Think Twice Before Using These Words
Rise Above Your Bully
Ideas for Iran
To the Editor:
'These Words Are Vanishing in a 'Free Speech' Administration' (news article, March 11) sends a fearsome message and shows an assault on a very basic right of expression. How can democracy flourish in an atmosphere in which the very use of a word is threatening our peace of mind?
Are we heading to a new form of Newspeak?
Jackie Lavalle
Queens
To the Editor:
It's outrageous that the federal government is banning or limiting so many essential words from documents, including the word 'women,' along with 'gender,' 'sex,' 'underserved' and 'pregnant people.' The word 'men' is — of course — fine, as long as it is not in the phrase 'men who have sex with men.'
Women are more than half of the population! We pay a lot in taxes, and share many needs and concerns, such as health issues and a greater probability of low wages, poverty and experience of domestic violence and sexual assault.
Two people working on health care grants have told me that mentions of women, as well as 'reproductive health,' have to come out of grant reports and proposals — despite the criminal neglect of women's health by the medical profession for most of our history and continuing into the present.
Evidently, a group of unmentionable second-class citizens should stop competing with men for jobs, political office, influence in family decisions or anything else, and instead have many more children, but without informed medical care, education or outreach.
Mary King
Portland, Ore.
To the Editor:
Truly Orwellian. And stupid. I guess the police can't set up 'barriers' anymore, nor can they help crime 'victims.' And presumably people can no longer 'belong' to a group or 'political' party. Are people with 'disabilities' supposed to cease to exist? That could explain why there's no need for anything to be 'accessible.'
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Your Questions About the Economy
In a recent newsletter, we asked readers for your questions about the economy. You wondered about tariffs, real estate, President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' and more. Today, reporters at The Times answer. The bill and the economy I've read about how the bill could hurt the economy. But are there any parts of it that mainstream economists believe will help? I'm specifically curious about any new provisions, not extensions of expiring policies. — Kerry Bloomfield from Minneapolis Ben Casselman, The Times's chief economics correspondent, writes: Yes, there are some parts of the bill that economists think would be good. Many endorse a provision that would let businesses deduct costs of building new factories, which could encourage new investment. Other provisions — such as imposing stricter work requirements for public benefits like Medicaid — win support from economists who lean conservative but aren't outside the mainstream of the profession. Still, as your question suggests, economists across the ideological spectrum say the overall bill would hurt, in part because of its cost. It would add trillions of dollars to the debt at a time when economists worry about the risks posed by the country's record debt levels. What, exactly, are the tax breaks I keep hearing about in the 'big, beautiful bill' that will favor the most wealthy? — Molly from Illinois Andrew Duehren, who covers taxes, writes: There are a few. First of all, much of this tax bill is dedicated to extending tax cuts that Republicans first put in place in 2017. So without this bill, Americans who earn more than $626,000 would face a 39.6 percent tax rate instead of 37 percent. Another measure in the bill would extend a deduction for owners of many businesses. Americans making more than $1 million reap the lion's share of this tax break. Then there is the estate tax, the levy collected on rich Americans' assets when they die. Under the bill, the tax would kick in only for Americans worth more than $15 million. Without the bill, the level would drop to $7.14 million next year. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Americans mock Democrats' $20M study to figure out 'what's wrong' with men
Print Close By Elizabeth Heckman, Nikolas Lanum Published June 26, 2025 ATLANTA– What's wrong with American men? This is what Democrats are asking after struggling with male voters in the 2024 presidential election. Fox News Digital got reactions from Americans near Atlanta about this and if they believe there's a real problem with the guys. Overall, most people interviewed found the plan to spend $20 million on studying American men laughable. "I think it's dumb," said Patrice from Atlanta. Miriam, also from Atlanta, said, "I think there's better places to put that money." "I think they're just going to flush our money down the toilet," said Miguel from Colorado. On the study, Dave from Tennessee said, "I would say they're not going to learn much." Aaron from Dallas, Georgia asked, "What do they [Democrats] consider to be men?" DEMOCRATIC PARTY SCRAMBLES TO FIX IMAGE AS MEMBERS ACKNOWLEDGE PARTY 'LOST CREDIBILITY' "I don't know why you have to spend money to study men," said another. "If they can figure out what a man is first, that'd be pretty sick, but I don't think that's gonna happen," said Ethan from Ringgold, Georgia. When asked if there is something wrong with American men, Evelyn from Tennessee said, "I mean, there's things wrong with everyone." "I think it's true that there's maybe some conversation to be opened up about what American men need and maybe some improvements that could be made for men and women as a whole," said Sarah from Woodstock, Georgia. Ethan said, "about half of them yeah…" and whispered, "Democrats," into the microphone. Several struggled to answer who they believed was the manliest Democrat. "I can't think of any to be honest," said Miguel. "Oh, I don't know," said Evelyn from Tennessee. A few were able to provide examples. Patrice said, "Barack Obama." GINGRICH WARNS 'VERY PROFOUND CULTURAL CIVIL WAR' UNDERWAY, SAYS DEMOCRATS DOUBLING DOWN ON 'WEIRD VALUES' Ethan said, "Andrew Jackson." "Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan" is a $20 million project crafted by Democrats to "study the syntax, language and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces" of male voters, the Times reported in May. Known as "SAM," the study will specifically examine young male voters and how the party can connect with the demographic. Additionally, the study advised rolling out pro-Democrat ads in video games. The study's revelation was made in an overarching article detailing the uphill battle Democrats face after the 2024 election, which included Democrats scrambling to replace former President Joe Biden as the nominee with just more than 100 days left in the election cycle and ultimately delivering all seven battleground states to President Donald Trump . Trump made big in-roads with the male vote during the 2024 election cycle . A Fox News Voter Survey published in November 2024 found that men aged 18–44 supported Trump at 53%, compared to former Vice President Kamala Harris ' 45%. While The Associated Press found that more than half of male voters under the age of 30 voted for Trump instead of Harris — including roughly six-in-10 White male voters supporting Trump — about one-third of Black male voters supported Trump, as did about 50% of young Latino male voters. Trump's support among young Black and Latino male voters jumped by about 20% compared to his 2020 support, the AP reported. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Fox News' Emma Colton contributed to this report. Print Close URL
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
AOC endorses democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani in New York mayoral race
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has endorsed insurgent democratic socialist candidate Zohran Mamdani in New York City's closely watched mayoral race. In the heavily Democratic city, all eyes have been on the looming party primary for the mayoral candidate on 24 June, which has largely settled into a two-way fight between the outsider Mamdani and former New York governor Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo – whose tenure as governor was marred by accusations of sexual harassment – dominated early polling but Mamdani, a 33-year-old city assemblyman, has emerged as a serious rival, surging on the back of a leftist set of policy positions. Related: New York City Democratic mayoral primary debate: five key takeaways 'Assembly member Mamdani has demonstrated a real ability on the ground to put together a coalition of working-class New Yorkers that is strongest to lead the pack,' Ocasio-Cortez told the New York Times in an interview. 'In the final stretch of the race, we need to get very real about that.' Ocasio-Cortez, 35, is one of the most prominent young and leftwing voices in Democratic politics, currently taking a prominent role – along with veteran senator Bernie Sanders – in opposing the Trump administration and criticizing Democratic party elites for not doing enough to fight the White House. Her endorsement in the New York mayor's race, in which incumbent Eric Adams has been dogged by corruption allegations and his close relationship with Donald Trump, had been eagerly anticipated. 'As someone who got elected when I was 28 years old, I know very intimately what it means to be trusted with an enormous job of immense responsibility at a very young age,' she said of Mamdani. Mamdani responded to the news by telling the Times that Ocasio-Cortez was a 'once-in-a-generation leader' and said: 'In 2018, AOC shocked the world and changed our politics for the better with her historic victory. On June 24, we will do the same.' On Wednesday night, Mamdani, who has seen a recent surge in popularity and is closing on Cuomo, participated in a debate with the former governor and other candidates before the endorsement. He accused the centrist Cuomo of being beholden to powerful and wealthy donors and their corporate interests. 'The difference between myself and Andrew Cuomo is that my campaign is not funded by the very billionaires who put Donald Trump in DC,' Mamdani said. Cuomo, meanwhile, attacked Mamdani as being too young and inexperienced for the tasking of running a sprawling metropolis of the size of New York. 'He's been in government 27 minutes,' Cuomo jabbed.
