We get letters on the podcast

A listener wrote to our individual emails, so we apparently did not reserve the right to read her email on the air, so, duh, here it is in its entirety. No identifying information though, where did you think you were, Hot Air?

I guess this email was intended for DG but he's dealing with the Blogger Midwest downage and she sent it directly to my email too.

I don't know why on earth you'd be interested, but I wanted to write and say how troubled I was by your recent podcast. I have a great deal of respect for the complexity of your metaphors and the amazing breadth of your knowledge, and I couldn't understand why you'd narrow yourself into the 'all men are dogs' coffin that defines so little about people and relationships. Blaming feminism for not explaining your impulses seems the silliest way to dismiss a theory with which you are uneasy. Doesn't every 'big theory' that tries to influence and explain how we live attempt to restrict impulses by defining and limiting them? How far would any religion get if its most basic belief was 'people are like this and they are always going to be like this so why bother changing'. (Well, maybe pretty far, so don't answer that!)

The most upsetting part to me was the way that bluegal apparently felt manipulated by your theme into agreeing with you that 'yes this is the way it is'. Just as she might have felt goaded into soothing you when you got upset about the republican letter. ('Men have impulses and its women's job to restrain them') You are so much smarter than the dark, charismatic, brooder of your english major tales, and how different is 'I hate byron,' from 'Men always think about sex and that's just the way it is and by the way I'm thinking about it right now'. When you use your considerable gifts to advocate for that position it makes good people inclined to agree with you, and excuses bad people for not disagreeing with you. It certainly doesn't really help explain what men and women want from each other or how the sexual drive is embedded in the experience of the self. It made me remember a moment in early undergrad where a psych professor wooed the freshmen in the room with a similar 'men always want sex, don't trust them' mantra then announced that any woman who hadn't had an orgasm should come to his house some evening because 'everyone should have at least one'.

I'm incapable of not trying to imagine what it is in your life right now that has made you want to remind yourself how powerful your 'instinct' is. It's none of my business and obviously I have my own reasons to be struggling with this idea, but I thought I'd write and mention how its clearly not your instinct that draws readers, and more particularly, me, to your blog.

(And you probably thought nobody listens)

Right. This person did not listen to the podcasts that I personally edited for content without any input from Driftglass. He talks, I talk, we discuss, I cut.

Also, she doesn't know me if she thinks I was in either instance "manipulated" or "goaded."

And of course, it's

my favorite thing in the world

when self-described advanced-degree holder in psychology tells me from a "feminist" perspective what I "apparently" and "might have" felt.

She missed the part where Driftglass talked about the word gentleman, and also about cock versus heart and, paraphrasing here, how love is more subtle and more powerful than lust.

I've met Driftglass face to face on several occasions. He is tall, and has large feet and hands. I wonder if our dear correspondent is "incapable of not trying to imagine..." I'll stop now, as I truly and from the bottom of my heart have the greatest respect for DG's "libidinous liberal lasses."