_______________ HOW MANY WORKING FATHERS DOES IT TAKE TO SCREW IN A LIGHT BULB? BY ELIZABETH RAPOPORT (04/24/98)
	I am so sick of the insinuation, most recently in Elizabeth Rapoport's article on the recent Families and Work Institute study, that fathers are emotionally absent slugs with TV remotes grafted to their hands, that it took all of my willpower to keep from modifying "sick" in this sentence with "fucking." Without citing any evidence, she casually tosses aside reports of significant increases in the time men are spending with children and housework, while offering readers the image of the "dad who watched the Bulls while Junior snoozed in the Swyng-O-Matic." She dismisses the study because it uses self-reported data, as if only fathers would exaggerate time spent at home and with the kids. How about all of those mothers who have for 30 years read articles like Rapoport's and are convinced that they are being used and exploited for drudgery around the house? Wouldn't they have an incentive to exaggerate? She says the study is flawed because it doesn't consider time spent outside the house in school or sports activities "where the rubber really hits the road." But does she have any evidence that would suggest that men are not spending increasing time in these areas as well? Or is her knowledge of kids' sports events gleaned entirely from articles about "soccer moms"? For that matter, has she ever been to a hardware store on the weekend and seen who's buying all of the supplies for home renovations? Despite all of the changes in gender roles in recent decades, my observations in Darkest Suburbia tell me that cutting grass, shoveling snow, fixing cars and finishing basements are still almost entirely male jobs. Rapoport doesn't bother to mention another interesting fact about family workloads: Many of the same studies that show women putting in more hours at home show men putting in more hours on the job. She would likely say that's because men are dodging family responsibilities, but I'd suggest that it's a result of the fact that, while women are more likely to work in unionized jobs in government and other institutions with set office hours, men are more likely to work in trades, construction and engineering -- jobs where a project needs to be completed on schedule no matter how much overtime it takes. And many families need the money generated by that overtime. I'll admit that my argument may show how stubborn traditional gender roles can be. Maybe that's because of the usual suspect: The Evil Patriarchy. But sociobiologists and Carol Gilligan-style feminists might say it's because men and women just are different. Despite this, though, men are making an effort to get beyond the narrow confines of fatherhood in which their emotionally and sometimes physically distant fathers were trapped, even if they are still working overtime and spending the weekend putting up drywall in the basement. That men have been increasing their commitments to their children and household chores should be seen as a sign of the willingness of men to create a new kind of family. But it's more fun to dredge up the image of the lazy Al Bundy-style father than to acknowledge real social progress. -- Bob Armstrong Winnipeg, Manitoba Once again, your "Mothers" section reaches new lows of male bashing. Why is arrant, empty-headed sexism OK so long as it is aimed at males? Lame, lame, lame. -- Glenn Reynolds
_______________ CELEBRITIES' FATAL ATTRACTION TO PUBLIC SEX BY CAMILLE PAGLIA (04/28/98)
	I'm not generally disposed to write to magazines, but I am greatly disturbed by the trend that I'm detecting in yours. In this issue, two articles, one by Camille Paglia and another by David Garrow spend more time "talking trash" and smearing than actually producing facts. In her article, Ms. Paglia derides the homosexual lifestyle, blames it all on the "liberal media" and then goes on to thank the "National Enquirer" for its journalistic integrity in reporting the story. She then moves on to implying that gay men actually enjoy the smell of public toilets. This isn't journalism; it's insulting. Mr. Garrow spends most of his article talking about everything and everybody else but Mr. Ray. He talks about Ray's brother, calls Mrs. King foolish and without credibility. At least the few factual sources he quoted were a bit more journalistically sound than the "National Enquirer." It is going to be difficult for your magazine to defend itself from claims, such as those made by the "Wall Street Journal," that you are simply engaged in a smear campaign against Clinton foes, when there is so much poor journalism taking place. Are we going to see reports based on the "National Enquirer" about President Clinton's alleged affairs? Are we going to have to read pages about how Kenneth Starr is "foolish" and "lacking credibility" because he is pursuing leads in matters he feels are important? Journalistic integrity is important to many people. It's a shame to see this magazine falling into the easy lure of mudslinging. -- Ronald C. Rosul, Jr. I just wanted to say congratulations to Camille after her thorough trouncing of all things "Seinfeld." I, too, hold myself and views on popular television in high regard -- I am obviously smarter than the millions of fans who DO find the show funny. Just because most people find humor in this "tedious" and "trivial" show doesn't mean it's funny. Humor is what I (and other intelligent individuals, such as Camille) say it is -- not what a paltry handful of viewers say it is. -- Aaron Bradbury I am sending this letter to the editor instead of to Ms. Paglia because I have nothing to "ask Camille" but rather something to tell her. When discussing popular culture, especially television, people try to sound very smart, as if to compensate for their indulgence in the low art. Camille Paglia does just that when she says of Jerry Seinfeld, "His 9-year-old sitcom has never risen above narrow, peevish urban clichés. 'Seinfeld' completely lacks the emotional breadth and timeless, universal appeal of a truly great television series like 'I Love Lucy,' which can be appreciated by far-flung audiences outside the United States." What she chooses to ignore is that "Seinfeld" is so widely popular despite its specific, insider, New York perspective and because of its lack of sentimentality -- not an easy feat and never accomplished before on a sitcom. She also prefers the pretty people on the show and is disgusted by George and Kramer. If it's eye candy and international appeal she's after, might I suggest something like "The Love Boat: The Next Wave"? -- -Kathleen Collins
_______________ AMERICA'S WAR AGAINST CHILDREN BY JOAN WALSH (04/23/98)
	Joan Walsh's review of Cornel West and Sylvia Ann Hewlett's work on the tribulations of American parents has whetted my appetite to read the book -- which is, I suppose, the highest praise one can offer a book reviewer. I'm childless and a pediatrician, which gives me an interesting perspective: To wit, I can't believe some of the parents that I meet daily, and I have no desire to emulate them. Parents frequently complain that they are undervalued and overworked, and this may be so. Still, it is appalling that so many of them become parents because they are unable to think of anything else to do with their lives. I regularly treat children whose parents are utterly unable to organize their own lives (let alone address their children's needs in a rational way), who feel I'm unqualified to treat their little ones' medical problems due to my own lack of offspring -- as though parenthood were a qualification for pediatrics. (Does anyone expect oncologists to have cancer?) A large part of the problem is expectation, I suppose -- many people have children because it's what they feel they're expected to do, and they never really ask themselves if parenting is the career (and a career it is!) that they desire. They just pop out kids, much like they grow teeth. This kind of "biology is destiny" thinking leads to generations of unwanted but dutifully produced children. Perhaps I'm unforgivably unsympathetic. I frequently hear parents tell me, "Just wait until you have kids of your own!" Well, watching the run of stressed-out moms and dads I deal with, and reflecting on the 5 billion people in the world, and considering that I would not want a child of mine to have me for a father, I think I'll pass on the Great Genetic Game. There's nothing in my DNA that's worth all that. -- Michael Treece, M.D. San Francisco SALON | May 5, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| DO COMPUTERS BOOST PRODUCTIVITY? BY ANDREW LEONARD (04/24/98)

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.