Letters for February 11, 2010

Letter of the week
Feminist goggles!

Re “What women want” by Lovelle Harris, Jenn Kistler, Rachel Leibrock, Kel Munger, Kakawasi Somadhi and Natasha vonKaenel (SN&R Feature, January 28):

I am deeply saddened seeing the state of feminism in my generation (20 and under). It seems girls and young women today are either confused about what feminism is (mistaking it for a rejection of femininity) or about what it is for.

The main complaint I hear from my peers echoes [Natasha] vonKaenel’s, when she said that feminism in the developed world is moot when compared to the horrors against women in the developing world and women should give it a rest already.

Does she know that it is feminist organizations most involved in ending “Third World” issues like child marriage, female infanticide, sex trafficking and genital mutilation, or that many of these things even happen within our borders? Wage gaps, sky-high numbers of unprosecuted (and even more unreported) rape and assault, degrading media images, sexual double standards and reproductive-rights restrictions are not moot simply because greater suffering exists or has existed.

Last time I checked, blacks did not have their hand in their pockets saying, “Oh, nope, no racism here, because I’m not being lynched and no one is bombing my church. Thanks, white people!” And I’ll be damned if once Proposition 8 is repealed that I’ll see the GLBT community dust off their hands, take a seat and say, “All done! No more work here … ”

Why should women do this? Feminism dies when patriarchy dies. So dust off your feminist goggles and take another look at the world!

Hannah Jenks
Sacramento

Think fresh and bold

Re “What women want” by Lovelle Harris, Jenn Kistler, Rachel Leibrock, Kel Munger, Kakawasi Somadhi and Natasha vonKaenel (SN&R Feature, January 28):

It was interesting to see how these well-written essays grew less and less head-tilted-coyly-to-one-side and more realistic about a still-sexist society as they progressed from younger to older writers. The younger writers showed a sad inability to distinguish the hostile, false and trivializing version of feminism disseminated by the male backlash against feminism from the beleaguered but brave and serious reality of feminism.

Among historical facts of which these writers variously seem unaware are: Men have denied to women the same guarantee of equal protection of the law that American men receive as a 14th Amendment constitutional birthright. Sex discrimination against women remains constitutionally acceptable so long as men are advantaged by it.

Twiss Butler
Alexandria, Va.

Women, you’ve become men

Re “What women want” by Lovelle Harris, Jenn Kistler, Rachel Leibrock, Kel Munger, Kakawasi Somadhi and Natasha vonKaenel (SN&R Feature, January 28):

A man’s point of view: Being old enough to have seen and witnessed almost 100 percent of the “women’s movement,” starting in the late ’50s, I can attest to quite a different view. Women have become what you allegedly most despise in men. The order of the day has become accusatory arrogance, greed, powermongering and rudeness.

I wonder if you all are proud of what you have achieved. Our culture has changed dramatically and not for the better.

Tony Laird
via e-mail

Give that rib back!

Re “What women want” by Lovelle Harris, Jenn Kistler, Rachel Leibrock, Kel Munger, Kakawasi Somadhi and Natasha vonKaenel (SN&R Feature, January 28):

I have to say that Jenn Kistler’s essay is my favorite article to date. It was pretty inspiring. It kind of brought me back to reality a little bit. And by reality, I mean living my life for me and not anyone else.

At our age, it’s really easy to start thinking about grown-up decisions like buying a house or getting married (which I do want, and in that order). But the pressure I have gotten to get married right now is out of this world. Anyway, preach on, sister! Give the rib back!

Jaimi McCoy
via e-mail

Not yet perfect world

Re “What women want” by Lovelle Harris, Jenn Kistler, Rachel Leibrock, Kel Munger, Kakawasi Somadhi and Natasha vonKaenel (SN&R Feature, January 28):

This was a very interesting article and well-written. Thank you for sharing ideas that can help us better understand a woman’s experiences in a world that is not yet perfect with its ability to treat women the way they need to be treated.

Rosalie McClung
North Highlands

Wrong conclusion, R.V.

Re “Abandon all hope” by R.V. Scheide (SN&R Race to the Bottom, January 28):

I’m usually a great admirer of the writings of R.V. Scheide, but in his January 28 column when he asserted, “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between our two major political parties,” it seems like a dispatch from an alternate universe. How anyone can say this after eight years of George W. Bush is beyond me. There is a huge difference to go from denying climate change to trying to pass cap-and-trade legislation, to go from medical savings accounts to trying to pass comprehensive health care—and that’s just two policy changes.

It is easy to get disappointed with the pace of change. But once you conclude there’s no difference, the next step is to withdraw from politics as a rigged game for the corporate interests. But this abandons the field to the climate deniers, birthers, Fox [News] talking heads and others of that ilk that have so poisoned the political atmosphere. As [President Barack] Obama said, “I never said change would be easy.” What is important is not to give up.

Jerry Plummer
Sacramento

Bravo, Fred

Re “Rotten minds, human souls” by Fred Branfman (SN&R Essay, January 28):

Thank you for writing this article with such striking honesty. I’ve been searching the media for years for a writer with such fervent humanism.

You are right that our society is in a sad state; not many people prescribe to empathy or compassionate policy. It’s too easy in a monetary system (such as ours), which artificially creates scarcity, to look at the “other” as someone from whom one can take resources. I believe that the reason dehumanization has occurred—and the reason it will continue until systemic collapse—is because at the base of our social structure, we are still living off each other instead of helping each other live.

Thank you for bringing this to the forefronts of your readers’ rotten minds and human souls, and I’m sorry that some are not ready to receive your compassion.

Jamie Herrera
Sacramento

Correction

Re “Fast vs. food” by Sierra Filucci (SN&R Feature, February 4):

As of November 2008, Oroweat bread changed its recipe to no longer contain high-fructose corn syrup. We apologize for inaccurately implying that this ingredient is currently used in this product.