounts of assorted toxic compounds are created by meat irradiation. But those amounts are dwarfed by the amounts of toxins already present in meat.
Certain claims are true -- irradiation is hardly a cure-all, especially when the meat will be handled outside of a package between the factory and the consumer (as with ground beef). But others are outright lies or distortions. I recommend you to the article in the New Republic on the subject. Or any other analysis by a disinterested party. Your readers deserve better than what amounts to fear-mongering.
-- Benjamin Delfin
SALON | Dec. 19, 1997

R E C E N T L Y+| I WAS A LESBIAN SPERM DONOR BY HANK PELLISSIER

If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor for publication,
please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com.
Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness.
If you do not wish the letter to be published, please say so.

_______________FIONA APPLE: LIVE AT THE WARFIELD BY NATASHA STOVALL (12/16/97)
	I highly object to Ms. Stovall's implications that Apple is less of a feminist on account of her good looks and sexual allure. "How can someone who serves the patriarchy so efficiently possibly be a force for good?" wonders Stovall. Stovall also writes, "Apple's combination of 'come hither' and 'I'm so vulnerable' annoys a lot of people, especially female critics, myself included. It seems that we would prefer as our spokesmodel someone a little less conflicted, a little less needy and a little less pretty. It's hard to make a feminist case for Apple, because she satisfies so many postmodern male desires: She's smart, creative, beautiful, skinny, tough-but-vulnerable, wide-eyed, a little bluesy, seductive." I wish Stovall wouldn't profess to speak for all women. As a feminist, I am proud to have Apple as one of many spokespeople precisely because of her many charms all rolled up into one mind and body. Hasn't Stovall learned by now that there should be no conflict in a woman being simultaneously intelligent, attractive, sexually alluring and sexually active? Stovall sounds like an anti-feminist, implying that a woman cannot be anything she wants to be, that she cannot be all these things at once. Would Stovall criticize a man for being less of a feminist or a good person or whatever if he was at once attractive, sexy and intelligent? -- Lori Roniger
_______________NO McNUKES BY ROS DAVIDSON (12/17/97)
	I've begun to wonder just what sort of standards you apply to interview subjects. Food & Water is a group that doesn't even pass the laugh test. Their "scientific" claims generally inspire laughter among scientists (One molecule of benzene can cause cancer? Sixty percent of vitamins are destroyed by irradiation?). They also repeatedly twist the truth -- it's all well and good to point out that some amounts of assorted toxic compounds are created by meat irradiation. But those amounts are dwarfed by the amounts of toxins already present in meat. Certain claims are true -- irradiation is hardly a cure-all, especially when the meat will be handled outside of a package between the factory and the consumer (as with ground beef). But others are outright lies or distortions. I recommend you to the article in the New Republic on the subject. Or any other analysis by a disinterested party. Your readers deserve better than what amounts to fear-mongering. -- Benjamin Delfin SALON \| Dec. 19, 1997